PDA

View Full Version : Deprogramming Ignosheep [was: THE INFORMATION WAR]



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Axiom
14-02-2007, 07:02 PM
I welcome serious discussions on the big picture issues raised at www.*******s.com


Is there a NWO one world government agenda by the elite?
try these for quotes! http://www.911kemet.co.uk/nwoquotes.html


Is mainstream media really covering the important stories? of course not!

so lets go on a ride into discovery, a ride into truth,........but i warn you, you will need a strong constitution,to stomach the sheer horrific gravity of THE FACTS.


If you prefer ignorant bliss, look away, if you have courage and a thirst for empowering knowledge, join us here in discussion.

Axiom
14-02-2007, 08:09 PM
A couple of questions:-
1) how are wide open american borders,reconciled with the war on terror?
2) why can illegal immigrants into the usa, take out bank loans without i.d paperwork?(topic aired right now on fox news!)

so is the govt running the country for ITS people or for some other agenda?... the global corporations/banks perhaps?

Basil
15-02-2007, 06:40 AM
I'll pick the second one for now - don't think I'm ready for another round of war chat just at the mo. So

Why can illegal immigrants into the usa, take out bank loans without i.d. paperwork?

First, I haven't read up on this issue, and I will go to your source (info wars?) and do so. However, what's immediately clear for me is separating the two issues, viz:

- Illegal immigrants transacting in any form
- The process of obtaining credit via regulated bodies without ID

Second, there will be the issue (as I hope to address in all topics in this thread) of ratifying or debunking the conspiracy theory behind each of the cited phenomena. This I believe is the point of the thread. Not so much that the oddities exist, but more "what is the REAL reason for their existence", yes?

Before I head of to info wars (one foot out the door), I'd offer the following:
- Are the illegals known by the banks to be illegals?
- Or are the banks being ID duped?
- Are the banks first tier banks, (higher corporate governance) or are we talking about private or second tier lenders?

Finally, may I ask what is the point of this topic? Are you suggesting a greater big brother, blind eye, feed the junkie theory?

Axiom
15-02-2007, 11:02 AM
Alex Jones daily 3hr radio show,streamed free continually 24/7
TUNE IN! www.*******s.com

The central thesis is that there is no real representative democracy,with both major parties at the the behest of global bankers/global corporations,and that this has been the plan of this elite since early 1700s!

The two apparant incongruences i raised above highlight this non representative government. ie. if there is a real war on terror,then logically you would close the borders tight,and on this point it is clear that the 30 million illegal immigrants,encouraged by no i.d bank loans (from bank of america amongst other major banks) at the benefit of the corporations(cheap labour) at the expense of existing tax paying citizens(drain on health/educ.lower wages etc).

Notice it is the countries that refuse to join in the central banking system,that are targeted ,like iraq,iran,nth kor,venezuala? Notice the inconsistent,illogical,spurious and false 'official' rationales for targeting these states.



One cannot look at any one aspect in isolation,one needs to study many diverse areas,to be able to see the whole picture.

Aspects such as the state controlled media,history of banking,the fed reserve,the rothschilds,rockerfellers,history of false flag terror,history of tyranny,human psychology,rise of the technology surveilance police state,current events-forming of larger trade/state blocks,media corps.

This is where www.*******s.com is a great starting point in tryng to join the dots........whose roots come from The John Birch Society, Lyndon Larouche.

We live in a unique time in history. For the first time we have the technology to enslave us (see d.rockerfellers documented admission, that microchipping humans is a goal!, its already happening on small trial basis now!~ wheres your mainstream media on this??)...But we also have for the first time in history ,the ultimate information and connecting network-the internet!....which gives man the chance en masse to not only become informed and see through the facade but also organise a defence.


Davos Switzerland , journalist:
"Has newscorp managed to shape the agenda of the war in Iraq?" Rupert Murdoch "no i dont think so, we tried!" ......."WE TRIED "!!!!( Keith Obermannn show MSNBC,listen to discussion on this now on Alex Jones radio show)

Axiom
15-02-2007, 11:21 AM
I ask myself ,"what is your real beef axiom" and i know its the fact that it is the grossly ill-informing media, and this really gets under my skin......knowing the masses dont even get the information ,to make any real discernments or judgements,being manipulated by lies and distortions strikes at the very heart of my psyche.
Rupert Murdoch bemoans the rise of the new media at the cost of the old media!

Basil
15-02-2007, 07:01 PM
There are a lot of statements and inferences that we're going to disagree on. So, we'll have to go piecemeal, OK?


There is no real representative democracy, with both major parties at the the behest of global bankers/ global corporations
What evidence do you have for this claim?


... this has been the plan of this elite since early 1700s!
Just give me a rough profile of 'The Elite' please.


ie. if there is a real war on terror, then logically you would close the borders tight
1. There certainly is a 'conflict/ war' against 'terrorists'. Are you claiming there isn't?
2. Closing borders doesn't necessarily follow. Part of the policy is also to keep things as normal as possible. Once train bombings became a thing, targeted democracies didn't close down all train services.
3. Are you saying that the US does not want to close down their borders and that their attempts to do so are a sham?


and on this point it is clear that the 30 million illegal immigrants, encouraged by no i.d bank loans (from bank of america amongst other major banks)
Would you provide a link for me to look at? Not a half hour program though. Something that would take me 5 minutes to assess. I'm sure a credible source exists somewhere that will take no longer than 5 minutes or so.


at the benefit of the corporations (cheap labour) at the expense of existing tax paying citizens(drain on health/educ.lower wages etc)
Certainly an ugly side of capitalism can be labour exploitation. But I'm yet to see a link between exploitation of labour (which I agree exists) and its role in a greater conspiracy.


... The countries that refuse to join in the central banking system, that are targeted, like iraq, iran, nth kor,venezuala?
You have the advantage here. I'll have to bone up. Do you have an authoritative link. I'm happy to go look.


Notice the inconsistent, illogical, spurious and false 'official' rationales for targeting these states.
Who targets them? Please be specific. What are the dodgy rationales?


One cannot look at any one aspect in isolation, one needs to study many diverse areas, to be able to see the whole picture.
Certainly looking at things in isolation can be a problem, but I'd offer that when one starts bringing together a number of seemingly unrelated facts (if indeed they are facts), then the likliehoood of a calculation problem increases! And I might say, involves exponentially increasing quantities of people to be part of the conspiracy.


Aspects such as the state controlled media, history of banking, the fed reserve, the rothschilds, rockerfellers, history of false flag terror, history of tyranny, human psychology, rise of the technology surveilance police state, current events-forming of larger trade/ state blocks, media corps.
Respectfully, this isn't a sentence and says nothing.


We live in a unique time in history
All times in history are unique.


For the first time we have the technology to enslave us (see d.rockerfellers documented admission, that microchipping humans is a goal!, its already happening on small trial basis now!
So? The same argument could have beeen made about issuing birth certificates when a few centuries back, they didn't. Anyway, is this microchipping going to become mandatory? Who says?


But we also have for the first time in history, the ultimate information and connecting network-the internet!....which gives man the chance en masse to not only become informed and see through the facade but also organise a defence.
Excellent. But doesn't your theory (I imagine) mean that 'The Elite' will seek to kill off either you, Info Wars or even the internet?


Davos Switzerland, journalist: "Has newscorp managed to shape the agenda of the war in Iraq?" Rupert Murdoch "No i dont think so, we tried!" ......."WE TRIED "!!!!
Funnny! But if Murdoch was part of the conspiracy, why would he admit it? Or is this reverse psychology? Honestly, if Murdoch had denied it, you would have called him a liar. Given that you would have attacked him for either a positive or a negative response, you can't rely on any response to prove a point.

Axiom
15-02-2007, 11:41 PM
Axiom, Axiom, Axiom.

Truth starts at the local level.
is this forum ,local enough for you?
Admit who you are, tell everyone about your guitar playing inabilities. Then build some trust for serious engagement about serious issues with real people.do you prefer poker or chess?
(play the goddam board position!, im wearing mirror sunglasses anyway!)


The alternative is to wallow in reactionary over hype trying to find simple answers to complicated questions. The choice is yours.:hand:

cheers Fg7To the contrary , i , in fact paint a complex picture to fit the diverse array of facts, a picture that has required years of study of the multitude of disciplines required to get a grip on this all pervasive analysis.It is for you to decide whether to examine and question your socialist/communist viewpoint in the context of real life human history as a function of human sociology and psychology., rather than the expected knee jerk evasive distractive obsfucation. all too familiar amongst the fixed closed minded...........fg, take the challenge ,read the material, do our own verification,investigaion,study,and analysis yourself, then im all to happy to engage in analysis 'of the position', otherwise youre playing a new and foreign game blindfolded , which is no help to anyone.

refer http://www.greaterthings.com/Conspiracy/index.html

Axiom
16-02-2007, 01:20 AM
There are a lot of statements and inferences that we're going to disagree on. So, we'll have to go piecemeal, OK?
best way



What evidence do you have for this claim?
the fact that govt refuses to acquiesce to reasonable demands of its constituents eg.- open borders, 30 million illegal immigrants,a north american union, trans texas corridor(owned by spanish/australian company Centra!), continued war in iraq,national id card, to name a few.



Just give me a rough profile of 'The Elite' please. 13 richest families(each's worth in the trillions) including rockerfellers,rothschilds,carnegies, their vehicles of power- the bilderberg group,tri lateral commission,council fo foreign relations, amongst others.





1. There certainly is a 'conflict/ war' against 'terrorists'. Are you claiming there isn't?.
I am claiming its a total beat up, close to a total sham........i dont deny the existence of violent jihadists and the odd aggrieved mother of a shot palestinian son exploding themselves in a tel aviv cafe......but all major terrorist acts are false flag events(9/11,7/7,okla all occuring on days of drills!)
.....again here a history of govt false flag terror, from northwoods,gulf of tonkin incident to us liberty attack is useful for context, see michael meacher british MP!, DAVID SHAYLER EX MI6, martin ingram(book:'Stakeknife') ex mi5 , stating that even 70% of IRA TERROR WAS FALSE FLAG!........There is much to study here.


2. Closing borders doesn't necessarily follow. Part of the policy is also to keep things as normal as possible. Once train bombings became a thing, targeted democracies didn't close down all train services. normal as possible???? wide open borders??? 30 million illegals???
i contend ,the high levels know there is no real significant credible threat,thats why, and they are at the behest of cheap labour seeking corps.


3. Are you saying that the US does not want to close down their borders and that their attempts to do so are a sham? absolutely without question........further reading of and research using www.*******s.com will provide a crystal clear picture of this reality.





Would you provide a link for me to look at? Not a half hour program though. Something that would take me 5 minutes to assess. I'm sure a credible source exists somewhere that will take no longer than 5 minutes or so.

see links in post below



Certainly an ugly side of capitalism can be labour exploitation. But I'm yet to see a link between exploitation of labour (which I agree exists) and its role in a greater conspiracy.
surely to navigate around the will of the tax paying citizens , must require some sort of conspiracy to meet their aims? all polls show vast majority in southern states do not want the mass illegal migration!




Certainly looking at things in isolation can be a problem, but I'd offer that when one starts bringing together a number of seemingly unrelated facts (if indeed they are facts), then the likliehoood of a calculation problem increases! And I might say, involves exponentially increasing quantities of people to be part of the conspiracy.
you would be correct in a linear sense, however , i contend that a study of human history,psychology,sociology,anthropology,history of money/banking,wars,modes of political paradigms,mechanics of power,investigative analysis of current events, ability to recognise patterns,and an ability to join the multitude of dots to form a convincing picture of reality is a more accurate description of the task at hand.






All times in history are unique. indeed, this one peculiarly so..- with the mass information and connectivity of the internet, along with high tech ability to track/control humans..mostly human history has not been a battle between the artificial left and right, but a battle between freedom and tyranny......this old battle now on a very new battlefield, an info war, if you will ! www.*******s.com "there is a war on for your mind"





So? The same argument could have beeen made about issuing birth certificates when a few centuries back, they didn't. Anyway, is this microchipping going to become mandatory? Who says?
who says birth certificates were mandatory? i refer you to a professor at reading university ,trialing 200 students with inserted microchip right now!, also barcelona nightclub making it 'cool' for patrons to have internal microchip ,to recieve easy entry and discounted drinks!, it will be marketed as the cool must have addition to all young 'hipsters' you can just imagine the brainwashing advertising, only 'pariahs' will refuse etc........it is openly admittted as a goal by d rockerfeller to eventually microchip all humans




Excellent. But doesn't your theory (I imagine) mean that 'The Elite' will seek to kill off either you, Info Wars or even the internet? they know if they cut off one head , a thousand new ones will grow, not too mention the martyr effect........they are running scared..WE ARE ON THE MARCH,THE EMPIRE IS ON THE RUN!




Funnny! But if Murdoch was part of the conspiracy, why would he admit it? Or is this reverse psychology? Honestly, if Murdoch had denied it, you would have called him a liar. Given that you would have attacked him for either a positive or a negative response, you can't rely on any response to prove a point. COMMENTS ON MSNBC mainstream usa tv news, suggested that it was murdoch slipping up in frustration at the decline of his old media, in the face of new media power,...but im not so sure..like dennis potter(pennies from heaven ) i detest and loathe the weasel murdoch, and dont trust him at all,but for him to go on record saying "we tried to shape the agenda in iraq" echoes william colby 1954 head of cia saying "we control all the major media in the country"(paraphrased,i can find exact quote)

Axiom
16-02-2007, 01:48 AM
BANKING http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/104547.php

POPULATION CONTROL http://nwo-warning.tripod.com/UN_population_Control.htm

CURIOUS ELITE HISTORY http://www.ariescomputer.com/illuminati/about/ill2.html

CURRENT CONTEXT NEWS www.*******s.com

MEDIA http://members.tripod.com/american_almanac/warfare.htm
HISTORY OF GOVT FALSE FLAG TERROR dvd "Terrorstorm' (google video)
OVERVIEW http://www.pushhamburger.com/going%20going%20gone.gif
LAROUCHE http://www.larouchepub.com/radio/archive_2007.html
RESISTANCE MANIFESTO http://theresistancemanifesto.com/

MIND CONTROL (Dont scoff, its very real ,see mengele's work, sydney gottlieb, tavistock institute) http://www.greatdreams.com/mind_control.htm

..just some starting points......now down to the reading,investigation,study,research........BE A GOOD DETECTIVE!

Axiom
16-02-2007, 02:27 AM
also of some relevant interest is the

History of Piracy (see documentary on pirate capt morgan, made governor of jamaica!) same principles of piracy (ie destroying and looting) still evident in modern power plays(eg.corporate piracy,and miltary ind,complex driven wars)

and the

History of Slavery (see how manuels of slave handling used by romans were then used by europeans in the african slave trade to the americas) again i would contend that similar systems of control are still in place today.

Axiom
16-02-2007, 05:10 PM
fg,this thread is for those willing to do some work in researching the news stories ignored by mainstream media,not for those simply unwilling to study the material and dismiss it out of hand .
heres a simple question for you-
fg- why do you think usa borders are wide open,letting in millions of illegals,in time of the great threat from 'terrorism'?

and heres 3 current news stories ,you wont otherwise hear about:-
http://www.*******s.com/articles/bush/bernstein_bush_admin_disinfo_something_never_witne ssed_before

http://www.*******s.com/articles/nwo/nau_canadian_us_mexican_officials_secret_integrati on_meetings.

http://www.*******s.com/articles/immigration/bank_of_america_defends_credit_cards_for_illegals. htm <......this one for HD.

all you need to do is a little cross referencing and corroberation via google,to support the credibility of such reports

Desmond
16-02-2007, 05:49 PM
1. There certainly is a 'conflict/ war' against 'terrorists'. Are you claiming there isn't?Would you mind defining "terrorist" and/or "terrorism" for me? BTW, make sure it doesn't cast an umbrella wide enough to cover the "shock and awe" campain, amoungst other civilised western inventions.

Basil
16-02-2007, 06:00 PM
Would you mind defining "terrorist" and/or "terrorism" for me?

I checked on the web first with a view to assessing whether I could agree with those:

#1 One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they
are liable for prosecution as common criminals.
www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm

#2 Use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets.
www.careerjournaleurope.com/columnists/styleandsubstance/glossary.html

Both of these are consistent with my meaning.


BTW, make sure it doesn't cast an umbrella wide enough to cover the "shock and awe" campain, amoungst other civilised western inventions.
Easy.

Axiom
16-02-2007, 06:31 PM
Anyone who listens to at least 2 alex jones radio shows,does a bit of verification research,i look forward to hearing your opinion.......for simplicity ,take the issue that mosts interests you,and make that a focal point to start with.

THE RADIO SHOW IS 3HRS,6 days a week!,some great guests(please ignore the annoying ads) streamed continually 24/7, its free, just need real player or windows player.

Simply click on listen at top right corner of www.*******s.com

if you have a curious inquiring mind,i cannot imagine you getting nothing from your efforts....and even total skeptics could at least be entertained.

i have studied this area for about 2 yrs,well over a 1000 hrs of reading,investigating and studying..and the more i did the more i verified the substance and truth of alex jones' claims....and would welcome some informed discussion on these matters.

Desmond
16-02-2007, 06:56 PM
I checked on the web first with a view to assessing whether I could agree with those:

#1 One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives,I know someone who meets that requirement. I'll give you a hint: His name starts with "G", and ends with "eorge W Bush." Come to think of it, sounds like any force in any war.


while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htmOh yes, how could I forget. Dubbya is following the Geneva convention this week. After a court told him that he had to.

Back to the issue, it seems from this definition that the only difference between a "terrorist" and a "soldier" is his garb.


#2 Use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations So it's only "terrorism" if a government isn't behind it?


planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets.
www.careerjournaleurope.com/columnists/styleandsubstance/glossary.html So if we call it collateral damage, then it doesn't qualify?

Basil
16-02-2007, 11:14 PM
There is no real representative democracy, with both major parties at the the behest of global bankers/ global corporations...
What evidence do you have for this claim?
govt refuses to acquiesce to reasonable demands of its constituents eg.- open borders, 30 million illegal immigrants,a north american union, trans texas corridor(owned by spanish/australian company Centra!), continued war in iraq,national id card, to name a few.

Ax, I've looked at the first of the requests for clarification. It's progression is quoted. I hope you agree that you are not actually proving anything. You may believe in what you say and you may even be right!, but you're not proving it.

For instance, this one runs:
- There is no true democracy
- How can you say that?
- The government refuses to close it's southern borders

Apart from that the conclusion cannot be drawn from the premise, none of the statements are proven. The requisite proof is mandatory for a deductive argument but never moreso for an allegation of the biggest scam the world has ever seen.

I'm sorry but I'll need to see much better. I'll have a look at the next point in a little while.

Axiom
16-02-2007, 11:42 PM
Ax, I've looked at the first of the requests for clarification. It's progression is quoted. I hope you agree that you are not actually proving anything. You may believe in what you say and you may even be right!, but you're not proving it.

For instance, this one runs:
- There is no true democracy
- How can you say that?
- The government refuses to close it's southern borders

Apart from that the conclusion cannot be drawn from the premise, none of the statements are proven. The requisite proof is mandatory for a deductive argument but never moreso for an allegation of the biggest scam the world has ever seen.

I'm sorry but I'll need to see much better. I'll have a look at the next point in a little while. HD ,you are correct in that i have not addressed these particular claims,and this due more than mostly to a limited writing ability, it is a vast area of study, and not something conducive to short paragraph responses....it is in this vein that i implore you and other interested parties to focus on one more specific,more easily verifiable topic of study.........you seem to have chosen the grandest big picture claims to be argued, but i suggest we focus on smaller pieces of the puzzle first,in order to construct the picture from bottom up ,rather than the reverse.

there is no getting around the necessity for one to do ones own personal study first ,before embarking on discussion ......im sorry, but i dont quite have the book in me just yet! :) and our time ,im sure, would be more fruitfully spent after said personal investigation......

HD- have you listened as yet to the radio show, and read much of the material on www.*******s.com ,or any other source i listed?

if so , i await your argument on your favourite piece of the puzzle(but the argument that western democracy is not a truly representative one,stretches my personal resources at this point.......but i promise to piece together enopugh pieces in the puzzle to give a convincing picture,once we first examine the pieces themselves.

Basil
17-02-2007, 12:40 AM
it is in this vein that i implore you and other interested parties to focus on one more specific, more easily verifiable topic of study
Sure, but fair's fair. You threw it up there. May I suggest that you are more select in what you put up - at least at this early stage.


you seem to have chosen the grandest big picture claims to be argued, but i suggest we focus on smaller pieces of the puzzle first,in order to construct the picture from bottom up, rather than the reverse.

I honestly just picked the first one. Definitely a plan to start small.


HD- have you listened as yet to the radio show, and read much of the material on www.*******s.com ,or any other source i listed?
I haven't and I will.

Basil
17-02-2007, 01:06 AM
I had a look at a few of the sites listed, and honestly I found them quite hard going. I will persist though.

A couple of observations:

1) The sites make some fairly startling inferences in their headlines, and then talk generally about matters. In the vein of "Howard Duggan Gay!" followed by some people of unknown authority saying they haven't seen me in the company of a woman for a year.

2) The layouts ARE or can be difficult to digest. Music, background wallpaper, reverse text (white writing on black), screaming rainbow and moving banners etc..

3) Many of the supporting sources for these claims are the 'mainstream media'! This strikes me as somewhat circular to your claim that the media is in on it :eek:

My suggestion for the immediate way forward is for you to pick a select topic (say the US border issue). If that is proven/ accepted, we can use that as a building block.

Axiom
17-02-2007, 01:45 AM
ok, lets start with the North American Union(NAU) www.*******s.com/articles/nwo/nau_canadian_us_mexican_officials_secret_integrati on_meetings i cant seem to get the link for this up here, but go to info wars,story is near bottom left under heading secret meetings b/w us,mexico,canada. The official govt site on this is www.spp.gov
this will add weight to the open border issue.
it is better you do your own research via google(NAU), see what you discover,i will look forward to what you think of this momentus yet mainstream unreported story.

Basil
17-02-2007, 01:59 AM
I checked the govt site. All good. No further reading required at this stage.

The other link doesn't work for me. It looks like it's missing .html at least and perhaps more.

Axiom
17-02-2007, 03:30 PM
I checked the govt site. All good. No further reading required at this stage.

The other link doesn't work for me. It looks like it's missing .html at least and perhaps more.
Yes,i couldnt get the link up here,to long i think, but read the story at www.*******s.com and google NAU

I will try to avoid the conclusion-jumps at this stage,just simply establish that big news stories exist yet go unreported in the mainstream, and this NAU story is just one of many.
Remember how the EU started as being just a trade block,now look how integrated it has become ,with EU laws,common currency etc
National soveriegnty being eroded by stealth.
Many people would even deny the existence of the NAU ! ,see also related story of trans texas corridor,a massive rail/raod running from mexico thru usa to canada(owned by Centra(spanish owned!)....this all to the benefit of giant corporations,for the ease of trade.........this may be part of the open border issue,ie.consistent with disolving national borders?

keep researching HD!

Axiom
17-02-2007, 04:16 PM
TODAY ON THE
ALEX JONES SHOW
Alex is joined by ************ editor and webmaster of to discuss his recent article exposing the attack tactics rife in the upcoming BBC documentary about the 9/11 Truth Movement

Related Information:

BBC Implies 9/11 Truth Movement a Cult of Mythology

Prison Planet.tv: World Class Activist Media Resources

Alex welcomes former federal prosecutor, news analyst, and author, Elizabeth de la Vega, to discuss her new book, United States v. George W. Bush, in which she builds a legal case that President Bush and top members of his administration engaged in a conspiracy to "deceive the American public and Congress into supporting the war."

Related Information:

Articles by Elizabeth de la Vega

Elizabeth de la Vega on The Colbert Report

The United States Vs. George W. Bush et al.


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

Axiom
20-02-2007, 10:33 PM
TODAY ON THE
ALEX JONES SHOW
Alex speaks with Dylan Avery, the creator and director of powerful 9/11 Truth documentary, Loose Change, about the recent BBC attack piece on the 9/11 Truth Movement

Related Information:

Loose Change Website

Get Loose Change DVD Now!

Later Alex is joined by Guy Smith, the Senior Producer of the News & Current Affairs for BBC TV which has recently aired a hit piece on the 9/11 Truth Movement

Related Information:

Debunking the BBC's 9-11 Conspiracy Files

BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLICE STATE
National ID Coming In 2008
There are signs of rebellion in several state legislatures against the Real ID Act, the federal law that springs from the disputed findings of the 9-11 Commission.

Axiom
21-02-2007, 02:51 PM
TODAY ON THE
ALEX JONES SHOW
Alex is joined in-studio by Cathy Adams, President of Texas Eagle Forum, to discuss the recent attempt by lawmakers to require all Texas girls to receive a new HPV vaccine. Contributing to their conversation will be Diane, a Pennsylvania mother who's daughter has been affected by the HPV vaccine.

Related Information:

Texas Eagle Forum

Furor on Rush to Require Cervical Cancer Vaccine

Public Health Experts Concerned Proponents of Mandatory HPV Vaccination Are Acting Too Soon

Later Alex welcomes to the program Mike Papantonio, host of Ring of Fire Radio and key litigator in the Bayer Factor 8 lawsuit, to discuss Big Pharma and its ties to the growing number of states seeking to make the HPV vaccine manditory.

Related Information:

Mike Papantonio Wikipedia Entry

Ring of Fire Radio

TUNE IN FREE VIA www.*******s.com

Axiom
22-02-2007, 11:30 AM
TODAY ON THE
ALEX JONES SHOW

Dr. Bill Deagle


Alex welcomes fellow GCN radio talkshow host Dr. Bill Deagle to discuss the Merck ending its push for manditory HPV vaccination.

Related Information:

Genesis Communications Radio Network

NutriMedical Online
Merck Ends Push for Mandatory Shots for Girls


Leland Lehrman


Later Alex speaks with Leland Lehrman of Mother Media about the Impeachment Resolution in New Mexico

Related Information:

Mother Media

New Mexico Impeachment Resolution Background Information

Axiom
22-02-2007, 11:48 AM
TODAY ON THE
ALEX JONES SHOW

Dr. Bill Deagle


Alex welcomes fellow GCN radio talkshow host Dr. Bill Deagle to discuss the Merck ending its push for manditory HPV vaccination.

Related Information:

Genesis Communications Radio Network

NutriMedical Online
Merck Ends Push for Mandatory Shots for Girls


Leland Lehrman


Later Alex speaks with Leland Lehrman of Mother Media about the Impeachment Resolution in New Mexico

Related Information:

Mother Media

New Mexico Impeachment Resolution Background Information i would be interested if any medical doctor could comment on Dr.Deagle's work.

littlesprout85
22-02-2007, 06:51 PM
Wazz^ Axioms :)

Sprouty was trying to stay outta da frey on this on here- but today that all changed for da sprout.

My moms found out today that illegals can get credit cards from her bank. :eek:

OMG !!!! She with the fury of angel scorn -went down there and transfered all her accounts to a different bank.

Not only that - she also told every person at that bank about the facts and made a huge scene. even in the parking lot. Also she is telling everybody she sees at her job.

Keep in mind my mom was true flower child from the 60's. :eh:
sprouts wouldnt put it pass her to stage a protest and a sit inz just to get the attention of the media. she is utterly mad that she sees all these illigals marching and holding up traffic in the streets and now they can get credit card without a SS# at her bank. :wall:

She has half the mind to gather up and have a real 60's type protest and march thru their hoody here and hold em up for longest time- :whistle:

-Sprout :)

Axiom
22-02-2007, 10:05 PM
Wazz^ Axioms :)

Sprouty was trying to stay outta da frey on this on here- but today that all changed for da sprout.

My moms found out today that illegals can get credit cards from her bank. :eek:

OMG !!!! She with the fury of angel scorn -went down there and transfered all her accounts to a different bank.

Not only that - she also told every person at that bank about the facts and made a huge scene. even in the parking lot. Also she is telling everybody she sees at her job.

Keep in mind my mom was true flower child from the 60's. :eh:
sprouts wouldnt put it pass her to stage a protest and a sit inz just to get the attention of the media. she is utterly mad that she sees all these illigals marching and holding up traffic in the streets and now they can get credit card without a SS# at her bank. :wall:

She has half the mind to gather up and have a real 60's type protest and march thru their hoody here and hold em up for longest time- :whistle:

-Sprout :)
from my heart ,thankyou sprouty, all strength and power to both you and your mom.

Axiom
22-02-2007, 10:33 PM
BBC Discredited; Retractions on 9/11 Hit Piece Forthcoming?
Complaint responses suggest consternation within corporation on revelations of bias in Conspiracy Files documentary, indicates large number of complaints received

Prison Planet | February 21, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones




The BBC's response to complaints made against the bias and inaccuracy of the 9/11 Conspiracy Files documentary suggests that an overwhelming backlash has caused considerable consternation at the network and possible retractions or apologies may be forthcoming, with BBC bosses potentially fearing the company's credibility has been tarnished.

Following the airing of the show on Sunday evening, numerous websites representative of the 9/11 truth movement issued precise and detailed rebuttals to what many saw as nothing more than an outright hit piece that used crass emotional manipulation, concocted evidence and cynical bias in an attempt to dismiss questions about the official story behind 9/11.

Appearing on the Alex Jones show on Monday, the show's producer Guy Smith offered little to defend against allegations that the program represented nothing more than yellow journalism and an attempt to create a strawman argument in the interests of debunking 9/11 skeptics.

From what can be gleaned from how the BBC is treating complaints made against the show, it seems that the backlash has forced the complaints to be passed up the chain of command and that the overwhelming response is forcing bosses to consider whether it might be necessary to issue retractions or clarifications in an attempt to calm the furore.

Here's the BBC's standard response to complaints being made about the Conspiracy Files program.

Thank you for contacting the BBC.

This is to let you know that we are dealing with your recent complaint but are waiting to clarify some points with other colleagues in the BBC before we reply more fully to you.

We will of course respond as soon as possible but trust you will understand that the time taken can also depend on the nature and number of the other complaints we are currently investigating. The BBC also issues public responses to issues which prompt large numbers of significant complaints and these can be read on our website at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

We would be grateful if you would not reply to this email and, in the meantime, would like to thank you for contacting us with details of your concerns.

Regards
BBC Information

The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv . Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe!



Because the BBC is funded solely through taxpaying British citizens via their TV license fee, the corporation is obliged to issue retractions and apologies if complaints about a particular broadcast are high. On most occasions, they are at least forced to clarify their position on their editor's blog website . 9/11 truth websites across the spectrum are encouraging readers to make complaints and so it's safe to speculate that the BBC has been inundated with them.

