New legislation in light of Woolwich attacks

[View From The Top]

What would it take to actually convince you? Because you seem utterly unwilling to consider any evidence, however rational, and however overwhelming, that doesn't fit with your 'theory'.

 

This is the rub of it. Pap refuses, or appears cognitively unable to, accept any evidence that doesn't sit within the parameters of his "theory".

[stu0x]

He's refusing to even answer any of my questions, easier to stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'la la la' I guess

[pap]

What would it take to actually convince you? Because you seem utterly unwilling to consider any evidence, however rational, and however overwhelming, that doesn't fit with your 'theory'.

 

I like people to be tried by a jury of their peers. It looks like this might happen in this case, so I will await the case with interest. However, what evidence have people brought to the table here? That the effects might be achievable with popular video editor VLC.

 

I mean, if I were to tell you that I know from *first hand experience* that what you are saying is nonsense, would you believe me?

 

Emphatically not. Your first hand experience is my second hand experience. You're placing a lot of stock in the concept of belief. It's really not the way my head works, and I couldn't give a hoot whether you believe that or not. For me, belief is an entirely dangerous thing, at odds with what I consider to be life's mission; to discover the answers. Belief is genuinely stifling, imo. I know that some people take great faith in unshakeable truths from holy books. To me, it's the very opposite of what life is about.

 

Or would you just dismiss me as one of the lizard people, a shadowy construct created by the security services and planted on saintsweb and its predecessors several years in advance as a sleeper with the sole purpose of pulling the wool over the eyes of the only man who knows the truth?

 

Really?

[pap]

He's refusing to even answer any of my questions, easier to stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'la la la' I guess

 

Ah, give a man some time to type.

[pap]

This is the rub of it. Pap refuses, or appears cognitively unable to, accept any evidence that doesn't sit within the parameters of his "theory".

 

Well, we've moved on from hateful obscenity. That's a start.

[stu0x]

Emphatically not. Your first hand experience is my second hand experience.

 

Did you record the video you are placing so much stock in? Because if you didn't, then it's not your first hand experience, so why do you believe it?

[pap]

Did you record the video you are placing so much stock in? Because if you didn't, then it's not your first hand experience, so why do you believe it?

 

I think I've already covered my position for belief, stu0x. A more accurate question would be "why do I consider it?". Let's remind ourselves of the scope of my claims on this thread. I said the pictures had been altered before publication on national media.

 

I know TV expert Verbal dodged the question of how many separate pieces of footage we were watching. I make it two, which fits nicely with his progressive vs interlace explanation. Thing is, the old analogue standard, which was entirely interlace, didn't suffer from artefacting. If anything, it was the advent of the digital age, particularly in the nascent stages of MPEG, that we began to see the most artefacting. Any snooker fan celebrating the birth of digital telly was quickly disappointed in the late 90s. ITV's early football coverage was akin to watching a green spewing carpet.

 

The reason artefacting occurs in compressed footage is due to the way that the video is stored. Digital video is rarely stored frame-by-frame. The MPEG format, and most others since, work by sending mathematical transformations, telling the player how to turn one frame into the next. In slow moving scenes, this works a treat, because each transformation is quite small. The problem occurs when you get a lot of change, all at once, and not enough transformational commands to turn one frame into the next.

 

In the first video I posted, you barely see any artefacting. In the second, you see loads. Alright, fair dos - that might be the differing results of two different recording devices with different capability, or recording at different bit rates, but I doubt it. Those hands are blurrier than pretty much everything else in the footage, and the difference in colour between the two shots of palms is stark. If the whole video had been been colour changed, you'd have seen that reflected everywhere.

 

To me, one looks more legit than the other. It's not a case of belief.

[Verbal]

I think I've already covered my position for belief, stu0x. A more accurate question would be "why do I consider it?". Let's remind ourselves of the scope of my claims on this thread. I said the pictures had been altered before publication on national media.

 

I know TV expert Verbal dodged the question of how many separate pieces of footage we were watching. I make it two, which fits nicely with his progressive vs interlace explanation. Thing is, the old analogue standard, which was entirely interlace, didn't suffer from artefacting. If anything, it was the advent of the digital age, particularly in the nascent stages of MPEG, that we began to see the most artefacting. Any snooker fan celebrating the birth of digital telly was quickly disappointed in the late 90s. ITV's early football coverage was akin to watching a green spewing carpet.

 

The reason artefacting occurs in compressed footage is due to the way that the video is stored. Digital video is rarely stored frame-by-frame. The MPEG format, and most others since, work by sending mathematical transformations, telling the player how to turn one frame into the next. In slow moving scenes, this works a treat, because each transformation is quite small. The problem occurs when you get a lot of change, all at once, and not enough transformational commands to turn one frame into the next.

 

In the first video I posted, you barely see any artefacting. In the second, you see loads. Alright, fair dos - that might be the differing results of two different recording devices with different capability, or recording at different bit rates, but I doubt it. Those hands are blurrier than pretty much everything else in the footage, and the difference in colour between the two shots of palms is stark. If the whole video had been been colour changed, you'd have seen that reflected everywhere.

 

To me, one looks more legit than the other. It's not a case of belief.

 

Sadly, and predictably, most of this is garbled nonsense. I'm not going to go through it line-by-line because your history of actually responding to my substantive corrections to the assumptions that underpin your wild fantasies is practically non-existent.

