Bomb in Boston

[ottery st mary]

Of course he doesn't make a lot of sense - that's his point!! How could that possibly have escaped your attention?

 

To ottery, I had no idea you were going to have the courage to put up your list of criminal conspiracists among Catholics and others. Well done you. Post the names on here - unless of course you're a tiny bit nervous of looking even more foolish. Or of libelling people.

 

Give me your address or your other meeting place...I will hand deliver so as to meet you in person:D

 

I know where you work...old boy;)

[CB Fry]

Well, this is a sort of progress.

 

We've moved from "I don't believe any conspiracy" to "but pap, they are different!"

 

Lordy. Did you ever expect them not to be? Specious reasoning, I feel.

 

I'd get yourself down the pub, mate. First, the quality of your insults has gone right down the swanny. You may learn some more. Secondly, someone might be p!ssed enough to find your arguments coherent.

 

You have definitely won this argument. Well done. Defeated, yet again.

 

Think its because you're so coherent and that.

[Verbal]

Watergate was uncovered by journalists. Not gimps who pretend that bomb victims are actors or who think the government blew up a skyscraper and mass murdered hundreds and hundreds of civilians.

 

Iran Contra does not equal "government staged a fake bombing".

 

Seriously. It aint me that needs an Utter Bullsh it filter.

 

 

But keep wearing your medal. You are, like, so clever.

 

Watergate doesn't count. Pap says so. He put up a "top 50" list of conspiracy theories the other week and Watergate wasn't even on it.

 

Pap is also so right about "official" version, you know. When 9/11 went down, all reporters in the mainstream media were handed press releases by Donald Rumsfeld, and these were faithfully reproduced to fool everyone into thinking that the US government didn't needlessly, pointlessly, murder thousands of its own citizens.

 

The commonest ruse by conspiracy theorists is to claim that anyone who disagrees with them are sheeple who believe in some mythical "official" version. The nuance of reporters (too numerous to mention) going out and investigating stories for themselves is completely lost on them. The nuance of exposing government malfeasance also passes them by completely.

 

But then who needs reporters when conspiracy theorists are so good at what they do?! It was them, after all, who exposed the MPs' expenses scandal, the hacking scandal, Watergate, Prism, the Abu Ghraib photos, British army war crimes in Iraq, etc, etc.

 

So we should thank pap for all his investigative zeal. He's really made a difference by producing not a single original idea - even a whacked out conspiracy idea - of his own, and instead taking the worthy course of unquestioningly regurgitating the utter crap he feverishly googles online.

[ottery st mary]

Any of you Freemasons want to bid on my book on ebay..up to 44p at the mo.

 

FREEMASONS GUIDE AND COMPENDIUM...Author Bernard E Jones 1957...

 

My brother and Uncle AND all my ex colleagues would not tell me anything......

 

BUT... now I am learning all your funny little secrets:p

 

 

I will still acknowledge you all at St Marys when I see you...

 

BUT you still will not get me to join........Old age prevents me bending my fingers in those difficult positions:blush:

 

 

I mention this again as it was rather amiss of me not to mention...I had a copy of.. The Catholic Guild book...(all in Latin)....which I

 

 

was able to give away to my local priest before he went on his holidays:)

 

unfortunately in care of HMP....something to do with small boys in care homes..

 

 

Definitely not a joking matter......Just highlighting that although there are a lot of protected peeps..... AT LEAST some of the minnions deservedly go to prison..

 

Having said that these types end up enjoying their time ..care of Her Majesty.

Edited 5 August, 2013 by ottery st mary

[ottery st mary]

Watergate doesn't count. Pap says so. He put up a "top 50" list of conspiracy theories the other week and Watergate wasn't even on it.

 

Pap is also so right about "official" version, you know. When 9/11 went down, all reporters in the mainstream media were handed press releases by Donald Rumsfeld, and these were faithfully reproduced to fool everyone into thinking that the US government didn't needlessly, pointlessly, murder thousands of its own citizens.

 

The commonest ruse by conspiracy theorists is to claim that anyone who disagrees with them are sheeple who believe in some mythical "official" version. The nuance of reporters (too numerous to mention) going out and investigating stories for themselves is completely lost on them. The nuance of exposing government malfeasance also passes them by completely.

 

But then who needs reporters when conspiracy theorists are so good at what they do?! It was them, after all, who exposed the MPs' expenses scandal, the hacking scandal, Watergate, Prism, the Abu Ghraib photos, British army war crimes in Iraq, etc, etc.

 

So we should thank pap for all his investigative zeal. He's really made a difference by producing not a single original idea - even a whacked out conspiracy idea - of his own, and instead taking the worthy course of unquestioningly regurgitating the utter crap he feverishly googles online.

 

Verbal.....Hasn't your boss told you to go home yet...Or are we taxpayers paying your overtime at MFI:p

 

My Freemasons Compendium is truggling to reach 50p and therefore I will hand deliver this along with the names you requested.....Meet you in Macdonalds at our special table;);)

 

Wear the carnation so I know it is safe to approach without those pesky KGB being present:rolleyes:

[pap]

Watergate doesn't count. Pap says so. He put up a "top 50" list of conspiracy theories the other week and Watergate wasn't even on it.

 

Lol. And to think, you used to be regarded as intelligent around here.