There have been numerous instances where BBC investigative programs have had to issue retractions and apologies due to faulty research or deliberate bias, a notable example being a 1999 Horizons documentary which sought to debunk the research of controversial archeologist Graham Hancock. An investigation upheld Hancock's complaint that his response to debunkers was not included in the show, and the BBC had to air the re-edited documentary.

The BBC divides complaints into four different categories - accuracy, bias, taste/standards and other. Since the Conspiracy Files farce displayed overwhelming inaccuracy in several claims it made, most notably the "pancake collapse" animation which even official NIST authorities have backed away from, and also betrayed patent bias in pitting thirteen debunkers against just three 9/11 skeptics, while ridiculing the character of the skeptics by means of false accusations and stereotyping, it fits into at least two of these categories.

We must push now for a retraction, an apology, or at the very least a clarification from the BBC in regards to this blatant hit piece. The basis for our accusations that the program was a hit piece are documented here and here .

Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml and select "make an official complaint." Please be as polite as possible and remember that the person reading your complaint will most likely have no connection to the production of the hit piece. Be clear and concise in your complaint, and stick to the facts about the bias and inaccuracy of the program.

If the BBC are forced to respond to the backlash, it will deter other networks and producers from creating malicious hit pieces designed to discredit the 9/11 truth movement in future.

"TerrorStorm is something that should be seen by everyone, no matter what their stance/affiliation/political bent. " - Rich Rosell, Digitally Obsessed UK
Get TerrorStorm on DVD today



:

firegoat7
23-02-2007, 12:22 AM
Hi,

I think this thread is a total croc, but I am curious.....how can anybody really be regarded as illegal? IMFFS what other planet are they going to live on, Mars?

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2007, 01:41 AM
Hey Axiom, I thought the Bolton interview was rather interesting; what sort of questions would you have asked him?

Axiom
23-02-2007, 07:37 PM
Hi,

I think this thread is a total croc, but I am curious.....how can anybody really be regarded as illegal? IMFFS what other planet are they going to live on, Mars?

cheers Fg7 illegal, as per CONTRARY TO controlled lawful immigration procedures....i would have assumed that to be obvious.

FG-the multi- national corporations over riding the will of tax paying nationals ,importing cheap labour, reducing wages, draining all public health and education resources would love you......YOU CORPORATE LACKEY STOOGE! YOU DISGUST ME.

Why dont you just come out and say you are pro disintegration of national borders and soveriegnty,and pro a one world government run by the elite corporations?

misguided deluded hypocritical communists ,in lock step with centralised corporate control, make me explode with anger.

The common idiocy of your post encapsulates the very black heart of the the blind,brainwashed,conditioned,programmed,bootlicki ng cultists, which enrage me beyond control.



try reading, researching,studying, questioning, and investigating, before stumbling into such bald face stupidity

Axiom
23-02-2007, 07:52 PM
Hey Axiom, I thought the Bolton interview was rather interesting; what sort of questions would you have asked him?
1)CROSS EXAMINE HIM ON THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS FOR THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE
2)Grill him on the absurd notion that 'we are fighting the 'terrorists ' over there,rather than at home', in line with the open border hypocrisy
3)ask him his definition of a terrorist, as opposed to the defenders of the land iraq itself
4)ask him about released pentagon documents showing, the aim to instill chaos in iraq to ferment civil war, to result in a 3 state iraq
5)ask him about the british dressed as arabs planting bombs in basra, ask him about false flag terror
6)ask him about the giant 'permanent' bases set up in iraq


i have at least another dozen questions, but satellite time is short!.......the abc and the 'left' ride lock step with the 'right' and at each step advance only one agenda- that of the globalist corporations..............real high level corruption goes un reported- see the storage room full of 'four corner' stories 'not allowed' to see the light of day......ppl generally have absolutely no clue as to the far more real stories that run public policies and indeed their lives themselves.

Axiom
23-02-2007, 09:51 PM
TODAY ON THE
ALEX JONES SHOW

Jesse Trentadue


Alex welcomes Attorney Jesse Trentadue to discuss the letter he received from Terry Nichols that he recently made public that reveals a an incredibly high level participation in the Oklahoma City bombing by the FBI.

Related Information:

New OKC Revelations Spotlight FBI Involvement In Bombing

Letter from Terry Nichols

The Trentadue Files: New documents offer details of the FBI's secret OKC investigation

FLASHBACK: In the matter of Kenneth Michael Trentadue


Prof. Kevin Barrett


Later is joined in-studio by University of Wisconsin-Madison Islamic Studies Professor and Founder of The Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth (MUJCA) Kevin Barrett to discuss recent developments in the 9/11 Truth Movement and speaking engagement tonight in Austin, Texas

Related Information:

Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth


Cliff Kincaid


Later in the program, Alex is joined by Editor Cliff Kincaid to discuss his recent article on the impending North American Union and the recent opposition to the NAU in Washington State and Oregon

Related Information:

North American Union "Conspiracy" Exposed

Oregon Senate Introduces Anti-NAU Resolution

Axiom
23-02-2007, 09:53 PM
TUNE IN FREE VIA www.*******s.com

Desmond
24-02-2007, 09:02 AM
Is this where you start singing, "Imagine no possessions..."?

Axiom
24-02-2007, 03:32 PM
Axiom's definition of "illegal", as measured by him, is one of "control", "law" and "immigration procedures". He then has the audicity to call moi "the stooge". He also continues to qualify his statements by saying this is "obvious" as a tacid assumption. Are you advocating that all people in the world should be free to go wherever they like ,whenever they like,for as long as they like,utilising the infrastructures,wealth and resources of any place they so choose?.Without any concern for the currently established population's contributions(taxes,work,culture etc)? Are you serious??
A vital human anthropological,sociological and historical lesson for you fg:- HUMANS ORGANISE THEMSELVES INTO HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURES!......with all the accepted flaws and corruption that go along with that....lets deal with this reality ,not the fantasy of anarchy.OK?
Right,now, let us look at the current reality of this human hierarchical structure currently in place -a so called democracy- ie.elected representatives of the ppl of a given land area -called a "democratic country",...now i know its a sham controlled by globalist bankers/corporations, but lets not make it even worse for the 'owned' tax paying slaves.......by importing 30 million cheap labourers to further rub the legal citizen's noses into the dirt,by draining their hard worked resources!

i would put it to you that mexico takes responsibility of its own citizens,and your energies directed at that 'legal' entity( sorry,but as much as i hate it too, we have to have LAWS in an organised hierarchical human population)


But is it really obvious? Obvious to whom? The powers that be? The self proclaimed legitimacy of who? George Washington, Captain James Cook, Henry the 8th, the mayflower pilgrims? explorers? thieves? George Bush? Clark Kent?
History is littered with such examples, groups of people claiming that only "their" group has a right to exist on "their" land. Always according to their rules and standards. It is human reality ,as seen throughout history that there is constant fighting over 'ownership' of land and resources ,and as ive stated before, tyranny is in fact the norm not exception in human history,and you know my view on who the real controlllers in the world are.
But as a humanist realist libertarian, i defend the masses from this neo feudal corrupt control, ergo i argue for the current 'citizens of a land' against even further exploitation!(re.this mass corporate funded 'invasion')

Which comes around to my primary position ,that govt neither represents their populations ,let alone act in their interests,ie puppets of globalist bankers/corporations


Well stuff them, I say all humans are equal. Stuff who ? - the globalist bankers/corporations(todays feudal overlords)? Stuff the sham governments abricating their duty to it's citizens? if so, i agree...........i also agree in the fantastical principle of all humans being equal,unfortunately a study of human anthropology and human history shows this is never the case...unfortunately........so i am trying to focus on real current issues ,that expose the giant neo feudalistic structure masquerading as 'democracy'.

Let it be known, that Axiom wants "control". why? Axiom wants "law" whose?
and Axiom wants "processed procedure".It is immaterial what Axiom wants in that regard, it is simply and unfortunately,an inescapable reality of human group organisation, see above.


I put it to you Axiom, that you are a modern mass industrial being who is completely indoctrinated within industrial culture. Just like me and everybody else here on this site! Accept your own complicity!


Axiom, just keep on consuming and stick with the program . Keep buying your telecaster guitars, eating your superior Western diet of pizza, pepsi, coke and other assorted brand names. Watch you whole life portrayed as an individual fantasy, as almost every waking hour is spent on narcissistic pursuits of individual end or reaction to the ambiguity of it all. Keep deluding yourself with the mistaken belief that somebody is in control and that if only we fixed those problems we could all be saved. We are all stooges Axiom. Your not so pure yourself. Im not sure whether you're projecting here,or thinking im someone else,........i am incidently a very non-materialistic type of person.
my focus is not so much on fixing those 'in control' but simply a desire to give humans a better chance of a) knowing who is ,actually in control! and b)exposing the shamefully ill informing media that obstructs the greater truths of the machinations dictating human reality.



One plus one does not equal three Axiom. Yes I am personally pro-disintegration of all national borders. Since I don't really believe in reincarnation, I am of the opinion that people cannot really decide where they are born. I regard people as human beings, not attributed national identities. An analogy, I don't believe it is necessary to tag wild fish in the open ocean, I most certainly don't think its necessary to do the same thing to human beings in the big bad world. Lets say, I don't believe in restricting people to separate parts of the world via passports and national identity. Just like I don't believe that the rich should live separately from the poor.

I wont even delve into the debate about modern state sovereignty. Suffice to say, aren't they elite constructions.:rolleyes: Of course all structures of human group organisation have been molded by the elite throughout history, no debate there.....but humans as intrinsic animals,form family groups,and group together along genetic family/race/culture lines...and although this is used by elites to control us,into nations with passports etc,......i cannot see how you would further subject them to a mass invasion of a foriegn culture, raping whatever resources they may have at their disposal like health,educ,wages ,culture, etc.


I don't really understand why you believe in the polarity of the argument that to be anti-national sovereignty means that you are pro-elite corparatism. I DONT! , I hope my above responses clarify this.

In summary ,humans inherently organise themselves into groups,and yes throughout history corruption and elite control molds,directs and controls this process........i want to increase awareness of the real machinations behind this dynamic, i want to help expose the popularly accepted 'fairytale' of current human order ie.non representative shamocracies.......and this mass 'illegal'(in the elite's own terms!) invasion shows clearly where the ppl's govt true motives lie.

Humans interface with 'reality' via their media.In ages past controlling information has been easier for controlling elites ,either due to mass illiteracy,or through a few clearly defined 'authorities' of information -dissemination.In more recent history literacy rates have risen greatly and far greater sources of 'information' has become available.eg.newspapers,radio,tv, ..note- its not called PROGRAMMING for no reason!.Also note how this now old media is becoming more and more monopolised allowing greater control of information by ruling elites. However at this time ,we have whats termed 'new media' ie internet ,this is the most powerful tool man has ever had at its disposal to organise and share information(however chaotic and haphazard as it may appear).It is a time when potentially the lies,manipulation and propaganda can be exposed to the masses.It is the time of a real information war,between the old guard and the new..............no doubt the elite want to rein in control of that too(see china currently,see r.murdoch et al buying up huge chunks of new media,and the advent of the more censored and controlled 'Internet2').So my focus for helping this eternal oppresion of humanity, lies with this interface with 'reality' - THE MEDIA-, I feel this is the most immediate,real and practical object of our war.The information war! ....and a mere starting point is www.*******s.com ,just to contrast major hidden unreported stories with the facile impotent old media............and yes,sure, you have to be an astute investigative detective to battle through the fact from fiction.

FG- are you in favour of a one world govt,with total central control,no borders etc ie. the NWO , that elites have talked about for centuries?

Desmond
24-02-2007, 11:31 PM
Did you spot the man in red underpants?

Axiom
25-02-2007, 06:29 PM
Did you spot the man in red underpants?
If you mean Superman ,well ,thats me! ;) if you meant the frozen in mid 19th century communist , well, thats the dimly lit goat:doh:

Axiom
25-02-2007, 07:50 PM
Yes. At the moment it is only rich westerners who have the material wealth and freedom of choice to do so. Why shouldn't all people in the world have that choice?OH YES, A FREE FOR FOR ALL IS REALLY CONSISTENT WITH HUMAN GROUP ORGANISATION THEORY/PRACTICE :wall: :hmm:
AND OH YES , THOSE 30 MILLION 'RICH' MEXICANS GIVEN A FREE PASS ,THANKS TO THE KIND HUMANITARIANISM OF THE ELITE?!? :wall: :hmm:

FG- i really thought you could do better than that, ffs!

Whats the fear? The fear is that brainwashed bufoons like you ,actually think they're making headway.:wall: Oh yes .lets just rob peter to pay paul, brilliant!?! :wall: :wall: But the real fear is that you brainwashed communists actually think you're addressing the heart of the issue!.....re-read my previous posts ,with an emphasis on comprehension.



No. As we both know you do not understand sociology or anthropology. As you are personally aware, I am in no need of sociological or anthroplogical lessons from you, nor are your assumptions accurate.
Again a pathetic attempt at sidestep. Give me one contrary example,to my stated well accepted structure of human group dynamics.


Make it worse eh? So you would rather live in a world where the geopolitical poor are kept separate from the western class poor. Interesting. I presume you believe that the western class poor should also be kept separate from the middle class and the elite. I suggest that you are living in the past Axiom, your idea of protectionism is basically driven by fear. You seem to want too not allow foreigners to live in first world countries because they allegedly will reduce your standard of living. Boo hoo Axiom, you poor boy. You completely and utterly miss my central point, either by design,incompetance or incomprehension....Whilst i advocate a war against corrupt elite control, an argument against our continuing failed political structure along with its propaganda arm -its media, you simply regurgitate mid 19th century communistic idealogy, which not only is totally at odds with history, but inconsistent with what is understood about human group dynamics(anthro/sociology). Its not about nationalism, its not about protectionism, its not about isolationism, its about the deeper bigger picture ,of why things are the way they are. Its about dealing with the way things ARE !,not the ways of obsfucating flawed outdated doctrine,which simply buy into the hands of the controlling elite,feudal lords, money, - call it what you will.

You and your ilk are simply happy to re-arrange the 'poor' ,the 'deckchairs' ,and consider it headway. you care not what happens to the 'poor' as long as the multi national corporations give the very poor a 'leg-up' at their expense, surely you can see the hypocrisy in this at the very least.

TIME TO DECLARE YOUR HAND - Do you consider yourself a communist?...i declare myself as a DIRECT representative democracy advocate,with the accent on small not big govt, and humanist libertarianism.
I hope im wrong ,but i gravely suspect you of being a big govt communist type, ..please tell me ,im wrong..



Like I said before Axiom. Humans first, and I will skip the Nationalism. Lets not ignore the fact that in a globalised society national boundaries are not zones of purity. Our problems are International not national. Try and remember that everything you consume is produced all around the globe. Wake up to your own implicit hypocrisy.OK, lets mix all races, all cultures,all religions, all policies,all philosophies, yes a central global govt is the answer!.......and after we exhaust china's cheap labour, is it africa next??..then what, global human culling?...My prediction is that this one world govt will be modellled on the socialist police state style of governance ,only this time with with the power and efficacy of high tech.facilitation.

Spoken like a self determinist who does not believe in social evolution. If we followed your norms, women would still not vote and workers would never read.OK, LETS EVOLVE TO A ONE WORLD GOVT. WITH ALL ITS INEVITABLE ACRUTEMENTS,..Happy for your grandchildren to have the 'all connecting' microchip inserted? oh , i bet you are, i mean, it is 'evolution' after all :wall:



You defend the masses. You make me laugh, the masses need saving by you. I don't think so. What is your definition of 'the masses' anyway?all humans exploited by the level of ultimate power

Well...derrrr. An amazing insight, did you think of it by yourself? Do you actually think its a new idea?The problem is fg is that you either think it is not a new idea ,not think about it,or blythly pass by a centrally vital important issue, highly relevant to this discussion.



Stop pretending that you study. Yes there are democratic issues, its all well known and documented. Stop pretending that a real direct democracy exists !!!


You are delusional about your own self importance Axiom. People may not want 'saving' by you and alot of people are much more informed about these sort of things then you appear to be. I am sorry to say this, but all I see you espousing is reactionary nationalism. Its not going to happen and its simply not a solution for anything you talk about. The whole story is much more complicated then the simple solutions you are pedalling.
THE SIMPLE SOLUTION????? , OF AN ACTUAL INFORMING MEDIA???? You mean??


Your basic position appears to be one that supports Western cultural imperialism and the need to protect it. Nothing could be further from the truth, im trying,seemingly in vain, to point how todays imperialism and exploitation is simply an extension of the old!

Get a life, globalisation is a reality that is much more dynamic then static geopolitical government.hmmm, and here we come to the crunch- you finally admit to being a globalist , seemingly ignorant of what happens when you give humans central control,, ie. mostly tyranny, whether fascism or communism, the brainwashed follow lock step, like programmed sheep

fg- Do you buy into bono's 'war on poverty' operation?
You do know that eric blair(george orwell) and phillip adams , like myself ,renounce communism as yet another vehicle of the elite to mass control us?



You know Axiom its not a hidden secret that the media manipulate the masses. You carry on like it is, but its been well known for a very long time.Oh really? well known? huh? for a very long time?? well.well, well, what a relief!............now you tell me your respected news sources, and 3 credible and substantiated news stories you know of, unreported in the mainstream.



I am in favor of everybody in the planet getting clean drinking water, free shelter, food, medicene and education as a basic human right, everything else is negotiable.:hand:

I don't care how it is done , so long as it becomes a reality.

I likewise share that goal,. however, you trust in corporate capitalism crossed with socialism ala china, and i trust in true direct democracy to achieve that end........currently ,as we both know, both avenues have been hijacked ,usurped and controlled by the neo feudalist elite.



thankyou all for your attention , and especially to fg, in taking the time and effort to explore these very fundamental tenets of human political reality.

Axiom
25-02-2007, 09:10 PM
Bush Wants "Authority" to Negotiate Free-Trade Policies

JBS | February 23, 2007
David Eisenberg

President Bush is pushing Congress to extend his authority to negotiate free-trade deals, which expires on July 1 of this year. Stating that free-trade policies will make it easier for U.S. companies to sell their products which are important to the nation's economy, Bush claimed that this would help Americans "improve our competitiveness in the global economy."

Democrats have apparently reacted to the sense of the American citizens and are blaming Bush's free-trade policies for contributing to the trade deficit, costing U.S. factory jobs, and exposing U.S. workers to unfair competition from low-wage companies.

Long forgotten is the fact that the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations," as spelled out clearly in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, resides with Congress. Unfortunately, Congress unconstitutionally transferred that authority over to the Executive Branch with the passage of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, and the Supreme Court let them get away with it. Trade Promotion Authority simply takes more authority away from the American people through the Congress and passes it over to the Executive Branch.

Regarding Trade Promotion Authority, Texas Representative Ron Paul once stated,

Our founders understood the folly of trade agreements between nations; that is why they expressly granted the authority to regulate trade to Congress alone, separating it from the treaty-making power given to the President and Senate. This legislation clearly represents an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority to the President. Simply put, the Constitution does not permit international trade agreements.

Can anyone point to any of the current trade agreements that have been in the best interest of the United States or the citizens of participating countries? They've certainly been good to the few elite interchangeable players who move seamlessly back and forth between big business and big government. However, it is the American middle class who is ending up with the bad part of the deal.

Trade Promotion Authority is in serious violation of the Constitution, and is tantamount to Congress giving the president authority to send our troops to war without a declaration by Congress.

Oh, wait. They've already done that, too.

No wonder the results in both cases concerning our nation's economic well-being are similar.



"TerrorStorm is something that should be seen by everyone, no matter what their stance/affiliation/political bent. " - Rich Rosell, Digitally Obsessed UK
Get TerrorStorm on DVD today

Axiom
25-02-2007, 09:14 PM
North American Union "Conspiracy" Exposed

Aim.org | February 19, 2007
Cliff Kincaid

A top Democratic Party foreign policy specialist said on Friday that a "very small group" of conservatives is unfairly accusing him of being at the center of a "vast conspiracy" to implement the idea of a "North American Union" by "stealth." He called the charges "absurd."

Ironically, however, he said that the development of a North American legal system might in some way assist in cleaning up the Mexican legal system.
But Robert Pastor, a former official of the Carter Administration and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University (CNAS), made the remarks at an all-day February 16 conference devoted to the development of a North American legal system. The holding of the conference was itself evidence that a comprehensive process is underway to merge the economies, and perhaps the social and political systems, of the three countries.

Pastor said that he favors a "North American Community," not a formal union of the three countries, and several speakers at the conference ridiculed the idea of protecting America's borders and suggested that American citizenship was an outmoded concept.

Wearing a lapel pin featuring the flags of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, Pastor told AIM that he favors a $200-billion North American Investment Fund to pull Mexico out of poverty and a national biometric identity card for the purpose of controlling the movement of people in and out of the U.S.

So the "conspiracy" is now very much out in the open, if only the media would pay some attention to it.

Media Cover-Up

Accuracy in Media attended the conference in order to produce this report and shed light on a process that is being conducted largely beyond the scrutiny of the public or the Congress.

AIM has previously documented that Pastor's campaign for a North American Community has received precious little attention from the major media, except for the notable case of CNN's Lou Dobbs, who has called it "utterly mad." In fact, a survey of news coverage discloses that several high-profile mentions of the concept of a North American economic, social or political entity have come from Pastor himself, such as a Newsweek International article that he wrote.

The conference, conducted in cooperation with the American Society of International Law, an organization affiliated with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, was held at the American University Washington College of Law. A large number of speakers came from American University.

Overruling the U.S. Supreme Court

Academic literature distributed in advance to conference participants about a common legal framework for the U.S., Canada and Mexico included proposals for a North American Court of Justice (with the authority to overrule a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court), a North American Trade Tribunal, a North American Court of Justice, and a Charter of Fundamental Human Rights for North America, also dubbed the North American Social Charter.

Under the latter concept, according to Laura Spitz of the University of Colorado Law School, North Americans might be able to enjoy "new rights" essential to "human flourishing" such as gay marriage. She argues in one paper that U.S. economic integration with Canada will make it nearly impossible for the United States not to recognize same-sex marriage so long as it is lawful in Canada.

Pastor himself talked about new institutions, such as a "permanent tribunal" on trade issues, but emphasized that such ideas "take time" and have to "take root." He advised conference participants to "think about the horizon," in terms of what is possible, over the course of 5, 10 or even 20 years from now.

Conservative concerns about Pastor's agenda were not assuaged by conference literature disclosing that the CNAS is sponsoring an event in May in which students participate in a model "North American Parliament." The concept suggests creation of a regional body to supersede the U.S. Government itself.

Such talk does indeed raise the specter of a North American Union similar to the currently functioning European Union, a political and economic entity of 27 European states that includes a European Parliament and a European Court of Justice. The EU has been charged with usurping the sovereignty of member states and moving European nations in a left-wing direction on matters such as acceptance of abortion and gay rights and abolition of the death penalty.

Indeed, the academic literature distributed to conference participants alluded to how the three countries of North America are "polarized" on "sensitive" cultural issues such as the death penalty, abortion and gay marriage and that it might take a long time to "harmonize" their legal systems on such matters.

While Pastor, a foreign policy advisor to each of the Democratic presidential candidates since 1976, tried to dismiss talk of a North American Union, he did emphasize in his remarks to the conference that North America is "more than a geographical entity" and is in fact a "community." His 2001 book, Toward a North American Community , begins by emphasizing his status as a resident of North America, rather than just a U.S. citizen, and outlines a vision of the three countries taking their relationship "to a new level."

Rather than use the phrase "union," he described the creation of an "emerging entity called North America" growing out of the fact that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), passed in 1993, had brought about a "remarkable degree of economic integration" among the three countries. One panel was devoted to analyzing how NAFTA could be expanded into the areas of intellectual property and taxation and regulations.

Attacking Conservatives

One speaker, Stephen Zamora of the University of Houston Law School, denounced the idea of a wall separating Mexico and the U.S., in order to control illegal immigration, asking, "What does citizenship mean anymore?" He expressed pleasant surprise when a Mexican in the audience said she had dual citizenship in Mexico and the U.S. Later, he said he was just as concerned about people living in Mexico as people living in the U.S.

Another speaker, Tom Farer, Dean of the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver, made a point of saying that his representative in Congress, Tom Tancredo (R-Col.), a staunch advocate of U.S. border security, was a backward thinker. Tancredo could be seen "dragging his knuckles along the ground," Farer said, trying to crack a joke.

No Border Control

Pastor acknowledged that the U.S. Government doesn't want to enforce its immigration laws. He said, however, that the solution is not a fence, except in some isolated high-crime areas along the border, and it's not to punish companies for hiring illegal aliens, since identity documents can be too easily forged. He said the solution is a national biometric and fraud-proof identification card that identifies national origin and legal status.

Another part of his solution, a $200-billion North American Investment Fund, is for the purpose of narrowing the income disparity between Mexico, on the one hand, and the U.S. and Canada, on the other. "You need a lot of money to do it and do it effectively," he said. He said Mexico would be required to put up half of the money, with the U.S. contributing 40 percent and Canada 10 percent. It would be done over 10 years.

The fund, he said, would focus on economic development in the southern and middle parts of Mexico, which haven't been touched to any significant degree by NAFTA. This, he indicated, would go a long way toward stemming illegal immigration to the U.S.

So the failures of NAFTA are now being used not to repeal the measure but to expand it and increase foreign aid to Mexico.

Pastor said Senator John Cornyn, known as a conservative Republican, had introduced his North American Investment Fund as a bill in Congress but had backed away from it under conservative fire.

The Nature of NAFTA

An important moment in the conference occurred when Alan Tarr, director of the Center for State Constitutional Studies at Rutgers University, was challenged about glossing over President Clinton's submission of NAFTA as an agreement, requiring only a majority of votes in both Houses of Congress for passage, and not a treaty, requiring a two-thirds vote in favor in the Senate. NAFTA passed by votes of 234-200 in the House and 61-38 in the Senate. Tarr said he had not intended to be uncritical of what Clinton did. Pastor quickly interjected that there was nothing improper in submitting NAFTA as an agreement rather than a treaty.

But Clinton's move was seen at the time as an effort to bypass constitutional processes, and the United Steelworkers challenged NAFTA's constitutionality in court. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001, after lower courts had thrown the case out, saying it was a political matter between the president and Congress. The Bush Administration sided with Clinton and the Supreme Court declined to get involved.

The history of NAFTA is one reason why so many conservatives are concerned that a North American Community could be transformed into a North American Union that runs roughshod over U.S. constitutional processes and guarantees.

One of the main concerns of conservatives, who have formed a "Coalition to Block the North American Union," has been the lack of congressional interest and oversight. They are backing a bill introduced by Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) to put Congress on record against a North American Union.

The Secretive SPP

Another major concern is that the Bush Administration has facilitated the creation of this new North American "entity" through an initiative known as the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), based on a memorandum signed by President Bush and the leaders of Canada and Mexico in March 2005. It is described as "a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing," but its "working groups" have been operating in secret and many of the members are not even known.

Judicial Watch, a conservative public-interest law firm, had to go through the Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents naming the members of some of the mysterious working groups.

Officially, on the U.S. side, the SPP is coordinated by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez.

The Clinton Connection

Pastor's luncheon speaker, Eric Farnsworth, the Vice-President of the Council of the Americas, provided some valuable insight into this process. Saying NAFTA is "no longer enough," he described the SPP as designed to help North America meet the economic challenges posed by such countries as China and India.

Farnsworth said that the Council of the Americas , which advises the SPP, would shortly issue 300 recommendations designed to improve business conditions in the U.S., Mexico and Canada. He was unclear as to whether the U.S. Government would try to implement these initiatives on its own, through the administrative or regulatory process, or whether they would be submitted to Congress for approval.

The Council's honorary chairman is David Rockefeller and its board members come from such major corporations as Merck, PepsiCo, McDonald's, Ford, Citibank, IBM, Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, GE (which owns NBC News and MSNBC) and Time Warner (which owns CNN and Time Inc.).

One of the key board members is Thomas F. McLarty III, President of Kissinger McLarty Associates, who served as Clinton's White House counselor and chief of staff during the time that NAFTA was signed and passed by Congress. McLarty, who also functioned as Special Envoy to the Americas under Clinton, is an adviser to the Carlyle Group, focusing on "buyout investment opportunities in Mexico."

Farnsworth mentioned the possible creation of a "super-national Supreme Court" governing business and trade issues in North America, but was ambiguous about whether it would ever come to pass.

A self-described Democrat who served as policy director in the Clinton White House Office of the Special Envoy for the Americas from 1995-98, he also said that he was optimistic that Bush would strike a deal with the new Democratic-controlled Congress on immigration. He said Bush was "at odds with his own party" on immigration and that legislation to create a so-called "guest worker" program could pass now that Republicans have lost control of Congress.

The Panama Canal Giveaway

For his part, Pastor, a friendly and engaging fellow who talks about his ideas at length with critics, has a history that goes far beyond deep personal involvement in the Democratic Party.

Pastor is associated by conservatives with President Jimmy Carter's treaty, opposed by then-presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, which transferred control of the Panama Canal away from the U.S. to the Panamanian government. Pastor was National Security Advisor for Latin America under Carter. His nomination as U.S. Ambassador to Panama was withdrawn in 1995 after conservative Senator Jesse Helms, then-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, threatened to block a vote on his nomination. Helms accused Pastor of aiding radical forces and undermining U.S. interests in the region.

The founding director of the Latin American and Caribbean Program of the [Jimmy] Carter Center, Pastor became Vice President of International Affairs and Professor of International Relations at American University on September 1, 2002, when he created his Center for North American Studies. Pastor also served as vice chair of a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on the Future of North America, which issued a report in May 2005. Lately, Pastor's Center for North American Studies has received funding from the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean to address "regulatory convergence" issues.

A sour note about the prospect of further integration with Mexico was provided at the conference by Alberto Szekely, a career ambassador and advisor to the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said that the rule of law simply does not exist in Mexico and that corruption permeates governmental institutions. He said reforms under the presidency of Vicente Fox went nowhere and that Mexico is one of the most corrupt countries in the world today.

Ironically, however, he said that the development of a North American legal system might in some way assist in cleaning up the Mexican legal system.

Pastor, an optimist about the prospect of developing the North American Community, told me that he didn't think the situation in Mexico was as bleak as Szekely made it out to be. He continues to be a proponent of "continental thinking."

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2007, 10:56 PM
Buzz Aldrin's response (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo&mode=related&search=) to another moon landing skeptic was memorable.

Axiom
26-02-2007, 11:08 PM
Mr Murray, your copied and pasted post is either designed to undermine my thread with a low blow disinformation hit,show a lack of consideration to the thread's topic, or simply a gross thread hijacking, or you are simply insane(which i doubt).....please delete it forthwith.
If you are serious ,which i doubt,start your own thread titled "Ubelievable off the wall Conspiracies"

BTW- This so called 'conspiracy' has been well and truly debunked, and insults not only me but readers of this thread.