 

I'll do just one, because even you may grasp it. You complain, as if you've caught a conspiratorial 'gotcha' moment, that the motion blur - the ghosting - is more pronounced on the hands than in any other part of the frame-grabbed image. Think about that just for a second (or maybe you need a little longer). Why would it appear that the killer's hands are blurred, in a clip where he's vigorously waving his hands about? The clue, if you're really struggling with this one, is the phrase MOTION blur.

 

By the way, I didn't answer your question about source video because I thought you were being either stupid or devious. The short answer is that the tango-handed video is a wholly amateurishly colour-corrected version of one of two clips that were shot at the same time. Do you really think that some government-funded master-conspirator would futz around with half-arsed grading tools? The laughable video you hang your hat so firmly on is so cack-handedly 'corrected' that you should really slink away in total embarrassment for posting it.

 

All that aside, it is a measure of you as a man that you whine about calling your non-existent libel lawyer out on me for referring to your posts, and you, as sinister, or you act so deeply hurt when Tim wonders whether your failure to grasp or even apparently notice simple arguments is Asperger's related - and yet you are perfectly happy to disregard as unimportant the fact that you accuse the dead and maimed victims of the Boston bombing of play-acting, or by implication the family of Lee Rigby as either co-conspirators or mindless dupes.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, as lawyers say, I regard conspiracy theorists collectively as scumbags. I despise them immensely. Their narcissistic delight in pursuing non-existent clues leading to a vast inter-governmental conspiracy has caused immense hurt. Some of the clearest examples of this are to be found in the Sandy Hook massacre. You conspiracy theorists have rolled your eyes into the backs of your heads and rammed your teeth into the parents of the dead and badly injured children murdered in Connecticut, just for your entertainment. So, just for your entertainment, here's an example:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gene-rosen-sandy-hook-conspiracy-155033813.html

 

These scumbags, along with the neo-Nazi scumbags at inforwars and the dead scumbag Tamerlan Tsarnaev, would all be nodding along in agreement with your Woolwich wet dreams. Is that what you want? As other have suggested, take a break - if not from your computer, from this thread. Get some perspective and some readings from a decent moral compass. You should be deeply ashamed of yourself.

[Viking Warrior]

So pap based on your superior knowledge who do you think kill Lee , clearly in your world it was not the two African guys .

[pap]

stuff

 

Thanks for the articulate response on your positions regarding conspiracy theorists. I can't say I agree, but then that would hardly surprise you.

 

We're unfortunately at loggerheads on other points too. See, I don't really respond to "you should be ashamed of yourself" or "you should really slink away in total embarrassment". I recognise it for what it is. It's the same boll*cks I've seen for four years.

 

Y'know, absolute true story. I was interested in this stuff in the mid-2000s, but my interest fell away around 2006. Priorities, and while I retained a passing interest, it was actually your merciless bullying of John Smith in the age old "Do we know and should we care" thread that got me back into it.

 

You were so vehemently opposed to him that at the time, I felt someone needed to stick up for him. So I waded in there, in much the same way as I did on this thread, and slowly but surely *****ed my ears up again.

 

I don't know about you, but I find that f**king delicious.

[stu0x]

I think I've already covered my position for belief, stu0x. A more accurate question would be "why do I consider it?". Let's remind ourselves of the scope of my claims on this thread. I said the pictures had been altered before publication on national media.

Right

 

So if I told you that I know for a fact that is nonsense, I would be lying presumably?

[pap]

Right

 

So if I told you that I know for a fact that is nonsense, I would be lying presumably?

 

If you were a witness in court, would the jury believe you without question if you said "you knew something for a fact"? Nah, they'd weigh it in with everything else.

[CB Saint]

Pap, do you genuinely believe the the government staged this?

 

Come on pap. Answer the question

[pap]

Come on pap. Answer the question

 

See my earlier points on belief, CB Saint. I think I'm pretty clear.

[Viking Warrior]

Come on pap answer the questions that have been posed to you . If You are so convinced your thoughts are the genuine truth then have the balls to answer the questions . Or is a case have reviewed the incident and now accept you are totally misguided or maybe you are just a troll ?

[pap]

Come on pap answer the questions that have been posed to you . If You are so convinced your thoughts are the genuine truth then have the balls to answer the questions . Or is a case have reviewed the incident and now accept you are totally misguided or maybe you are just a troll ?

 

Hmm, those are my choices, eh?

 

I do find it funny that you're calling me out for having no balls, especially in the context of this thread. How many of you are arrayed against me on this issue? Is it likely to win me any popularity contests? Nah. Is it a tad more ballsy than providing the occasional me-too remark amongst relative literary giants?

 

Probs

[Smirking_Saint]

I dont think he is a troll viking, I think he positively believes what he is typing, which is pretty scary when you think about it.

[pap]

I dont think he is a troll viking, I think he positively believes what he is typing, which is pretty scary when you think about it.

 

So Smirking, have you managed to resolve every issue you've ever pondered on to your total satisfaction, or have there been occasions when you are unable to present a concrete view because you don't have all of the information?

 

You don't have to believe something for it to be worthy of consideration. It's okay not to be in full possession of the facts.

 

I'm intrigued by your last comment. Why is it pretty scary? What do you think I'm going to do, exactly?

