QNon/David Icke

[spyinthesky]

Any followers on here?

I am surprised that so many of the Mass Shootings in the USA are considered to be 'False Flag' incidents full of dedicated 'actors' who will never/ever reveal their involvement.
It is really interesting to learn that 'The Donald' was put on this earth to save us from the US equivalents of Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter as well as those ne'er do wells with political views the polar opposite of the right wing extremists who the likes of Alex Jones, Breibart and most of Fox Mews staffers like to encourage .

Perhaps I am less surprised that Prince Phillip is possibly a Lizard in his days off but hey ho, all to their own.

[hypochondriac]

1) qanon is quite clearly stupid and believed by guillable idiots. 

2) there's clearly quite a few powerful paedophile engaging in child abuse. I doubt most of them will ever receive any justice. 

[whelk]

The Social Dilemma is worth a watch on Netflix. 
Kind of explains morons taking to mad conspiracy theories.

[buctootim]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

The Social Dilemma is worth a watch on Netflix. 
Kind of explains morons taking to mad conspiracy theories.

Something happened to Icke though. He wasn't always like that  

[whelk]

2 hours ago, buctootim said:

Something happened to Icke though. He wasn't always like that  

He had a breakdown but made headlines and enough nutters in the world that will believe him. Power of celebrity.

Also snooker fans are weirdos

[st.bangkok]

13 hours ago, whelk said:

The Social Dilemma is worth a watch on Netflix. 
Kind of explains morons taking to mad conspiracy theories.

The irony is that what you class as normal people, I.E. those who do not listen to the likes of Icke, in fact are themsevles conspiracy theorists as they swallow every cock and bull story the corupt gvernments of the world feed them thru controlled MSM. 

Ask yourself, was JFK killed by one bullet?

Where were the WMD in Iraq?

Did the towers all fall because of the planes?

Is everything Nixon said and did legal? 

Is everything we are told the truth?

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, st.bangkok said:

The irony is that what you class as normal people, I.E. those who do not listen to the likes of Icke, in fact are themsevles conspiracy theorists as they swallow every cock and bull story the corupt gvernments of the world feed them thru controlled MSM. 

Ask yourself, was JFK killed by one bullet?

Where were the WMD in Iraq?

Did the towers all fall because of the planes?

Is everything Nixon said and did legal? 

Is everything we are told the truth?

Hit by 3, killed by one, ( the head shot ).

Iraq had poison gas, but the rest was fabrication by the US and UK.

Yes.

No.

You can't handle the truth.

[st.bangkok]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Hit by 3, killed by one, ( the head shot ).

Iraq had poison gas, but the rest was fabrication by the US and UK.

Yes.  LOL.

No. LOL.

You can't handle the truth.

So, basically you agree the US and UK governments conspire and lie in both the JFK incident and Iraq. You yourself cannot handle the tuth by denying Nixon boke laws and lied also. And if you honestly cannot see WTC 7 was controlled demolition, I genuinely do fear for your mental state. 

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, st.bangkok said:

So, basically you agree the US and UK governments conspire and lie in both the JFK incident and Iraq. You yourself cannot handle the tuth by denying Nixon boke laws and lied also. And if you honestly cannot see WTC 7 was controlled demolition, I genuinely do fear for your mental state. 

The US investigation into JFK's assasination says there were 3 shots, at least 2 of the 3 hit him.

You asked if everything Nixon said and did was legal, I replied "no", so perhaps you need a lesson in comprehension.

Keep wearing your tinfoil hat.

Edited 14 September, 2020 by badgerx16

[saint1977]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Hit by 3, killed by one, ( the head shot ).

Iraq had poison gas, but the rest was fabrication by the US and UK.

Yes.

No.

You can't handle the truth.

Yep, correct on all of those. On 3, WTC collapsed like it did because of shoddy regulations in the 1960s on fire codes and resistance (hence why Brexiteers so keen on US alliance). The length of the joists tested were a lot longer than those covered by the code but it was passed even though very risky given the comparative lack of masonry. The protection was spray on asbestos, which killed plenty of workers spraying it on (watch the videos of its construction turn of 1970s and you will see the clouds of dust) but was way too easy to dislodge and which was when the towers were hit in the process of being replaced. Sadly, they had only gotten to floor 40. Of course, the impact of a jumbo jet dislodged the remaining asbestos and left the long stretches of joists unprotected to huge temperatures,

bTW, Trump still maintains if WTC had more asbestos it would have survived https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-asbestos-707642/ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/world/europe/asbestos-russia-mine.html   And Steve Baker wants to legalise it again in this country https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/brexit-ministers-asbestos-links-questioned 

As for Nixon, plenty he ordered, discussed and encouraged was illegal not least the Pentagon Papers activities, wiretaps, Cambodia/Laos incursions, Watergate burglary itself although the most damaging of all was the cover up which saw several senior aides and the Attorney General doing chokey. Blame Ford for Nixon not doing the time he deserved.