Basil
26-02-2007, 11:17 PM
Ax, I speak as someone who is fortunate enough to widely despise both of your politics and like you both as men! ;)

Your reaction to Ian's post is grossly misjudged IMO. I would welcome your reconsidering your assessment of Ian & his post and look for other motivations beyond that of his undermining your thread.

Ian Murray
26-02-2007, 11:37 PM
Mr Murray, your copied and pasted post is either designed to undermine my thread with a low blow disinformation hit,show a lack of consideration to the thread's topic, or simply a gross thread hijacking, or you are simply insane(which i doubt).....please delete it forthwith.
If you are serious ,which i doubt,start your own thread titled "Ubelievable off the wall Conspiracies"

Settle down, Ax. I see no harm in poking a little fun at conspiracy theories, even though you are enamoured with them.

I think you're taking yourself way too seriously, but if you really can't handle a gentle ribbing then I apologise for bruising your feelings.

Basil
26-02-2007, 11:40 PM
Oh brilliant! Ian turns up with 5ltrs of petrol! *sheez* :P

Axiom
27-02-2007, 12:49 AM
Settle down, Ax. I see no harm in poking a little fun at conspiracy theories, even though you are enamoured with them.

I think you're taking yourself way too seriously, but if you really can't handle a gentle ribbing then I apologise for bruising your feelings.
Ian, you were not to know perhaps the years ive dedicated to this subject area,and the serious intention i had for this thread as a forum for ideas and debate on topic,developed early on .

I am not 'enamoured with conspiracy theories' at all, and the simple use of that terminology betrays your concrete held belief system....the very state im trying to avoid here.....im simply setting up a widely researched,documented and well accepted concept/reality of failed democracies and the advent of globalisation policy..........have you read all the posts in this thread? do you have any serious interest in investigating more?..if so, great, i welcome you.

Gentle ribbing is great, i do it all the time, and it may well appear im over reacting...........but i am acutely aware,perhaps more than most of this tactic of ridicule .a tactic oft used to distract and smokescreen the heart of the issue.......these are difficult concepts to assimilate given our conditioning, and the mud you threw ,really just too obvious and appeals to the very ppl, that need eyes opened,not encouraged to keep them closed,behind this type of ridicule and subterfuge.

An easy (too easy) misreading of the aim of this thread is forgiveable, and i accept no maliciousness intended......... but as im sure you can see in the context of this whole thread and my said aims, it really wasnt very helpful.

~shakehands~

Ian Murray
27-02-2007, 08:34 AM
Hi Ax

In that light it was rather frivolous of me to treat lightly the beliefs you obviously hold so passionately - tantamount to attacking a person's religion, which I wouldn't do.

Any sort of personal attack was not my intent, and I really do apologise for causing you such angst as seen in the shoutbox.

I've deleted the offending post.

Ian

Watto
27-02-2007, 08:49 AM
Hi Ax

In that light it was rather frivolous of me to treat lightly the beliefs you obviously hold so passionately - tantamount to attacking a person's religion, which I wouldn't do.

Any sort of personal attack was not my intent, and I really do apologise for causing you such angst as seen in the shoutbox.

I've deleted the offending post.

Ian
That’s nice of you Ian but IMO if Axiom can’t take a lighthearted contribution, he shouldn’t bother posting on a forum.

arosar
27-02-2007, 10:07 AM
I haven't read this thread. Can someone please provide a synopsis?

Anyway, I just wanted to make a quick post via a thread highjack (as this was the thread nearest to my cursor) that a new online dictionary has just been launched: http://www.word.sc/

Thank you.

AR

Axiom
27-02-2007, 11:31 AM
Hi Ax

In that light it was rather frivolous of me to treat lightly the beliefs you obviously hold so passionately - tantamount to attacking a person's religion, which I wouldn't do.

Any sort of personal attack was not my intent, and I really do apologise for causing you such angst as seen in the shoutbox.

I've deleted the offending post.

Ian Ian, you have shown yourself to be a person of great character, you have my full respect. I thankyou very much, and i really would love to engage in discussion with you regarding the subject matter of this thread,if you would be interested(but fully understand if you're not).

It is at this point i would also like to apologise to you and others on the shoutbox(KB,HD,BG) last night for my short fused uncontrolled angry outburst(besides the reasons i referred to there,i am also going through a tough personal time, and believe this is effecting my emotions and judgement)

Axiom
27-02-2007, 11:45 AM
That’s nice of you Ian but IMO if Axiom can’t take a lighthearted contribution, he shouldn’t bother posting on a forum.
Watto,i agree with you in general, i would only ask you to consider the particular context and particular subject matter being discussed in this thread,the degree of serious work being attempted, and in this light, the type of derisive tactic(i accept,now, unintended) too common,and it hit my short fused raw nerve. I do apologise for my angry outburst ,see my above post to Ian.

Axiom
27-02-2007, 11:51 AM
I haven't read this thread. Can someone please provide a synopsis? SIMPLY READ FROM BEGINNING TO END!


Anyway, I just wanted to make a quick post via a thread highjack (as this was the thread nearest to my cursor) that a new online dictionary has just been launched: http://www.word.sc/

Thank you.

AR
(IN A CALM STATE!) Arosar,would you mind informing us as to the above relevance of your post?

Watto
27-02-2007, 11:51 AM
It is at this point i would also like to apologise to you and others on the shoutbox(KB,HD,BG) last night for my short fused uncontrolled angry outburst(besides the reasons i referred to there,i am also going through a tough personal time, and believe this is effecting my emotions and judgement)
I'm sorry to hear that Axiom. Take care of yourself.

Axiom
27-02-2007, 11:57 AM
I'm sorry to hear that Axiom. Take care of yourself.
Thankyou Watto...and yes i am trying! ......and im hoping my sense of humour returns soon! :)

Axiom
27-02-2007, 03:59 PM
Another plea from the heart to listen to the Alex Jones radio show.At the very very least im sure the enigmatic charismatic , wholeheartedness ,enthusiasm ,broad knowledge and undoubted intelligence of alex jones will entertain you,even if you have little or no interest in investigating the very real news stories he covers.BUT PLEASE GIVE IT A CHANCE, I BEG YOU !

Its free, you only need real player or windows player, it is a daily 3 hr show,repeated continuosly from 7am to 4am EST the following day.The show is live at 4am-7am EST. You can access via top right corner of www.*******s.com anytime.

Please ignore the very annoying advertisements(fast fwd them,if not listening live)
I really would love any comments,discussion,debate on any topics raised there.

Today's show covers some very interesting and substantiated material on the North American Union(NAU) ,amongst other news items.



TODAY ON THE
ALEX JONES SHOW

Alex welcomes to the program Matt Dayton of patriot activist group Project for a New American Citizen to discuss the group's efforts at the University of Texas at Austin and their recent confrontation with Barack Obama

Related Information:

The Project for a New American Citizen Blog

9/11 Questions Follow Obama Campaign Trail to Austin



I'm not for one moment asserting its all gospel truth, simply an arresting starting point to further investigate huge news stories ignored by mainstream........with a little research ,im positive,that at the very least it will be an eye opener on how absolutely bankrupt mainstream media is at truly informing us(not just the usual perception of this,but the staggering gross nature of it). One only needs to witness the enormous chunks of time devoted to the relative trivia that consumes mainstream's air time.....and i dont need to elaborate on this ,you know that anyway im sure.........so where is some of the 'REAL' news?

Axiom
27-02-2007, 04:04 PM
I think i may have tried to bite off more than i can chew, by trying to tie in these news stories to a grand globalist agenda, and it dilutes my message...........i think it more practical to focus on some of these well substantiated stories ignored by mainstream.This may be a far more workable approach in constructive dialogue.

Axiom
27-02-2007, 04:57 PM
OK,Lets look at this way, as we all know ,and reaffirmed by fg,the mainstream media is bereft of real news ....acccepted? yes...ok......now what?....do we just accept this and ignore this state of affairs? or do we try to investigate the real news? OK, but where?....your suggestions are welcome.
Perhaps my direction is too extreme(its just that i feel that the machinations and dynamics of world reality is in fact far more extreme than many can either accept or concieve),but thats me, so i naturally would welcome analysis and/or alternative sources ,theories ,news stories and paradigms.

Lets focus on our failed interface with 'reality' THE MEDIA!.......Interesting information im sure will naturally follow,....then we can worry about grand conclusions later on!

Axiom
27-02-2007, 06:10 PM
Lets settle a couple of myths.

Myth 1: Axiom knows more then your average layman about anthropology/sociology or "human group organisation theory/practise". I have and never would claim such a thing, so thats your myth.


The reality is that Axiom knows about computer programming, computer game playing, cricket and taxi driving. You will notice I did not include guitar playing in that list. False,so another myth of yours!



Conclusion: I doubt that Axioms authority can be believed. FINE!,Forget me and my authority,i think in this thread i have directed you to many 'authority' sources......have you either read any of it or listened to a single alex jones show? or do you already know all the answers? if so, please educate me and others.








Myth2: Fg7 is a communist THANK GOODNESS!, Now please tell us how you would define your political stance.














Again, I have no real idea about what you are carping on about. "Human group dynamics" sounds nice an official, but I am willing to bet its just another bogus term made up by you.

But for arguments sake here is an anthropological example of people who have suffered from colonial nationalism and cultural imperialism. People who have been classified by european powers and forced to change their own indigenous lifestyles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit and did these indigenous communities form NON hierarchical structures?






Another point, You may advocate war against the elites, but I think that approach is particularly foolish. 'war' as in expose them,and inform the people via a real credible truly informative media.





What can I say? "Its not about nationalism its not about "protectionism" - I mean really :hand: SEE MY VIEWS ON INFORMING AND INFORMATION, EXPOSING THE REAL MACHINATIONS/DYNAMICS OF POWER.


I will repeat myself here. You appear to know next to nothing on these issues. Your basic argument is that you want government to protect people from corporations. You want more order and border control from government and yet you cannot seem to comprehend that the cure is worse then the "problem". Do you really not understand that historically speaking, modern national government has always been a tool of the elites? ...sucker!I agree elites control, no matter the model, thats my whole point, lets expose this eternal dynamic via a truly informing media!......my points re open borders,and mass invasion was used to underscore this reality of govts not representing its ppl,and that they are at the behest of globalist bankers.corps/elite






No Axiom, I cannot see what you are talking about. What i have stated to you very clearly is that exclusion of the poor is the main problem.I agree its a problem ,but secondary to the primary driver of this said problem ie.non representative govt,controlled by elites etc,maintained by failed interface / non informing media.








You can declare yourself as anything Axiom, but that doesn't mean that you understand what you are saying. You say, for example, that you are for "DIRECT" Democracy, but immedaitely you support border controls, via nationalism, for the "illegal" poor.

So in reality all you are really doing is getting caught in a dichotomy between government and corparatism. Therefore, you are falling for all the traps that have been previously made in the past. You become a cultural apologist and set yourself up to be defrauded by the elites, yet again.

Now if you were serious about democracy you would discuss issues like mobility, time/space compression, pluralism and cultural difference. then you would have something to say about globalism that was interesting. But you don't. You offer us nothing new Axiom because you are stuck in the past.

Talk about over reactive ranting. How can anyone have a serious debate with you when you resort to such knee jerk reactionsim? You mix up twenty different cultural problems then tell us your prediction. Well who cares what you think! You are just mad! See above and below!


Calm down Axiom. I don't think anybody can control the world. Maybe 'no body' as such, but if you think that central control is not a goal of the elite(and has not been), then you need to read their intentions from their very lips(see quote list in first post in this thread), and take a look at current world events.


The only thing relevent is that you want to classify every single problem into one big conspiracy. You help nobody with that approach, nor do you show how any solution is possible. Also, you generalise way to much. Its just laughable to think that will be a world wide socialist government. Absolutely laughable. See my above post ,as a way to bite off more easily chewable chunks.




Which of course is a mistaken belief. Todays imperialism is much different from your favorite Roman empire, you just don't understand why.:hand: You have never understand why they are different in all my previous face to face discussions with you about such themes. And because of this reality in your understanding you are still unable to fully understand political problems. I pity your glass full understanding Axiom. I contend that the dynamics of human populations have not changed as much as you think since the Romans.....but thats a book,right there!




You just dont get it do you. Do you really think that whole world cannot see how you live? Do you really believe that you offer any solutions about how to prevent people from being de-programmed? Do you really understand the complexity about what you are talking about? Here you are enjoying your computers, your cds, your television, talking as if you have an independent thought and that you are not programmed? C'mon give us a break. Understand who you are before you start preaching.How do you think humans have been manipulated and controlled through the millenia? answer:-'voices of authority','accepted consensus reality','culture'...today this comes from our media......so isnt it a good start to actually deconstruct and examine this vehicle ,this arm of control?



I don't have to Axiom. Go on, please give it a try.

I can prove my point another way. I will simply point out that all media is a representation of a truth and that truth is subjective. In other words you get the opinions of the storyteller. BINGO! And who do you suppose is the over riding most powerful storyteller of today, or anytime for that matter?......This is exactly my point ,expose the'storyteller'........lets have a wide open forum(not the singular govt controlled monopoly) ,where all storytellers can discuss,debate and test their stories, so people have a broad spectrum with real debate and information, to decide on 'their truth' for themselves.....ie. a truly informed public, able to make truly informed decisions, to elect truly representative governing officials! Get it?

Kevin Bonham
28-02-2007, 02:32 AM
Just watched Ronson's doco about infiltrating Bohemian Grove with Jones. Jones is a lot younger than I knew, he's actually younger than me. I do hope someone has set him straight on the facts about lemmings though.

Axiom
28-02-2007, 02:41 AM
Just watched Ronson's doco about infiltrating Bohemian Grove with Jones. Jones is a lot younger than I knew, he's actually younger than me. I do hope someone has set him straight on the facts about lemmings though.
I know what youre saying there KB, but the more i listen to alex jones and the more i verify his claims and news stories, the more i respect his extensive broad knowledge,of both history and current events,his awareness,analysis and intellect.He is also a magnetically ,from the heart,powerful speaker/orator.
Give him a chance KB,honestly.

And i will look at more of ronson and that doco.

PS. KB-Were you referring to the lemming myth (ie.the falsehood that they follow each other to their plummeting death)? If AJ erred there,he could be excused , i suppose for using a commonly accepted language device/analogy to convey an idea,albeit a myth.

Actually from memory,i think he has adressed this fallacy,......but regardless ,one wouldnt want to hang him on that one anyway?

Axiom
28-02-2007, 12:24 PM
GLOBALIZATION

Officials Meet To Implement North American Union
Condoleeza Rice met with her Canadian and Mexican counterparts in Ottawa over the weekend to discuss plans for a North American Union at a secretive Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) meeting that has received scant media coverage outside of a few Canadian news outlets

NAU Corridor Propaganda: Fears of Canada-Mexico superhighway driving U.S. critics loco
The author has built this article around an illusory semantic argument that simply does not hold up. It doesn't matter what you call it - there is an effort to create cross-national transportation corridors.

Recent News:

How Blair plans to resurrect the EU constitution

U.S. Opens Border to First Mexican Trucks in 25 Years

For the complete articles go to www.*******s.com

Axiom
28-02-2007, 01:01 PM
TODAY ON THE
ALEX JONES SHOW

Hank Gilbert


Alex welcomes Texas Agriculture Commissioner candidate Hank Gilbert to discuss the upcoming anti-chipping and anti-toll road Texas Independence Day Rally being held on March 2nd.

Related Information:

Texas Independence Day Rally Info

Hank Gilbert Website

Axiom
28-02-2007, 03:27 PM
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5428.htm

A good summary/essay, the only thing in this i would question, is that it is the entity-'usa' that is the ultimate culprit,but ignoring that, its a relevant basis of research material.

Axiom
28-02-2007, 10:58 PM
A dedicated-specific source of material research.

http://globalresearch.ca/

Axiom
02-03-2007, 01:17 AM
TODAY ON THE
ALEX JONES RADIO SHOW

www.*******s.com

Alex is joined in-studio by acclaimed Texas musician Jimmie Vaughan to discuss the upcoming Texas Independence Day Rally at which he will be speaking. Jimmie will also perform live, on-air, his new song Shakles on Me

Related Information:

Texas Independence Day Rally Info

Jimmie Vaughan Official Website

Later Alex speaks with Spychips co-author Liz Mcintyre about the Texas Independence Day Rally at which she will be speaking.

Related Information:

Celebrate Texas Independence Day - March 2nd Rally

Spychips Website

Axiom
02-03-2007, 01:03 PM
TODAY ON THE
ALEX JONES SHOW

Jesse Trentadue


Alex welcomes Terry Nichols' Attorney Jesse Trentadue to discuss the upcoming BBC special on the Federal Government's complicity in the Oklahoma City Bombing.

Related Information:

New OKC Revelations Spotlight FBI Involvement In Bombing

Letter from Terry Nichols

The Trentadue Files: New documents offer details of the FBI's secret OKC investigation

FLASHBACK: In the matter of Kenneth Michael Trentadue


Penny Langford-Freeman


Later Alex speaks with Penny Langford-Freeman, the Congressional District Pollitical Director for Ron Paul, about Ron Paul's presidential run and his recent meeting with Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Related Information:

Ron Paul meets Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Ron Paul Official Website

Axiom
02-03-2007, 04:10 PM
Who else despairs at the swamping of our mainstream news with stories of natural disasters(bush fires,land slides,snow storms,etc),accidents(car/truck/train crashes),'popular personalities'(see the saturation of air time on american cable tv devoted to where anna nichole smith should be buried!) and sport(and yes im a sports fan!).
How much air time is left devoted to informing us about what is really going on with regards to the machinations of real politik,high level corruption(not just the odd scapegoat eg.enron,libby,rove)and informing debate regarding the big important issues highly relevant to humanity.(eg.corporate influence on our elected 'representatives',the 4 trillion dollars missing from the pentagon!,the obvious flaws in the dr,kelly 'suicide' story,the SPP/NAU,The surveillance society(see listening google microphones in new PCs),censorship of free speech,and countless other important stories ignored ,dismissed or minimised by mainstream media?

OK, so where/what are your sources of news?
Any investigative journalists here, even the frustrated ones like me?
I know many,perhaps most ,could care less,and have no interest in how or if they're informed.OK ,fair enough,i understand......its time consuming,confusing and can be depressing.
But to those who are terminally curious and to those who love to analyse these matters,i would love to have your input.




Censorship war battle grounds:- http://www.************.com/articles/march2007/010307Digg.htm

http://************.com/articles/march2007/010307mediablacklists.htm
also latest revelations re oklahoma bombing story(will post links soon)

Garrett
02-03-2007, 04:34 PM
[QUOTE=Axiom]
dont believe the internet is censored now ?, try googling www.nineeleven.co.uk
you will get 'this page is prohibited' !!
if any computer whizz out there knows a way to circumvent this particular instance of censorship,and access this site ,please let me know.

[QUOTE]

Just type it into your URL bar.

Aaron Guthrie
02-03-2007, 04:39 PM
dont believe the internet is censored now ?, try googling www.nineeleven.co.uk
you will get 'this page is prohibited' !!
if any computer whizz out there knows a way to circumvent this particular instance of censorship,and access this site ,please let me know.
I can access it. You aren't running any type of netnanny software, or trying to access from work or something? You can always click on the "cached" option after doing a google search for the site.

Aaron Guthrie
02-03-2007, 04:41 PM
Just type it into your URL bar.I call and raise, you can just copy and paste it.

ETA-and re-raise myself, you can just click on it.

Basil
02-03-2007, 04:42 PM
Works both as a copy and paste and link. I like the idea George has a nanny - all 6'4" of him :eek:

ElevatorEscapee
02-03-2007, 08:37 PM
Howard, I apologize for offending you. Not very happy though.

Post now deleted. Please delete yours.

Will PM you in a couple of days if I can be bothered getting around to it.

Advice to everyone, take everything you read on the 'net with a grain of salt.

Yes, I do despair at what I read. :(

Basil
02-03-2007, 09:29 PM
Nigel, you haven't offended me. It's all good. 'All good' in the sense that I respect you and that's why I bother talking through the issue.

Personally I thought the post should have stood 'cept for the last par. The point you were making was worthy of address IMO.

chEErs

Axiom
02-03-2007, 09:30 PM
Thankyou you all for your help.
The cached route was succesful.I dont know why the direct access approach didnt work, but as is obvious,im very limited as to my understanding of the mechanics of the net !
I'm sorry also that this became the focus of my original post, but that was my fault. Can i start again and delete that particular error? And allow the rest of my post/message to stand?
Again thankyou.

littlesprout85
02-03-2007, 10:31 PM
Wazz^ Axioms :)

Sprout over the past few months has been wondering alot on the same subjects as Axioms. (cant be drinking the same water)

Axioms you and I are of the same clothe it seems, fore sprout is seeing the same irregularities in main stream society as you.:eek:

Sprout for one is very concern about the monopoly in news media. & this is a real issue that effects us all on a globel level. For if all the news is being pipelined thru 2-3 media giants. Alot of storys are lost, & most importantly the real story might not at all get out on the wire ever.

This has been going on a long time, and sprout has been paying attention to this fact since 1984. Now its too late.

Nothing we can possible do now. This goes too deep now & the $ has already been payed out to get it this way.

If you really want to study this fact a lil deeper - look at the time when this first started. It all started with the first windows & apple op systems.
This is the start Axioms. for this is the start of records being kept on hds. Info in general being moved from paper too HDs.

Now Everything is kept on hds and on the net, all info. Thus it can be changed to suit the timez and the record keepers. Things can be deleted & there is no trail.

Ppl will argue that there is a trail, but when this first started there wasnt a trail to follow. impossible to tell how much info was changed-destroyed ect. & lets remember that the paper trail is being wiped out then & now.

They will say -oh it good for the environment. or that it saves space in buildings. ect. Really its an ideal way for things to get lost & responsiblilitys are lost with it.:whistle:

Sprout took some classes at a community college once. they took his tuition up front & said that when his university credits transfer in that he can get a new transcript then. Right onz- Yea Right. When the university credits transfered in- not one of em did this lil community college accepted. They told sprout that he was under academic suspension and that he will not be getting financial aid.
So sprouty went to the dean & didnt get a refund. Sprout didnt take finals and just walked off- the grades should have been incompletes- instead this lil piece of ***** college gave sprout all F's. So like went to offices to get to the bottom of this. told em sprout never took finals and the is no way that these grades are real. Guess what ? They deleted all his attendance records along with other info - Thus Sprouty got the shaft - yup-yup! two weeks after grades came out - and already deleted. no chance for liability to be assest.:wall:

This is when sprout realized that the pc along with the advention of the world wide web was design for this very purpose. No longer will anything be wrote in stone. Records and you can be deleted in a blink of an Eye- by the time to try to counter the effects- you will not have the resorces or the time to battle for what is really the truth.

Lets also take into mind that alot of local and Imfao papers such as the "Times" are losing their subscribers in droves and have been losing $ for the past 20 years steadly. Soon they will too be gone unless they can find a way to survive onthe web and create new $. So this problem is getting even worse for independant new reporting. These Local new agencies dont have the $ to pay their reporters to cover the storys. Thus the giants get even bigger & the real storys are keeped off the radar :(

-Sprout :)

Axiom
03-03-2007, 01:12 AM
I opt to look SPECIFICALLY at the collapse of building 7 on sept.11 2001 in NYC.
Here is a call to theorise from a civil engineer.(including his thoughts on both towers too)
http://www.************.com/articles/march2007/010307towersfell.htm

The official story is that a large chunk fell from tower 2 ,along with a subsequent fire collapsed building 7 at free fall speed ala demoilition style.
We have the building's owner Silverstein on record saying "pull it",along with many fireman and police present that day saying" theyre going to pull it

Now let it be said, i have a neutral position on this subject,as i have very little knowledge of structural engineering.

But i still find the arguments for both sides interesting......im sure some here could provide some very illuminating insights into what appears,at least on the surface a curious event.(read above short article,and do a little background fact finding,if needed,of course)........and i look forward to comments from any interested party,especially from any well versed in the story-engineers that may be out there!

And anyone who wants to put forward any of their perplexing interesting topics lending themselves to theorising,feel free! .This is where we can discuss even the wildest of theories! :)

Aaron Guthrie
03-03-2007, 01:42 AM
I opt to look SPECIFICALLY at the collapse of building 7 on sept.11 2001 in NYC.
Here is a call to theorise from a civil engineer.(including his thoughts on both towers too)
http://www.************.com/articles/march2007/010307towersfell.htm

The official story is that a large chunk fell from tower 2 ,along with a subsequent fire collapsed building 7 at free fall speed ala demoilition style.
We have the building's owner Silverstein on record saying "pull it",along with many fireman and police present that day saying" theyre going to pull it

Now let it be said, i have a neutral position on this subject,as i have very little knowledge of structural engineering.

But i still find the arguments for both sides interesting......im sure some here could provide some very illuminating insights into what appears,at least on the surface a curious event.(read above short article,and do a little background fact finding,if needed,of course)........and i look forward to comments from any interested party,especially from any well versed in the story-engineers that may be out there!

And anyone who wants to put forward any of their perplexing interesting topics lending themselves to theorising,feel free! .This is where we can discuss even the wildest of theories! :)

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

And the link to where I got the links from-
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76025

Axiom
03-03-2007, 02:18 AM
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

And the link to where I got the links from-
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76025
ok, thankyou manga, i am familiar with those sites, and will do some homework.......so i assume you will argue for the positive(for the official story), and i will see how i go arguing for the negative!:uhoh:

Aaron Guthrie
03-03-2007, 02:33 AM
ok, thankyou manga, i am familiar with those sites, and will do some homework.......so i assume you will argue for the positive(for the official story), and i will see how i go arguing for the negative!:uhoh: No I don't really wish to debate this issue. I just wanted to provide a resource I was aware of to you and anyone else that came upon the thread.

Desmond
03-03-2007, 10:04 AM
I opt to look SPECIFICALLY at the collapse of building 7 on sept.11 2001 in NYC.
Here is a call to theorise from a civil engineer.(including his thoughts on both towers too)
http://www.************.com/articles/march2007/010307towersfell.htm

The official story is that a large chunk fell from tower 2 ,along with a subsequent fire collapsed building 7 at free fall speed ala demoilition style.
We have the building's owner Silverstein on record saying "pull it",along with many fireman and police present that day saying" theyre going to pull it

Now let it be said, i have a neutral position on this subject,as i have very little knowledge of structural engineering.Ax, this is conspiracy theory 101. Get an "expert" to baffle the public with bullshit, and hopefully they will swallow the expert's conclusion.

I quite like the idea that the whole thing was orchestrated by the big bad government. Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them. But I won't actually believe it is the case until I see an overwhelming amount of evidence. Thus far all that has been proposed is SFA.

Axiom
03-03-2007, 02:22 PM
ok, you dont like the building 7 story,fair enough.
How about the dr.kelly 'suicide' ?
or the attack on the U.S Liberty?
or can you raise a particular event of interest?

Remember conspiricies DO EXIST, yes?
ok, lets see if we can find some REAL ones!

Axiom
03-03-2007, 02:28 PM
Ax, this is conspiracy theory 101. Get an "expert" to baffle the public with bullshit, and hopefully they will swallow the expert's conclusion.

I quite like the idea that the whole thing was orchestrated by the big bad government. Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them. But I won't actually believe it is the case until I see an overwhelming amount of evidence. Thus far all that has been proposed is SFA. and you think the official story is backed by overwhelming evidence?

Axiom
03-03-2007, 02:33 PM
Do you believe false flag has existed or does exist?
How do you believe intelligence agencies operate in this context?
Do you know Mossad's official motto?

Desmond
03-03-2007, 02:57 PM
and you think the official story is backed by overwhelming evidence?Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. You can't prove anything, so you just make a vague suggestion to imply impropriety.

Axiom
03-03-2007, 04:17 PM
Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. You can't prove anything, so you just make a vague suggestion to imply impropriety.
so NO ONE can prove ANYTHING?

Axiom
03-03-2007, 04:21 PM
http://www.*******s.com/articles/us/okc_bombing_former_fbi_director_calls_for_new_inve stigation.htm

Axiom
03-03-2007, 04:26 PM
http://www.*******s.com/articles/sept11/media_blacklists_bbc_fiasco_google_digg_censor_911 _truth.htm

http://www.*******s.net/articles/march2007/020307Digg.htm

Axiom
03-03-2007, 04:31 PM
Wazz^ Axioms :)

Sprout over the past few months has been wondering alot on the same subjects as Axioms. (cant be drinking the same water)

Axioms you and I are of the same clothe it seems, fore sprout is seeing the same irregularities in main stream society as you.:eek:

Sprout for one is very concern about the monopoly in news media. & this is a real issue that effects us all on a globel level. For if all the news is being pipelined thru 2-3 media giants. Alot of storys are lost, & most importantly the real story might not at all get out on the wire ever.

This has been going on a long time, and sprout has been paying attention to this fact since 1984. Now its too late.

Nothing we can possible do now. This goes too deep now & the $ has already been payed out to get it this way.

If you really want to study this fact a lil deeper - look at the time when this first started. It all started with the first windows & apple op systems.
This is the start Axioms. for this is the start of records being kept on hds. Info in general being moved from paper too HDs.

Now Everything is kept on hds and on the net, all info. Thus it can be changed to suit the timez and the record keepers. Things can be deleted & there is no trail.

Ppl will argue that there is a trail, but when this first started there wasnt a trail to follow. impossible to tell how much info was changed-destroyed ect. & lets remember that the paper trail is being wiped out then & now.

They will say -oh it good for the environment. or that it saves space in buildings. ect. Really its an ideal way for things to get lost & responsiblilitys are lost with it.:whistle:

Sprout took some classes at a community college once. they took his tuition up front & said that when his university credits transfer in that he can get a new transcript then. Right onz- Yea Right. When the university credits transfered in- not one of em did this lil community college accepted. They told sprout that he was under academic suspension and that he will not be getting financial aid.
So sprouty went to the dean & didnt get a refund. Sprout didnt take finals and just walked off- the grades should have been incompletes- instead this lil piece of ***** college gave sprout all F's. So like went to offices to get to the bottom of this. told em sprout never took finals and the is no way that these grades are real. Guess what ? They deleted all his attendance records along with other info - Thus Sprouty got the shaft - yup-yup! two weeks after grades came out - and already deleted. no chance for liability to be assest.:wall:

This is when sprout realized that the pc along with the advention of the world wide web was design for this very purpose. No longer will anything be wrote in stone. Records and you can be deleted in a blink of an Eye- by the time to try to counter the effects- you will not have the resorces or the time to battle for what is really the truth.