 

You're either easily cowed or have got something in mind. Do share

[Manuel]

I don't think our buffoon government is anywhere near clever enough to stage something like this without spectacularly messing it up. You give them too much credence.

[pap]

I don't think our buffoon government is anywhere near clever enough to stage something like this without spectacularly messing it up. You give them too much credence.

 

Governments tends to be spectacularly dysfunctional affairs, riven with infighting, ultimately bounded to the length of the Parliament, usually involving some gratuitous ideological projects or restructuring. You have a point.

 

What I would say though, is that despite the confrontational and transient nature of Parliament, we have managed pretty well in the past when it comes to running covert ops. We pretty much taught the US the art of deception in war.

 

So yeah, while I'd have a measure of agreement with what you say, government and state are not the same thing. The government might be comprised of rank incompetents, but elements of the state, such as the secret services, definitely do have the capability to conduct such an operation.

[CB Saint]

See my earlier points on belief, CB Saint. I think I'm pretty clear.

 

Is that a yes or no then?

[Dig Dig]

Pap, do you think that there is a chance that the two Michaels didn't actually kill Lee Rigby?

[CB Fry]

Governments tends to be spectacularly dysfunctional affairs, riven with infighting, ultimately bounded to the length of the Parliament, usually involving some gratuitous ideological projects or restructuring. You have a point.

 

What I would say though, is that despite the confrontational and transient nature of Parliament, we have managed pretty well in the past when it comes to running covert ops. We pretty much taught the US the art of deception in war.

 

So yeah, while I'd have a measure of agreement with what you say, government and state are not the same thing. The government might be comprised of rank incompetents, but elements of the state, such as the secret services, definitely do have the capability to conduct such an operation.

 

And in this case, they did, did they?

 

Killed a soldier, in the street, in broad daylight.

[aintforever]

Governments tends to be spectacularly dysfunctional affairs, riven with infighting, ultimately bounded to the length of the Parliament, usually involving some gratuitous ideological projects or restructuring. You have a point.

 

What I would say though, is that despite the confrontational and transient nature of Parliament, we have managed pretty well in the past when it comes to running covert ops. We pretty much taught the US the art of deception in war.

 

So yeah, while I'd have a measure of agreement with what you say, government and state are not the same thing. The government might be comprised of rank incompetents, but elements of the state, such as the secret services, definitely do have the capability to conduct such an operation.

 

But the problem with your, and many other hair brained conspiracy theories is they rely on the complicity of a whole range of government departments and services. Usually the people least likely to want to commit any sort of crime (police or emergency services). Like your bizarre Boston theory had the FBI, Boston Police, Boston Ambulance workers and a bunch actors and their families and friends all in on a plot to murder innocent people.

[pap]

Is that a yes or no then?

 

It's neither, and let's not kid ourselves - the only reason you're trying to get me to commit to a grand conspiracy theory is that you can storm the position as soon as I take it.

 

I'll grant you this; it's a much more admirable debating position than some others I've seen on here. At least you are asking a question, rather than starting with the answer and working your way back.

 

"The government" is a bit of a catch all term which isn't really helpful. JFK was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy that went beyond Lee Harvey Oswald. The Joint Chiefs of staff, who signed off on a plan to conduct terror operations on its own citizens, were resolutely against him. The feeling was mutual. JFK tried to circumvent them at every opportunity.

 

Was the entire US government in on the plot?

 

Nope, but it is likely that the plot had direction from elements of it - and my money would be on a subset of the joint chiefs plus others. They had no qualms about conducting state-sponsored terror in their Northwoods proposal. They presided over a period in history where political assassinations were rife. JFK, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, all avoiding the road to war in Cuba/Vietnam, all dead in a five year time span.

 

Was the entire US government comprised of moustache-twirling cigar chomping bastards hell-bent on war? No, but it hardly needed to be. There is no government in the world that operates on the basis that all of its members unanimously agree on something. Instead, we use the same thing we do almost everywhere else, a hierarchical system in which decisions are delegated to others.

 

For the record, I'd consider any notion of an entire government conspiring against its citizens to be laughable, but I'd consider the possibility that rogue elements within it could do so, and have likely done so in the past.

[Turkish]

more doube standards here. It seems the march tomorrow has been banned yet the UAF counter march has not been banned.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bnp-leader-nick-griffin-urges-supporters-to-ignore-police-ban-on-planned-march-at-scene-of-drummer-lee-rigbys-brutal-murder-8638632.html

[pap]

But the problem with your, and many other hair brained conspiracy theories is they rely on the complicity of a whole range of government departments and services. Usually the people least likely to want to commit any sort of crime (police or emergency services). Like your bizarre Boston theory had the FBI, Boston Police, Boston Ambulance workers and a bunch actors and their families and friends all in on a plot to murder innocent people.

 

Not being funny, aintforever, but have you ever heard of moles? I know there's a fair chance that someone will label this the usual conspiracy rubbish, but they've been a staple of intelligence services for centuries, providing intelligence and operational support, in secret, to their respective parent organisations.

 

The assumption that I think you're making is that everything that happens needs to be meticulously controlled. I wouldn't say that's safe. Just as much can be achieved under cover of chaos and uncertainty, and it doesn't take many people to create that.