 

So if I post a list of fifty conspiracies that are known to happen ( which you've ignored, as usual, until it's handy in the most tenuous way ), and one isn't on it, then I automatically believe it wasn't a conspiracy?

 

Heh. The comedy continues.

 

Pap is also so right about "official" version, you know. When 9/11 went down, all reporters in the mainstream media were handed press releases by Donald Rumsfeld, and these were faithfully reproduced to fool everyone into thinking that the US government didn't needlessly, pointlessly, murder thousands of its own citizens.

 

Ah yes, those independent journalists who answer to no-one, and presumably have complete editorial control to write and publish anything they see fit on mainstream media.

 

Your entire point is essentially predicated on the above assumption, yet journalists don't have anything like the kind of power you ascribe to them.

 

The commonest ruse by conspiracy theorists is to claim that anyone who disagrees with them are sheeple who believe in some mythical "official" version. The nuance of reporters (too numerous to mention) going out and investigating stories for themselves is completely lost on them. The nuance of exposing government malfeasance also passes them by completely.

 

The commonest ruse of the shill is to label conspiracy theories as nutters, madmen or not having done their research.

 

I found this for your earlier.

 

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

 

These are just people in the military.

 

But then who needs reporters when conspiracy theorists are so good at what they do?! It was them, after all, who exposed the MPs' expenses scandal, the hacking scandal, Watergate, Prism, the Abu Ghraib photos, British army war crimes in Iraq, etc, etc.

 

So we should thank pap for all his investigative zeal. He's really made a difference by producing not a single original idea - even a whacked out conspiracy idea - of his own, and instead taking the worthy course of unquestioningly regurgitating the utter crap he feverishly googles online.

 

I asked you and CB Fry the same question essentially. You couldn't answer it, or refuse to. That's fine, and your right - but anything you refuse to say harms your defence when you ignore it and insult fellow posters instead. I'll ask again, is there any event presently termed as a conspiracy theory that you believe may have legs?

[CB Fry]

I asked you and CB Fry the same question essentially. You couldn't answer it, or refuse to. That's fine, and your right - but anything you refuse to say harms your defence when you ignore it and insult fellow posters instead. I'll ask again, is there any event presently termed as a conspiracy theory that you believe may have legs?

 

 

I'll answer your question all day long.

 

The answer is no.

 

Simply because if anything is ever uncovered....saaaaay George Bush commanded the mass murder of hundreds of innocent civilians by destroying one of New York's most famous landmarks....then it will be uncovered by...wait for it...the mainstream media. That's who will uncover it. And you'll cream your knickers over it. Funny, eh?

 

So all the conspiracies on your gimp websites? Utter guff.

 

I have answered your question. Happy?

[ottery st mary]

This is well worth a read....

 

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

 

 

 

 

THESE ARE NOT CONSPIRACY NUTTERS BUT HIGHLY INTELLIGENT PEEPS..

 

Who at various times worked for the USA goverment....

Edited 5 August, 2013 by ottery st mary

[pap]

I'll answer your question all day long.

 

The answer is no.

 

Simply because if anything is ever uncovered....saaaaay George Bush commanded the mass murder of hundreds of innocent civilians by destroying one of New York's most famous landmarks....then it will be uncovered by...wait for it...the mainstream media. That's who will uncover it. And you'll cream your knickers over it. Funny, eh?

 

So all the conspiracies on your gimp websites? Utter guff.

 

I have answered your question. Happy?

 

So basically, your stance is "conspiracy theorists are nutters until it hits the mainstream media"? That must be a very myopic world view, if you don't mind me saying. You're essentially waiting for the mainstream media to deliver you the truth, which is the same thing as waiting for a corporation or government to give you the truth.

 

Per Verbal's ramblings earlier on about investigative journalists. He makes the colossal error of assuming that it doesn't happen, or hasn't happened and that if it did happen, we'd all know about it. That's patently not true, and you don't have to look far to see how hundreds of witnesses can be kept silent if the right people want them to be. Using your logic, every kid that was abused by Jimmy Savile (and the rumoured wider circle) was a liar until the mainstream media exonerated them. Even after the news broke, people asked "why didn't they go to the police sooner", or "why come out after he's dead".

 

The reality of the situation is that every kid that was abused by Savile was an actually an abused kid all along, irrespective of whether the mainstream media reported it or not. Those that were brave enough to overcome the intimidation and actually go to the authorities were routinely ignored. The establishment knew all along what Savile was. Thatcher's private secretary repeatedly militated against Savile's elevation to a Knight of the British Empire. Still, in your world, no conspiracies exist - so at the time, those kids were just liars.

 

I've read your specious reasoning and baseless conclusions. It's guff because you use the adjective "utter" , eh? Fascinating.

Edited 5 August, 2013 by pap

[CB Fry]

So basically, your stance is "conspiracy theorists are nutters until it hits the mainstream media"? That must be a very myopic world view, if you don't mind me saying. You're essentially waiting for the mainstream media to deliver you the truth, which is the same thing as waiting for a corporation or government to give you the truth.

 

Per Verbal's ramblings earlier on about investigative journalists. He makes the colossal error of assuming that it doesn't happen, or hasn't happened and that if it did happen, we'd all know about it. That's patently not true, and you don't have to look far to see how hundreds of witnesses can be kept silent if the right people want them to be. Using your logic, every kid that was abused by Jimmy Savile (and the rumoured wider circle) was a liar until the mainstream media exonerated them. Even after the news broke, people asked "why didn't they go to the police sooner", or "why come out after he's dead".