Lets also take into mind that alot of local and Imfao papers such as the "Times" are losing their subscribers in droves and have been losing $ for the past 20 years steadly. Soon they will too be gone unless they can find a way to survive onthe web and create new $. So this problem is getting even worse for independant new reporting. These Local new agencies dont have the $ to pay their reporters to cover the storys. Thus the giants get even bigger & the real storys are keeped off the radar :(

-Sprout :)Very interesting post sprouty.The non-traceable aspect of the new digital media is certainly an important point.
The death of old media: http://www.*******s.com/articles/media/mainstream_media_is_dying.htm
and this one highly relevant to your point sprouty http://www.*******s.net/articles/march2007/020307Digg.htm

Axiom
03-03-2007, 04:44 PM
The fundamental point i want to make with the media thread and this one, is that of information.People tend to become extremely polarised between the 'official', 'mainstream' view and the 'wacky' 'conspiracy theorists'(a term that has become demonised, note the the context and tone in which boris used it above,yet as we all accept conspiracies do exist and have existed) view.This unfortunate polarisation obscures all the information in between these extreme positions.I'm really not so concerned in debating the accuracy /quality of the information,simply the fact that so much of it is obscured,avoided,or simply dismissed without inquiry .

Desmond
03-03-2007, 05:13 PM
so NO ONE can prove ANYTHING?
I did not say that.

Axiom
03-03-2007, 05:31 PM
I did not say that.
i agree.
im trying to get at ,what can indeed anyone 'prove'? where and how do we recieve our information. how and why we accept some information over others.....do we actually do the necesssary inquiries,study,investigations,and research to actually attempt to sort/sift the information?
I see the need to question not only the 'consensus' view on 'information ' but also the so called 'alternative' information...........surely greater insight can be gained by an examination of the broadest cross section of information(does greater truth lie somewhere in between?)...............my suspicion is that there are too many pre-concieved notions and deep conditioning in accepting certain information over others(from both polarised ends of the spectrum)

Basil
03-03-2007, 06:18 PM
Ax; 9/11 (oooh I hate that phrase). We weren't on the planes. There were no eyewitnesses. We didn't find corpses with 'we did it stickers' (even if we did, the case could me made that they were planted). Evidence of the irrefutable type is very hard to garner. What we do have is a bucketload of circumstantial evidence.

Now, repeat this scenario for most events (mysteries).

The human way ensures that just abut every Princess Di and 9/11 is scrutinised, both as part of jurisprudence, as well as by some just busting their titties wanting the conspiracy theories to live. It's all good.

The claimed 'cover-ups' (misinformation) require a monstrous quantity of people to remain unilaterally silent - forever. This is not possible. It never works. Humans blab. Their conscience gets them - whatever.

And so on and so on and so on ...

I believe 9/11 happened. I don't want to justify to you why. If you wish to show me why you disagree (point at a time), and not related to a compound theory that requires me to accept that other conspiracy theories, I'm listening.

Now, I ask politely, would you please say in one sentence, "I don't believe 9/11 necessarily happened as it is widely reported because ..."

Thanks. Just a synopsis in your words. No links. If you can grab me, I promise to check out your sources.

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2007, 08:14 PM
Remember conspiricies DO EXIST, yes?
ok, lets see if we can find some REAL ones!

This reminds me of the line offered by cryptozoologists:


Remember unknown species DO GET DISCOVERED, yes?
ok, let's see if we can find some ourselves!

The problem cryptos have is that while their first premise is true, their strike rate is abysmal - most of the new species they talk about are never found and most of the new species that are found are ones they never talked about. New species are generally found not by cryptos swallowing dodgy local myths but by scientists.

Ditto for conspiracy theorists - real conspiracies do sometimes exist, but most of those claimed by conspiracy theorists are nonsense, and most of those that are found were never claimed by conspiracy theorists.

So the starting point for anyone who wants to find real conspiracies should be answering these questions:

1. What claimed conspiracies have been proven to be true?
2. By what methods were these conspiracies most frequently proven, especially relative to the amount of effort invested in various methods?

Anyone who can answer 2 may have a better idea of how to look for real conspiracies.

Axiom
03-03-2007, 09:05 PM
Ax; 9/11 (oooh I hate that phrase). We weren't on the planes. There were no eyewitnesses. We didn't find corpses with 'we did it stickers' (even if we did, the case could me made that they were planted). Evidence of the irrefutable type is very hard to garner. What we do have is a bucketload of circumstantial evidence.

Now, repeat this scenario for most events (mysteries).

The human way ensures that just abut every Princess Di and 9/11 is scrutinised, both as part of jurisprudence, as well as by some just busting their titties wanting the conspiracy theories to live. It's all good.

The claimed 'cover-ups' (misinformation) require a monstrous quantity of people to remain unilaterally silent - forever. This is not possible. It never works. Humans blab. Their conscience gets them - whatever.

And so on and so on and so on ...

I believe 9/11 happened. I don't want to justify to you why. If you wish to show me why you disagree (point at a time), and not related to a compound theory that requires me to accept that other conspiracy theories, I'm listening.

Now, I ask politely, would you please say in one sentence, "I don't believe 9/11 necessarily happened as it is widely reported because ..."

Thanks. Just a synopsis in your words. No links. If you can grab me, I promise to check out your sources.Yes Howard, humans blab, and their consciense does get a hold of them, also govts seem fit to classify information for x no. of years, often 50.......but do we examine the documents when they become declassified?

With regards to the number of ppl keeping secrets over a long period of time, i refer you to the 'Manhatten Project' and the 'Tuskegee experiment', not to mention,the Holocaust kept 'quiet ' for many years during ww2(BECAUSE PPL DID 'NOT WANT TO HEAR'?).Also as im sure you agree many new technology is kept 'quiet' decades before it comes to public notice eg.TV,Stealth bomber etc.
It also must be considered that a top-down - need to know- structure may allow grand conspiricies to work, and see how whistleblowers are either demonised, extorted,threatened or even killed...dr.kelly comes to mind here.

With 9/11 i need to write a 10,000 word essay at least, a book even, to encapsulate the flaws ,joining the dots to present a credible argument.

Currently i see more value in establishing the dots first, before attempts at joining them together .

I think we need to start from elemental axiomatic principles ie. tyranny is the norm in human history and question the mantras that "govt is good" ,"govt wouldnt harm us" ,"govt wouldnt lie to us on grand scale", "highest level corruption is only the domain of the conspiracy nuts"

Take a scholarly look at human elites throughout human history, and their documented ideas,plans and motives.

Years ago one was a 'nut' if they asserted that the bilderberg group even existed!, that microchipping animals let alone humans was 'crazy and paranoid'.

So some of todays 'moonbat' proposals are tomorrows reality,....im seeking brilliant detectives, brilliant investigative journos to get ahead of our time.

LETS GET PAST THE CONDITIONED KNEE JERK RESPONSES TO THESE MATTERS!



I also notice no one has proffered their trusted news sources ,requested by me some time ago, most likely as not one fits that criteria of trustworthy!,which brings us full circle back to my current position.

re. 9/11 im merely in total questioning -investigative mode, studying the history of govt false flag terror,history of human tyranny, and some very curious and inconsistent elements of that fateful day.

Basil
03-03-2007, 09:16 PM
Yes Howard, humans blab, and their consciense does get a hold of them
So we are agreed on that point. In that light, it is very hard to lid a conspiracy, let alone thousands of them that supposedly surround us.


also govts seem fit to classify information for x no. of years, often 50 - but do we examine the documents when they become declassified?
I believe they are scrutinised by historians, journalists, conspiracy theorists and people whose ancestors and relatives have a genuine appetite for a particular topic, so 'yes'.


With regards to the number of ppl keeping secrets over a long period of time, i refer you to the 'Manhatten Project' and the 'Tuskegee experiment', not to mention,the Holocaust kept 'quiet ' for many years during ww2 (BECAUSE PPL DID 'NOT WANT TO HEAR'?).
I disagree. The fear of the nazi regime is a great way to zip ppl's mouths. The 'not want to hear' came after the evidence was put in front of them after the war. A classic case AGAINST what you are suggesting, viz in the light of reasonable evidence, people not believing.


Also as im sure you agree many new technology is kept 'quiet' decades before it comes to public notice eg.TV,Stealth bomber etc.
I do agree. But I don't think that proves John Howard and Kevin Rudd are lovers and they were pilots 13 and 14.


It also must be considered that a top-down - need to know- structure may allow grand conspiricies to work, and see how whistleblowers are either demonised, extorted,threatened or even killed...dr.kelly comes to mind here.

Sure, but none of this is proof of what you suggest.


Currently i see more value in establishing the dots first, before attempts at joining them together.
Fair enough. I agreed on day one of this debate that you may wish to do that. But so far, I have not accepted any dot exists or at least has been joined. I did ask you to complete a sentence as best you could. I would appreciate your having a go at that.

Axiom
03-03-2007, 10:08 PM
This reminds me of the line offered by cryptozoologists:



The problem cryptos have is that while their first premise is true, their strike rate is abysmal - most of the new species they talk about are never found and most of the new species that are found are ones they never talked about. New species are generally found not by cryptos swallowing dodgy local myths but by scientists.

Ditto for conspiracy theorists - real conspiracies do sometimes exist, but most of those claimed by conspiracy theorists are nonsense, and most of those that are found were never claimed by conspiracy theorists.

So the starting point for anyone who wants to find real conspiracies should be answering these questions:

1. What claimed conspiracies have been proven to be true?
2. By what methods were these conspiracies most frequently proven, especially relative to the amount of effort invested in various methods?

Anyone who can answer 2 may have a better idea of how to look for real conspiracies.
KB- if strike rate is so crucial, then research scientists and detectives would question their whole raison d'etre.When searching for gold,we dont lament the huge mounds of dirt oncovered.(within economical reason of course, but you understand my analogy)

by adressing Q.1. i wonder what you would consider proof? consensus acceptance?
re. Q.2 .eg.1 President Nixon exposed via 'deepthroat'......insider,whistleblower.

eg.2. attack on u.s liberty by israelis(false flag) ,again ,insider whistleblowers, ie admirals of us navy admitting this on video!(see dvd 'Terrorstorm')

eg.3 existance of secret elite meetings , now accepted as consensus fact , eg, bilderberg group,bohemian grove.

eg4. idea that elite agenda is one world govt(NWO) , Countless quotes from their own lips ,stating unequivocably that this is the goal(see d.rockerfellers book "memoirs', and nwo quotes at start of globalisation thread))

eg5.microchipping humans!, years ago youd be locked up for saying this would/will happpen,...now it is (see prof,brown trials at reading university uk)

Axiom
03-03-2007, 10:52 PM
So we are agreed on that point. In that light, it is very hard to lid a conspiracy, let alone thousands of them that supposedly surround us.


I believe they are scrutinised by historians, journalists, conspiracy theorists and people whose ancestors and relatives have a genuine appetite for a particular topic, so 'yes'.


I disagree. The fear of the nazi regime is a great way to zip ppl's mouths. The 'not want to hear' came after the evidence was put in front of them after the war. A classic case AGAINST what you are suggesting, viz in the light of reasonable evidence, people not believing.


I do agree. But I don't think that proves John Howard and Kevin Rudd are lovers and they were pilots 13 and 14.


Sure, but none of this is proof of what you suggest.


Fair enough. I agreed on day one of this debate that you may wish to do that. But so far, I have not accepted any dot exists or at least has been joined. I did ask you to complete a sentence as best you could. I would appreciate your having a go at that.
Exactly, "the FEAR of the nazis" this same fear/threat dynamic still exists, and the few 'stray whistleblowers' as i said, are either a victim of a discreditation campaign via the 4th estate ,extorted or disappeared.
And yes a great example of people NOT BELIEVING in light of overwhelming evidence,cuts both ways.

'proof' is at the centre of this discussion/debate...firstly, what constitutes proof, where do we seek it, where do we trust it, and where and how is it examined!

..and to your final question,to outline the summary that undermines the official story of 9/11, it may require a short book, to counter all the likely counter-attacks, but give me a little time, i will give you at least a crystalised version, if that helps.

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2007, 10:56 PM
KB- if strike rate is so crucial, then research scientists and detectives would question their whole raison d'etre.When searching for gold,we dont lament the huge mounds of dirt oncovered.(within economical reason of course, but you understand my analogy)

But we don't have to (I say this as a scientist who discovers new species frequently, albeit little ones, but there are still large ones being found by scientists) - our strike rate for the effort put in and the difficulty of the task at hand is decent, while the cryptos have a very high noise to signal ratio and are pretty much wasting their time.

Also, if you're searching for gold, then you at least learn how to differentiate it from iron pyrites first, rather than getting all excited whenever you see something that vaguely looks like it!


by adressing Q.1. i wonder what you would consider prove? consensus acceptance?

I'll accept any of the following:

* Court finding that the conspiracy occurred that has stood for an adequate time without being overturned on appeal.
* Unchallenged confession by the conspirators. Must be unambiguous!
* General acceptance by formally qualified independent commentators who are not normally conspiracy theorists.


re. Q.2 .eg.1 President Nixon exposed via 'deepthroat'......insider,whistleblower.

Yes, this is a valid example. There are many examples where whistleblower insiders have dismantled real conspiracies. But there are also many cases where so-called whistleblowers have their facts wrong or are motivated by grudges. In my state, most conspiracy theories concern forestry. There was a whistleblower submission to an enquiry that many greens continue to praise, but the Premier responded to it in parliament in great detail, and no-one seems to have tried to debunk his response. I ask them all the time whether they can debunk it and none of them ever try to do so. So I will only accept whistleblower "evidence" where it is later confirmed by one of the methods above.


eg.3 existance of secret elite meetings , now accepted as consensus fact , eg, bilderberg group,bohemian grove.

Yes, but while the Bilderberg Group is now an accepted fact, its actual influence is probably nothing like as great as what conspiracy theorists predicted. Ronson is very good on this because he actually interviews some Bilderbergers who speak candidly and believably (to me anyway) about the group's real nature and influence.


eg4. idea that elite agenda is one world govt(NWO) , Countless quotes from their own lips ,stating unequivocably that this is the goal(see d.rockerfellers book "memoirs', and nwo quotes at start of globalisation thread))

Sure, many politicians and other public figures have promoted the idea. But a stated personal view and active conspiracy are not the same thing.


eg5.microchipping humans!, years ago youd be locked up for saying this would/will happpen,...now it is (see prof,brown trials at reading university uk)

But to this stage for very different reasons. There are some commercial trials with it as a way to keep track of medical records of consenting patients. It is unpopular with doctors and patients alike and has been a flop on the stock market.

(I am concerned that surveillance technology will increasingly be used selectively to create power imbalances, and this is a good issue for civil libertarians to be keeping an eye on. But that's not the same as claiming a specific conspiracy relating to such items exists.)

Basil
03-03-2007, 11:28 PM
...and to your final question, to outline the summary that undermines the official story of 9/11, it may require a short book
I def can't be reading short books as a summary!


... to counter all the likely counter-attacks...
You don't need to counter any future attacks when talking to me. Ignore the trolls and just gimme the proposition. K? If you're concerned about my objections, we'll get to them in good time.


... but give me a little time, i will give you at least a crystalised version, if that helps.
Roger that.

What I need is:

I don't subscribe to the popularly held belief on XYZ, because:

1) There is reasonable doubt as to the veracity of premise 'A' because Fred Nurk has/ says 'M', and
2) There is reasonable doubt as to the veracity of premise 'B' because the evidence 'N' has been reasonably discredited.

No theories!!!!!! :eek: Thanks :P Just the facts please.

Axiom
03-03-2007, 11:41 PM
But we don't have to (I say this as a scientist who discovers new species frequently, albeit little ones, but there are still large ones being found by scientists) - our strike rate for the effort put in and the difficulty of the task at hand is decent, while the cryptos have a very high noise to signal ratio and are pretty much wasting their time.

Also, if you're searching for gold, then you at least learn how to differentiate it from iron pyrites first, rather than getting all excited whenever you see something that vaguely looks like it!



I'll accept any of the following:

* Court finding that the conspiracy occurred that has stood for an adequate time without being overturned on appeal.
* Unchallenged confession by the conspirators. Must be unambiguous!
* General acceptance by formally qualified independent commentators who are not normally conspiracy theorists.



Yes, this is a valid example. There are many examples where whistleblower insiders have dismantled real conspiracies. But there are also many cases where so-called whistleblowers have their facts wrong or are motivated by grudges. In my state, most conspiracy theories concern forestry. There was a whistleblower submission to an enquiry that many greens continue to praise, but the Premier responded to it in parliament in great detail, and no-one seems to have tried to debunk his response. I ask them all the time whether they can debunk it and none of them ever try to do so. So I will only accept whistleblower "evidence" where it is later confirmed by one of the methods above.



Yes, but while the Bilderberg Group is now an accepted fact, its actual influence is probably nothing like as great as what conspiracy theorists predicted. Ronson is very good on this because he actually interviews some Bilderbergers who speak candidly and believably (to me anyway) about the group's real nature and influence.



Sure, many politicians and other public figures have promoted the idea. But a stated personal view and active conspiracy are not the same thing.



But to this stage for very different reasons. There are some commercial trials with it as a way to keep track of medical records of consenting patients. It is unpopular with doctors and patients alike and has been a flop on the stock market.

(I am concerned that surveillance technology will increasingly be used selectively to create power imbalances, and this is a good issue for civil libertarians to be keeping an eye on. But that's not the same as claiming a specific conspiracy relating to such items exists.)
I'm heartened by your responses, as i really want to stay clear of the conclusions, and quantum leap jumping to which you refer.You at least accept many facts, that others would simply dismiss.......and i agree that like the boiling frog ,high tech surveilance is a creeping menace and should be of great concern to libertarians

Basil
03-03-2007, 11:50 PM
... and i agree that like the boiling frog ,high tech surveilance is a creeping menace and should be of great concern to libertarians


I am concerned that surveillance technology will increasingly be used selectively to create power imbalances, and this is a good issue for civil libertarians to be keeping an eye on.

Point of order, lest an urban myth is perpetuated in my presence ;)

'Big Brother' is more of an evolution. Similar to cancer, it exists as a result and by-product of human behaviour.

There is no, I repeat NO 'special' squad sitting in a cave in Hertfordshire, the ACT or Arizona planning world domination or destruction (unless Sprouty has a confession ;))

It is quite possible that individuals or groups may try and take advantage of this; but only because the 'Brother' exists, not because they designed it that way.

OK, everybody carry on, thanks.

Kevin Bonham
04-03-2007, 02:29 AM
I agree with Howard's post and that was the purpose of my comment "But that's not the same as claiming a specific conspiracy relating to such items exists".


You at least accept many facts, that others would simply dismiss.......and i agree that like the boiling frog ,high tech surveilance is a creeping menace and should be of great concern to libertarians

Aaaargh, not the boiling frog again! :wall: :wall: :wall:

I was going to point out that the boiling frog is an urban myth, though on checking I find that there is still some debate about it. Some 19th century experiments did get the result claimed, but only when the rate of heating was incredibly slow (fractions of a degree per minute). In more recent experiments the frog has consistently jumped out, although the heating was somewhat less slow (about a degree per minute).

What concerns me is that the "boiling frog" adage is so widely spread by people who have no idea about whether or not it is true. Ditto with the "lemming suicide" story which is most definitely twaddle.

Axiom
04-03-2007, 02:43 AM
I agree with Howard's post and that was the purpose of my comment "But that's not the same as claiming a specific conspiracy relating to such items exists".



Aaaargh, not the boiling frog again! :wall: :wall: :wall:

I was going to point out that the boiling frog is an urban myth, though on checking I find that there is still some debate about it. Some 19th century experiments did get the result claimed, but only when the rate of heating was incredibly slow (fractions of a degree per minute). In more recent experiments the frog has consistently jumped out, although the heating was somewhat less slow (about a degree per minute).

What concerns me is that the "boiling frog" adage is so widely spread by people who have no idea about whether or not it is true. Ditto with the "lemming suicide" story which is most definitely twaddle.
I agree that using the 'lemming' analogy undermines ones argument due to its abject falseness. But the boiling frog with tiny increments of increased heat ,still stands, as supported by your citings. I have been told i use analogies alot in rl, and actually love the way,they can economically convey a message not so easily done otherwise(i speak here of the more spontaineous inventive ones,which one reaches for to communicate otherwise tricky or complex ideas) . And yes the boiling frog one is done to death (so to speak!),but still quickly(although some may say lazily) conveys the intended message.

Axiom
04-03-2007, 02:48 AM
Point of order, lest an urban myth is perpetuated in my presence ;)

'Big Brother' is more of an evolution. Similar to cancer, it exists as a result and by-product of human behaviour.

There is no, I repeat NO 'special' squad sitting in a cave in Hertfordshire, the ACT or Arizona planning world domination or destruction (unless Sprouty has a confession ;))

It is quite possible that individuals or groups may try and take advantage of this; but only because the 'Brother' exists, not because they designed it that way.

OK, everybody carry on, thanks. i agree mostly with this, only to say that those who would want to take advantage of it,dont stand as idly by as you contend, but actually take some proactive part in its evolution.

Axiom
04-03-2007, 02:53 AM
I def can't be reading short books as a summary!


You don't need to counter any future attacks when talking to me. Ignore the trolls and just gimme the proposition. K? If you're concerned about my objections, we'll get to them in good time.


Roger that.

What I need is:

I don't subscribe to the popularly held belief on XYZ, because:

1) There is reasonable doubt as to the veracity of premise 'A' because Fred Nurk has/ says 'M', and
2) There is reasonable doubt as to the veracity of premise 'B' because the evidence 'N' has been reasonably discredited.

No theories!!!!!! :eek: Thanks :P Just the facts please.yes ,will respond to your request later today........and will be interested to see in which context you deal/respond to it.

Axiom
05-03-2007, 12:48 PM
What I need is:

I don't subscribe to the popularly held belief on XYZ, because:

1) There is reasonable doubt as to the veracity of premise 'A' because Fred Nurk has/ says 'M', and
2) There is reasonable doubt as to the veracity of premise 'B' because the evidence 'N' has been reasonably discredited.

No theories!!!!!! :eek: Thanks :P Just the facts please.
I'll choose an easy one!

I dont subscribe to the popularly held belief that arab terrorists or 'civil war' activists are planting and blowing up all the roadside bombs in iraq,because
1)British army/sas/intelligence ops were caught red handed dressed as arabs planting bombs in basra
2)They were arrested and imprisoned by iraqi basra police
3)The british army went in with a tank and swat style team to smash into the prison and 'rescued' them........This was well reported on mainstream news at the time with video footage!

If you want a run down on the top ten govt false flag events, alex jones is covering them today (all day) on his sunday radio show,access via www.*******s.com

also please see dvd 'terrorstorm', free on google........the false flag attack on the u.s liberty is well covered, with video footage of u.s admirals directly,unambiguously admitting it direct from their very mouths!

Once you can 'open the door' on this phenomena of false flag,,much more awaits you!

No one surely would assert that govt has NEVER EVER embarked on a false flag style terror/attack event,WOULD THEY?

Axiom
05-03-2007, 01:36 PM
10 False Flags that Changed the World


Sunday, March 4, 2007

Blogger Joe Crubaugh has just finished an excellent series posted on his blog, Hard-Boiled Dreams of the World;

10 False Flags that Changed the World

10. Nero, Christians, and the Great Fire of Rome

9. Remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain

8. The Manchurian Incident

7. Secrets of the Reichstag Fire

6. Fake Invasion at Gleiwitz

5. The Myth of Pearl Harbor

4. Israeli Terrorist Cell Uncovered in Egypt

3. U.S.-Sponsored Terrorism: Operation Northwoods

2. Phantoms in the Gulf of Tonkin

{{drumroll}}

NUMBER ONE

The September 11, 2001 Attacks

for details of each ,click on each one at http://www.************.com/articles/march2007/040307Flags.htm highly recommend ! much historical detail,with many critiques

C'mon give it a go! ,
investigative historian's comments most welcome,as well as any studious analyst's.
(i think the attack on us liberty should be included as well,as is well supported by documented evidence,and the OKC bombing(currently ex fbi head pushing for re opening inquiry)but perhaps down this author's list of importance?)

Desmond
05-03-2007, 02:03 PM
Speaking of top 10 lists, I would interested to hear Ax's top 10 of greatest lies ever told...

Axiom
05-03-2007, 02:12 PM
Speaking of top 10 lists, I would interested to hear Ax's top 10 of greatest lies ever told... first take a look at my link above, and you might uncover a few yourself!

Boris i sincerely hope you are not a knee jerk naysayer ,with your 'truths' set in concrete,unwilling to question or investigate your belief set.

Boris- could you tell me your trusted news sources please,and whether you think a false flag event has ever occured in history? Thankyou.

PS. And determining lies as you well know is the same as determining truth!(flipside of the same 'coin'!)

Basil
05-03-2007, 02:26 PM
Thanks


I dont subscribe to the popularly held belief that arab terrorists or 'civil war' activists are planting and blowing up all the roadside bombs in iraq,because
1)British army/sas/intelligence ops were caught red handed dressed as arabs planting bombs in basra
I've read about this. Let us assume for the sake of your broader point that the Brits were doing exactly as was reported. Now:
A reasonable explanation that they were dressed as such is that they wished to go undetected as Brits while planting bombs while in enemy territory. That's good enough for me.

However, probing further ...

Let's say (for the broader point) that their motive was one of propaganda. It may well be an isolated and misjudged attempt at subversion; and this doesn't prove to me your original assertion that insurgents aren't blowing up civilians on a daily basis.


2)They were arrested and imprisoned by iraqi basra police
OK. This doesn't prove that insurgents aren't blowing up civilians on a daily basis.



3)The british army went in with a tank and swat style team to smash into the prison and 'rescued' them ... This was well reported on mainstream news at the time with video footage!
At very most, I'm prepared to accept that the exercise was a media stunt. This doesn't prove that insurgents aren't blowing up civilians on a daily basis.

And developing ...

To make sense of your suggestion; if the insurgents aren't doing the civvy bombings, I'm assuming you're suggesting that Evil George and his evil henchmen having been perpetuating these bombings. Where is hhe getting the willing bombers from?

Thanks for presenting your position, Ax. I don't buy one jot of it.

Axiom
05-03-2007, 02:39 PM
Thanks


I've read about this. Let us assume for the sake of your broader point that the Brits were doing exactly as was reported. Now:
A reasonable explanation that they were dressed as such is that they wished to go undetected as Brits while planting bombs while in enemy territory. That's good enough for me.

However, probing further ...

Let's say (for the broader point) that their motive was one of propaganda. It may well be an isolated and misjudged attempt at subversion; and this doesn't prove to me your original assertion that insurgents aren't blowing up civilians on a daily basis.


OK. This doesn't prove that insurgents aren't blowing up civilians on a daily basis.



At very most, I'm prepared to accept that the exercise was a media stunt. This doesn't prove that insurgents aren't blowing up civilians on a daily basis.

And developing ...

To make sense of your suggestion; if the insurgents aren't doing the civvy bombings, I'm assuming you're suggesting that Evil George and his evil henchmen having been perpetuating these bombings. Where is hhe getting the willing bombers from?

Thanks for presenting your position, Ax. I don't buy one jot of it.
my original premise did include the important word "ALL"
So i simply presented a counter case as per your request, i was not implying that no iraqi defenders or 'insurgents' plant bombs!

Im simply showing this as an example ,albeit relatively minor one of false flag terror........like what the hell were the british doing planting roadside bombs?????-to blow up the enemy?? cmon!?,caught red handed,imprisoned!,then freed by the british!!??

i ask you to see my above link re top ten false flag events ....PLEASE!......if you dont find one jot of that interesting,then i give in :)

Axiom
05-03-2007, 02:47 PM
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

And the link to where I got the links from-
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76025
i will be giving my critique of these sites shortly.
Does james randi question 'official stories' as well as the 'unofficial' ones, with the same level of scrutiny? i guess i'll soon discover!

Basil
05-03-2007, 03:12 PM
my original premise did include the important word "ALL"
OK. Misunderstanding. I will say that with the re-reading, your claim seems much less sensational. You are saying that the Brits were caught planting a bomb. OK? SO? My expplanations were more than reasobale I believe.

You are saying that the very media which is "in on the misinformation/ cover-up/ lies", outed the Brits as planting a bomb. You can't have it both ways. On one hand you say that the media is part of the cover-up and can't be trusted, and yet on the other,

You rely on the same media to expose the lie. I noted as much when I visited some of the conspiracy links. They accuse mainstream media of being part of the problem, and then go on to cite the same meanstream media as providing evidence to support their claim. I find your whole position circular and selective.


Im simply showing this as an example, ... like what the hell were the british doing planting roadside bombs? To blow up the enemy?? cmon!?, caught red handed, imprisoned!, then freed by the british!!??
I've answered that directly. I've also put a direct proposition to you, which you have avoided with rhetorical questions. Are you saying that the British were attempting to kill civvies and pass the act off as that of insurgents?

Axiom
05-03-2007, 03:24 PM
OK. Misunderstanding. I will say that with the re-reading, your claim seems much less sensational. You are saying that the Brits were caught planting a bomb. OK? SO? My expplanations were more than reasobale I believe.

You are saying that the very media which is "in on the misinformation/ cover-up/ lies", outed the Brits as planting a bomb. You can't have it both ways. On one hand you say that the media is part of the cover-up and can't be trusted, and yet on the other,

You rely on the same media to expose the lie. I noted as much when I visited some of the conspiracy links. They accuse mainstream media of being part of the problem, and then go on to cite the same meanstream media as providing evidence to support their claim. I find your whole position circular and selective.


I've answered that directly. I've also put a direct proposition to you, which you have avoided with rhetorical questions. Are you saying that the British were attempting to kill civvies and pass the act off as that of insurgents?
firstly i make no such blanket claim that ALL mainstream media content is to be distrusted,simply its use as a source of propaganda,and how they fail generally to properly inform us.....sometimes they simply cannot avoid 'the bleedin' obvious'! eg.the above referred to 'basra backfire'!

on your proposition to me, i would say , i cannot naturally be sure either way, but what i am saying is false flag terror is real!,and this may well be a small example of one.

Again i ask ,do you believe that a false flag terror event has ever occured in history?
please go to that top ten page, i challenge anyone not to gain at least a grain of interest or insight.