[Batman]

more doube standards here. It seems the march tomorrow has been banned yet the UAF counter march has not been banned.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bnp-leader-nick-griffin-urges-supporters-to-ignore-police-ban-on-planned-march-at-scene-of-drummer-lee-rigbys-brutal-murder-8638632.html

 

What happened to free speech?

[Turkish]

What happened to free speech?

 

as with everything in this country now, it's only free speech if its politically correct and not likely to offend someone somewhere.

[Smirking_Saint]

as with everything in this country now, it's only free speech if its politically correct and not likely to offend someone somewhere.

 

I sort of disagree with you a little here from the perspective that they allow most extremist nutjobs to bang on and on with their bile etc but it seems they like to pick and choose yes.

 

As for pap, no of course I havn't believed everything that I have ever been told or read but when the evidence categorically points to a certain action there really is no need in my mind to persue it any further, as I said before the fact none of these massive grand conspiracies have ever turned out to be true and in that I am talking aliens, JFK, boston, 9/11 etc the shear amount of people involved you would think there would be a leak somewhere and with all posibility there would be international outcry and perhaps war.

 

I get your its wrong to believe claptrap but that means you must live a sad existance ? Can never accept a promise or believe anything no matter how trivial and its dangerous as it A. Cant be healthy and B. Goes to help create some of the brainwashed nutjobs we see carrying out these atrocities (not saying your there BTW)

 

As per Woolwich, if the government had set these guys up for it, surely they would have killed them when they had the chance ? Wouldn't have been hard would it ? And there wouldnt be many complsining about their deaths. Instead they are standing trial within which anything could be found out ?

 

Unless they control the jury aswell ? Wow this is a very intricate plan isnt it ?

[Gemmel]

It's neither, and let's not kid ourselves - the only reason you're trying to get me to commit to a grand conspiracy theory is that you can storm the position as soon as I take it.

 

I'll grant you this; it's a much more admirable debating position than some others I've seen on here. At least you are asking a question, rather than starting with the answer and working your way back.

 

"The government" is a bit of a catch all term which isn't really helpful. JFK was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy that went beyond Lee Harvey Oswald. The Joint Chiefs of staff, who signed off on a plan to conduct terror operations on its own citizens, were resolutely against him. The feeling was mutual. JFK tried to circumvent them at every opportunity.

 

Was the entire US government in on the plot?

 

Nope, but it is likely that the plot had direction from elements of it - and my money would be on a subset of the joint chiefs plus others. They had no qualms about conducting state-sponsored terror in their Northwoods proposal. They presided over a period in history where political assassinations were rife. JFK, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, all avoiding the road to war in Cuba/Vietnam, all dead in a five year time span.

 

Was the entire US government comprised of moustache-twirling cigar chomping bastards hell-bent on war? No, but it hardly needed to be. There is no government in the world that operates on the basis that all of its members unanimously agree on something. Instead, we use the same thing we do almost everywhere else, a hierarchical system in which decisions are delegated to others.

 

For the record, I'd consider any notion of an entire government conspiring against its citizens to be laughable, but I'd consider the possibility that rogue elements within it could do so, and have likely done so in the past.

 

[Verbal]

JFK was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy that went beyond Lee Harvey Oswald. The Joint Chiefs of staff, who signed off on a plan to conduct terror operations on its own citizens, were resolutely against him. The feeling was mutual. JFK tried to circumvent them at every opportunity.

 

Was the entire US government in on the plot?

 

Nope, but it is likely that the plot had direction from elements of it - and my money would be on a subset of the joint chiefs plus others. They had no qualms about conducting state-sponsored terror in their Northwoods proposal. They presided over a period in history where political assassinations were rife. JFK, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, all avoiding the road to war in Cuba/Vietnam, all dead in a five year time span.

 

I’m not sure whether you intend to deceive or are simply deceiving yourself. So let's be clear:

 

1. Despite your implication otherwise, there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that the Chiefs of Staff were in any way involved in JFK's assassination. Nothing. Nada. Agreed?

 

2. Despite your implication otherwise, there is no basis whatsoever for the claim that ‘JFK tried to circumvent the Chiefs of Staff at every opportunity’. That falsely claims that JFK was at constant loggerheads with the military. He wasn’t. He simply shot them down on Northwoods. Agreed?

 

3. Despite your implication otherwise, Operation Northwoods – often cited as the archetypal ‘false flag’ operation by conspiracy loons never happened. Agreed?

 

4. The laughable irony is that conspiracy theorists, having to accept that Northwoods never happened, actually turn one failed conspiracy theory into another failed conspiracy theory – namely, that the CoS were involved in killing Kennedy. Agreed?

 

And just a comment one of your other preposterous posts. You linked to a ‘Top 10’ of ‘proven conspiracy theories’. A list, incidentally, that did not include Watergate – which is pretty astonishing! Agreed? Included in that list was the Tonkin incident. Even that site acknowledged that it wasn’t actually a false-flag operation at all, but a screw-up (an operator’s bad call on breaking waves as torpedoes) that was then covered up and used as justification for war. But the broader points are these:

 

Not ONE of those ‘conspiracies’ was revealed by conspiracy theorists; and

 

Not ONE of those conspiracies was a false-flag operation.