 

The reality of the situation is that every kid that was abused by Savile was an actually an abused kid all along, irrespective of whether the mainstream media reported it or not. Those that were brave enough to overcome the intimidation and actually go to the authorities were routinely ignored. The establishment knew all along what Savile was. Thatcher's private secretary repeatedly militated against Savile's elevation to a Knight of the British Empire. Still, in your world, no conspiracies exist - so at the time, those kids were just liars.

 

I've read your specious reasoning and baseless conclusions. It's guff because the use the adjective "utter" , eh? Fascinating.

 

Who finally uncovered Savile?

 

Twa ts on the Internet?

 

Or ITV?

 

Answers on a website.

 

 

 

You can't suddenly make up a retrospective Savile "truthers" movement sunshine.

 

That's why it's guff.

[Jonnyboy]

Who finally uncovered Savile?

 

Twa ts on the Internet?

 

Or ITV?

 

Answers on a website.

 

 

 

You can't suddenly make up a retrospective Savile "truthers" movement sunshine.

 

That's why it's guff.

 

Hooray for journalists and ITV!

 

 

Not like they were completely fooled or turned a blind eye for 50 years or anything.

[bridge too far]

Panorama tonight - BBC1 - covers this subject

[pap]

Who finally uncovered Savile?

 

Twa ts on the Internet?

 

Or ITV?

 

Answers on a website.

 

You can't suddenly make up a retrospective Savile "truthers" movement sunshine.

 

That's why it's guff.

 

I'm merely pointing out the consequences of having the myopic viewpoint you claim to espouse. Not a conspiracy theory, therefore all the kids were liars before the mainstream media made it true.

 

Your question about who "finally uncovered" Savile is redundant. You only believe things when the mainstream media report them. Those "tw4ts on the Internet" were banging on about Savile for years before ITV ever got their "exclusive", so while I'm sure that ITV "finally uncovered" things for CB "I like things off the TV" Fry, some people got their news a lot earlier. The BBC tried to go for it the year before, but didn't for whatever reason, didn't.

 

No one was interested in publishing the story when he was alive, largely because of the chance of being sued into oblivion in Britain, libel capital of the world. Our own courts are being used to protect private individuals against press scrutiny - "say what you want, but be prepared to lose everything if you do and can't prove it to a judicial standard". Freedom of speech, my arse. More often than not, the very mention of libel stifles investigation.

 

You painted yourself into this corner, CB Fry. You could have been conciliatory, said "yeah, don't really think x went down the way it did", but in your zeal to dismiss every conspiracy, you've given me the wonderful impression of SaintsWeb's Mr Nasty permanently suckling at the teats of his masters. Nothing is true until corporations or governments say it is, eh? Beautiful. Do it again.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

My take on it is that the huge majority of conspiracy theories - from the supposed Roswell 'UFO' crash to Princess Diana being assassinated and the various silly 9-11 theories - are pure brain rot that really should not trouble grown adults. But there are always exceptions to any rule, and the scandalous involvement of the CIA in funding/creating Nicaragua's long and bloody civil war between its (democratically elected) government and the US backed Contras was a truly shameful episode in that great nations history.

 

The more you read about it (and I don't claim to be a expert) the worse it becomes - many believe that as part of its covert fund raising the CIA actually played a key role in creating the South American drug trade that has caused so much death and misery there and on the streets of the USA. It's appalling stuff this and Reagan was as bad - if not worse - a criminal than Nixon ever was. In my view he probably should have been impeached.

[Picard]

It seems that what the conspiracy theorists were saying about the Benghazi attack is now shown to be true. However there does not seem to be much interest in this in the UK.

[CB Fry]

I'm merely pointing out the consequences of having the myopic viewpoint you claim to espouse. Not a conspiracy theory, therefore all the kids were liars before the mainstream media made it true.

 

Your question about who "finally uncovered" Savile is redundant. You only believe things when the mainstream media report them. Those "tw4ts on the Internet" were banging on about Savile for years before ITV ever got their "exclusive", so while I'm sure that ITV "finally uncovered" things for CB "I like things off the TV" Fry, some people got their news a lot earlier. The BBC tried to go for it the year before, but didn't for whatever reason, didn't.

 

No one was interested in publishing the story when he was alive, largely because of the chance of being sued into oblivion in Britain, libel capital of the world. Our own courts are being used to protect private individuals against press scrutiny - "say what you want, but be prepared to lose everything if you do and can't prove it to a judicial standard". Freedom of speech, my arse. More often than not, the very mention of libel stifles investigation.

 

You painted yourself into this corner, CB Fry. You could have been conciliatory, said "yeah, don't really think x went down the way it did", but in your zeal to dismiss every conspiracy, you've given me the wonderful impression of SaintsWeb's Mr Nasty permanently suckling at the teats of his masters. Nothing is true until corporations or governments say it is, eh? Beautiful. Do it again.

 

 

Except, of course, the fact that the Savile case is not, and was not, a conspiracy.

 

Unless you are saying the BBC actively encouraged, or told Jimmy to abuse kids. Maybe Thatcher did too. Called Jimmy up and asked him to lead a little task force of child abusers.