Basil
05-03-2007, 03:39 PM
firstly i make no such blanket claim that ALL mainstream media content is to be distrusted,
I stand corrected. I was certain you were claiming that.


simply its use as a source of propaganda, and the how they fail generally to properly inform us
Generally? Here we go again. Vague. Combining your first two statements are you saying that the media is broadly 10% or 90% misinformation? Are you asking whether we can trust it on balance?


sometimes they simply cannot avoid 'the bleedin' obvious'! eg.the above referred to 'basra backfire'!
But the mainstream media reported it! :wall: :wall: :wall:


on your proposition to me, i would say, i cannot naturally be sure either way,
So you don't have any proof! 10 minutes ago you cited this as a bona fide example! :wall: :wall: :wall:


but what i am saying is false flag terror is real!
Prove it! :wall: :wall: :wall:


Again i ask, do you believe that a false flag terror event has ever occured in history? Yes. It's human nature. Lefties. Righties. Business crooks. Dole Bludgers. Even spastics! Whites. Blacks.

None of this proves a conspiracy!!! :wall: :wall: :wall:

Axiom
05-03-2007, 04:14 PM
I stand corrected. I was certain you were claiming that.


Generally? Here we go again. Vague. Combining your first two statements are you saying that the media is broadly 10% or 90% misinformation? Are you asking whether we can trust it on balance?


But the mainstream media reported it! :wall: :wall: :wall:


So you don't have any proof! 10 minutes ago you cited this as a bona fide example! :wall: :wall: :wall:


Prove it! :wall: :wall: :wall:

Yes. It's human nature. Lefties. Righties. Business crooks. Dole Bludgers. Even spastics! Whites. Blacks.

None of this proves a conspiracy!!! :wall: :wall: :wall:
ok, so its human nature that conspiracies exist, so what is it i have to prove??

which ones do and which ones dont exist?....that is the interesting investigative path im trying to encourage curious readers to travel!

ok, hd, so did you read that link above on top ten ff ? and click on some of them to get history perspective ,and others critiques on this info?

im simply saying investigate a broad spectrum of news/history and at the very least it has to be of some interest to some one out there!

Basil
05-03-2007, 04:27 PM
ok, so its human nature that conspiracies exist, so what is it i have to prove??
THE BIG ONE!
as originally asserted in your first post

Or any particular one you chose. You haven't done that so far.

Axiom
05-03-2007, 04:43 PM
THE BIG ONE!
as originally asserted in your first post

Or any particular one you chose. You haven't done that so far.
i did not assert that it was my aim to prove anything, other than explore and investigate a broader information spectrum, which includes real aspects of human existance ,like conspiricies, which we both agree exist,........i gave you my example of brits dressed as arabs planting roadside bombs as an eg. of false flag terror, and still ask you to read on more of the history of govt sponsored ff terror(top ten ,above)..........and if youre talking the big one, that was an opening gambit!........as it 'could' be a final chapter in a long history of this practice....

i really want to make it clear, it is in no way my primary purpose to 'prove' any theory, but simply to direct interested parties towards information which they themselves must 1st read,2nd,study,3rd investigate/research.THEN DISCUSS !.....my gripe is that credible info is denied to too many for too long.
I am confident that from the 100 or so viewers here everyday ,that i have sparked interest from more than a couple ,who may have chosen to examine more closely,an area of study, i for one find fascinating and illuminating.

but having said all that, im very happy to debate anyone on any topic (just for the academic fun of it all)who has at least read the material !.....and if you still want my opening salvo on WTC7 ,Then you shall have it.,But still more foundations need be made.

Axiom
05-03-2007, 10:47 PM
Children of 11 to be fingerprinted (but hey! -"its all good" said the incremental heater to the frog!)

Did you read/hear about this story via your tv,radio or newspapers? .....Not important enough?......hmmm

London Times | March 4, 2007
David Leppard

CHILDREN aged 11 to 16 are to have their fingerprints taken and stored on a secret database, internal Whitehall documents reveal.

The leaked Home Office plans show that the mass fingerprinting will start in 2010, with a batch of 295,000 youngsters who apply for passports.

The Home Office expects 545,000 children aged 11 and over to have their prints taken in 2011, with the figure settling at an annual 495,000 from 2014. Their fingerprints will be held on a database also used by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to store the fingerprints of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers.

The plans are outlined in a series of “restricted” documents circulating among officials in the Identity and Passport Service. They form part of the programme for the introduction of new biometric passports and ID cards.

Opposition politicians and privacy campaigners warn that the plans show ministers are turning Britain into a “surveillance society”.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: “This borders on the sinister and it shows the government is trying to end the presumption of innocence. With the fingerprinting of all our children, this government is clearly determined to enforce major changes in the relationship between the citizen and the state in a way never seen before.”

Under the new passport and ID scheme, everyone over 16 who applies for a passport will have their details — including fingerprints and eye or facial scans — added to the National Identity Register from next year.

From October 2009, ID cards will be issued alongside new passports. Initially these will not be mandatory, but Tony Blair has said that if Labour is reelected it will make them compulsory, a process that the documents predict will take just over a decade.

Children under 16 will not be part of the ID card scheme. But the documents show that from 2010 they will still have to be fingerprinted for a new passport.

The prints will initially be stored on the directorate's database. Once children reach 16 their fingerprints and other personal information will be passed for storage on the register, along with those of nearly 50m adults.

Children applying for passports will have to travel up to 80 miles to special Home Office screening centres to have their fingerprints taken.

The leaked plans envisage 90 new enrolment centres for the ID card scheme on top of the existing network of passport offices. They estimate that it will cost &#163;528m over 10 years in travel costs for the 5.75m people expected to apply for a new passport each year.

The documents also spell out how the cost of passports is set to rise again this year. They say that unless the Home Office can get extra funding for the scheme, the cost of an adult passport will rise by &#163;10 to &#163;76 this October.

The cost will have risen by 81% since December 2005 when it increased from &#163;42 to &#163;51. Last October the price rose again to &#163;66. When Labour came to power in 1997 a passport cost &#163;18.

The plans show that the price of a child's passport is to rise even more sharply, to &#163;58 from the present &#163;45. The price will have more than doubled in less than two years, rising in stages from &#163;25 to &#163;34 in December 2005 and to &#163;45 last October.

Critics described the plans as a stealth tax on holidaymakers to pay for the controversial ID cards scheme. Ministers have already conceded that the cost of the new combined ID card and passport will be &#163;93 from 2009, but the documents show that price could rise to &#163;109 at to-day's prices.

A range of further “stealth charges” will also be imposed, according to the documents. Women who change their names if they get married will have to pay &#163;36; a further &#163;27 will be charged to replace a lost or stolen ID card; &#163;26 to replace a damaged card; and &#163;6 for a change of address or personal ID number.

The documents show that ID cards will not be made compulsory for more than a decade, under present plans. “Compulsion will be triggered once 80% take-up is achieved in [the first quarter of] 2019,” they state. “It is assumed that, following compulsion, a 100% registration will be achieved two years later.”

The prime minister has hailed the ID cards scheme as the centrepiece of efforts to combat terrorism and illegal immigration, as well as identity theft and benefit fraud. But opponents dismiss it as a “Big Brother” scheme that is too expensive, poorly planned and unlikely to function efficiently.

Last year leaked e-mails from civil servants warned the scheme could be a “botched operation” that could delay the introduction of ID cards for a generation. The government says the scheme will cost &#163;6 billion to implement. However, in 2005, the London School of Economics estimated it would cost &#163;19 billion.

The Tories have pledged to scrap the scheme if they win the next election.

Basil
05-03-2007, 10:58 PM
Bring it on!

Do you draw a conclusion or have commentary on this?

Axiom
05-03-2007, 11:16 PM
"Theres no corruption,our govt is goooooooooood,our media informs us of the really important issues of the day,4million cctvs In london is gooooooood,cameras in school toilets is just fine,national i.d is goooooooooood,govt wouldnt lie or harm us,our representative govt has our best wishes at heart,oh sure theres always a few bad apples,always a little bit of corruption,but really, you chicken littles are always looking for the worst in human nature,oh, yes i know tyranny is the norm, but not today,not in the west, it just cant happen......microchipping children -its great! its for their safety afterall,i mean what have you got hide?,cameras microchips everywhere-cant wait,it will be soooooo cool,........i mean, if youve nothing to hide,whats the problem?"
OK, as long as we can have cameras on and microchip the authorities as well.........afterall youve got nothing to hide have you?? ahem ...have you?

Brings to mind that classic twilight zone episode, about mr wordsworth the librarian ,about to be executed as he no longer 'served as a function to the state' ! A fantastic short story ,crystalising this very essence of the fundamental dynamic between the controllers and the controlled..........im sorry i dont have the name of the episode,but could be easily found,..anyone recall it?......if you havent seen it, its brilliant.



oh and now for some relatively trivial info.......
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?

Axiom
05-03-2007, 11:23 PM
Bring it on!

Do you draw a conclusion or have commentary on this?
yes, its just another tiny incremental progression towards mass data bases of human identification,including bio metric national id, leading in decades to mandatory microchipping of all babies.............just extrapolate,based on ,well based on everything ,you can possibly damn well know!!....and after all it will be fun and cool, and like, everyones just gotta have it right?.......i mean hey,youve got nothing to hide have you?

Axiom
05-03-2007, 11:42 PM
Well well well, who would have guessed?(and yes ,i do have a theory on this! :))
..afterall its better we fight them over there ,isnt it? ("oh,and dont keep bringing up how our borders are wide open, thats irrelevant !!") LOL
from the London Independant http://www.*******s.com/articles/terror/war_on_terror_leading_cause_of_terrorism.htm

Axiom
06-03-2007, 06:11 PM
Just some more kooks questioning the 'official story' ;)

http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport
(A DETAILED ARTICLE,NAMING NAMES AND OUTLINING EACH'S VIEW)

Desmond
07-03-2007, 12:34 PM
I have a theory that *******s.com is actually propped up by the government to serve red herrings to suspicious minds.

Axiom
07-03-2007, 04:33 PM
I have a theory that *******s.com is actually propped up by the government to serve red herrings to suspicious minds.
This is an interesting aspect i have thought about,but before i respond, i would like to know if you have listened to the show? and if so ,how much, and if youve followed-up any particular story. Thankyou Boris.

Axiom
07-03-2007, 04:45 PM
TODAY ON THE
ALEX JONES SHOW tune in free via www.*******s.com

Mike Rivero


Alex welcomes Hollywood Special Effects Expert and the editor of independent news site whatreallyhappened.com to discuss a recently unearthed photo of WTC 7 that he believes reveals staged fires

Related Information:

Photo Suggests Building 7 Fires Staged?

What Really Happened


Captain Field McConnell


Alex welcomes Top Gun Military/Commercial Pilot Field McConnell to discuss his 9/11 cover-up discoveries and his new documentary, 9/11 Solved.

Related Information:

Northwest Pilot Alleges 9/11 Cover-Up

Captain Sherlock Website

Hawks Cafe Website

Axiom
07-03-2007, 05:13 PM
9/11 Not First Example Of Media Scripting & Foreknowledge?
Were Oswald, Pearl Harbor details leaked ahead of time?

Prison Planet | March 6, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
The BBC and other news outlets reporting the collapse of WTC 7 in advance was not the first time in history that the media had pre-empted major events by reporting them before they happened. Did a newspaper in New Zealand report intricate details about Lee Harvey Oswald's connection to the JFK assassination before such knowledge was publicly available?

Our reports on the BBC Building 7 fiasco have gained overwhelming traction on the Internet but the establishment media has all but blacklisted the story.

As an addendum to the issue of the scripting and foreknowledge of major world events and how the official story is prepared ahead of the actual incident, we decided to take a brief look at a couple of other potential historical examples.

The assassination of John F. Kennedy occurred at 7:30am New Zealand time on November 23rd 1963. In November, New Zealand is 19 hours ahead of Central Standard Time in the U.S.

A newspaper in New Zealand, seemingly picking up information from wire reports, reported intricate details about Lee Harvey Oswald, including the description of his arrest, before he had been arrested in Texas.

Col Fletcher Prouty writes in his book the Guns of Dallas;

"I happened to be far away in New Zealand at the time of JFK's murder. I was on my way to breakfast with a member of Congress from Ohio. As soon as possible, we purchased the first newspaper available -- the Christchurch Star. It is amazing to re-read the front page of that paper today and find all of the detail, the remarkable detail, about Lee Harvey Oswald, about his service in the Marine Corps, about his living in Russia, about his Russian wife, and then the full scenario of the crime."

"Then one begins to wonder -- understanding full well the capability of modern-day communications and reporting -- who it was that was able in so short a time to come up with such a life history of so obscure a twenty-four-year-old "loner." Even the Dallas police had not charged him with any crime by the time that paper had hit the streets. In the crime scenario it states that two Dallas cops, J D Tippit and M N McDonald, had chased Oswald into a theater and that Tippit was shot dead "as he ran into the cinema." Who fabricated all of that news? Who was at the right place at that moment to flood the whole world with all of this news about Lee Harvey Oswald, when even the Dallas police weren't too sure of their man, they said, because he carried two identities (Oswald and Alek Hidell) in his pocket."

How was a newspaper able to assemble and print precise details about Lee Harvey Oswald before he had even been caught, unless a script had already been prepared for the media as soon as the assassination occurred?

Axiom
07-03-2007, 05:25 PM
"Tell a Lie That is Big Enough, and Repeat it Often Enough, and the Whole World Will Believe It.".....GOEBELLS

THE BIGGER THE LIE

During the years 1936-38, the National Socialist Party of Germany was seeking was whereby they might justify their military and social actions. Among other things, Adolph Hitler wanted possession of Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Poland; and he wanted to annihilate the Jewish race. Joseph Goebells was assigned the responsibility of accomplishing these tasks, and that of creating good "reasons" for doing so. It was then that Goebells adopted the phrase: Tell a Lie That is Big Enough, and Repeat it Often Enough, and the Whole World Will Believe It. He assumed the world would not be gullible enough to believe "little lies," but the bigger the lie, the more likely it is that people would eventually accept it as true. By the use of misinformation, negative propaganda, movies, and various dramatic presentations, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda was successful beyond the generation's realization.

Goebells was right, at least about the "Big Lie." We have seen this to be true in politics, ethics, science, industry, and advertising. Make it big enough and repeat it often enough, and a lot of people will believe it. For decades there have been those proclaiming that man is merely the result of millions of years of EVOLUTION. You will see it in textbooks and magazines, hear it on PBS, "observe" it at the Smithsonian Institute, and be taught this theory at virtually every public school and university. In light of what everyone is told and taught, a 1991 Gallup Poll on religious beliefs in the United States revealed that an amazing 47% of the respondents declared their belief in God's creation of man within the last 10,000 years! But the Theory of Evolution is just that * a theory * and a theory with neither proof nor the capability of proof.

Evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith correctly commented, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." Dr. H.W. Conn said, "Evolution, by its very nature, is beyond the possibility of proof." The Bible says, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth," (Gen. 1:1). However, if you tell a big lie to enough people, some are going to accept it. Half of our population does believe it to this day, even though there is no mechanism * scientific or otherwise * to prove it. Perhaps the truly amazing thing is that not everyone believes it, given the blitz of publicity and teaching evolution receives. Maybe the population is not as gullible as we thought.


Also, "The best lies contain a measure of truth" (dont know who is attributed to this quote)

Axiom
07-03-2007, 05:49 PM
I don't need to read anyone else's POV to know that is not correct. Especially when there's a reasonable chance they know less about the subject than me! Regardless ...

It is true that some of the media do concentrate on the small stuff - they are commonly referred to as the 6 o'clock news and tabloid newspapers

This is so because of market forces. The same reason that page 3 girls, talk back radio and man-bites-dog stories sell. The audience has the attention / intellect of a flea. I can assure you the quest for ratings is a much greater motivator of what goes to air than any other theory you may wish to throw up.

Ax, I think you know this already. Perhaps it's just an inconvenient truth that doesn't fit your theory?

BUT IS IT THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG? Do people gravitate towards relative trivia because thats their primary interest, or is relative trivia promoted so they do gravitate to it?......i agree partly with what you say, but i dont undersell human's intellect as much as you do. I believe people really dont have viable choices when it comes to information gathering,and story priorities are set by ratings/circulation etc, but look at the ratings when 'big conspiracy stories ' are aired - see jfk ,diana death .enron, the oz govt wheat to saddam scandal !!..........i would argue ,when ppl are actually given the opportunity to access these high level mystery/crimes they come in their droves!.....Its just they simply dont have the channels open enough to have much choice in the information they recieve.(and i dont know if this is urban myth-but apparantly '4 corners' has a room filled with taped stories ,not allowed to be aired,this would not surprise me.......see the underground circulation of raymond hoser's books on victorian police corruption !)
__________________

Axiom
07-03-2007, 06:23 PM
Top Journalists Expose Major Cover-ups in Mass Media

MUST READ! - HD!! and other skeptics.





The riveting excerpts below from the revealing accounts of 20 award-winning journalists in the highly acclaimed book Into the Buzzsaw are essential reading for all who support democracy. These courageous writers were prevented by corporate ownership of the mass media from reporting major news stories. Some were even fired. These journalists have won numerous awards, including several Emmys and a Pulitzer. Help build a brighter future by spreading this news.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/massmedia

Kevin Bonham
07-03-2007, 06:29 PM
For decades there have been those proclaiming that man is merely the result of millions of years of EVOLUTION. You will see it in textbooks and magazines, hear it on PBS, "observe" it at the Smithsonian Institute, and be taught this theory at virtually every public school and university. In light of what everyone is told and taught, a 1991 Gallup Poll on religious beliefs in the United States revealed that an amazing 47% of the respondents declared their belief in God's creation of man within the last 10,000 years! But the Theory of Evolution is just that * a theory * and a theory with neither proof nor the capability of proof.

Ax, it doesn't impress me to see you effectively throwing in your lot with the creationists by posting stuff like this. Doesn't do wonders for your case for conspiracy theory as any kind of rational doctrine. Do you want me to post some links to refutations of this stuff?

Also, it's a salutory lesson in the past of conspiracy theory that while there was indeed a blatant conspiracy by the Nazis to lie to the people, some of the lies they told were in themselves claims of conspiracy! I'm not saying this to tar anyone with the same brush as the Nazis or otherwise breach Godwin's Law, but conspiracy theorists should not only examine the motives of mainstream leaders but also of other proponents of conspiracy theories. This is particularly important if the (at times rather large) racist fringe of the movement is to be discouraged.

Basil
07-03-2007, 06:36 PM
MUST READ! - HD!! and other skeptics
http://www.wanttoknow.info/massmedia

I've read it. I'm singularly unimpressed. The first paragraph was sensationalism at its worst and consisted entirely of rhetorical questions. The reporter should be sent to Channel 10 immediately.

Now, importantly, I've some read this literature that you've directed me to. It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It's hydrated hype. What did you get from it? You tell me, and I'll respectfully tell you where and why you've been led astray.

Please don't water down the strength of your opinion. It's been presented on the forum by you and presented on the net by the site as a major piece. It's not. It says nothing. It proves nothing.

Axiom
07-03-2007, 06:45 PM
No it's not. Some people are just planks. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?


No. They're planks. The hard stuff gets a go. Despite best ideals, it always gravitates to the lowest common denominator. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?


No. They don't. This BB proves both:
-- that sufficiently intelligent people exposed to *******s aren't interested, and
-- that the *******s information is readily available.
Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

Ax, we are going nowhere. We've established that some conspiracies exist So? It's human nature. No-one's shocked. Mainstream media reports. I believe your side is all about rhetorical questions.

When we did the British 'dressed up as insurgents thing', I spent time rebutting it - AND THEN it turned you weren't sure whether George Bush & Tony Blair (or others) were sanctioning murder for the sake of propaganda. You hang these things out there, and under specific scrutiny, you're not even sure yourself. I want a conspiracy that you think exists, where you have some evidence, not just a hunch that sounds plausible.

Please state the nature of your position again. Sum it up in a paragraph please. I don't need proof just yet. I just want to know what we're discussing. There are sufficient people on this BB claiming you haven't moved them one jot, with no-one supporting your position.

I really feel my time is being wasted. If we can't make progress soon, I'll be vacating my position on this discussion. Thanks.





my summary- is that ppl are significantly kept in the dark re important big stories, that the media is full of lies and propaganda, and only clever fine investigative detective-like scrutiny can reveal any furthering in insight and knowledge as to a more real understanding of truth and reality.

my position is not(yet) to prove anything,simply to expand awareness of the full spectrum of news available, not the narrow distortion in the mainstream(and yes ,of course they do cover some major stories too,its the way they prioritise and emphasise it,or simply distort or omit them- the best you could muster re the arab dressed brits planting bombs was that it was to blow up the enemy! cmon-you can see the obvious flaw there.I'M SIMPLY SAYING FALSE FLAG EXISTS, AND THAT QUITE LIKELY THAT WAS ONE EXAMPLE.

hd- did you read that top ten false flag article i posted link to?
can you please read the top journos outlining mass media cover ups in ithe ******* thread.

i am continually piling up material to support my position, are you actually reading any of it? have you researched any one story yet yourself?

hd- now please summarise your position, so we have a basis for discussion.
__________________

Axiom
07-03-2007, 06:55 PM
Ax, it doesn't impress me to see you effectively throwing in your lot with the creationists by posting stuff like this. Doesn't do wonders for your case for conspiracy theory as any kind of rational doctrine. Do you want me to post some links to refutations of this stuff?

Also, it's a salutory lesson in the past of conspiracy theory that while there was indeed a blatant conspiracy by the Nazis to lie to the people, some of the lies they told were in themselves claims of conspiracy! I'm not saying this to tar anyone with the same brush as the Nazis or otherwise breach Godwin's Law, but conspiracy theorists should not only examine the motives of mainstream leaders but also of other proponents of conspiracy theories. This is particularly important if the (at times rather large) racist fringe of the movement is to be discouraged.
i am an atheist,thus non creationist, and belief evolution theory ,the best we have ,but that does not mean i or anyone should just accept it,unquestioningly......and that is part of my aim here, to question the 'official' or 'consensus' reality.

and on the point of 'racism' that is the defence that allows mass race mixing ,against the will of the ppl,,,.....anyone opposing their race or culture being smashed ,divided and conquered at the behest of global corps, is to simply shout out ' you racist'!........i believe that many great causes from feminism to environmentalism to socialism to anti-racism have all been used by elites for their own ends.(but that is simply my opinion)

ps. i agree i want nothing to do with the creationists, and i do make errors, allowing some dirt to slip in with the gold,.....but this is part of the hazards of the digging.

Axiom
07-03-2007, 07:00 PM
I've read it. I'm singularly unimpressed. The first paragraph was sensationalism at its worst and consisted entirely of rhetorical questions. The reporter should be sent to Channel 10 immediately.

Now, importantly, I've some read this literature that you've directed me to. It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It's hydrated hype. What did you get from it? You tell me, and I'll respectfully tell you where and why you've been led astray.

Please don't water down the strength of your opinion. It's been presented on the forum by you and presented on the net by the site as a major piece. It's not. It says nothing. It proves nothing.
you read the whole thing??? from esteemed emmy award winning journalists???? really read it all??... its simply saying major stories are stopped from seeing the light of day! thats all i attempted to say, just trying to establish this important 'dot'

.....are you familiar with the famous william colby(head of cia) quote from 1954?

Axiom
07-03-2007, 07:08 PM
as per my post #136

how could one explain the indisputable fact that jfk's killer oswald was named in a nz newspaper hours before the actual shooting?

any takers?

Basil
07-03-2007, 07:49 PM
how could one explain the indisputable fact that jfk's killer oswald was named in a nz newspaper hours before the actual shooting
You're not serious.

Axiom
07-03-2007, 08:11 PM
You're not serious.
very serious, it is an undeniable fact, it is even posiible to get the actual dated nz newspaper article....if im wrong on this, then i renounce everything i stand for here.


hd- you admit you did not read the top ten ff events, and now ,honestly, did you read all of the piece on top journos exposing mass media cover ups?

Axiom
07-03-2007, 08:28 PM
19 fanatical muslims(drinking and cavorting in a strip club on 9/10!) directed from a cave in afghanistan armed with box-cutters defeated a trillion dollar defense system! ,colllapsing buildings at free fall speed,including one NOT hit by a plane! now that is some conspiracy theory!

now try this http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

remember court cases can be resolved on circumstantial evidence only!


no one has yet proferred their trusted news sources..curiously.

and do you scrutinise your news sources with the same fervour as the ones that dont seem to fit in with your 'official' stories?

and before you site the debunkers including popular mechanics ,be aware that debunking of the debunkers arguments exist too! i'll get to mr randi later!

look up 'yellow journalism' and you will see no.1 is hersch publishing.
see how bbc screwed up there 9/11 hit piece, by saying wtc7 took 60 odd secs to collapse when in reality it was 16 secs!, also caught out saying wtc7 had collapsed whilst standing in front of it still erected, then bbc say "theyve lost the tapes"!

Desmond
07-03-2007, 08:36 PM
This is an interesting aspect i have thought about,but before i respond, i would like to know if you have listened to the show? and if so ,how much, and if youve followed-up any particular story. Thankyou Boris.
This is irrelevant, and your habit of answering a question with more questions of your own is rapidly becoming tiresome.

Axiom
07-03-2007, 08:46 PM
This is irrelevant, and your habit of answering a question with more questions of your own is rapidly becoming tiresome.
its actually very relevant ,otherwise how credible is your question?

if you did listen to the show, you would experience the passion and sincerity with which alex tirelessly investigates his stories.,you would see how he combines history,fact,logic and clear analysis to reach conclusions that could not possibly serve govt interests, unless he is in fact obscuring even more earth shattering revelations!....no one can act that well! if so ,he should be in hollywood! for one thing.........ask yourself if his very damning claims against high ranking individuals are not true, why has no one sucessfully sued him(remember this is america!) for either defamation or slander ! ??

Kevin Bonham
07-03-2007, 09:07 PM
i am an atheist,thus non creationist, and belief evolution theory ,the best we have ,but that does not mean i or anyone should just accept it,unquestioningly......and that is part of my aim here, to question the 'official' or 'consensus' reality.

The piece you give doesn't question anything effectively. It simply asserts without evidence that evolution is "just a theory" (which is false as it is one of the best supported theories by evidence out there), and tries to use the success rate of extracurricular indoctrination (or the failure of secular education) as proof that evolution can't be real because ... half of America is too stupid to believe it!

The use of dated "evolutionist" quotes (frequently plucked out of context) against evolution is another common form of intellectual deceit practiced in creationist tosh like this. H.W. Conn wrote his quote in 1887 and Sir Arthur Keith died in 1955, but the paragraphs you quote do not mention this at all! The scientific evidence for evolution has come a very long way since then!


and on the point of 'racism' that is the defence that allows mass race mixing ,against the will of the ppl

I would be interested to know of any firmly documented evidence that it is "against the will of the ppl", eg in the form of opinion polls.

Perhaps you should investigate the extent to which creationists conspire to deceive the public about evolution!

Axiom
07-03-2007, 09:08 PM
Yes, I firmly believe they were planting bombs to blow up the enemy


No, What was the flaw?


You've proved nothing. Quite likely?


No.


No you're not.


The western media is a fantastic system. It is diverse. It is independently owned. It is government owned. Market forces are at play to ensure the compete against each other.

Conspiracies exist. It's human nature. The media busts its boiler daily to break these stories.
ok- if the brits were blowing up the 'enemy'(which would seem a clumsy way to do it, if the enemy was indeed identified) why did basra police charge convict and imprison them? they were on the same side supposedly!......and if so, why couldnt the brits just explain it was a mix up and have them released? not go in swat style with tanks?

"The media busts its boiler daily to break these stories." ...er...like all the ones those top journos tried to bust their gut to get released???? cmon hd, you dont believe top-down censorship occurs? you surely at the very least know about 'D-notices' ?

Axiom
07-03-2007, 09:22 PM
The piece you give doesn't question anything effectively. It simply asserts without evidence that evolution is "just a theory" (which is false as it is one of the best supported theories by evidence out there), and tries to use the success rate of extracurricular indoctrination (or the failure of secular education) as proof that evolution can't be real because ... half of America is too stupid to believe it!

The use of dated "evolutionist" quotes (frequently plucked out of context) against evolution is another common form of intellectual deceit practiced in creationist tosh like this. H.W. Conn wrote his quote in 1887 and Sir Arthur Keith died in 1955, but the paragraphs you quote do not mention this at all! The scientific evidence for evolution has come a very long way since then!



I would be interested to know of any firmly documented evidence that it is "against the will of the ppl", eg in the form of opinion polls.

Perhaps you should investigate the extent to which creationists conspire to deceive the public about evolution!
as i said i want nothing to do with creationists, and im sorry that garbage slippped through the net....i erred ..please accept my apology,

onto the "will of the ppl" regarding enforced race mixing- i would refer you to the people of texas re. the mexicans,polls there reflect the wishes of the ppl in opposing the mass influx, and the ppl of birmingham uk re. the mass influx of pakistanis/asians...again see polls there,and rise of the BNP Support.


of course anyone that defends the dilution of their established culture against mass enforced race mixing is simply labelled 'a racist' and all further debate is killed stone dead...not unlike calling someone a 'conspiracy theorist' - shutting down investigation/debate....you can guess who benefits the most from this phenomena.

Desmond
07-03-2007, 09:23 PM
ask yourself if his very damning claims against high ranking individuals are not true, why has no one sucessfully sued him(remember this is america!) for either defamation or slander ! ??Because he is propped up from on high and they protect him. Shall I rest my case?

Axiom
07-03-2007, 09:30 PM
Because he is propped up from on high and they protect him. Shall I rest my case? lol , Boris, what a conspiracy theory!!!!, like all those lawyers and judges in on it !.......the irony here has me in stitches LOL..........Like what would be their motive? to obscure even more mind blowing corruption?? :)

Kevin Bonham
07-03-2007, 11:52 PM
onto the "will of the ppl" regarding enforced race mixing- i would refer you to the people of texas re. the mexicans,polls there reflect the wishes of the ppl in opposing the mass influx, and the ppl of birmingham uk re. the mass influx of pakistanis/asians...again see polls there

But are these really concerns about race mixing as you earlier suggested, or do they really just reflect fears about loss of employment chances to outsiders? I think the latter is far more likely.

And the rise of fringe parties doesn't prove anything about majority will. Indeed they tend to arise when majority will most implacably opposes their concerns.


of course anyone that defends the dilution of their established culture against mass enforced race mixing is simply labelled 'a racist' and all further debate is killed stone dead

Well, are there any valid arguments against the "dilution" of "established culture"? I'm not convinced there are. People who want to maintain their "established culture" can do it just fine in a mixed society.

As for the correlation between race mixing and culture, there often isn't one. Race is a genetically meaningless term, and people from different racial backgrounds often adopt much of the culture of the country they are in. Maybe not so much in the first generation, but certainly down the track.


...not unlike calling someone a 'conspiracy theorist' - shutting down investigation/debate....you can guess who benefits the most from this phenomena.