 

And only a few of them were in the strictest sense conspiracies. The CIA’s covert ops are just that – it’s what intelligence agencies do, whether we approve of the specifics or not. Other examples involve cover-ups, corruption, pay-offs and all the other bad things governments, agencies, corporations and individuals do.

 

So let’s look at the score-sheet for you, the Neo-Nazi, Islamo-fascist, survivalist and gun-lobby conspiracy theorists so far since 2001:

 

1. 9/11. No decisive proof that this was a US government or agency ‘false flag’ operation. Victims harassed by ‘theorists’, many of them rabid anti-Semites.

 

2. Virginia Tech. No decisive proof that this was a US government or agency ‘false flag’ operation. Victims harassed by ‘theorists’, many of who are rabid anti-Semites.

 

3. Sandy Hook. No decisive proof that this was a US government or agency ‘false flag’ operation. Victims harassed by ‘theorists’, many of who are rabid anti-Semites

 

4. Boston bombing. No decisive proof that this was a US government or agency ‘false flag’ operation. Victims harassed by ‘theorists’, many of who are rabid anti-Semites.

 

5. FEMA concentration camps. No evidence whatsoever that the US government has set up concentration camps for US dissidents on US soil. Hilarious!

 

5. Woolwich murder. No decisive proof that this was or could have been a UK government or agency ‘false flag’ operation. I remain concerned that the victim’s families will be harassed by those who think like you.

 

Every useless scrap of so-called ‘evidence’ you’ve posted on here – every single one – has been decisively shot down, and your tactic throughout is to simply refuse to address these repudiations. Your childish claims of ‘proof’ of ‘tampering’ are accepted as ridiculous by everyone on here except you. And the fact that you're so sanguine in your implications and accusations of play-acting by the dead and injured victims and their families is an dreadful indictment of you as a human being.

[pap]

As for pap, no of course I havn't believed everything that I have ever been told or read but when the evidence categorically points to a certain action there really is no need in my mind to persue it any further, as I said before the fact none of these massive grand conspiracies have ever turned out to be true and in that I am talking aliens, JFK, boston, 9/11 etc the shear amount of people involved you would think there would be a leak somewhere and with all posibility there would be international outcry and perhaps war.

 

See my points about the amount of people you'd actually need. When an intelligence service infiltrates an organisation, it doesn't need to infiltrate every position in order to be effective. With the automation and reliance on technology, you don't even need to be on-site. Since you bring it up, 9/11 might be a good example of how chaos can act as an enabler. On the day of 9/11, NORAD were running drills simulating hijacked airliner scenario. Confusion reigned in the FAA. When hijacked planes were reported, operators were asking "real or simulated?".

 

You say that thousands of people would have to be in the know. I don't agree - the chaos at the FAA was ultimately a systems and communications failure. You don't need thousands of people to pull that off.

 

I get your its wrong to believe claptrap but that means you must live a sad existance ? Can never accept a promise or believe anything no matter how trivial and its dangerous as it A. Cant be healthy and B. Goes to help create some of the brainwashed nutjobs we see carrying out these atrocities (not saying your there BTW)

 

Calling someone's existence sad is subjective at the best of times, because it's always relative to what you'd call normal. However, honestly - I do think I'm a bit sad for spending the amount of time I do on here, not on conspiracy sites. I'm sure there are others in a similar boat.

 

As per Woolwich, if the government had set these guys up for it, surely they would have killed them when they had the chance ?

 

Wouldn't have been hard would it ? And there wouldnt be many complsining about their deaths. Instead they are standing trial within which anything could be found out ?

 

Unless they control the jury aswell ? Wow this is a very intricate plan isnt it ?

 

Good point, and a definite minus point for the "it's all a sham" line of thinking.

 

But do you think for a second either of them will enter a plea of not guilty?

[CB Fry]

If thousands of people weren't involved in the 9/11 conspiracy, just a handful as you suggest, then surely that stops it being a conspiracy?

 

You can't have a conspiracy if no one knows about it. You need people to, like, conspire.

[Smirking_Saint]

I really dont know, for me, I can see how they possibly can, entering a plea of not guilty with such an overwhelming amount of evidence is crazy, added to that the fact that they did what they did for their cause then no, they will definately plead guilty.

 

From a conspiracy POV though, if there were to be others involved, or lets just say, if it were me I wouldnt leave any chance of anything coming out, people cracking under pressure etc I would have taken them out there and then.

 

From a 9/11 POV its difficult, having worked alongside officials which carry out situation planning every day on every occurance (they seem to have an amazingly interesting job) on a loss of grid scenario I got talking and found out they basically go over and over a range of situations all the time, we didnt talk about 9/11 but it makes you think it was probably coincidence and unfortunate it happened that day. Also no one (from memory) flew a plane into a building before, should the military have shot down a passenger airline they would have been slammed, should they have shot them down at the point of no return over a city then there would have been damage and would have been slammed, nobody knew they were going to slam two planes into the towers, it was a surprise to everyone.

[Smirking_Saint]

FWIW conspiracies like the whole asbestos thing are believable and probably true, that certainly wouldnt surprise me at all, governments have a lot more to lose though and, esp in civilized countries like ours I find atrocities against its populace v hard to believe

[Special K]

More chance of geting a w@nk off the pope than proving this was a conspiracy. The thread reminds me of the "defend the indefensible" section on Fighting Talk. And Verbal is right, shocking lack of respect to the victims in the blind pursuit to be Fox Mulder MkII.