 

The Savile case was many things but it isn't a conspiracy. The Libel laws were not created specifically to cover up Jimmy Savile. Just classic Pap cherry picking.

 

And, I repeat again, none of the case, none of it, NONE OF IT, was uncovered by your "the blood was added afterwards"/"they're all crisis actors"/"people with their legs shot off don't act like that"/"They laid explosives on every floor of the World Trade Centre" fu ckwits.

 

None of it.

 

The only way it would fit your dopey little conspiroworld was if the "abused" were crisis actors paid by the CIA/Murdoch/Lizard people to lie to bring down the Commie BBC.

 

Because that's your way of looking at the world.

 

 

Try to avoid using actual real life to back up your worldview...it aint your style mate. Stick to the fantasy.

 

After all, it were are fake blood, weren't it?

Edited 5 August, 2013 by CB Fry

[CB Fry]

Just summarise the Pap guide to victims.

 

 

Savile abuse victims: definitely were abused. Mainstream media said so.

 

Drummer Lee Rigby: Possibly not dead, possibly staged, possibly actor, crying relatives maybe fake, not of it can be trusted because mainstream media said so but internet people not so sure. No blood on that guy's hands.

 

Boston bomb victims: probably actors maybe, not sure, I mean that guy with the leg? C'mon.Mainstream media said they are dead but to be honest I only trust them on stuff about Jimmy Savile.

 

9/11 victims: all people on one giant film set or something. Totally staged. You can see the camera in the reflection of the space helmet.

Edited 5 August, 2013 by CB Fry

[pap]

Just summarise the Pap guide to victims.

 

 

Savile abuse victims: definitely were abused. Mainstream media said so.

 

Drummer Lee Rigby: Possibly not dead, possibly staged, possibly actor, crying relatives maybe fake, not of it can be trusted because mainstream media said so but internet people not so sure. No blood on that guy's hands.

 

Boston bomb victims: probably actors maybe, not sure, I mean that guy with the leg? C'mon.Mainstream media said they are dead and to be honest I only trust them on stuff about Jimmy Savile.

 

9/11 victims: all people on one giant film set or something. Totally staged. You can see the camera in the reflection of the space helmet.

 

Mate, after the terrible job you've done on your own position, you're the last person I'd get to formulate mine. Find another hobby.

[CB Fry]

Mate, after the terrible job you've done on your own position, you're the last person I'd get to formulate mine. Find another hobby.

 

Just wondering why Jimmy Savile's victims get the honour of being believed by you but the victims of Boston, or Lee Rigby, don't.

 

Funny, aint it?

[pap]

Except, of course, the fact that the Savile case is not, and was not, a conspiracy.

 

Unless you are saying the BBC actively encouraged, or told Jimmy to abuse kids. Maybe Thatcher did too. Called Jimmy up and asked him to lead a little task force of child abusers.

 

The Savile case was many things but it isn't a conspiracy. The Libel laws were not created specifically to cover up Jimmy Savile. Just classic Pap cherry picking.

 

And, I repeat again, none of the case, none of it, NONE OF IT, was uncovered by your "the blood was added afterwards"/"they're all crisis actors"/"people with their legs shot off don't act like that"/"They laid explosives on every floor of the World Trade Centre" fu ckwits.

 

None of it.

 

The only way it would fit your dopey little conspiroworld was if the "abused" were crisis actors paid by the CIA/Murdoch/Lizard people to lie to bring down the Commie BBC.

 

Because that's your way of looking at the world.

 

 

Try to avoid using actual real life to back up your worldview...it aint your style mate. Stick to the fantasy.

 

After all, it were are fake blood, weren't it?

 

There are different sorts of conspiracies, CB Fry. Savile was at the very least, a proven case of a conspiracy of silence. How many people have since come forward and said they knew about it? The establishment knew about him. Complaints were made and dropped in the 1970s. He was no doubt facilitated by people who were supposed to be providing a duty of care.

 

It's not a conspiracy. It's several. Your money shot out of the way, it and the rest of your post is strawman nonsense I won't be drawn into.

[CB Fry]

There are different sorts of conspiracies, CB Fry. Savile was at the very least, a proven case of a conspiracy of silence. How many people have since come forward and said they knew about it? The establishment knew about him. Complaints were made and dropped in the 1970s. He was no doubt facilitated by people who were supposed to be providing a duty of care.

 

It's not a conspiracy. It's several. Your money shot out of the way, it and the rest of your post is strawman nonsense I won't be drawn into.

 

The fact that the Savile thing was not uncovered by your internet clique of nut jobs is not strawman nonsense. It's just true.

 

Two types of conspiracy? Correct. Those that are uncovered by professional journalists aided by whistleblowers.

 

And those that are horsesh it fantasies on dinlow websites that normal humanity laughs at.

 

And we all know your favourite type.

 

Get online Pap. The next atrocity that you can pretend is fake may only be days away. I'll get you started: "There's, like, no way a man thirty feet away from a bomb blast would fall over like that. And blood definitely doesn't come out like that. And how convenient that policeman is there. Look at his hands! Look at his hands! [...etc]"

Edited 6 August, 2013 by CB Fry

[pap]

The fact that the Savile thing was not uncovered by your internet clique of nut jobs is not strawman nonsense. It's just true.