I'm not sure it does shut down investigation/debate, given the glamorisation of conspiracy theory in mass media through the 1990s. While some conspiracists may reject the label as pejorative, many younger people see it as something that is kinda "out there" and "exciting" and not necessarily a negative at all.

Axiom
08-03-2007, 12:35 AM
But are these really concerns about race mixing as you earlier suggested, or do they really just reflect fears about loss of employment chances to outsiders? I think the latter is far more likely.

And the rise of fringe parties doesn't prove anything about majority will. Indeed they tend to arise when majority will most implacably opposes their concerns.



Well, are there any valid arguments against the "dilution" of "established culture"? I'm not convinced there are. People who want to maintain their "established culture" can do it just fine in a mixed society.

As for the correlation between race mixing and culture, there often isn't one. Race is a genetically meaningless term, and people from different racial backgrounds often adopt much of the culture of the country they are in. Maybe not so much in the first generation, but certainly down the track.



I'm not sure it does shut down investigation/debate, given the glamorisation of conspiracy theory in mass media through the 1990s. While some conspiracists may reject the label as pejorative, many younger people see it as something that is kinda "out there" and "exciting" and not necessarily a negative at all.
i concede the mixing of terms race and culture,well pointed out.
My primary point being that enforced mixing of CULTURES ,on a large scale is contrary to the will of the ppl, and not reflected in their'representative' govt's policy.
Incremental or gradual mixing of cultures is workable and in fact the way cultures have developed over the ages.It is the abrupt mass influx of foreign cultures that causes the collective pain(i too know this has ocurred also throughout history,but under govts that were not supposed to be representative democracies!)
Whether or not the fears are based on job losses or abrupt changes in day to day cultural experiences is not as important as the MASS changes enforced on an unwilling population.

On your final point re. pejorative terms,..........young ppl are generally the most gullible and least credible in light of these issues.I maintain that terms like 'racist' and 'conspiracy theorist' have become demonised debate grenades.And with the young of today ,yes theres hope that this will change, but it may have less to do with them and more to do with a more informed public !

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2007, 12:50 AM
My primary point being that enforced mixing of CULTURES ,on a large scale is contrary to the will of the ppl, and not reflected in their'representative' govt's policy.

I said above that this might be an economic issue not a cultural one, so what's your evidence that it is cultural?

(It may be, people really may be that xenophobic, I'm just curious.)


It is the abrupt mass influx of foreign cultures that causes the collective pain

It may cause some pain but it also causes so much good! Especially to the chess scene! Look how much Australian chess has gained from cultural mixing, especially from the large, and at the time contentious, influxes of people from the Balkans and from SE Asia. Now those people are considered honorary Aussies and people are whinging about Sudanese immigrants. In thirty years the Sudanese will all be honorary Aussies and who will we be whinging about then? Inuit?

There are certainly problems with some groups "not fitting in" for a while and sometimes these are serious but on the whole I think you are looking rather on the negative side of the whole thing.


On your final point re. pejorative terms,..........young ppl are generally the most gullible and least credible in light of these issues.

That's to be expected. But

Axiom
08-03-2007, 01:26 AM
I said above that this might be an economic issue not a cultural one, so what's your evidence that it is cultural?

(It may be, people really may be that xenophobic, I'm just curious.)



It may cause some pain but it also causes so much good! Especially to the chess scene! Look how much Australian chess has gained from cultural mixing, especially from the large, and at the time contentious, influxes of people from the Balkans and from SE Asia. Now those people are considered honorary Aussies and people are whinging about Sudanese immigrants. In thirty years the Sudanese will all be honorary Aussies and who will we be whinging about then? Inuit?

There are certainly problems with some groups "not fitting in" for a while and sometimes these are serious but on the whole I think you are looking rather on the negative side of the whole thing.



That's to be expected. But i honestly thought i tried to make the distinction between gradual and abrupt mass migration.........and i dont doubt xenophobia being part of it,along with practical concerns like jobs etc, but ppl like the familiarity of the culture theyve grown up with(changing albeit incrementally), and regardless the bottom line ,is,that the established population of a certain area are opposed to SUDDEN MASS INFLUX of a different foreign culture, and are maddened at the brick wall refusal of their elected 'representatives' TO act on their will/behalf.
The chess scene in oz, is part of the maneagable incremental or low impact brand of migration(although we're biased and would welcome 1 million chess playing europeans tomorrow!)
i really need to reiterate and make very clear the distinction im making between proportionate migration, and abrupt mass migration of greatly differing cultures , eg,texas/mexicans and birmingham/pakistanis,.....where this sheer mass load causes societal problems. It really is a matter of degree and proportion.......and the will of the ppl being heard,when such impositions are enforced upon them.

It should be clear now im not opposed to a gradual assimilation of different cultures and see the positives there , the historical facts,and the undeniable value..........i merely defend a ppl's right to say ,hey- 'enough is enough' eg . the mexicans in texas and other states ,lowering wages, draining health/educ resources,increasing crime, all in favour of global corporations(cheap labour) at the expense of the existing working tax paying electing(!) existing population.

But if youre a texan opposed to this mass influx- youre likely to get the 'racist' card thrown at you ,aimed at the eyes!

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2007, 01:48 AM
and regardless the bottom line ,is,that the established population of a certain area are opposed to SUDDEN MASS INFLUX of a different foreign culture, and are maddened at the brick wall refusal of their elected 'representatives' TO act on their will/behalf.

The issue about governments not following the will of the people is a useful one to explore. In this case I haven't seen evidence that cutting migration is the will of the people, but even if it is, in an indirect democracy the point isn't for the government to always do what the people want on any one issue. It's for them to run the country and then answer to the people for the way in which they've done it. If they've done a lousy job, the theory is the people should throw them out and elect someone else.

Now, you can say that the people vote stupidly at elections and therefore that theory doesn't really work, and there may be a lot of merit in that. But if the people vote stupidly at elections, they probably think stupidly about issues between them too, in which case democracy is pointless anyway except as a facade that keeps the peace.


The chess scene in oz, is part of the maneagable incremental or low impact brand of migration(although we're biased and would welcome 1 million chess playing europeans tomorrow!)

I'm not sure this is how some influxes were seen at the time. OK, so what in your view is a "mass influx"? How many per year from one country to a country the size of Aus?


It should be clear now im not opposed to a gradual assimilation of different cultures and see the positives there , the historical facts,and the undeniable value..........i merely defend a ppl's right to say ,hey- 'enough is enough' eg . the mexicans in texas and other states ,lowering wages, draining health/educ resources,increasing crime, all in favour of global corporations(cheap labour) at the expense of the existing working tax paying electing(!) existing population.

But if youre a texan opposed to this mass influx- youre likely to get the 'racist' card thrown at you ,aimed at the eyes!

OK, I haven't studied the Tex/Mex situation in detail so I can't comment. If that is an accurate description of the suggestion then I suggest that if the immigrants are legal then rather than cutting the migrant intake, the state should be providing better resources to deal with the problems created. It could do so by taxing the corporations that are benefiting from the cheap labour!

But it's interesting that you praise Ron Paul, when he is a near-total libertarian and would hence probably be opposed to putting any restrictions on the ability of corporations to hire who they like where they like. I don't think he'd like my solution very much. (That said I don't know if his libertarianism extends to the right to move country and start a new life!)

As for illegal, I was listening to something on News Radio today about how many illegal immigrants in the USA actually pay income tax, because they are legally required to and info sharing between tax and immigration officials is banned. So people can live in the country illegally, pay tax to its government, and then eventually use the fact that they're a productive citizen to argue they should have the right to stay! Seems a curious way to be going about things.

Axiom
08-03-2007, 01:12 PM
The issue about governments not following the will of the people is a useful one to explore. In this case I haven't seen evidence that cutting migration is the will of the people, but even if it is, in an indirect democracy the point isn't for the government to always do what the people want on any one issue. It's for them to run the country and then answer to the people for the way in which they've done it. If they've done a lousy job, the theory is the people should throw them out and elect someone else. in THEORY! yes ;)


Now, you can say that the people vote stupidly at elections and therefore that theory doesn't really work, and there may be a lot of merit in that. But if the people vote stupidly at elections, they probably think stupidly about issues between them too, in which case democracy is pointless anyway except as a facade that keeps the peace. yes, and exactly why i rant on about the need for an INFORMED public,more able then to make informed decisions.




I'm not sure this is how some influxes were seen at the time. OK, so what in your view is a "mass influx"? How many per year from one country to a country the size of Aus?would depend on the spread around some or all of our major cities/towns...but say roughly a million?




OK, I haven't studied the Tex/Mex situation in detail so I can't comment. If that is an accurate description of the suggestion then I suggest that if the immigrants are legal then rather than cutting the migrant intake, the state should be providing better resources to deal with the problems created. It could do so by taxing the corporations that are benefiting from the cheap labour!not only do the texans and and citizens from other nearby states have to cope with large numbers of immigrants,they also have to cope with a govt unwilling in halting the hordes of illegals crossing their porous unprotected southern border(even their bank of america giving credit without i.d !)......there are token 'show' efforts made eg.talks of fences(a well known joke over there)and some new laws penalising company's from employing illegals,which again only a minute no. of 'show' arrests are made.(there are estimated 30 million illegals in usa, and only 2 or 3 thousands arrests a year!)

But it's interesting that you praise Ron Paul, when he is a near-total libertarian and would hence probably be opposed to putting any restrictions on the ability of corporations to hire who they like where they like. I don't think he'd like my solution very much. (That said I don't know if his libertarianism extends to the right to move country and start a new life!) it is my understanding that ron paul is pro protecting the borders(but need to confirm that), protecting the liberties of his own citizens,....perhaps reasoning that a similar mexican libertarian could look after the rights and liberties of mexicans(without including, encouraging them to flee their borders for 'a better life' at another's expense)....again i stress degree and proportion here.


As for illegal, I was listening to something on News Radio today about how many illegal immigrants in the USA actually pay income tax, because they are legally required to and info sharing between tax and immigration officials is banned. So people can live in the country illegally, pay tax to its government, and then eventually use the fact that they're a productive citizen to argue they should have the right to stay! Seems a curious way to be going about things.
so curious in fact, that ,that is exactly the plan!, to assist illegals to 'take root' in the way you describe......No wonder texans marched for texas independance,the other day!(march 2nd)


my interest here, is how flagrently, 'elected representatives' abricate their duty to their people..........and IMO are much more answerable to global corporations than their electorate.
To me this a great glaring example of this fraudalent 'democracy'.

It could well be a clue also to the other great fraud that is 'the war on terror'........"if their is such a significant threat,and the need to fight them over there!,why would you allow borders to still be(despite the hollow rhetoric) in effect - wide open?

Axiom
08-03-2007, 01:42 PM
TODAY ON THE
ALEX JONES SHOW

Captain Field McConnell


Alex welcomes back to the program Top Gun Military/Commercial Pilot Field McConnell to discuss his 9/11 cover-up discoveries and his new documentary, 9/11 Solved.

Related Information:

Pilot's Lawsuit Alleges Airliners Rigged With Explosives

Captain Sherlock Website


David Hawkins


Later Alex speaks with Forensic Economist and Scholars for 9/11 Truth member, David Hawkins, about remote controlled planes and how this technology may have been used on 9/11

Related Information:

Hawks Cafe Website

www.*******s.com

Axiom
08-03-2007, 01:47 PM
The Coming Entitlement Meltdown

*******s.com | March 5, 2007
Rep. Ron Paul

David Walker, Comptroller General at the Government Accountability Office, appeared on the show “60 Minutes” last evening to discuss the federal budget outlook. If you saw the show, you know that he painted a very sobering picture regarding the federal government's ability to meet its future obligations.

If you didn't see the show, Mr. Walker's theme was simple: government entitlement spending is like a runaway freight train headed straight at American taxpayers. He singled out the Medicare prescription drug bill, passed by Congress at the end of 2003, as “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.”

When it comes to Social Security and Medicare, the federal government simply won't be able to keep its promises in the future. That is the reality every American should get used to, despite the grand promises of Washington reformers. Our entitlement system can't be reformed- it's too late. And the Medicare prescription drug bill is the final nail in the coffin.

The financial impact of the drug bill cannot be overstated. Government projections that the program would cost $400 billion over the next decade were a joke, as everyone in Congress knew even as they voted for the bill. The real cost will be at least $1 trillion in the first decade alone, and much more in following decades as the American population grows older.

The Medicare “trust fund” is already badly in the red, and the only solution will be a dramatic increase in payroll taxes for younger workers. The National Taxpayers Union reports that Medicare will consume nearly 40% of the nation's GDP after several decades because of the new drug benefit. That's not 40% of federal revenues, or 40% of federal spending, but rather 40 % of the nation's entire private sector output!

The politicians who get reelected by passing such incredibly shortsighted legislation will never have to answer to future generations saddled with huge federal deficits. Those generations are the real victims, as they cannot object to the debts being incurred today in their names.

The official national debt figure, now approaching $9 trillion, reflects only what the federal government owes in current debts on money already borrowed. It does not reflect what the federal government has promised to pay millions of Americans in entitlement benefits down the road. Those future obligations put our real debt figure at roughly fifty trillion dollars- a staggering sum that is about as large as the total household net worth of the entire United States. Your share of this fifty trillion amounts to about $175,000.

Don't believe for a second that we can grow our way out of the problem through a prosperous economy that yields higher future tax revenues. If present trends continue, by 2040 the entire federal budget will be consumed by Social Security and Medicare alone. The only options for balancing the budget would be cutting total federal spending by about 60%, or doubling federal taxes. To close the long-term entitlement gap, the U.S. economy would have to grow by double digits every year for the next 75 years.

The answer to these critical financial realities is simple, but not easy: We must rethink the very role of government in our society. Anything less, any tinkering or “reform,” won't cut it. A good start would be for Congress to repeal the Medicare prescription drug bill.

Axiom
08-03-2007, 01:57 PM
9/11 Truth Has Already Won the Debate

Crimes of the State | March 6, 2007

Why "criminal negligence" is enough.

This is a very simple concept, elegant and straightforward:

We never had to prove what truly happened on September 11th 2001. No. All we had to do was prove that the US federal government had covered it up.

On that point, I would like to thank George Monbiot of the UK Guardian for his hysterical meltdown of late. George Monbiot has conceded the argument when he said:

"I believe that they [the Bush administration] were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida..." --George Monbiot, "9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns" , UK Guardian

Well then, Mr. Monbiot has just validated our main point: We need a truly independent investigation of September 11th, because crimes were committed by the administration and they were allowed to cover them up.
........CONTINUED HERE~
http://www.*******s.com/articles/sept11/911_truth_has_already_won_the_debate.htm

Desmond
08-03-2007, 05:21 PM
9/11 Truth Has Already Won the Debate
...
http://www.*******s.com/articles/sept11/911_truth_has_already_won_the_debate.htm
Ax, I had decided to sit through this article and give it a fair go. I got as far as a quotation from Wikipedia. At that time I stopped taking it seriously. I'm sorry, but your website is an amateurish joke.

Axiom
08-03-2007, 06:21 PM
Ax, I had decided to sit through this article and give it a fair go. I got as far as a quotation from Wikipedia. At that time I stopped taking it seriously. I'm sorry, but your website is an amateurish joke.
i honestly appreciate you at least reading some of the material.
Boris, i would very much like to know ,which news sources you trust and respect? Thankyou.

Desmond
08-03-2007, 06:43 PM
i honestly appreciate you at least reading some of the material.
Boris, i would very much like to know ,which news sources you trust and respect? Thankyou.I don't trust any of them implicitly or blindly. I respect impartial journalism, which is why I take issue with judgemental "journalists" like Naomi Robson, and why I take issue with people who judge insurgents with labels like "terrorist". The point that I was making to you about your website, is that you are blindly believing it without any proof, which is exactly what you are trying to avoid doing with the mainstream media.

Basil
08-03-2007, 06:46 PM
... judgemental "journalists" like Naomi Robson...
Point of order. Naomi Robson isn't a journo! She's a page 3 girl with clothes on. Just here to sell the paper, lads.

Speaking of which ...
http://www.seek.com.au/users/apply/index.ascx?Sequence=35&PageNumber=1&JobID=8721374

Axiom
08-03-2007, 08:34 PM
I don't trust any of them implicitly or blindly. I respect impartial journalism, which is why I take issue with judgemental "journalists" like Naomi Robson, and why I take issue with people who judge insurgents with labels like "terrorist". The point that I was making to you about your website, is that you are blindly believing it without any proof, which is exactly what you are trying to avoid doing with the mainstream media.
please tell me the impartial journalists you respect.

i totally agree with you re the BS labelling of insurgents or defenders of territory.
if i have made the impression that i blindly believe *******s.com , then i want to redress that, i simply site that as a 'port hole' to news items that otherwise may not be heard or analysed.
and its not a black and white issue of distrust totally of mainstream media, in fact i sight them regularly, but merely an attempt to qualify and contextualise within the full spectrum of available information.

Axiom
08-03-2007, 08:55 PM
As a keen student of psychology,im intrigued by the following
1)no one has as yet proffered their normal(i assume at least somewhat respected ) source of information/news/etc
2)fg- has yet to classify which political animal he considers himself as , and
3)and that ,seemingly, few have no more than scratched the surface of the volume of material i have offered for inspection.


it would be improper and premature of me to try and draw conclusions from the above observations.

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2007, 09:16 PM
yes, and exactly why i rant on about the need for an INFORMED public,more able then to make informed decisions.

The funny thing is that these days the public are more equipped to "inform" themselves, should they choose, than ever before. But often either they're not interested, or else they cherry-pick sources that suit their existing prejudices.

Christopher Hitchens actually thinks this is why conspiracy theory is so popular. There is such an overload of information that people will always draw a range of conclusions from it no matter what the truth. He calls it "the exhaust fumes of democracy".


would depend on the spread around some or all of our major cities/towns...but say roughly a million?

That's heaps! I don't think we've ever taken in that many from one place at one time.


it is my understanding that ron paul is pro protecting the borders(but need to confirm that), protecting the liberties of his own citizens,....perhaps reasoning that a similar mexican libertarian could look after the rights and liberties of mexicans(without including, encouraging them to flee their borders for 'a better life' at another's expense)....again i stress degree and proportion here.

I'm not sure how libertarianism really fits with nationalism in that sense. Wouldn't a real libertarian argue that if somebody else wants to come to America, work, pay taxes and make a living through their own skill, they should be allowed to? Wonder what Ayn Rand would have said ... :D


It could well be a clue also to the other great fraud that is 'the war on terror'........"if their is such a significant threat,and the need to fight them over there!,why would you allow borders to still be(despite the hollow rhetoric) in effect - wide open?

Well, I agree the War on Terror is a joke, although I do support cleaning up the hypocritical errors of the past and kicking the Taliban back into whatever century they came from. But maybe it's just a fact that Mexicans don't tend to blow things up, or perhaps real terrorists don't bother going in the back door when there's still heaps of ways they can get in the front!

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2007, 09:20 PM
As a keen student of psychology,im intrigued by the following
1)no one has as yet proffered their normal(i assume at least somewhat respected ) source of information/news/etc

Probably missed your request. I get a lot of my news from ABC News Radio, political gossip from crikey.com.au (but I wait a few days for the dust to settle as initial reports there are often wrong!) and various random internet sources.

I don't regard commercial news or radio as credible but even within the ABC I am wary of bias, and furthermore very few journos can be trusted to cover any specialist issue correctly.

Axiom
08-03-2007, 09:28 PM
Probably missed your request. I get a lot of my news from ABC News Radio, political gossip from crikey.com.au (but I wait a few days for the dust to settle as initial reports there are often wrong!) and various random internet sources.

I don't regard commercial news or radio as credible but even within the ABC I am wary of bias, and furthermore very few journos can be trusted to cover any specialist issue correctly.
Thankyou, a very fair perception in my view,and the type of response i would have expected from a clear thinker.
I hope that some of the material here has been of some use in exploring a new path or two.

Desmond
08-03-2007, 10:27 PM
please tell me the impartial journalists you respect.I said that I respect imparital journalism. There is a difference.

As a self-professed student of psychology, you might like to self-reflect on why you are seeking to categorise myself and others here by our media habits. Would you think less of me if I watched Today Tonight instead of Jim Lehrer's News Hour?

Axiom
08-03-2007, 11:00 PM
I said that I respect imparital journalism. There is a difference.

As a self-professed student of psychology, you might like to self-reflect on why you are seeking to categorise myself and others here by our media habits. Would you think less of me if I watched Today Tonight instead of Jim Lehrer's News Hour?
hmmm...some interesting transference there.

what made you think i was out to categorise,simply knowing was enough.
i still am very curious as to those precisely that you respect ie.the impartial ones............im not going to 'categorise you' , see my response to KB's answer.

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2007, 11:29 PM
I'd think less of anyone in political credibility terms who watched Today Tonight and took it seriously.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to observe it, but reliable information is not one of them.

News Hour is good but I generally forget it is on.

Desmond
09-03-2007, 09:41 AM
hmmm...some interesting transference there.:lol:


what made you think i was out to categorise,Before you were prepared to discuss issues with me on their merits, you wanted to know where I got my information.


simply knowing was enough.
i still am very curious as to those precisely that you respect ie.the impartial ones............im not going to 'categorise you' ,I have answered this. I won't be giving you a list of names or media sources.


see my response to KB's answer.You will have to be more specific.

Axiom
09-03-2007, 03:48 PM
:lol:

Before you were prepared to discuss issues with me on their merits, you wanted to know where I got my information.

I have answered this. I won't be giving you a list of names or media sources.

You will have to be more specific.
amateurish??? its probably one of the slickest most professionally run new media sites ,updating news articles daily, from such 'amateurish' institutions as reuters,uk telegraph,guardian,ny times, bbc, etc

I can imagine many put off by some its presentation re its advertisements and dark tone....but dont fall for the 'book cover judging' syndrome.

and wikipedia is neither all good nor all bad, simply another source of information., and yes to be judged with caution.

Boris we are probably not so far apart ,politically, as you may imagine, hinted at with your comments re, insurgents/terrorists.(seeing at least partly through the 'terrorism' fraud)

and im fine with you not wanting to name your news sources, and am happy to discuss any topic on its merits.

I am just sure you will get something out of new angles on the 'news', like some of the material i have offered here or at many new media news sites .

and i watch shows like todaytonight and fox news cnn,.........i am very interested in contrasting , comparing and analysing the broadest spectrum of news sources that i can. So am of course interested in anyone else thats like minded in analysing the information we recieve.

Desmond
09-03-2007, 07:38 PM
amateurish??? its probably one of the slickest most professionally run new media sites ,updating news articles daily, from such 'amateurish' institutions as reuters,uk telegraph,guardian,ny times, bbc, etcI couldn't care if it's narrated by Richard Attenborough and endorsed by the Queen; citing a definition from Wikipedia is academically amateurish.


I can imagine many put off by some its presentation re its advertisements and dark tone....but dont fall for the 'book cover judging' syndrome.I wasn't referring to the site's layout, but since you mention it, it is quite horrid.


and wikipedia is neither all good nor all bad, simply another source of information., and yes to be judged with caution.One would try the Oxford dictionary as a start, and work down a very long list before resorting to Wikipedia.


Boris we are probably not so far apart ,politically, as you may imagine, hinted at with your comments re, insurgents/terrorists.(seeing at least partly through the 'terrorism' fraud)Trying to recruit me, are you?


and im fine with you not wanting to name your news sources, and am happy to discuss any topic on its merits.Ok, does this mean that you are now ready to begin with the undertaking you mentioned in post# 134.

Axiom
09-03-2007, 10:38 PM
The funny thing is that these days the public are more equipped to "inform" themselves, should they choose, than ever before. But often either they're not interested, or else they cherry-pick sources that suit their existing prejudices. agreed,and needless to say its difficult to operate totally free from a belief/preconcieved notion state.Much the same difficulties research scientists and detectives face(as i alluded to earlier).............and the need for more of boris's impartial journalists!,and real truth seeking investigative journalists.


Christopher Hitchens actually thinks this is why conspiracy theory is so popular. There is such an overload of information that people will always draw a range of conclusions from it no matter what the truth. He calls it "the exhaust fumes of democracy". and ,again ,that all inclusive term ,"conspiracy theory", which shuts down analysis and investigation......we could use other terms, like, "govt cover ups", or "high level corruption" or "major anomolies". C.Hitchens ,who i am somewhat suspicious of anyway, thusly makes a meaningless statement........And one has to have a working engine to produce exhaust!



That's heaps! I don't think we've ever taken in that many from one place at one time.
no, but southern states of the usa has! 30 million in a total of approx 300 million, ie 10% concentrated in a few southern states mainly.



I'm not sure how libertarianism really fits with nationalism in that sense.im not sure either!, i need to check on ron paul's policy on the border issue.


Wouldn't a real libertarian argue that if somebody else wants to come to America, work, pay taxes and make a living through their own skill, they should be allowed to? Wonder what Ayn Rand would have said ... :D its a difficult balance here for the libertarian, ie. how much weight should be given to the plight of the desperate and how much to the current electorate...including ,where does responsibility lie? in the mexicans case(an entity with a long history of corruption and state declared bankruptcy re national debt), it could be argued that libertarians might focus their attention on the mexican govt's responsibilities?




Well, I agree the War on Terror is a joke,
a massive fraud........and a study of the history of govt sponsored terror is illuminating in this light.

although I do support cleaning up the hypocritical errors of the past and kicking the Taliban back into whatever century they came from. we may not agree with the cultural differences of the taliban, and can't they belong to any century they wish? ..."are you a RACIST" ;).Let it be noted that heroin exportation from afganistan has doubled since the americans invaded!.....And im kinda impressed the way no one in history has yet to totally defeat /subdue the afghans.(the gurkas v the afghans ,with a home and away fixture would be box office!)


But maybe it's just a fact that Mexicans don't tend to blow things up, no, just their economy!........and listed by some organisation(human rights?) as one of the most corrupt countries on earth, hence the need to focus on their leaders, not others!, but the NAU will solve many of THEIR problems!


or perhaps real terrorists don't bother going in the back door when there's still heaps of ways they can get in the front!
apparantly terrorists will find any door they can, to attack our 'way of life' our 'freedoms' and 'they are a real and present danger'......and if this was in fact true , a hasty clamp down on the border would surely not only be good political PR, but seemingly a logical move ?!

Axiom
09-03-2007, 10:48 PM
I couldn't care if it's narrated by Richard Attenborough and endorsed by the Queen; citing a definition from Wikipedia is academically amateurish. ok, you've found a weakish point...but surely not enough to 'throw out the whole baby'. I am positive you will find at least one story of interest if you were to persist.......as you know its not to difficult to verify and corroberate info.



Trying to recruit me, are you? yes, for the fight for truth! ...if you want to frame it that way :)


Ok, does this mean that you are now ready to begin with the undertaking you mentioned in post# 134. i responded in #155.......there are at least 2 other possibilities 1)due his rather OTT delivery style , it could be hoped like a 'trojan horse innoculation' that the info although mostly factual wont get any real traction,and act as a 'drain hole' or 2) if he is 'silenced' another 'thousand heads' will sprout forth ! ?

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2007, 11:25 PM
and ,again ,that all inclusive term ,"conspiracy theory", which shuts down analysis and investigation...

Not for me it doesn't. Even if something comes from a type of work that generally has a low success rate does not mean individual claims need not be examined on the evidence.


C.Hitchens ,who i am somewhat suspicious of anyway,

Why, out of curioisty? I am not necessarily a fan across the board, but he has done good work at times, and at others at least exposed deficiencies in the way that cases were being argued.


And one has to have a working engine to produce exhaust!

Not a very well working one!


no, but southern states of the usa has! 30 million in a total of approx 300 million, ie 10% concentrated in a few southern states mainly.

Yes, but over what period did they enter? I'll bet it's longer than a year or two!


its a difficult balance here for the libertarian, ie. how much weight should be given to the plight of the desperate and how much to the current electorate...

A real libertarian doesn't care less about "the electorate". A real libertarian cares about what freedoms humans should have, and how to acheive that.


including ,where does responsibility lie? in the mexicans case(an entity with a long history of corruption and state declared bankruptcy re national debt), it could be argued that libertarians might focus their attention on the mexican govt's responsibilities?

They certainly could and doubtless do. But an individual Mexican is not to blame for that! Indeed, if they are living in a state where they cannot make a decent living (and I have no idea if there is any merit in such a line of assumption at all) then that strengthens their case for being able to move somewhere where they might!

This is the problem with trying to tie libertarianism to capitalism which some US thinkers do. Even if it does deliver capitalism, it won't be the sort they expected!


we may not agree with the cultural differences of the taliban, and can't they belong to any century they wish?

Not if they fail to allow women and religious dissenters to exist, alive, in a culture appropriate for this one!


apparantly terrorists will find any door they can, to attack our 'way of life' our 'freedoms' and 'they are a real and present danger'......and if this was in fact true , a hasty clamp down on the border would surely not only be good political PR, but seemingly a logical move ?!

I do believe you have successfully highlighted one of many contradictions in the "war on terror" guff here. Not that hard to do - in this case I think the fact is that the border is no big terrorism risk, and the myth is in the rhetoric requesting constant paranoia from the citizens.

Fortunately, the citizens are fast losing interest in being scared for no good reason. Even here.

Axiom
09-03-2007, 11:58 PM
Not for me it doesn't. Even if something comes from a type of work that generally has a low success rate does not mean individual claims need not be examined on the evidence. perfect answer.thankyou......it only reinforces my estimation of you as a clear thinker.




Why, out of curioisty? I am not necessarily a fan across the board, but he has done good work at times, and at others at least exposed deficiencies in the way that cases were being argued. i agree too, good work at times, but i remember drawing a certain reserved ,qualified opinion of him,...without now recalling the exact story or specifics......maybe it was just a too dismissive approach of a certain issue.....sorry i cannot support my view here......often i remember conclusions,without remembering why i drew them!



Not a very well working one! perhaps thats why the exhaust is so noticeable? ;)




Yes, but over what period did they enter? I'll bet it's longer than a year or two!6-7 yrs i believe, , but what is sure is the major impact on the existing ppl,their resources and their culture.




A real libertarian doesn't care less about "the electorate". A real libertarian cares about what freedoms humans should have, and how to acheive that. yes ,but then like fg, youre happy to 'rob peter to pay paul', and as ive said there is room for manageable rates of foreign culture immigration, but en masse ,whose liberty are you protecting?




They certainly could and doubtless do. But an individual Mexican is not to blame for that! Indeed, if they are living in a state where they cannot make a decent living (and I have no idea if there is any merit in such a line of assumption at all) then that strengthens their case for being able to move somewhere where they might! i have great sympathy for the desperate immigrant and have absolutely no axe to grind with them,i have vigoursly opposed the real racists who seek to attack the immigrants themselves, saying to them "dont attack, them, attack the govt that allows them in !"