[pap]

I’m not sure whether you intend to deceive or are simply deceiving yourself. So let's be clear:

 

1. Despite your implication otherwise, there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that the Chiefs of Staff were in any way involved in JFK's assassination. Nothing. Nada. Agreed?

 

There is the deathbed confession of E Howard Hunt.

 

 

2. Despite your implication otherwise, there is no basis whatsoever for the claim that ‘JFK tried to circumvent the Chiefs of Staff at every opportunity’. That falsely claims that JFK was at constant loggerheads with the military. He wasn’t. He simply shot them down on Northwoods. Agreed?

 

Perhaps every opportunity is a bit strong, but they clashed over far more than Northwoods.

 

Kennedy was burned by the military over the Bay of Pigs. They told him it'd be a slam dunk, and he privately never forgave them. They never forgave him because he never committed the resources to take the island.

 

In 1961, Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, presented Kennedy with a plan for a surprise attack on the Soviet Union. This is actually a fairly balanced account of the briefing, which has been released in the public domain.

 

http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/CMC50/ScottSaganSIOP62TheNuclearWarPlanBriefingtoPreside ntKennedyInternationalSecurity.pdf

 

Well worth a read. On hearing the plan, Kennedy apparently walked out of the briefing in disgust, remarking "and we call ourselves the human race".

 

In 1962, Northwoods was presented. Kennedy rejected it out of hand and sent Lemnizter off to Europe to command NATO three months later. Lemnizter brought much of it on himself; after Northwoods he is reported to have refused to speak with Kennedy directly.

 

Much of the testimony relies on the account of Arthur Schlesinger, Pulitzer winning author of A Thousand Days.

 

Robert Dallek writes that Kennedy was planning for US withdrawal from South East Asia as early as 1962, another desired objective of the US war machine that Eisenhower warned people about. Didn't LBJ say "get me re-elected, then you can have your damn war?"

 

Blocked them on Northwood and that was it? Behave.

 

 

3. Despite your implication otherwise, Operation Northwoods – often cited as the archetypal ‘false flag’ operation by conspiracy loons never happened. Agreed?

 

I believe we've covered this. Agreed.

 

4. The laughable irony is that conspiracy theorists, having to accept that Northwoods never happened, actually turn one failed conspiracy theory into another failed conspiracy theory – namely, that the CoS were involved in killing Kennedy. Agreed?

 

You're completely misrepresting what Northwoods means. No one is claiming it happened. However, it's a matter of public record that it was signed off by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and blocked by Kennedy. Northwoods gives an insight into what the joint chiefs of staff considered acceptable. They all signed off on a terror campaign on their own soil to arouse public sentiment against Castro's regime. You're trying to pass it off as if it has no consequence. Northwoods never happened because JFK blocked it.

 

JFK wasn't around to block any Operation Northwoods style plans after 1963. Agreed?

 

 

1. 9/11. No decisive proof that this was a US government or agency ‘false flag’ operation. Victims harassed by ‘theorists’, many of them rabid anti-Semites.

 

I note the use of the qualifier decisive. There is decisive evidence of a very limited investigation for the scale of the crime. The crappy NIST pancake theory you promoted on the 9/11 thread is f**king hilarious.

 

"Yes. Here's what happened. These two buildings, see. The ones that have held all their mass since being erected, were crushed by the same mass, from roof to floor, when that mass was in dust form"

 

 

There is a wealth of evidence disproving aspects of the account, but no one wants to know.

 

Good to see you getting in the anti-Semite association thing again. That's not transparent at all.

 

2. Virginia Tech. No decisive proof that this was a US government or agency ‘false flag’ operation. Victims harassed by ‘theorists’, many of who are rabid anti-Semites.

 

No professed interest or opinion.

 

More anti-Semite references ( have to admit it's losing its power now ).

 

3. Sandy Hook. No decisive proof that this was a US government or agency ‘false flag’ operation. Victims harassed by ‘theorists’, many of who are rabid anti-Semites

 

No professed interest or opinion, but you're still plugging away with that anti-Semite stuff. Lordy, this is starting to look like an obsession!

 

4. Boston bombing. No decisive proof that this was a US government or agency ‘false flag’ operation. Victims harassed by ‘theorists’, many of who are rabid anti-Semites.

 

About as much "investigation" as 9/11. The "let's round up a posse for no good reason" incident.

 

I have to ask you, and I'm sorry to be so direct, but I have difficulty getting answers out of you.

 

Are you a rabid anti-Semite? You seem very interested in this sort of thing.

 

5. FEMA concentration camps. No evidence whatsoever that the US government has set up concentration camps for US dissidents on US soil. Hilarious!

 

And never mentioned once on here apart from Verbal! Fancy that!

 

5. Woolwich murder. No decisive proof that this was or could have been a UK government or agency ‘false flag’ operation. I remain concerned that the victim’s families will be harassed by those who think like you.

 

Mate, play to your strengths. You are most effective as a strawman debater who uses insults and feigned disgust to try and prove a point. Don't try to do the empathy thing. Tonally, it's just not nasty enough to sit with your other work.