 

Ah yes, you contend that ITV broke the story. The "madman" Icke was almost a year in front of them. The BBC were ready to go around the time of Savile's death. All you're really doing here is confirming your teat-suckling bias of not believing something to be "uncovered" until it hits the mainstream media.

 

Two types of conspiracy? Correct. Those that are uncovered by professional journalists aided by whistleblowers.

 

And those that are horsesh it fantasies on dinlow websites that normal humanity laughs at.

 

What point are you making here? That if you use the word "horsesh!t" or "dinlow", that somehow makes up for the lack of content.

 

And we all know your favourite type.

 

Speaking for the forum? That always ends well.

 

Get online Pap. The next atrocity that you can pretend is fake may only be days away. I'll get you started: "There's, like, no way a man thirty feet away from a bomb blast would fall over like that. And blood definitely doesn't come out like that. And how convenient that policeman is there."

 

Our old mate Worzel Gummidge returns again! Unfortunately, it's a strawman re-run. If you're going to feed on the posts of others, at least vomit your points up in an original way, ta.

[CB Fry]

I love it when Pap does his "teat suckling" stuff.

 

He's such a free thinker. Something I could never be what with being a brainwashed sheep android zombie.

 

Keep reading David Icke, won't you, Pap. He really knows the truth and stuff and no mistake.

[pap]

I love it when Pap does his "teat suckling" stuff. *slurp* *slurp*

 

He's such a free thinker. Something I could never be what with being a brainwashed sheep android zombie. *slurp* *slurp*

 

Keep reading David Icke, won't you, Pap. He really knows the truth and stuff and no mistake. *slurp* *slurp* *wahhh*

 

Fixed that for you, mate. Cheers for the background info. It allowed me to add accurate onomatopoeic suckling sounds that really bring home the CB Fry kowtowing experience!

[holepuncture]

I love it when Pap does his "teat suckling" stuff. *slurp* *slurp*

 

He's such a free thinker. Something I could never be what with being a brainwashed sheep android zombie. *slurp* *slurp*

 

Keep reading David Icke, won't you, Pap. He really knows the truth and stuff and no mistake. *slurp* *slurp* *wahhh*

 

Fixed that for you, mate. Cheers for the background info. It allowed me to add accurate onomatopoeic suckling sounds that really bring home the CB Fry kowtowing experience!

 

Pap you are a very strange, petty and small individual.

 

For all your interweb stories, theories, conspiracys and attacks on anybody who shares a different viewpoint to you, it is clear you are just a nutter.

 

You only have to look at your post count and the timescales between posting to see that everything you spout is total made up nonsense, you are just another sad little person who has become totally addicted to the internet and this forum is one of your vices.

 

Well done.

[Barry Sanchez]

Pap you are a very strange, petty and small individual.

 

For all your interweb stories, theories, conspiracys and attacks on anybody who shares a different viewpoint to you, it is clear you are just a nutter.

 

You only have to look at your post count and the timescales between posting to see that everything you spout is total made up nonsense, you are just another sad little person who has become totally addicted to the internet and this forum is one of your vices.

 

Well done.

 

Another one who has seen pap for what he is, a small quirky odd little fellow with a nasty temper to boot.

[pap]

Pap you are a very strange, petty and small individual.

 

For all your interweb stories, theories, conspiracys and attacks on anybody who shares a different viewpoint to you, it is clear you are just a nutter.

 

You only have to look at your post count and the timescales between posting to see that everything you spout is total made up nonsense, you are just another sad little person who has become totally addicted to the internet and this forum is one of your vices.

 

Well done.

 

Aw great.

 

Is my prize better than being a racist who refers to fellow human beings as vermin?

[pap]

Another one who has seen pap for what he is, a small quirky odd little fellow with a nasty temper to boot.

 

Keeping excellent company, I see.

 

Vermin. All of them.

[Barry Sanchez]

Keeping excellent company, I see.

 

Vermin. All of them.

 

Also a charmer.

[pap]

Also a charmer.

 

I'd be a bit more careful about who you throw your lot in with, Bazza. holepuncture's the chap who likes to call foreigners vermin. Like I said, nice company matey.

[Verbal]

Conspiracies happen all the time. Iran Contra, Watergate, and the lies about the Iraq War all started life as conspiracies. When they were widely reported, they became "news".

 

I've hesitated to say this, because I haven't been quite able to convince myself that anyone could argue a line that is simply so stupid. But it seems, incredibly, you are completely unable to distinguish between conspiracies and conspiracy theories. You evidently live in a world where they meld together in some unholy, brain-scrambling mess (hence, I suppose, the cognitive disorgnaisation of your mostly unreadable and unintelligible posts).

 

So to help you out:

 

There are real conspiracies, with things like evidence, criminal prosecutions, witnesses, real victims, clear motives - and exposure by credible, well-evidenced, first-hand researched journalists and investigators. These conspiracies include Watergate (several conspiracies all wrapped in one, uncovered by the diligent footwork of reporters mostly from the NY Times and the Washington Post), Iran-Contra (actually revealed first of all by a Lebanese news magazine but later picked up by American journalists and investigators, resulting in several prosecutions and a close-run thing from Reagan), Prism (exposed by a brave whistleblower and reported by Guardian journalists), etc, etc. And of course 9/11 was a conspiracy, carried out by Al Qeada under the command of OBL, Khaled Sheikh Mohammad and Aiman Zawahiri, and led my Mohammad Attar.