This is the problem with trying to tie libertarianism to capitalism which some US thinkers do. Even if it does deliver capitalism, it won't be the sort they expected! you betcha! :) ,maybe one world govt,culture.religion IS THE ANSWER? (puke)




Not if they fail to allow women and religious dissenters to exist, alive, in a culture appropriate for this one! of course as a libertarian im anti subjugation of women and pro religious freedom(as long as they keep it at home!), i tussle with this, and wonder whether their right to their particular culture takes precedence over this.....tricky.......hmmm, an interesting dilemma.




I do believe you have successfully highlighted one of many contradictions in the "war on terror" guff here. Not that hard to do - in this case I think the fact is that the border is no big terrorism risk, and the myth is in the rhetoric requesting constant paranoia from the citizens.

Fortunately, the citizens are fast losing interest in being scared for no good reason. Even here.
yes the ruse is being exposed........zogby polls in the usa reveal a large % not trusting either major party!, and a third believing their govt in some way complicit in 9/11!............i think ,as you said, with the most amount info available to humans in history, there has been enough of a critical mass of enlightenment produced that actually has seen through the old tricks of the elite, and its spreading. Their old tricks are losing their 'magic'( IMO)

Axiom
10-03-2007, 12:12 AM
Did anyone see this story in mainstream in oz? No big deal?

US to grow rice containing human genes

London Telegraph | March 7, 2007
Stephanie Condron

Genetically-modified rice containing human genes is about to be grown in the US for commercial production.

The laboratory-created rice which produces some of the proteins found in breast milk and saliva would be used for children's medicines to help fight diarrhoea, dehydration and other illnesses.

The US government gave preliminary approval for Ventria Bioscience to grow over three-thousand acres of the GM rice in Kansas.

advertisement
The California-based company argues that the rice will provide an “affordable system” of “helping millions of children worldwide”.

The proteins stimulate growth, aid digestion and the absorption of nutrients and help the immune system.

But critics fear the GM rice could mutate if its seeds were blown into fields where natural rice is being grown and so become a permanent part of the food chain.



"

Axiom
10-03-2007, 12:22 AM
Is this another massive fraud ? ie. that the warming is man made?

Im hearing(no supporting articles yet, but sure some established 'credible' media ones exist) that the sun's radiance level has increased ,and that other planets and moons in our solar system are warming too......so logically where is the proof within this context that the warming on the 3rd rock is due to man?

Ironically in the 1970s there was the big ICE AGE scare!!

I'm not going to theorise as to why this fraud is perpetrated, if in fact it is a fraud,.......i know dr. suzuki's speech on, man as culprit, had me a 'believer' for a while, with his antarctic CO2 ice samples! :)

Science is not my strong suit , so would really welcome commments re this and my above human/rice post.

Kevin Bonham
10-03-2007, 12:35 AM
i agree too, good work at times, but i remember drawing a certain reserved ,qualified opinion of him,...without now recalling the exact story or specifics......maybe it was just a too dismissive approach of a certain issue.....sorry i cannot support my view here......often i remember conclusions,without remembering why i drew them!

You might have reservations about him because of his rather unfashionable support for the Iraq war.


6-7 yrs i believe, , but what is sure is the major impact on the existing ppl,their resources and their culture.

The equivalent then would be, say, 2 million arriving in Aus over the same time frame. A significant demographic change for sure.

I understand the impact on state resources argument is a bit of a furphy (because they're contributing as well as costing); the issue is wage levels for the poor.


yes ,but then like fg, youre happy to 'rob peter to pay paul', and as ive said there is room for manageable rates of foreign culture immigration, but en masse ,whose liberty are you protecting?

Well, this is what I wonder. If nearly everyone in the USA was willing to work for third-world incomes, the whole debate would look radically different.


i have great sympathy for the desperate immigrant and have absolutely no axe to grind with them,i have vigoursly opposed the real racists who seek to attack the immigrants themselves, saying to them "dont attack, them, attack the govt that allows them in !"

Well, is it really that government's fault, or the fault of the one that drives them out? Or is it just a natural consequence of two countries being right next to each other with a big wealth disparity and a large land border?


you betcha! :) ,maybe one world govt,culture.religion IS THE ANSWER? (puke)

I'll only consider that (and even then only briefly) if noone who has ever had anything to do with the current United Nations is not allowed anywhere near it. :lol:


of course as a libertarian im anti subjugation of women and pro religious freedom(as long as they keep it at home!), i tussle with this, and wonder whether their right to their particular culture takes precedence over this.....tricky.......hmmm, an interesting dilemma.

Not tricky for me. National borders are arbitrary and unchosen by those confined by them. No-one should be subjugated just for having the sheer bad form to be born in an illiberal country. I'm quite in favour of interventions, even arbitrary ones, to put the boot into illiberal regimes, but the regime doing the booting needs to clean up its own act at home too!


i think ,as you said, with the most amount info available to humans in history, there has been enough of a critical mass of enlightenment produced that actually has seen through the old tricks of the elite, and its spreading. Their old tricks are losing their 'magic'( IMO)

I am not that positive about it, when it comes to the tendency of the public to fall for propaganda (though I include propaganda from NGOs and doomsayers here as well as governments). Individual tricks may pass their use-by date (like the "war on terror" appears to be doing) but no worry, there will be something else dodgy along soon. Are you familiar with Mencken's hobgoblin quote?

Axiom
10-03-2007, 01:12 AM
You might have reservations about him because of his rather unfashionable support for the Iraq war.
not sure,....but he was a guest on the alex jones show a few months ago which gives him some cred ;)



The equivalent then would be, say, 2 million arriving in Aus over the same time frame. A significant demographic change for sure.

I understand the impact on state resources argument is a bit of a furphy (because they're contributing as well as costing); the issue is wage levels for the poor. but this cost/benefit analysis favours who? the govt? corps?.......does mr joe average recieve the proportionate trickle down effect? i doubt it.




Well, this is what I wonder. If nearly everyone in the USA was willing to work for third-world incomes, the whole debate would look radically different.



Well, is it really that government's fault, or the fault of the one that drives them out? Or is it just a natural consequence of two countries being right next to each other with a big wealth disparity and a large land border? , make no mistake KB, the us govt could easily afford a fully mannned high electrified fence along its southern border, they argue its not cost effective , but not cost effective to whom?? ...did they pay their taxes for trillions to be spent on war or nasa?




I'll only consider that (and even then only briefly) if noone who has ever had anything to do with the current United Nations is not allowed anywhere near it. :lol: thats the first draft!

George Herbert Walker-Bush President of U.S.: 1989~1993. CFR Director, Trilateralist, CIA Director, Yale Skull and Bones Society. Addressing the General Assembly of the UN. February 1st, 1992 :-

"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance."






Not tricky for me. National borders are arbitrary and unchosen by those confined by them. No-one should be subjugated just for having the sheer bad form to be born in an illiberal country. I'm quite in favour of interventions, even arbitrary ones, to put the boot into illiberal regimes, but the regime doing the booting needs to clean up its own act at home too! its difficult to disagree here, as we both have similar human rights perspectives..........and i suppose its similar to intervening in a neighbour's business if you know the husband abuses/physical beats his wife, knowing that only gross breaches of human rights are taking place( curiously , many wives protect their husbands in these cases, as do many afghan women defend their ,abusive culture, likely a power issue though.)




I am not that positive about it, when it comes to the tendency of the public to fall for propaganda (though I include propaganda from NGOs and doomsayers here as well as governments). Individual tricks may pass their use-by date (like the "war on terror" appears to be doing) but no worry, there will be something else dodgy along soon. Are you familiar with Mencken's hobgoblin quote? there are no new tricks ,just recycling of old ones (see history of govt sponsored terror,false flag events etc)..........."something else dodgy coming along soon" - no doubt. will it be false flag setting off Iran mayhem?- but never before in history, i believe, have so many eyes been scrutinising the elite and their tricks, and i think they fear risking another,.....more likely a mass disease of some sort, to act as that old favourite trojan horse to bring in even more oppression of liberty. but these are just my idle musings...... but ,agree with you , something dodgy this way comes.

mencken quote rings a bell,...its not "if we didnt have hobgoblins,we'd invent them" ? :)

Axiom
10-03-2007, 02:00 AM
Morons and Magic: A Reply to George Monbiot

ICH | March 8, 2007
David Ray Griffin

In “ Bayoneting a Scarecrow The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a coward's cult .” (Guardian, February 20), George Monbiot accuses members of the 9/11 truth movement of being “morons” and “idiots” who believe in “magic.” Having in his previous attack---“ A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world ,” Guardian, February 6---called me this movement's “high priest,” he now describes my 9/11 writing as a “concatenation of ill-attested nonsense.”

03/07/07 "ICH " -- - If my books are moronic nonsense, then people who have endorsed them must be morons. Would Monbiot really wish to apply this label to Michel Chossudovsky, Richard Falk, Ray McGovern, Michael Meacher, John McMurtry, Marcus Raskin, Rosemary Ruether, Howard Zinn, and the late Rev. William Sloane Coffin, who, after a stint in the CIA, became one of America's leading civil rights, anti-war, and anti-nuclear activists?

If anyone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job is by definition an idiot, then Moncbiot would have to sling that label at Colonel Robert Bowman, former head of the U.S. “Star Wars” program; Andreas von Bülow, former State Secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Defense; former CIA analysts Bill Christison and Robert David Steele; former Scientific American columnist A. K. Dewdney; General Leonid Ivashov, former chief of staff of the Russian armed forces; Colonel Ronald D. Ray, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense; all the members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Veterans for 9/11 Truth, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth; and most of the individuals listed under “Professors Question 9/11” on the “Patriots Question 9/11” website.

One of the reasons these people reject the government's conspiracy theory is that, if they were to accept the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Centre, they would need to affirm magical beliefs. A few examples:

The Twin Towers came straight down, which means that each building's 287 steel columns all had to fail simultaneously; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

At the onset of each tower's collapse, steel beams were ejected out as far as 600 feet; to believe that these horizontal ejections could be explained by gravitational energy, which is vertical, is to believe in magic.

Virtually all of the concrete in the towers was pulverized into extremely fine dust particles; to believe that fire plus gravity could have done this is to believe in magic.

WTC 7 and the towers came down at virtually free-fall speed, meaning that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, provided no resistance to the upper floors; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

Pools of molten metal were found under each building. Because steel does not begin to melt until it reaches about 1,540°C and yet the fires could not have gotten over 1000°C, to accept the fire theory is to believe in magic.

Monbiot, regarding the 9/11 truth movement's conspiracy theory as a wrong-headed distraction, fails to see that the obviously false and truly distracting conspiracy theory is the official 9/11 myth, which has been used to justify imperial wars and increased militarism, thereby distracting attention from global apartheid and the ecological crisis. We focus on the 9/11 myth because, until it is exposed, getting our governments to focus wholeheartedly on the truly urgent issues of our time will be impossible.

David Ray Griffin has published over 30 books, including four about 9/11. His next book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, will be out in April.

Desmond
10-03-2007, 07:54 AM
The Twin Towers came straight down, which means that each building's 287 steel columns all had to fail simultaneously; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic. Give me a break. Ax, I assume you never read the debunking 9/11 webpage you were given the link to. Are you supposed to be an investigator or something?

Axiom
10-03-2007, 11:26 AM
Give me a break. Ax, I assume you never read the debunking 9/11 webpage you were given the link to. Are you supposed to be an investigator or something?
IVE READ THE DEBUNKING PAGES AND THE DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS PAGES! I'm not so interested in wtc1 and wtc2 , as i find it difficult to verify the engineering science on both sides of the argument there,but wtc7 is a much clearer picture and advise that be the focus of the investigation(totally ignored by NIST)............remember i have not reached any firm conclusions about what occured that day,.......only interested in the debate between qualified men/women on both sides.(like some listed in the griffin article!)

Desmond
10-03-2007, 11:57 AM
IVE READ THE DEBUNKING PAGES AND THE DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS PAGES!If this is true, then can you post links to examples of the latter.


I'm not so interested in wtc1 and wtc2 , as i find it difficult to verify the engineering science on both sides of the argument there,Why then are you regurgitating the garbage if you don't even believe it?


but wtc7 is a much clearer picture and advise that be the focus of the investigationAsk yourself why conspiracy theorists want to focus on a peripheral building. Part of the significance of the attack on the Twin Towers was that it was an attack against something of architectural and cultural significance.

Axiom
10-03-2007, 12:25 PM
If this is true, then can you post links to examples of the latter.

Why then are you regurgitating the garbage if you don't even believe it?

Ask yourself why conspiracy theorists want to focus on a peripheral building. Part of the significance of the attack on the Twin Towers was that it was an attack against something of architectural and cultural significance.Forget about me, forget about alex jones, read the accounts from professors of engineering, demolition experts, heads of demolition companies,........ppl that know infinitely more than we do..........will post more of this expert opinion soon.
Ask yourself why WTC7 was ignored by the official inquiry........it was not hit by a plane, and supposedly fell at free fall speed(contrary to the bbc doco lie),due to a tower chunk falling on it ,causing fires...if so, this is the first building of this type to free fall in its own footprint from fires! see experiments done on alike buildings(one in madrid)........a dutch demolition expert when viewing footage of the wtc7 collapse(without knowing what building /event he was watching at the time),is quoted as saying "nice job,perfect demolition"....Why did the buildings owner Silverstein say "pull it",why do numerous fireman and police are on record saying "theyre going to pull it"?
Boris there are as many if not more 'holes' in the official conspiracy story as there are in the alternate ones!

i also do not want the 9/11 story to be the sole focus of this thread, i would prefer ppl look at the whole history of govt sponsored false flag events...i posted the griffin article as it gives a list of highly credentialed ppl ,who also question the 'official conspiracy story'.......you can look up what they say yourself, and also find the debunking the debunkers material easily, you know that!

Boris do you buy the official story totally?

Axiom
10-03-2007, 12:44 PM
TODAY ON THE
ALEX JONES RADIO SHOW TUNE IN ,FREE!, VIA www.*******s.com

Paul Joseph Watson


Alex welcomes to the program the Editor and Webmaster of ************.tv, Paul Joseph Watson to discuss the FBI's abuse of Patriot Act powers and the new documentary film that is taking the internet by storm and setting the record straight on the global warming hoax

Related Information:

Powerful Documentary Trounces Man-Made Warming Hoax

FBI underreported use of USA Patriot Act

Axiom
10-03-2007, 12:50 PM
Where Is the Press on Internet Surveillance?

JBS.org | March 8, 2007
John Perna

ABC just ran a story of whistleblower Mark Klein, AT&T technician, regarding government surveillance of internet traffic by AT&T and the National Security Agency. At a San Francisco switching center, Mr. Klein collected over 120 pages of technical documents showing how NSA installed splitters which would allow of both domestic and international internet communications to be copied.

Over at the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Klein's story by was killed at the request of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and NSA Director Gen. Michael Hayden. However, the New York Times did publish it.

Some organizations are not taking this lightly. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website , the organization "filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T ... accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications."

EFF's staff attorney Kevin Bankston stated:

The NSA program is apparently the biggest fishing expedition ever devised, scanning millions of ordinary Americans' phone calls and emails for 'suspicious' patterns, and it's the collaboration of US telecom companies like AT&T that makes it possible. When the government defends spying on Americans by saying, "If you're talking to terrorists we want to know about it," that's not even close to the whole story.

We can rationalize our government's conduct all we want, but what it really comes down to is this:

When they eroded the 2nd Amendment,
we were quiet,
because we don't own guns.

When they chipped away at the 4th Amendment,
we were quiet,
because we didn't deal drugs.

When they circumvented the 6th Amendment,
we were quiet,
because we were innocent.

Now they are assaulting the 1st Amendment,
and very soon,
if we continue to be quiet,
we will have no choice,
but to continue to be quiet.

Axiom
10-03-2007, 12:55 PM
Powerful Documentary Trounces Man-Made Warming Hoax
An astounding documentary that was broadcast in the UK last night completely trounced the man-made explanation for global warming, not with emotionally-laden propaganda or by attacking the messenger as its adherants resort to, but by presenting carefully considered and rational science.

SEE ARTICLE AND VIDEO HERE http://www.*******s.com/articles/science/global_warming_doc_trounces_man_made_warming_hoax. htm


'The Great Global Warming Swindle'
When asked why we'd be misled like this he said that the scientific studies into the impact of CO2 gasses on the climate started in the 1980's and had tons of cash injected into it.

....CONTINUED HERE...
http://www.*******s.com/articles/science/global_warming_great_global_warming_swindle.htm

Aaron Guthrie
10-03-2007, 01:21 PM
Ask yourself why WTC7 was ignored by the official inquiryThe investigation into the collapse of WTC 7 is ongoing, they expect to release their report in (American) spring WTC 7 Technical Approach and Status Summary (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf)


........it was not hit by a plane, and supposedly fell at free fall speed(contrary to the bbc doco lie),Do you have evidence that wtc7 fell at free fall? Also as re the bbc doco, you are showing that you think it is ok to call someone a liar if you think they made a factual mistake. Does that mean if anyone on here finds you making a factual mistake they can call you a liar and you won't complain about it?


due to a tower chunk falling on it ,causing fires...Due to it's structural support being weakened, I would have thought.


if so, this is the first building of this type to free fall in its own footprint from fires! see experiments done on alike buildings(one in madrid)........If comparison to the twin towers is not fair then why is comparison to the madrid building fair?


Why did the buildings owner Silverstein say "pull it"He was referring to pulling the firefighters from the building, perhaps? The full quote
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

and the explanation for the quote by Silverstein's spokesperson-
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."


why do numerous fireman and police are on record saying "theyre going to pull it"?Show us the quotes (in full.)


Boris there are as many if not more 'holes' in the official conspiracy story as there are in the alternate ones! The point is that questionable evidence and theorizing is not convincing of anything, and pilling up more questionable evidence does not make it any more convincing.


i also do not want the 9/11 story to be the sole focus of this threadThe problem I have is that this type of argument style can avoid looking at anything in detail. Just keeping bringing in more and more conspiracy theories, or assertions of "holes in the official theory" is not going to get anywhere when the original ones were not convincing.

Axiom
10-03-2007, 01:25 PM
http://www.rense.com/general62/deun.htm

http://www.************.com/images/august2006/100806windsor.jpg

LISTEN HERE http://qwstnevrythg.blog-city.com/popular_mechanics_re_911_debunking_the_debunkers_t he_charles.htm

Recommended http://www.alternet.org/story/45726/

Axiom
10-03-2007, 03:31 PM
The investigation into the collapse of WTC 7 is ongoing, they expect to release their report in (American) spring WTC 7 Technical Approach and Status Summary (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf) look forward to it,along with engineer's analysis.


Do you have evidence that wtc7 fell at free fall? Also as re the bbc doco, you are showing that you think it is ok to call someone a liar if you think they made a factual mistake. Does that mean if anyone on here finds you making a factual mistake they can call you a liar and you won't complain about it? watch the video! read the view of structural engineers and demolition experts.........ok ,concede, 'a factual error' not 'necessarily' a lie.


Due to it's structural support being weakened, I would have thought. but if a chunk its one side of wtc7 would'nt you expect an asymetrical collapse?......and the first building of its type in history to collapse due to fire, let alone symetrically in a classic 'bottom-up' style demolition in its own foot print!


If comparison to the twin towers is not fair then why is comparison to the madrid building fair? because the madrid bld was also not hit by a plane , and showing how fires could not collapse it.


He was referring to pulling the firefighters from the building, perhaps? The full quote
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

and the explanation for the quote by Silverstein's spokesperson-
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

"smartest thing to do is just pull it" .....is mr silverstein known for making grammatical errors? ..... "pull IT" .....How can "it" mean fireman plural???

also,there was not even a single fireman in the building at the time silverstein said this!(alex jones-butwill look for supporting evidence of this) ........i could argue silverstein was struggling to back out of his gaff.


Show us the quotes (in full.) heard the statements from their own lips via audio on alex jones show, also corroberated from other sources(again, will look for this supporting evidence)


The point is that questionable evidence and theorizing is not convincing of anything, and pilling up more questionable evidence does not make it any more convincing.

The problem I have is that this type of argument style can avoid looking at anything in detail. Just keeping bringing in more and more conspiracy theories, or assertions of "holes in the official theory" is not going to get anywhere when the original ones were not convincing.
Main aim here is to open up directions on many issues , that some may have not looked at.Its not so much trying to convince people of the content, but to give those interested, the content itself. Content often de-prioritised,de-emphasised,minimised,distorted or ignored by the most common sources.
I'm a great believer that fact is not only stranger than fiction,but far more interesting,and i love to analyse!I also believe one can learn the most from looking at the most extreme or 'edge of our reality' issues and phenomena.

I work from my following 'axiomatic' principles 1)lying,crime,corruption,manipulation and control is a fact of human existence. 2)and this occurs at ALL levels of human societies....we are constantly exposed to the existence of low level crime/corruption,mid level, and even high level..........but my interest is in the little known/reported/accepted HIGHEST LEVEL crime corruption.(again see history of tyranny,history of mass lies/frauds,history of govt corruption,history of false flag terror.)

From my experience and IMO ,generally ,either ppl dont want to look in this direction, dont want to accept this fact,are conditioned not to 'believe in it' and very defensive when confronted with it.`It almost seems as if crime/corruption simply stops at this level!(it is this psychological aspect that interests me too)

(Years ago i studied the 'ufo phenomena'-read over 100 books, not the content re ufo's , but the actual PHENOMENA ITSELF. It taught me much about the mechanics of human belief.I thought Jung got the closest to getting to the heart of why that phenomena exists.......and much of that thinking i realise can be applied here.re.psychological dispositions,and the way brains are designed to draw conclusions to help 'make sense' and file away.compartmentalise, 'resolve' a seemingly puzzling,strange ,contradictory or threatening world.)

Desmond
10-03-2007, 03:39 PM
"smartest thing to do is just pull it" .....is mr silverstein known for making grammatical errors? ..... "pull IT" .....How can "it" mean fireman plural???Precisely what do you think "pull it" means in demolition parlance?

Axiom
10-03-2007, 03:43 PM
Precisely what do you think "pull it" means in demolition parlance?
ask anyone in the demolition business, it means DEMOLISH !

Desmond
10-03-2007, 03:56 PM
ask anyone in the demolition business, it means DEMOLISH !Sorry, I don't know anyone in the demolition business. I have, however, done a little reading on this particular question. The reason for that is that on first hearing the arguments like you have put forward, I thought to myself that "pull it" didn't denote "blow it up". What I found was that "pull it" is commonly used in the case when a neighbouring building to the one marked for demolition is "pulled" away so that it doesn't go too. I also found that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists latched onto a minute detail, twisted it out of perspective, and tried to pass it off as evidence of a conspiracy. You can imagine my suprise :rolleyes:

Axiom
10-03-2007, 04:00 PM
Sorry, I don't know anyone in the demolition business. I have, however, done a little reading on this particular question. The reason for that is that on first hearing the arguments like you have put forward, I thought to myself that "pull it" didn't denote "blow it up". What I found was that "pull it" is commonly used in the case when a neighbouring building to the one marked for demolition is "pulled" away so that it doesn't go too. I also found that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists latched onto a minute detail, twisted it out of perspective, and tried to pass it off as evidence of a conspiracy. You can imagine my suprise :rolleyes:
How is this neighbouring building PULLED away?

Aaron Guthrie
10-03-2007, 04:17 PM
watch the video! read the view of structural engineers and demolition experts Unless someone dropped something off the edge of WTC 7 at the initiation of collapse I fail to see how watching the video could tell us whether or not the building fell at free-fall speed.

read the view of structural engineers and demolition experts You made the claim so I expect you are aware of where this evidence resides so I expect you can tell me in more specific terms.

but if a chunk its one side of wtc7 would'nt you expect an symetrical collapse?I suspect you made a typo here that changes the meaning of this sentence, so I won't address it.

......and the first building of its type in history to collapse due to fire,The twin towers also collapsed due to fire.

let alone symetrically in a classic 'bottom-up' style demolition Demolitions destroy buildings by destroying the structural supports, don't they? If fire destroyed (or more accurately weakened to the point where they could not bear the load that was placed upon them) the structural supports why would you expect to see something radicially different in destruction by explosion. Personally I would expect to see similar effects.

in its own foot print!This is an assertion, I do not know if it really did. But assuming so, it does seem very reasonable to me anyway. I would expect the building to pretty much fall straight down. Are you expecting the building to topple over like a tree?


because the madrid bld was also not hit by a plane , and showing how fires could not collapse it.I don't think the plane is relevant, what would be relevant would be the type of building it is. But I'll go along with your reasoning, and say that WTC 7 is not similar to the Madrid building since the Madrid building was not hit by a collapsing building.

"smartest thing to do is just pull it" .....is mr silverstein known for making grammatical errors? ..... "pull IT" .....How can "it" mean fireman plural???So people, when speaking, don't make grammatical errors? Secondly it is not even a grammatical error, "it" referring to the attempt to put the fires out.


also,there was not even a single fireman in the building at the time silverstein said this!(alex jones-butwill look for supporting evidence of this)Do they need to be in the building to be fighting the fire anyway?


........i could argue silverstein was struggling to back out of his gaff.I could argue that you are struggling to back out of your gaff.

Axiom
10-03-2007, 04:19 PM
Thankyou for your information regarding "pull it"...........Well picked up, im currently trying to confirm or question your definition......those damn lies and distortions! :)you might find this interesting http://911review.com/errors/wtc/pullit.html

it still leaves the odd grammer of silversteins quote,in light of the fireman either in or out of wtc7 at the time of his comment.

Desmond
10-03-2007, 04:20 PM
How is this neighbouring building PULLED away?Ask anyone in the demolition business.

Axiom
10-03-2007, 04:35 PM
Unless someone dropped something off the edge of WTC 7 at the initiation of collapse I fail to see how watching the video could tell us whether or not the building fell at free-fall speed. dimensions of building and a stopwatch.

I suspect you made a typo here that changes the meaning of this sentence, so I won't address it.[/quote ] why not an asymetrical collapse?
[QUOTE=Mangafranga]The twin towers also collapsed due to fire.
Demolitions destroy buildings by destroying the structural supports, don't they? If fire destroyed (or more accurately weakened to the point where they could not bear the load that was placed upon them) the structural supports why would you expect to see something radicially different in destruction by explosion. Personally I would expect to see similar effects.
This is an assertion, I do not know if it really did. But assuming so, it does seem very reasonable to me anyway. I would expect the building to pretty much fall straight down. Are you expecting the building to topple over like a tree? many physicists,engineers and scientists question whether high enough temperatures could have weakened the steel supports to the degree that the structure simply pancakes at free fall speed, all in 30 metre chunks!- shipped off to China, without any forensic investigation(which is unheard of at a crime scene,let alone one of this magnitude!)


I don't think the plane is relevant, what would be relevant would be the type of building it is. But I'll go along with your reasoning, and say that WTC 7 is not similar to the Madrid building since the Madrid building was not hit by a collapsing building. surely you're not saying that the hitting-chunk was the primary cause of the building's collapse?if not ,then it was the fire? a combination of both?

So people, when speaking, don't make grammatical errors? Secondly it is not even a grammatical error, "it" referring to the attempt to put the fires out.so 'pull it' means stop putting the fires out???


Do they need to be in the building to be fighting the fire anyway? no ,but silverstein said that when he said 'pull it' he meant get the fireman out!


I could argue that you are struggling to back out of your gaff.
im struggling investigating through smoke and mirrors set on sinking sand,not unlike a detective with a puzzling case, or a research scientist faced with confounding data.

Aaron Guthrie
10-03-2007, 05:09 PM
dimensions of building and a stopwatch.OK, so we need dimensions of the building, a stopwatch, and the video (and some knowledge of physics.) So, show us the calculations that demonstrate WTC 7 fell at free fall.


why not an asymetrical collapse?Because gravity is pulling down on it? That is of course assuming that it did, in fact, fall symmetrically, and that we have agreement of what symmetric means (i.e. if one side of the building starts to fall one tenth of a second before the other side, is this symmetric or asymmetric?)


surely you're not saying that the hitting-chunk was the primary cause of the building's collapse?if not ,then it was the fire? a combination of both?You said that Madrid is a good comparison to WTC 7. I said that the twin towers were a good comparison. You said that WTC 7 was not like the towers since a plane didn't hit WTC 7. I said that by your reasoning then the Madrid tower is not like WTC 7 since a building did not hit it.

so 'pull it' means stop putting the fires out???
no ,but silverstein said that when he said 'pull it' he meant get the fireman out!

Silverstein's spokesperson-
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

Bolding mine. So, show me that -When "The Commander told Mr. Silverstein..." there were no firemen in the building. And then explain why it matters.

Axiom
10-03-2007, 05:16 PM
Ask anyone in the demolition business.
will do, and yes boris,i think you may have highlighted a red herring.http://www.oilempire.us/911bait.html#pullit this seems a relatively balanced site including what appears to be a massive source of material.




However is it really clear what silverstein meant when he said "pull it", is it possible (that he not being a demolition expert) that it was his way of saying 'demolish it'..i doubt it, but..;)
i find the 9/11 theories getting so convoluted and clouded , that it is probably the least fruitful of research topics here.I certainly would like some comment re the supposed temperatures that were reached and if this could cause the actual collapse.

Now i like a debate and an argument ,that is true, and as youve seen only to happy to concede my errors.........but just for a contrast , is anyone willing to support any of the material presented here? say the man-made global warming one, or other cases of false flag in history? 'war on terror',any alex jones report,or indeed any issue at all!
You're attacking my weakest points as you should.........but is there not at least a skerrick of value to be found in the material in this thread? its ok, you can say all the material ive presented here is pure BS.....no problem,i can take it,and we can move on, but if you see anything you consider of value,let me know too. :)

Desmond
10-03-2007, 05:27 PM
However is it really clear what silverstein meant when he said "pull it", is it possible (that he not being a demolition expert) that it was his way of saying 'demolish it'..i doubt it, but..;)If you asked me to give 20 phrases that could be used to instruct someone to blow up a building, "pull it" would not be in my list. To me it is counter-intuitive. "Push the button", "Push it", "punch it", "hit it", "Blow it" and so and so on but "pull it" would probably never occur to me.


i find the 9/11 theories getting so convoluted and clouded , that it is probably the least fruitful of research topics here.I certainly would like some comment re the supposed temperatures that were reached and if this could cause the actual collapse.Unless you intend on spending the next 6 years or so of your life studying physics and engineering etc, I suggest you make a choice. Either believe the numerous specialists and overwhelming preponderance of evidence to suggest that nothing untoward happened, or believe a couple of crackpots. Your call.