 

Every useless scrap of so-called ‘evidence’ you’ve posted on here – every single one – has been decisively shot down, and your tactic throughout is to simply refuse to address these repudiations. Your childish claims of ‘proof’ of ‘tampering’ are accepted as ridiculous by everyone on here except you. And the fact that you're so sanguine in your implications and accusations of play-acting by the dead and injured victims and their families is an dreadful indictment of you as a human being.

 

Cool story, bro.

[JustMike]

Just for clarity, I'm having difficulty reconciling the bloody nature of the attack with the bloodless attackers. Same issue I raised in an initial thread when I was just pointing out the clean state of the jacket. Since then, I've seen video footage of the same event that shows different things.

 

Go and ask people what happened in Woolwich last week, and 9/10 will probably tell you that a soldier had his head cut off, yet it's still not clear that Lee Rigby was actually decapitated. The post-mortem revealed the cause of death to be multiple, incisive wounds.

 

The more I look into it, the convinced I am. One of the most interesting things I've found is one of the least sensational. It's a picture taken from the top floor of the bus. Linked, rather than embedded, because it does show the victim. It's just another incongruent artefact from what was billed and reported as a bloody massacre.

 

so is your only issue with this the reporting of the event?

[aintforever]

Not being funny, aintforever, but have you ever heard of moles? I know there's a fair chance that someone will label this the usual conspiracy rubbish, but they've been a staple of intelligence services for centuries, providing intelligence and operational support, in secret, to their respective parent organisations.

 

The assumption that I think you're making is that everything that happens needs to be meticulously controlled. I wouldn't say that's safe. Just as much can be achieved under cover of chaos and uncertainty, and it doesn't take many people to create that.

 

But if you were a government organisation committing a false flag terrorist act it would have to be be meticulously controlled as it would only take one witness with a smart phone to blow the whole thing wide open.

 

That's the problem with these conspiracy theories, they pick out one thing that appears odd or suspicious and come to all sorts of bizarre conclusions form it when the theories they bang on about have a million things that don't add up.

 

Go on, give us your theory for the Woolwich killing. I know you won't because it is obvious what happened.

[pap]

 

Much respect for posting an image from one of the best episodes of telly, ever.

[pap]

But if you were a government organisation committing a false flag terrorist act it would have to be be meticulously controlled as it would only take one witness with a smart phone to blow the whole thing wide open.

 

You reckon? At one point, so did I

 

Take a look at this thread, and the others I've been involved with on this topic. The questions aren't unreasonable, but some of the responses completely are. I've posted a few bits and pieces on this topic, and depressingly often, the starter for ten has been "pap has to be a nutter". Fair comment from a certain perspective, but it's a small scale version of what often happens higher up. Mentioned before that I was into this in the mid-2000s. I actually emailed a BBC journalist about one of the more concrete aspects of 9/11, namely the controlled demolition. The response was a two sentence shutdown, and while I attribute no specific meaning to that, the complete lack of interest did deter me from pursuing it through such channels again.

 

You talk as if a smartphone could break the whole thing open, but I think that the reaction on this thread demonstrates that freedom of speech means you can say what you like, but you better be prepared to take some flak for it. When the big boys are involved in smearing you, you can pretty much expect to lose your career. I think it's important not to underestimate the massive power of the media, and the relative lack of plurality. I had hoped that stuff like social media would perhaps lead to democratisation of opinion, but the exact same principle exists there.

 

That's the problem with these conspiracy theories, they pick out one thing that appears odd or suspicious and come to all sorts of bizarre conclusions form it when the theories they bang on about have a million things that don't add up.

 

That's not always the case. The much maligned David Icke forums got the Savile story ahead of anybody, and while it isn't a traditional conspiracy theory, it does somewhat disprove Verbal's notion that the conspiracy community has never uncovered anything of any value.

 

Go on, give us your theory for the Woolwich killing. I know you won't because it is obvious what happened.

 

Hmm, a theory, eh?

 

Do I have your assurances that if I lay out a theory, you won't pretend it's what I actually believe and start saying I have Aspergers or something?

[Smirking_Saint]

The reason your getting flak papster is because to everyone but yourself you are so far off the mark it isnt true, ok, you have found a single point of discussion which has been effectively counter argued to the point that you were not able to oppose it effectively ?

 

Also emailing the BBC about the 'controlled explosion theory' and not expecting to be shot down shows the level that you have been dragged in on this, I notice you ignored my post earlier btw. The reason that conspiracists are called nutters pap is because to the layman they are, they havn't revealed some massive secret that none of us are intelligent to see, they have just gripped onto a small piece of info and run away with their own imaginations.

 

This essentially makes them and unfortunately you akin to those that follow the bible pap, grabbing a few bits of substantial evidence which can more then easily be proven incorrect but failing to see (or blindly ignoring) the logical path that the majority of us follow.

[CB Fry]

I actually emailed a BBC journalist about one of the more concrete aspects of 9/11, namely the controlled demolition. The response was a two sentence shutdown, and while I attribute no specific meaning to that, the complete lack of interest did deter me from pursuing it through such channels again.

 

Easily the funniest paragraph on the thread so far. Keep em coming.

[aintforever]

Do I have your assurances that if I lay out a theory, you won't pretend it's what I actually believe and start saying I have Aspergers or something?

 

You keep insinuating that there is some sort of conspiracy, why is it so hard for you to lay out a feasible theory?