As for Iraq, very short of evidence of WMDs, Bush and Blair did appear to act illegally and should have faced international sanction.

JFK - Cuban driven alliance with the hard right to wipe him out. There’s plenty of lengthy books from respected scholars on this topic. Some of the same Cuban names from the period then pop up again during Watergate and the Burglary. 

[st.bangkok]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The US investigation into JFK's assasination says there were 3 shots, at least 2 of the 3 hit him.

You asked if everything Nixon said and did was legal, I replied "no", so perhaps you need a lesson in comprehension.

Keep wearing your tinfoil hat.

Ah, so you will avoid all I said and pick on a predictive text error. So, basically I was right. You cannot handle the fact that governments lie and tell us/feed us with what we want to hear. You numbskulls lap it all up and believe all is well with the world and that towers fall down on their own footprint naturally, meaning that in fact demolition teams are unecessary. And it is us that can see through the lies that wear the tinfoil hats. LOL. 

[badgerx16]

6 minutes ago, st.bangkok said:

Ah, so you will avoid all I said and pick on a predictive text error. So, basically I was right. You cannot handle the fact that governments lie and tell us/feed us with what we want to hear. You numbskulls lap it all up and believe all is well with the world and that towers fall down on their own footprint naturally, meaning that in fact demolition teams are unecessary. And it is us that can see through the lies that wear the tinfoil hats. LOL. 

"You yourself cannot handle the tuth by denying Nixon boke laws and lied also." That is one heck of a predictive text error.

 

All Governments lie, all the time. I can hande this fact fine, thankyou.

Q) How do you know a politician is lying ?

A) His/her lips are moving.

Edited 14 September, 2020 by badgerx16

[saint1977]

42 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

"You yourself cannot handle the tuth by denying Nixon boke laws and lied also." That is one heck of a predictive text error.

 

All Governments lie, all the time. I can hande this fact fine, thankyou.

Q) How do you know a politician is lying ?

A) His/her lips are moving.

They do lie sometimes - of all ideological persuasions - but not always. It’s why we have blue chip research at arms length from the government to help determine some grains of truth although there is always individual bias to overcome.

Each incident has to be looked at an on a case by case basis. Take two 1980s football disasters which have conspiracy theories surrounding them over the years. Hillsborough - yes, clear that there was a conspiracy to protect the Police with the media’s active help. Hard to believe the government didn’t have some awareness and they owed the police some good favours. With Bradford, whilst the Poppelford Enquiry was mighty fast but does appear from all the evidence available at the time and since to have been fairly accurate.

it isn’t just politicians - look at the Yorkshire Ripper and Byford. Maggie was furious with WYP and the crimes spanned Labour and Tory governments but she was only 18 months in when Sutcliffe was caught. She had no reason to cover up but the police did added to attitudes and biases towards some of the victims shared by some senior judiciary. Hence why the enquiry was very critical of WYP, not critical enough, but the judicial system stood by the ‘voices’ narrative so the police’s full ineptitude wasn’t exposed. It also means lots of women have had their crimes almost certainly committed in the Ripper series unsolved and not received justice.

[Lighthouse]

There’s really no point in arguing with conspiracy theorists. To have that viewpoint in the first place you have to have ignored vast amounts of evidence and done huge mental gymnastics. 

[Weston Super Saint]

9 hours ago, saint1977 said:

Yep, correct on all of those. On 3, WTC collapsed like it did because of shoddy regulations in the 1960s on fire codes and resistance (hence why Brexiteers so keen on US alliance).

It's quite an astonishing leap to suggest Brexiteers are keen on a US alliance because of the shoddy regulations they had in the 1960's.

You keep clutching at straws and I'll go and hunt down my tin foil hat!

[whelk]

I have missed Saintsweb having a mental old fucker. 

[st.bangkok]

On 14/09/2020 at 15:46, Lighthouse said:

There’s really no point in arguing with conspiracy theorists. To have that viewpoint in the first place you have to have ignored vast amounts of evidence and done huge mental gymnastics. 

Exactly my point. I can quite easily reverse that on to you and all the other gullible fools who swallow all they are told about ovid as true, face etc, while at the same time agreeing governments lie and are corrupt. Hilarious that you fail to see it. Brainwashed by TV and MSM.

[st.bangkok]

On 14/09/2020 at 14:38, saint1977 said:

Yep, correct on all of those. On 3, WTC collapsed like it did because of shoddy regulations in the 1960s on fire codes and resistance (hence why Brexiteers so keen on US alliance). The length of the joists tested were a lot longer than those covered by the code but it was passed even though very risky given the comparative lack of masonry. The protection was spray on asbestos, which killed plenty of workers spraying it on (watch the videos of its construction turn of 1970s and you will see the clouds of dust) but was way too easy to dislodge and which was when the towers were hit in the process of being replaced. Sadly, they had only gotten to floor 40. Of course, the impact of a jumbo jet dislodged the remaining asbestos and left the long stretches of joists unprotected to huge temperatures,

bTW, Trump still maintains if WTC had more asbestos it would have survived https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-asbestos-707642/ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/world/europe/asbestos-russia-mine.html   And Steve Baker wants to legalise it again in this country https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/brexit-ministers-asbestos-links-questioned 

As for Nixon, plenty he ordered, discussed and encouraged was illegal not least the Pentagon Papers activities, wiretaps, Cambodia/Laos incursions, Watergate burglary itself although the most damaging of all was the cover up which saw several senior aides and the Attorney General doing chokey. Blame Ford for Nixon not doing the time he deserved.