 

There are conspiracies that go unreported, or are reported on too late. These include WMD - although there are some exceptions even with this, such as Andrew Gilligan's "sexed up" claims which got him fired from the BBC.

 

And then there are conspiracy theories. These today are all generated by obsessive internet "theorists" who misuse the term "theory" (when they mean wild fantasy), and who don't bother with anything else than the "evidence" presented to them second-hand by Google. The idea of actually going out there into the real world and testing thir ideas against it is completely alien. Ask yourself honestly: have you ever gone beyond your grubby little keyboard to actually acquire first-hand evidence?

 

Actually, when conspiracy theorists ARE confronted with the real world, things suddenly change. The BBC made a documentary not so long ago called 9/11 Conspracy Road Trip, in which the fimmakers took a group of internet conspiracy theorists to meet real witnesses, family victims, etc., of 9/11. Guess what? When they were exposed to the event by doing real research as opposed to mindless googling, they changed their views. One of those theorists was Charlie Veitch. As reported by Slate.com, this is what happened:

 

By the third day of actually speaking with people he had believed responsible for covering up mass murder, Veitch was starting to believe he was wrong about 9/11. "After meeting all of these alleged conspirators that were supposed to be in on it, I realized they were normal family men," Veitch said. "There wasn't anything conspiratorial about them." It was when he questioned a demolitions expert atop the rebuilt World Trade Center 7 that he finally changed his mind about 9/11.

"It's not so much a matter of technical evidence, it's more of a change in mindset that I've had," Veitch said. "Going from a paranoid mindset to a less paranoid mindset.

 

When Veitch went public with his change of mind, other conspiracy theorists abused and threatened him with a terrible death, even hacking into his site to make claims that he was a child abuser. He was also accused of being a deep-cover intelligence agent. Such is the pleasing nature of conspiracy "theory".

 

The other example is Dylan Avery, the director of the most famous conspiracy theory documentary of all, Loose Change. Avery has backed away from the entire 9/11 truther movement after himself encountering real people and evidence associated with 9/11. The blood-curdling threats aimed at Veitch were something of a last straw:

 

That's one of the reasons I had to back away from the movement in general," he said. "I was afraid I was becoming one of them—someone who sees conspiracy around every corner.

 

So much for the swords of your "truthers".

 

You single out Saville as the one great triumph for conspiracy theorists, citing Icke as your shining knight. But Icke knew about Saville only because he worked at the BBC, like everyone else who'd heard the stories doing the rounds in the corridors at TVC. Well before Icke, Johnny Lydon was making public and highly explicit claims about Saville. ITV's exposure was the first time (aside from the aborted Newsnight report) someone had gone out and investigated the claims, interviewed numerous victims at length and spoken to law police and lawyers and broadcast employees. Only then did the thing really blow open. Icke's regurgitated gossip had no effect whatsoever, and he was just one of dozens of people who'd gossiped about Saville without the moral courage to actually do something tangible and useful about it.

 

So some simple, helpful advice: if you are really THAT interested in the stuff you post about, go out and meet with people, talk to real human beings, learn how to evaluate various forms of original evidence. It will be frightening, the real world - because it won't conform to your tired paranoid ideas (or rather others' tired ideas which you simply reproduce unquestioningly). But you may actually learn something and do some much needed maturing.

[pap]

Very good post, Verbal.

 

It's nice to see you step away from your more rapid tropes and make an appeal based on reason, but it's more of the same.

 

Are some conspiracy theorists off-beam? Of course they are. As much as you like to suggest that I believe everything I read, I dismiss around 90% of the stuff I see immediately. Thing is, we can take your line of reasoning and apply it to any group of people. This is what the EDL do when they go window-shopping for the worst excesses of Islamic-inspired extremism in the world. I could make a case that Christianity was evil based on the actions of a few extreme movements, but anyone would see right through it. So yes, I'll happily concede that there are some crazy people, but I can't let you keep pretending they are representative of the wider whole.

 

You have been referred to more credible people time and time again. I'll post it again to save you the effort of scrolling:-

 

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

 

On the subject of Savile, I'm perfectly aware of Rotten's claims. See the Savile thread - I posted the audio there. This isn't news to me.

[ottery st mary]

Very good post, Verbal.

 

It's nice to see you step away from your more rapid tropes and make an appeal based on reason, but it's more of the same.

 

Are some conspiracy theorists off-beam? Of course they are. As much as you like to suggest that I believe everything I read, I dismiss around 90% of the stuff I see immediately. Thing is, we can take your line of reasoning and apply it to any group of people. This is what the EDL do when they go window-shopping for the worst excesses of Islamic-inspired extremism in the world. I could make a case that Christianity was evil based on the actions of a few extreme movements, but anyone would see right through it. So yes, I'll happily concede that there are some crazy people, but I can't let you keep pretending they are representative of the wider whole.

 

You have been referred to more credible people time and time again. I'll post it again to save you the effort of scrolling:-

 

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

 

On the subject of Savile, I'm perfectly aware of Rotten's claims. See the Savile thread - I posted the audio there. This isn't news to me.