Now i like a debate and an argument ,that is true, and as youve seen only to happy to concede my errors.........but just for a contrast , is anyone willing to support any of the material presented here? say the man-made global warming one, or other cases of false flag in history? any alex jones report,or indeed any issue at all!
You're attacking my weakest points as you should.........but is there not at least a skerrick of value to be found in the material in this thread? its ok, you can say all the material ive presented here is pure BS.....no problem,i can take it,and we can move on, but if you see anything you consider of value,let me know too. :)I'm not doing your homework for you. You can't just post reams of crap here and expect me to filter through it and tell you what I think is plausible.

Axiom
10-03-2007, 06:12 PM
If you asked me to give 20 phrases that could be used to instruct someone to blow up a building, "pull it" would not be in my list. To me it is counter-intuitive. "Push the button", "Push it", "punch it", "hit it", "Blow it" and so and so on but "pull it" would probably never occur to me.
huh?? what about as in "pull the whole thing down" ! ?

Unless you intend on spending the next 6 years or so of your life studying physics and engineering etc, I suggest you make a choice. Either believe the numerous specialists and overwhelming preponderance of evidence to suggest that nothing untoward happened, or believe a couple of crackpots. Your call. only problem with that, is that numerous specialists have serious questions/doubts re official version.


I'm not doing your homework for you. You can't just post reams of crap here and expect me to filter through it and tell you what I think is plausible.so you have pre concieved notion - its all crap??

Axiom
10-03-2007, 06:20 PM
OK, so we need dimensions of the building, a stopwatch, and the video (and some knowledge of physics.) So, show us the calculations that demonstrate WTC 7 fell at free fall. there are numerous videos of the collapse of wtc7 freely available online, along with numerous engineer's viewpoints.Dont you have a credible site to refer to ?


Because gravity is pulling down on it? That is of course assuming that it did, in fact, fall symmetrically, and that we have agreement of what symmetric means (i.e. if one side of the building starts to fall one tenth of a second before the other side, is this symmetric or asymmetric?)"it looked like a perfect demolition job" dutch demolition boss of demolition company.(and yes, i do need verification)


You said that Madrid is a good comparison to WTC 7. I said that the twin towers were a good comparison. You said that WTC 7 was not like the towers since a plane didn't hit WTC 7. I said that by your reasoning then the Madrid tower is not like WTC 7 since a building did not hit it.ok, fair enough, but the question remains - was it combination of chunk-hit and fires that collapsed wtc7?



Silverstein's spokesperson-
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

Bolding mine. So, show me that -When "The Commander told Mr. Silverstein..." there were no firemen in the building. And then explain why it matters.it doesnt matter greatly, and i fear we're getting side tracked down a rabbit hole ,with a red herring at the end of it. "a honey pot" even
http://www.oilempire.us/911bait.html#pullit

Desmond
10-03-2007, 06:46 PM
huh?? what about as in "pull the whole thing down" ! ?Wouldn't be in my top 20.

only problem with that, is that numerous specialists have serious questions/doubts re official version.Well, whether it's "a couple" or "numerous", I think we can agree that they are in a distinct minority.


so you have pre concieved notion - its all crap??You asked me/us to find "a skerrick of value to be found in the material in this thread". I'm telling you that you need to sort what you think qualifies and present it as such. Posting anything you can find and then telling me to sort through it will get you nowhere.

Aaron Guthrie
10-03-2007, 07:42 PM
there are numerous videos of the collapse of wtc7 freely available online, along with numerous engineer's viewpoints.Dont you have a credible site to refer to ? It is your claim that the building fell at free fall (and one you seem so certain that you accuse the bbc of lying about it.) Since it is your claim I think it is up to you, not me, to demonstrate it.

Axiom
10-03-2007, 07:57 PM
Wouldn't be in my top 20. DO A POLL ON PULL !

Well, whether it's "a couple" or "numerous", I think we can agree that they are in a distinct minority. LIKE ATHEISTS ?


You asked me/us to find "a skerrick of value to be found in the material in this thread". I'm telling you that you need to sort what you think qualifies and present it as such. Posting anything you can find and then telling me to sort through it will get you nowhere.I DO SORT, I DO MAKE MISTAKES,and will you answer the question?

Axiom
10-03-2007, 08:00 PM
http://www.oilempire.us/wtc7.html

Axiom
10-03-2007, 08:01 PM
It is your claim that the building fell at free fall (and one you seem so certain that you accuse the bbc of lying about it.) Since it is your claim I think it is up to you, not me, to demonstrate it.
SO DO I ASSUME YOU ARE NOT CLAIMING IT FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED?

Aaron Guthrie
10-03-2007, 08:11 PM
SO DO I ASSUME YOU ARE NOT CLAIMING IT FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED?I think you have negated the wrong way again. In any case it is not that relevant. I have made no claim about the speed at which WTC 7 fell. You have made the claim that WTC 7 fell at free-fall. Now I am asking you to substantiate your claim.

Axiom
10-03-2007, 08:15 PM
I think you have negated the wrong way again. In any case it is not that relevant. I have made no claim about the speed at which WTC 7 fell. You have made the claim that WTC 7 fell at free-fall. Now I am asking you to substantiate your claim.
http://www.oilempire.us/wtc7.html

Aaron Guthrie
10-03-2007, 08:22 PM
http://www.oilempire.us/wtc7.htmlQuote me the passage that says that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed.

Axiom
10-03-2007, 09:42 PM
Quote me the passage that says that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed.ok, let me find the spoon...

Aaron Guthrie
10-03-2007, 09:55 PM
ok, let me find the spoon...I submit to you that the page you linked to does not, in fact, make the claim that WTC 7 fell at free-fall.

ETA- not that I think your criticism was fair anyway. You make the claim, you show what supports your claim. This means not only must you link to a site that deals with the general subject matter, you must show where it deals with the specific claim, and why when it does it does so in a rational manner.

Axiom
10-03-2007, 10:29 PM
I submit to you that the page you linked to does not, in fact, make the claim that WTC 7 fell at free-fall.

ETA- not that I think your criticism was fair anyway. You make the claim, you show what supports your claim. This means not only must you link to a site that deals with the general subject matter, you must show where it deals with the specific claim, and why when it does it does so in a rational manner.
forgive me,....this is what you are looking for http://physics911.net/stevenjones
http://physics911.net/closerlook
and the video proof http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4322650841860671469

Desmond
10-03-2007, 10:34 PM
DO A POLL ON PULL !No idea what you are trying to say, or why you are shouting at me in CAPS.


LIKE ATHEISTS ?Are you trying to demonstrate to me that you can identify another minority group? If so, you suceeded. Shall I take your non-response to mean that you conceed that there are more engineering-type people who would support the status quo position than the conspiracy theorists'?


I DO SORT, I DO MAKE MISTAKES,and will you answer the question?I will assume you refer to this: "so you have pre concieved notion - its all crap??" The answer is no. I think most of it is, and I'm not going to be the one to sort through it for you.

Axiom
10-03-2007, 10:45 PM
No idea what you are trying to say, or why you are shouting at me in CAPS. Excuse the unintententional capital offence.


Are you trying to demonstrate to me that you can identify another minority group? If so, you suceeded. Shall I take your non-response to mean that you conceed that there are more engineering-type people who would support the status quo position than the conspiracy theorists'?
im getting at , if so, then so what?

I will assume you refer to this: "so you have pre concieved notion - its all crap??" The answer is no. I think most of it is, and I'm not going to be the one to sort through it for you. ok, but i would welcome your engaged input,.... can you please at least give some summary of your position re.any topic, eg war on terror, history of false flag, highest level corruption, ,informing media,rise of high tech police state, the biggest lies in history, real democracies in action, the bilderberg group,CFR, North American union, one world govt agenda, man-made global warming.?

Aaron Guthrie
10-03-2007, 10:47 PM
forgive me,....this is what you are looking for http://physics911.net/stevenjones
To quote from the page-
"The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the southwest corner) falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds."
I submit to you that this page does not claim that the building fell at free fall speed.

http://physics911.net/closerlookTo quote from the page-
"6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum. To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at least 6 seconds to hit the ground."
I submit to you that this page does not claim that the building fell at free fall speed.

Desmond
10-03-2007, 10:58 PM
Excuse the unintententional capital offence.Ok, but you still have not clarified your point.


im getting at , if so, then so what?If something is too technical for a layman like you or I to understand and there is a vast majority of experts with one opinion against a minority with a different view, who would you believe?


ok, but i would welcome your engaged input,.... can you please at least give some summary of your position re.any topic, eg ...?No. You don't want to put forward any coherent argument about anything. You are regurgitating large amounts of material but not claiming it is your position. Are you so afraid to make a stance on something? or is the conspiracy theorist's primary weapon the lobbing of a hand grenade and running away to start another fight without ever having to stick around long enough to defend something?

If you are actually interested in a discussion, start by laying out roughly what you think **really** happened on 9/11.

Axiom
10-03-2007, 10:58 PM
To quote from the page-
"The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the southwest corner) falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds."
I submit to you that this page does not claim that the building fell at free fall speed.
To quote from the page-
"6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum. To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at least 6 seconds to hit the ground."
I submit to you that this page does not claim that the building fell at free fall speed.
ok, you are correct, .but close enough to be worthwhile data?

Axiom
10-03-2007, 11:01 PM
Ok, but you still have not clarified your point.

If something is too technical for a layman like you or I to understand and there is a vast majority of experts with one opinion against a minority with a different view, who would you believe?

No. You don't want to put forward any coherent argument about anything. You are regurgitating large amounts of material but not claiming it is your position. Are you so afraid to make a stance on something? or is the conspiracy theorist's primary weapon the lobbing of a hand grenade and running away to start another fight without ever having to stick around long enough to defend something?

If you are actually interested in a discussion, start by laying out roughly what you think **really** happened on 9/11.i am an investigator ,yet to draw conclusions, im in the process, thats why i invite others input hopefully as a mutually learning excercise..........i think youve seen my position on a variety of other topics here!

Basil
10-03-2007, 11:05 PM
i am an investigator ,yet to draw conclusions
No you're not. You've stated on more than one occasion that people's eyes are wide shut. That has nothing to do with investigation. It is a judgement on those who have decided something, and if you are truly an investigator with a yet to be determined position, you may even join the ranks of the people you denigrate!

Desmond
10-03-2007, 11:14 PM
i am an investigator ,yet to draw conclusions, im in the process,I think that is crap. I think that your investigation began and ended on your little Alex Jones brainwash website.

Axiom
10-03-2007, 11:15 PM
No you're not. You've stated on more than one occasion that people's eyes are wide shut. That has nothing to do with investigation. It is a judgement on those who have decided something, and if you are truly an investigator with a yet to be determined position, you may even join the ranks of the people you denigrate!cmon hd,that is a bit unfair, i meant eyes wide shut to inquiry not opposition to a prescribed view!


hd- please answer this question:- do you believe that govts are controlled or answerable by/to a more powerful group, and do you believe their exists a one world govt agenda amongst the most powerful/the elite, if you will?

Basil
10-03-2007, 11:21 PM
cmon hd,that is a bit unfair, i meant eyes wide shut to inquiry not opposition to a prescribed view!
I don't think you have any basis to accuse ppl of that. Alex Tinpot is not the B all and end all of investigation. In fact he is far from it as he has an obvious bias.



do you believe that govts are controlled or answerable by/to a more powerful group
No. That's not to say that bribery and corruption doesn't exist. Of course it does. It exists everywhere. But there are also checks and balances, viz, the fear of getting caught, conscience override, conflicting lobby groups, the electorate and the desire to be re-elected and so forth.

Your perpetual suggestion that an elite group sit and direct traffic is hitherto unsubstantiated rot.

To which you are saying you are still looking into the matter, right? Or do you have names? :wall:

Axiom
10-03-2007, 11:26 PM
I think that is crap. I think that your investigation began and ended on your little Alex Jones brainwash website.
i repeat my earlier post, which i noticed you didnt respond to my response.
alex jones has made many claims, he in fact on radio predicted 9/11 event in july2001! TRUE FACT!........He has named names along with damning accusations............yet not once successfully sued for defamation or slander in sue-crazy america...............if you actually try to verify or corroberate his stories ,you will see how factual they in fact are.....for instance do you believe that google microphones can listen in to background words/conversatons to be installed in new PCs? hard to believe- but absolutely true.....just one of many stories you will never hear in mainstream.,one of hundreds........like did you hear about human gene spliced into rice?- source london telegraph......he does site many mainstream sources too, so what are you accusing him of??...he simply combines a daily new variety of news stories - that you would have to be brain dead or blindly biased not to find some interest.

i deeply suspect a cursory glance- followed by wholesale conditioned knee-jerk rejection..

again , reconsider,............or its back to that head warming sand and jim lehrer and larry king!

Basil
10-03-2007, 11:30 PM
again , reconsider,............or its back to that head warming sand and jim lehrer and larry king!
This while you're still undecided? The voice of an investigator?

Claiming to be an investigator while accusing the British of anything, everything and nothing (remember you just answered with rhetorical questions), is simple obfuscation of your position. You've lost me, mate.

Aaron Guthrie
10-03-2007, 11:32 PM
ok, you are correct, .but close enough to be worthwhile data?10% sounds doesn't sound close to me, but I am not an expert.

You originally offered up a post (#192) that purported to show that

there are as many if not more 'holes' in the official conspiracy story as there are in the alternate ones!I have tried to show that the evidence you presented (in post 192) is very weak, being badly interpreted (such as the "pull it" quote) in some places, unsourced (firefighter quotes?) and therefore unverifiable, and simply false in others (free fall). What I am claiming is that your evidence is, quite plainly, bad. I am also claiming that bad evidence is bad evidence, and a lot of it is just as bad as a little of it, so piling on more bad evidence will not help your (or whomever's) case.

Axiom
10-03-2007, 11:46 PM
I don't think you have any basis to accuse ppl of that. Alex Tinpot is not the B all and end all of investigation. In fact he is far from it as he has an obvious bias. ok he is very passionate,very hard working, and not free from flaws. see my above post to boris.




No. That's not to say that bribery and corruption doesn't exist. Of course it does. It exists everywhere. But there are also checks and balances, viz, the fear of getting caught, conscience override, conflicting lobby groups, the electorate and the desire to be re-elected and so forth.

Your perpetual suggestion that an elite group sit and direct traffic is hitherto unsubstantiated rot.

To which you are saying you are still looking into the matter, right? Or do you have names? :wall: hd- promise me one thing, that you read my list of compiled quotes from men of great historical standing stating unequivocably such a thing........you recall w.churchill talking of the commitee of 300, that truly ran the show?.........my premise is that global bankers 'employ' govts to run the 'show' , in effect the major parties just run a show for the public in effect vying for the employment by the real power...........many great figures of history tried to warn/alert us of this(see my upcoming quotes)........just observationally you can see how left blair is! for instance or how ,in real terms, oppositional the democrats are in the usa......they march left ,right , each step closer to the same goal, that of one world govt............and i know you're rolling your eyes now, but just wait ,what the famous and powerful have stated in their own words in the last 100 yrs.
and btw do you just think the elite(ie.the most powerful ppl on earth) ,just sit around twiddling their thumbs?

on your point of checks and balances , i would say its david v goliath - a giant cartel , and blackmail and threats keep them under control........they actually seek out govt leaders candidates with something they can blackmail(control)them with, be it homosexuality,peodophilia or some other terminal threat of exposure...........govt puppets have to be hard working,egotists,good public speakers,and with something in the closet to keep them on track...........i contend jfk tried to buck this system. see his quote ,10 days prior to his death!

Axiom
10-03-2007, 11:50 PM
10% sounds doesn't sound close to me, but I am not an expert.

You originally offered up a post (#192) that purported to show that
I have tried to show that the evidence you presented (in post 192) is very weak, being badly interpreted (such as the "pull it" quote) in some places, unsourced (firefighter quotes?) and therefore unverifiable, and simply false in others (free fall). What I am claiming is that your evidence is, quite plainly, bad. I am also claiming that bad evidence is bad evidence, and a lot of it is just as bad as a little of it, so piling on more bad evidence will not help your (or whomever's) case.
ok, i admit i did a poor job there.........l will now concentrate on my specialist areas ,see above post to hd

Axiom
10-03-2007, 11:52 PM
This while you're still undecided? The voice of an investigator?

Claiming to be an investigator while accusing the British of anything, everything and nothing (remember you just answered with rhetorical questions), is simple obfuscation of your position. You've lost me, mate. in the process thereof ie the investigating.and that was a response to boris but nm.

the british only form part of the highest level of power, but arguably the biggest part. se my post above to you

Axiom
11-03-2007, 12:07 AM
i repeat, there was a time not so long ago when merely suggesting the bilderberg group ,existed or humans will be microchippped would have you consigned to the nutjob bin.
Now i assert ,like many before, that a controlling elite(global bankers mostly)actually call the 'shots' ....."totally insane " you say ?

well i'll give you one of my favourites of 30+ great quotes to support this view.

Woodrow Wilson President of U.S.: 1913~1921, Historian and Political Scientist
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

nothing on its own?., but knit together with the following quotes .

Axiom
11-03-2007, 12:13 AM
David Rockefeller [1915~] Banker, Founder & Honorary Chairman of Trilateral Commission, Honorary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Written in his 2002 autobiography 'Memoirs' [pp 405]
"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."


David Rockefeller [1915~] Banker, Founder & Honorary Chairman of Trilateral Commission, Honorary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberg meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle)
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.

It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

Axiom
11-03-2007, 12:19 AM
"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." --Richard Salent, Former President CBS News.

"News is what someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising".-- former NBC news prez Rubin Frank

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."~William Colby, former CIA director



John Swinton [1829-1901] Chief Editorial Writer of the New York Times (Considered "the Dean of his Profession" by his peers), when asked to toast an 'Independent Press' in a gathering at the National Press Club, circa 1880
"There is no such thing in America as an independent press unless it is in the country towns. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dare express an honest opinion. If you express it you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid... for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things....

The business of the New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and sell his country and race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same thing, his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an 'independent press.' We are tools, and the vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the strings and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, all are the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

John Fitzgerald Kennedy [1917~1963] President of U.S.: 1961~1963. Columbia University, 10 days before his assassination

"The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans' freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight."


Benjamin Disraeli [1804~1881] British Prime Minister. Coningsby,1844

"...the world is governed by very different personages to what is imagined by those who are not themselves behind the scenes."

Nathan Rothschild [1777~1836] Financier, Founder of Rothschild banking dynasty
"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply."

Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D. Former German Defense Ministry Official and Advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Werner. 6th November, 2001
"The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission - founded by Zbigniew Brzezinski for David Rockefeller - and the Bilderberg Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens."

Axiom
11-03-2007, 12:21 AM
Yet to even scratch the surface , but time to absorb the gravity of the above words thus far.
Standby for paradigm shift, warning, you may feel slightly nauseous.

Axiom
11-03-2007, 12:31 AM
Dr. Henry Kissinger Speaking at Evian, France, May 21st, 1992, Bilderbergers meeting; Unbeknownst to Henry Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting
"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion], whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis by original compiler], that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the world government."

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2007, 12:37 AM
mencken quote rings a bell,...its not "if we didnt have hobgoblins,we'd invent them" ? :)

Naaah. It is this:


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed --and hence clamorous to be led to safety--by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Axiom
11-03-2007, 12:38 AM
http://www.threeworldwars.com/nwo-timeline.htm Significant Dates in the Creation of the NWO - Pt.1 1910~1980


http://www.threeworldwars.com/nwo-timeline2.htm Significant Dates in the Creation of the NWO - Pt.2 1980~Present

Axiom
11-03-2007, 12:44 AM
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed --and hence clamorous to be led to safety--by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." :

Thats right!!! beautiful- sheer poetry-wonderful truth! and oh so relevant!............Goebells said something similar re . inventing an enemy and the use of fear.and my sig. solzhenitsyn quote!
Thankyou KB..........I hope you enjoy my collection of quotes ,ive only just started posting.

Axiom
11-03-2007, 01:09 AM
Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. Historian, Social Critic, Speech Writer & Presidential Special Assistant (to JFK), Foreign Affairs (July/ August 1995)
"We are not going to achieve a New World Order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."


Abraham Lincoln 16th President of U.S.: 1861~1865. In a letter written to William Elkin less than five months before he was assassinated Nov. 21st, 1864
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed."

James Warburg [1896~1969] Banker, Economist. Statement by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, l950 - as he testified before the US Senate
"We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent."

Lord Bertrand Russell [1872~1970] 'The Impact of Science on Society' (Book: 1985) Welsh Philosopher, Logician, Mathematician, Essayist and an advocate for one world government
"At present the population of the world is increasing ... War so far has had no great effect on this increase ... I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others ... If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full ... the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others."

William Sims Bainbridge 'Religions for a Galactic Civilization' paper given at the 19th Goddard Memorial Symposium of the American Astronomical Society, Pentagon City, Virginia, March 26~27, 1981. As Deputy Director of The National Science Foundation, has received from GW Bush $800 million in funding.
"Techniques such as Genetic engineering, Psychoactive drugs and electronic control of the brain make possible a transformation of the species into docile, fully-obedient, 'safe' organisms."

ENGINEERING EVOLUTION: THE ALCHEMY OF EUGENICS By Phillip D. Collins


Zbigniew Brzezinski Protegé of David Rockefeller, co-founder of The Trilateral Commission, and NSA to Jimmy Carter, (Brzezinski has been adviser to no less than five presidents). Founder of Al Qaida. From his 1971 book 'Between Two Ages'
1/ "The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. [...] [T]he capacity to assert social and political control over the individual will vastly increase. It will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date, complete files, containing even most personal information about the health or personal behavior of the citizen in addition to more customary data. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities."

2/ [On the ability of a chosen elite to influence and control the mindset of the masses he wrote ...] "In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason."

3/ [He prophetically foresaw a society...] "...that is shaped culturally, psychologically, socially, and economically by the impact of technology and electronics--particularly in the areas of computers and communications."

4/ ... "effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason."

5/ [Brzezinksi well knew the end result of alchemical programming through the proliferation of carefully crafted demonic symbols and images. This, he noted, will lead to a technetronic era in which ...] "human beings become increasingly manipulatable and malleable."


Mikhail Gorbachev General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union/ First Secretary.: 1985~1991. Quoted in "A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War On Mankind", by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p. 5.]

"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order."

George Herbert Walker-Bush President of U.S.: 1989~1993. CFR Director, Trilateralist, CIA Director, Yale Skull and Bones Society. Speaking before Congress on September 11th, 1990 [Televised]
"... what is at stake, is more than one small country. It is a big idea. A New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace, and security, freedom, and the rule of law ... [The war in Iraq is] a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, ... our fifth objective, - a New World Order, can emerge: a new era, freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace ... Now we can see a new world coming into view, a world in which there is a very real prospect of a New World Order. ... We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders."

Axiom
11-03-2007, 01:15 AM
OK, Thats enough to show that one world govt/NWO is not just some fringe crack pot theory.
Next are quotes supporting that it is the bankers that 'pull the strings',or ultimately 'call the shots' ,no matter how much you want to believe in your beloved political party or govt!

antichrist
11-03-2007, 01:20 AM
Axiom, this sort of reminds me of a Marcos politician who outlived Marcos by decades. He finally retired and became a politicial journalist at about the age of 80, he had been foreign minister and had higher posts.

Well finally being free of political restraints he let out what he really thought about their society and all the corrupting influences. It was brilliant but first he stated that he could only speak freely now that he was out of politics.

Reminds me again of some priests who lose the dog collar and become campaigning atheists (rationalists).

That is what I did not like about Frosty's attitude about me butting in (I thought relevantly) re Vic clubs thread. He expects everyone to act as though they are in church and you can talk bullshit and everyone just nods.

Axiom
11-03-2007, 01:28 AM
Axiom, this sort of reminds me of a Marcos politician who outlived Marcos by decades. He finally retired and became a politicial journalist at about the age of 80, he had been foreign minister and had higher posts.

Well finally being free of political restraints he let out what he really thought about their society and all the corrupting influences. It was brilliant but first he stated that he could only speak freely now that he was out of politics.

Reminds me again of some priests who lose the dog collar and become campaigning atheists (rationalists).

That is what I did not like about Frosty's attitude about me butting in (I thought relevantly) re Vic clubs thread. He expects everyone to act as though they are in church and you can talk bullshit and everyone just nods.
nice a/c..............yes there do exist good men in high places who desire to tell us the truth, to dismantle the fairytale.....they are my heros........yes, and those born again rationalists ex- god-believers have my great respect too.

Desmond
11-03-2007, 08:27 AM
i repeat my earlier post, which i noticed you didnt respond to my response.
alex jones has made many claims, he in fact on radio predicted 9/11 event in july2001! TRUE FACT!........He has named names along with damning accusations............yet not once successfully sued for defamation or slander in sue-crazy america...............if you actually try to verify or corroberate his stories ,you will see how factual they in fact are.....for instance do you believe that google microphones can listen in to background words/conversatons to be installed in new PCs? hard to believe- but absolutely true.....just one of many stories you will never hear in mainstream.,one of hundreds........like did you hear about human gene spliced into rice?- source london telegraph......he does site many mainstream sources too, so what are you accusing him of??...he simply combines a daily new variety of news stories - that you would have to be brain dead or blindly biased not to find some interest.

i deeply suspect a cursory glance- followed by wholesale conditioned knee-jerk rejection..

again , reconsider,............or its back to that head warming sand and jim lehrer and larry king!I don't know what you are awaiting a response on. I find your writing style, with its lack of grammar, very puzzling and at times difficult to follow. I do know that most of the questions I have asked you have not been answered. In fact, I have asked you for clarification on what you were trying to say before and got no relevant reply. How am I supposed to communicate with you?

Axiom
11-03-2007, 01:16 PM
I don't know what you are awaiting a response on. I find your writing style, with its lack of grammar, very puzzling and at times difficult to follow. I do know that most of the questions I have asked you have not been answered. In fact, I have asked you for clarification on what you were trying to say before and got no relevant reply. How am I supposed to communicate with you?
my post was simply in defence of your attack on the *******s site. please re-read in this light.

Axiom
11-03-2007, 01:35 PM
Nick Rockefeller Revealed Elite Agenda to Aaron Russo During Friendship

Jones Report | March 7, 2007

America: Freedom to Fascism filmmaker Aaron Russo has exposed first-hand knowledge of the elite global agenda during a video interview and live on Alex Jones' nationally-syndicated radio show.



Nick Rockefeller told Russo about the plan to microchip the population, warned him about 'an event that would allow us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq' some eleven months before 9/11 and foretold the fact that the 'War on Terror' would be a hoax wherein soldiers would be looking in caves for nonexistent enemies.

Rockefeller also tried to recruit Aaron Russo to the Council on Foreign Relations during the tenure of their friendship. Now, a picture sent by the Russo family verifies that friendship and strengthens evidence of the global agenda which Rockefeller related to the filmmaker so frankly during their private conversations.

WATCH THE VIDEO INTERVIEW WITH AARON RUSSO where he discusses all of these subjects and more in a powerful account.
http://www.*******s.com/articles/nwo/rockefeller_revealed_elite_agenda_to_russo_during_ friendship.htm

Axiom
11-03-2007, 02:46 PM
Before i get to the Bankers, i would like to offer some more quotes supporting this ,much maligned and scoffed at 'crazy' notion ,of a one world govt/elite controlled.NWO. !!

'The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one--world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.'

-- Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets."


'The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen....At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties.'

-- New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, 1922"


'The real The Truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.'

-- A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, 1933"


'The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes.'

-- Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952"


'The Council on Foreign Relations is &#180;the establishment.&#180; Not only does it have influence and power in key decision--making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also announces and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a one--world dictatorship.'

-- Former Congressman John Rarick 1971 "


'The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault.'

-- CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs."


'The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for &#180;the purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all--powerful one--world government&#180;.'

-- Harpers, July 1958"


'NAFTA is a major stepping stone to the New World Order'

-- Henry Kissinger when campaigning for the passage of NAFTA. "<.............note this connection to the NAU


'We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.'

-- David Rockefeller"

'This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri--Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept.'

-- Zbigniew Brzezinki, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter."


'The New World Order is a world that has a supernational authority to regulate world commerce and industry; an international organization that would control the production and consumption of oil; an international currency that would replace the dollar; a World Development Fund that would make funds available to free and communist nations alike; and an international police force to enforce the edicts of the New World Order.'

-- Willy Brandt, Former West German Chancellor and former chairman of the Fifth Socialist International, Chairman of the Brandt Commission in the late 1980's"


If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched'

George HW Bush, cited in the June, 1992 Sarah McClendon Newsletter."

'The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.'

-- OZBIGNIEW BREZHINSKY, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter and advisor to 4 other presidents, Executive Director of Trilateral Commission, Marxist and proud of it!"


""Nationalism is... First wave. The globalization of business and finance by advancing Third Wave economies routinely punctures the national "sovereignty" the nationalists hold so dear..." "The Third Wave... demassifies culture, values, and morality... There are more diverse religious belief systems." "The Consitution of the United States needs to be reconsidered and altered... to create a whole new structure of government..." The Tofflers say fundamentalist, biblical Christianity is "both dangerous and regressive." Beliefs in nationalism, patriotism, and an exclusive God, "give birth to violence or repression." Only when these "Dark Age" menaces are swept away can "advanced wealth creation" by the elite be achieved."

-- Newt Gingrich-- Mason, member of both the World Future Society and the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote the forward to Alvin and Heidi Toffler's Creating a New Civilization

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."

-- Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization <............THIS ONE FOR KB! :)


The Ango--American Establishment "There is... an inner core of intimate associates who unquestionably knew that they were members of a group devoted to a common purpose and an outer circle of a larger number on whom the inner circle acted by personal pursuasion, patronage distribution, and social pressure. It is probable that most members of the outer circle were not conscious that they were being used by a secret society." Tragedy and Hope 1966 "Their aim is nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole."

-- Carrol J. Quigley Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University, Bill Clinton's mentor

"The CFR [Council On Foreign Relations, New York City] is the American Branch of a society which originated in England and believes national directives should be obliterated and one--world rule established. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and was permitted in the early 1960's to examine its papers and secret records... I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known".

-- Dr. Carroll Quigley, Professor of International Relations, Georgetown University Foreign Service School, Washington, D.C., author of the epic "Tragedy & Hope", advocate of one--world government and personal mentor of President William Clinton (who acknowledged Professor Quigley during his 1992 presidential inauguration speech)


"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of US. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government".

-- Chester Ward, Rear Admiral and former Navy Judge Advocate 1956 -- 1960 and CFR member for 15 years

."In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way".

-- Teddy Roosevelt

Desmond
11-03-2007, 06:52 PM
my post was simply in defence of your attack on the *******s site. please re-read in this light.<sigh> last chance before I leave this thread for good. You said that I didn't respond to you. On what are you awaiting a response?