As for Iraq, very short of evidence of WMDs, Bush and Blair did appear to act illegally and should have faced international sanction.

JFK - Cuban driven alliance with the hard right to wipe him out. There’s plenty of lengthy books from respected scholars on this topic. Some of the same Cuban names from the period then pop up again during Watergate and the Burglary. 

So, why do they ever bother with demolition teams? I mean come on, if they know they will fall straight down like that, just blow them up with one bomb. Think about it. Duh.

[saint1977]

33 minutes ago, st.bangkok said:

So, why do they ever bother with demolition teams? I mean come on, if they know they will fall straight down like that, just blow them up with one bomb. Think about it. Duh.

Sigh....it wasn’t just one bomb was it? Two jumbo jets freshly loaded with millions of gallons of aviation fuel. The designers and builders did overestimate the amount of resistance offered by the external steel grid by a plane collision but that was not a glancing blow it was flown straight at at the buildings. WTC wasn’t the only skyscraper in the 70s to have issues, the Citicorp in midtown needed secret substantial re-inforcing work following a hurricane warning and some seeming damper miscalculations. 

You mentioned WTC7 - no demolition crew there either, more construction and design issues from the same period and flammable internal materials which shouldn’t have been permitted https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

All just (very costly) design and construction flaws. Which need to be addressed through better regulation. Hence Brexit a bit of a problem there as those pushing for it want Singapore on Thames. So we have more Grenfell-style retrofits and UK/Australia (eg Mascot Towers) buildings lethal to live in with worsening resident protections. No conspiracies, just greedy wastes of space. 

 

 

[st.bangkok]

8 minutes ago, saint1977 said:

Sigh....it wasn’t just one bomb was it? Two jumbo jets freshly loaded with millions of gallons of aviation fuel. The designers and builders did overestimate the amount of resistance offered by the external steel grid by a plane collision but that was not a glancing blow it was flown straight at at the buildings. WTC wasn’t the only skyscraper in the 70s to have issues, the Citicorp in midtown needed secret substantial re-inforcing work following a hurricane warning and some seeming damper miscalculations. 

You mentioned WTC7 - no demolition crew there either, more construction and design issues from the same period and flammable internal materials which shouldn’t have been permitted https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

All just (very costly) design and construction flaws. Which need to be addressed through better regulation. Hence Brexit a bit of a problem there as those pushing for it want Singapore on Thames. So we have more Grenfell-style retrofits and UK/Australia (eg Mascot Towers) buildings lethal to live in with worsening resident protections. No conspiracies, just greedy wastes of space. 

 

 

In fact no, there was no bomb on WTC 7. Please do try again. 

 

Fact is there are loads of qualified reports done by qualified experts that state is was factually demolition that brought them down. You choose to believe the government brainwashing narrative. Others choose to believe differently. We have facts, so do you. Which one you choose to believe depends on what? Superior view? LOL.

 

 

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, st.bangkok said:

Exactly my point. I can quite easily reverse that on to you and all the other gullible fools who swallow all they are told about ovid as true, face etc, while at the same time agreeing governments lie and are corrupt. Hilarious that you fail to see it. Brainwashed by TV and MSM.

This kind of stuff was fun in like, 2005 but I think you need some new material.

[aintforever]

4 hours ago, st.bangkok said:

In fact no, there was no bomb on WTC 7. Please do try again. 

 

Fact is there are loads of qualified reports done by qualified experts that state is was factually demolition that brought them down. You choose to believe the government brainwashing narrative. Others choose to believe differently. We have facts, so do you. Which one you choose to believe depends on what? Superior view? LOL.

 

 

The problem with the demolition theory is the fact that when things are demolished they use a thing called explosives which make a very large 'bang' sound which would have been heard for miles around. Plus the explosion usually shatters every window in the building which would have been obvious.

The thing about 9/11 is that what happened was totally unprecedented, some things are bound to look weird which spawns all these crazy theories. the moment you actually analyse any of them they are always full of holes.

 

[aintforever]

Just now, aintforever said:

The problem with the demolition theory is the fact that when things are demolished they use a thing called explosives which make a very large 'bang' sound which would have been heard for miles around. Plus the explosion usually shatters every window in the building which would have been obvious.

The thing about 9/11 is that what happened was totally unprecedented, some things are bound to look weird which spawns all these crazy theories. The moment you actually analyse any of them they are always full of holes.