 

 

pap

 

Whatever happens with some of these ruffian posters:mcinnes: you have my support:scared:

 

Some of the girlies and boyz are getting rather tetchy:p swirling their crocodile handbags:D

 

You are spot on with many of your posts:)

 

Nothing but admiration for you:)

 

The world is slowly waking up to some of these idiots:(

 

 

No offence to any of my fellow posters:lol: but some of you are right nasty little critters:(

 

New crayons....

[aintforever]

Very good post, Verbal.

 

It's nice to see you step away from your more rapid tropes and make an appeal based on reason, but it's more of the same.

 

Are some conspiracy theorists off-beam? Of course they are. As much as you like to suggest that I believe everything I read, I dismiss around 90% of the stuff I see immediately. Thing is, we can take your line of reasoning and apply it to any group of people. This is what the EDL do when they go window-shopping for the worst excesses of Islamic-inspired extremism in the world. I could make a case that Christianity was evil based on the actions of a few extreme movements, but anyone would see right through it. So yes, I'll happily concede that there are some crazy people, but I can't let you keep pretending they are representative of the wider whole.

 

You have been referred to more credible people time and time again. I'll post it again to save you the effort of scrolling:-

 

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

 

On the subject of Savile, I'm perfectly aware of Rotten's claims. See the Savile thread - I posted the audio there. This isn't news to me.

 

You just don't get the concept of 'real life' do you? That website could have been put together by anyone, you don't know if the quotes are accurate, taken out of context or even from real people. Anyway all it is is a bunch of people saying "they want the truth" or "that was weird", no evidence of anything.

[CB Fry]

 

Are some conspiracy theorists off-beam? Of course they are. As much as you like to suggest that I believe everything I read, I dismiss around 90% of the stuff I see immediately.

 

 

Being that "Boston bomb victims were crisis actors" and "Lee Rigby death faked (look at his hands)" made it into your golden 10% of non dismissed stuff, I dread to think what sh ite you a reading online every day.

 

But, hey, well done you. 90% dismissed.

 

So you're not the single most gullible man on the internet. Just in the top three percent.

 

PS. Sensational linking your conspiro-chums with the entirity of Christianity. Keep it coming, you open minded so-and-so, you.

[pap]

You just don't get the concept of 'real life' do you? That website could have been put together by anyone, you don't know if the quotes are accurate, taken out of context or even from real people. Anyway all it is is a bunch of people saying "they want the truth" or "that was weird", no evidence of anything.

 

What position are you taking here? That these people aren't real, or might not be real? All quotes are sourced and dated, while the vast majority number of them have video and/or other resources.

 

Your other point is that "not all of them are saying it's a grand conspiracy". It really betrays your own expectations more than anything else. Hoping that they were all going say "IT WAS THE F**KIN' LIZARDS, DUDE!"? I bet you were. What you've actually got is a bunch of people with military or public service backgrounds with questions.

 

The clue is in the name.

 

Patriots -- Question --- 9/11

 

The link has been posted to counter Verbal's perpetually sensationalised notion that anyone asking questions is an anti-semite or Neo Nazi or whatever.

[pap]

Being that "Boston bomb victims were crisis actors" and "Lee Rigby death faked (look at his hands)" made it into your golden 10% of non dismissed stuff, I dread to think what sh ite you a reading online every day.

 

But, hey, well done you. 90% dismissed.

 

So you're not the single most gullible man on the internet. Just in the top three percent.

 

PS. Sensational linking your conspiro-chums with the entirity of Christianity. Keep it coming, you open minded so-and-so, you.

 

Nowt new here. Keep suckling.

[aintforever]

What position are you taking here? That these people aren't real, or might not be real? All quotes are sourced and dated, while the vast majority number of them have video and/or other resources.

 

Your other point is that "not all of them are saying it's a grand conspiracy". It really betrays your own expectations more than anything else. Hoping that they were all going say "IT WAS THE F**KIN' LIZARDS, DUDE!"? I bet you were. What you've actually got is a bunch of people with military or public service backgrounds with questions.

 

The clue is in the name.

 

Patriots -- Question --- 9/11

 

The link has been posted to counter Verbal's perpetually sensationalised notion that anyone asking questions is an anti-semite or Neo Nazi or whatever.

 

You did imply that it was some sort of evidence for a conspiracy. I glad we agree that there is none.

[pap]

pap

 

Whatever happens with some of these ruffian posters:mcinnes: you have my support:scared:

 

Some of the girlies and boyz are getting rather tetchy:p swirling their crocodile handbags:D

 

You are spot on with many of your posts:)

 

Nothing but admiration for you:)

 

The world is slowly waking up to some of these idiots:(

 

 

No offence to any of my fellow posters:lol: but some of you are right nasty little critters:(

 

New crayons....

 

Cheers for the kind words and the support, ottery.

 

Conspiracy theorists are supposed to be the crazy ones, but I only see one or two people on here going mental.

[pap]

You did imply that it was some sort of evidence for a conspiracy. I glad we agree that there is none.

 

Is that your argument winning coup de grace?

 

Give up if so.

[aintforever]

Is that your argument winning coup de grace?

 

Give up if so.

 

Well there is none, just a load of "that looks weird" from you fantasists. Verbal is spot on with his post, you need to get in the real world.

[ottery st mary]

Cheers for the kind words and the support, ottery.

 

Conspiracy theorists are supposed to be the crazy ones, but I only see one or two people on here going mental.

 

 

Especially the schill:rolleyes: Hate the fact my taxes pay these sort of idiots

 

AND the other Mr Angry....