[pap]

The reason your getting flak papster is because to everyone but yourself you are so far off the mark it isnt true, ok, you have found a single point of discussion which has been effectively counter argued to the point that you were not able to oppose it effectively ?

 

If your definition of "opposed it effectively" is gaining the assent of the speaking board, then you're right. I've totally failed. I assume no support from frightened lurkers, or regular posters who are choosing not to comment.

 

However, in the midst of all of the flak, there have been some worthwhile discussions. Rough with the smooth.

 

Also emailing the BBC about the 'controlled explosion theory' and not expecting to be shot down shows the level that you have been dragged in on this, I notice you ignored my post earlier btw. The reason that conspiracists are called nutters pap is because to the layman they are, they havn't revealed some massive secret that none of us are intelligent to see, they have just gripped onto a small piece of info and run away with their own imaginations.

 

You can't possibly back this up with logic.

 

People mock conspiracy theorists for harvesting the information that appears on conspiracy sites to the exclusion of all else but contacting a journo at a respected broadcaster is wrong too! Can't really win, can I?

 

Could sir perhaps provide the correct procedure for those seeking to prove a conspiracy orchestrated by those in power? Preferably one that involves long life afterwards

 

This essentially makes them and unfortunately you akin to those that follow the bible pap, grabbing a few bits of substantial evidence which can more then easily be proven incorrect but failing to see (or blindly ignoring) the logical path that the majority of us follow.

 

I've heard the "as good as a religion" argument only once before. The idea does have some merit. Part of the reason I was turned off in the mid-2000s was the near-religious subscription to particular 9/11 theories, such as "no planes" or whatever. It was a complete joke; people who suspected broadly the same things arguing the toss over details, losing focus on elements of common agreement - or incorporating everything into the framework of a single, over-arching world view (lizards, etc) which blinded them to fresh evidence or alternate explanations.

 

So yep, I take that on-board and I can acknowledge that I've met one person who'd fit the wide-eyed loon tag like a glove. Shame really, because these people devalue valid questions by tying them up with their personal worldview. Makes it so easy for someone to roll onto a board that discusses conspiracy matters, cherry pick a few choice comments and present them as the whole. That ain't even conspiracy theory - that's the general standard of politics and debate in this age.

[pap]

Easily the funniest paragraph on the thread so far. Keep em coming.

 

It is rather amusing, reading it back.

 

I shall endeavour to maintain this gold standard of comedy.

[Smirking_Saint]

Its not logical to look at a widely accepted set of results, take on board the counter arguements and potential theories and then make my mind up that there is little validity in the small amount of so called evidence that eventually falls down as mere ambiguities then ?

 

As far as the bbc thing is concerned, I wasnt saying that you were necessarily wrong to contact them, just that you didnt envisage a situation within which they thought you were slightly mental ? Or that they hadnt had a brief look at so called evidence before ?

 

Im not saying dont question, I love science, I love my job, it allows me to question and investigate things. But there are certain situations that just arent worth the effort.

 

If there was a shred of credible evidence in any of these big 'conspiracies' they would be exposed and a major government would topple

[Viking Warrior]

Pap you are well qualified to be a politician . For a start you are unable to give a straight answer to a direct question . Instead you use the typical politician response by evading the question ask . You do. Make laugh at time but again if the two Nigerians didn't kill the lee . Who did and secondly did a soldier actually die . I know the real answer but you seem to have no grasp of the truth . I wish I was still serving I could give you a hands on guide to trauma injuries and the effect of blood loss or the lack of it . I could put up actual trauma case pictures from Herrick and Telic but I will not out of professionalism and out of respect to those who were injured .

 

One thing I will agree on though was JFK . Lee Harvey was not the loan killer . I did a project and research topic on it . I am of the believe there was more than one sniper and then there is jack ruby and co

[pap]

Its not logical to look at a widely accepted set of results, take on board the counter arguements and potential theories and then make my mind up that there is little validity in the small amount of so called evidence that eventually falls down as mere ambiguities then ?

 

I think "mere ambiguities" is selling the scale of some of the discrepancies a little short.

 

As far as the bbc thing is concerned, I wasnt saying that you were necessarily wrong to contact them, just that you didnt envisage a situation within which they thought you were slightly mental ? Or that they hadnt had a brief look at so called evidence before ?

 

 

The thoughts did cross my mind, but it didn't deter me enough from asking.

 

 

Im not saying dont question, I love science, I love my job, it allows me to question and investigate things. But there are certain situations that just arent worth the effort.

 

 

Let's be honest, a big part of why it isn't worth the effort is the sort of dressing downs you get for your efforts I speak from a fair bit of experience on this one.

 

 

That doesn't mean the strength of the case is diminished in any scientific sense; the central tenet of the NIST pancake theory is ridiculous. Even that was a reaction to criticism of the original account.

 

 

If there was a shred of credible evidence in any of these big 'conspiracies' they would be exposed and a major government would topple

 

 

Credible is the operative word. Who gets to decide whether something is credible or not? Largely, it's the media and court of public opinion.

 

 

It's why the most common response to conspiracy theory ideas is to discredit the person espousing them. It's an admirably ruthless approach; destroying the "platform" the idea is built on instead of the idea itself.

 

 

Evidence is only really any good if it is weighed into consideration.