 

You are on the right lines and in the real world:)

 

In the real world the truth will out:D

[pap]

Well there is none, just a load of "that looks weird" from you fantasists. Verbal is spot on with his post, you need to get in the real world.

 

Again, a sort of progress. At least you're not calling them nutters, but I disagree with your summarisation of the link I posted. I reckon people who are interested are best off visiting the link themselves rather than rely on your impressively terse abridgement.

 

And do you know what? With 15k views on this thread, there's a fair chance they have. Your point, and Verbal's graphic, but entirely inaccurate characterisation of those with questions, is null and void as soon as they click the link.

 

I praise you on your brevity, but there isn't a great deal that one can say in two sentences, especially when one is a literary arse-lick to a poster that, whatever else he might be, at least puts a shift in on the word count.

[CB Fry]

Nowt new here. Keep suckling.

 

Keep filtering out the 90% and keep posting up only the solid gold truth.

 

You, Icke and Ottery Keep fighting the good fight you sword of truthers.

 

Swallowing only 10% of premium grade made up conspiroguff on the world wide internet.

 

[pap]

Keep filtering out the 90% and keep posting up only the solid gold truth.

 

You, Icke and Ottery Keep fighting the good fight you sword of truthers.

 

Swallowing only 10% of premium grade made up conspiroguff on the world wide internet.

 

 

Walk before you run.

 

Are some conspiracy theorists off-beam? Of course they are. As much as you like to suggest that I believe everything I read, I dismiss around 90% of the stuff I see immediately. Thing is, we can take your line of reasoning and apply it to any group of people. This is what the EDL do when they go window-shopping for the worst excesses of Islamic-inspired extremism in the world. I could make a case that Christianity was evil based on the actions of a few extreme movements, but anyone would see right through it. So yes, I'll happily concede that there are some crazy people, but I can't let you keep pretending they are representative of the wider whole.

 

Read before you write.

[CB Fry]

Walk before you run.

 

 

 

Read before you write.

 

 

 

What about it? The "look at his hands" stuff made it onto here.

 

As did crisis actors in Boston.

 

That stuff made the cut.

 

So don't give yourself any medals on filtering out stuff more mental than that.

 

Look. I've given you the leeway of only being in the 3% most gullible people online.

 

Take it to the bank, Deep Throat. It's a compliment.

[ottery st mary]

Keep filtering out the 90% and keep posting up only the solid gold truth.

 

You, Icke and Ottery Keep fighting the good fight you sword of truthers.

 

Swallowing only 10% of premium grade made up conspiroguff on the world wide internet.

 

 

Still LUV you CB

[pap]

Especially the schill:rolleyes: Hate the fact my taxes pay these sort of idiots

 

AND the other Mr Angry....

 

You are on the right lines and in the real world:)

 

In the real world the truth will out:D

 

Y'know, talk of shills would be in the 10% of stuff I'd immediately dismiss.

 

Fk me, it'd have to be the world's sh!ttest shill assignment if true. "Go onto SaintsWeb and argue with pap".

 

I hope it's true. I'd hate to think they were doing this for fun.

[ottery st mary]

Sorry meant shill;)

 

Coz it is you they take turns and do it for nowt:rolleyes:

[pap]

What about it? The "look at his hands" stuff made it onto here.

 

As did crisis actors in Boston.

 

That stuff made the cut.

 

So don't give yourself any medals on filtering out stuff more mental than that.

 

Look. I've given you the leeway of only being in the 3% most gullible people online.

 

Take it to the bank, Deep Throat. It's a compliment.

 

What's wrong with Woolwich? Eyewitness reports versus pictures from the media. "Something out of a horror movie" versus relative pristine state of the prime suspect's jacket in the videos. The notion that Lee Rigby was decapitated, which you're still stating as fact, rests on the (at the time) urban tweets of boyadee, who talked of "bredas", etc. His post-Woolwich Guardian column ditches the sensationalist street language He has elected not to expand upon his fevered tweets with his new-found English skills, "out of respect for the family".

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/28/woolwich-murder-faith-humanity-boya-dee

 

A comment with 148 recommendations:-

 

Put the original tweets and this commentary side by side, and you've got a piece worthy of The Onion.

 

Personally, I think he's reluctant to repeat his tweets in a longer form because they're at odds with so much else on the day. A picture from the top floor of the bus shows a prone figure in the road with a head. There is a video of a woman comforting and stroking the prone figure in the street. Another eyewitness mentions checking a pulse. None of these events are consistent from boyadee then, or your stance now.

 

The coroner did not report decapitation.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/lee-rigby-died-cuts-stab-wounds-autopsy_n_3352738.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10090807/Woolwich-murder-Drummer-Lee-Rigby-had-to-be-identified-by-dental-records.html

 

The broadsheets were reluctant to confirm it at the time:-

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/he-was-always-smiling-lee-rigby-named-as-woolwich-victim-8628583.html

 

Tabloids were a different story.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woolwich-attack-live-lee-rigby-1905653

 

You don't believe in conspiracies. You wait for the corporations or governments that make up the mainstream media to feed you stories before you consider them "true". What's clear from your repeated claim of decapitation is that you choose your news from the tabloids and you don't trouble yourself with too much follow-up.

 

That all being the case, I'm not quite sure how you get to call anyone gullible.