The Ultimate Con

[carpro]

There obviously were explosions. The question is who planted the explosives? Perhaps al Qaeda operatives did.

It was Bush. Who else could it have been?:laugh:

 

[Rufus_1611]

It was Bush. Who else could it have been?:laugh:

Which Bush are you alleging? George W, the one in charge of the country or Marvin Pierce who was on the board of directors of the company responsible for WTC security?

 

[carpro]

Quote:
Originally Posted by poncho
I think he's saying he didn't watch the video. :laugh:

Far easier it is to just call things "garbage" then to research a matter and make an actual argument.

If the title of the video, "The Ultimate CON"...spiracy weren't enough to give one a clue...

The very first words spoken in the video were:

"This is an attempt to prevent the American people from knowing the facts about how we could have prevented 911 and people are covering it up today."

That should be enough to get the blood of any self respecting conspiracy theorist cooking.

Judging by the usual assortment of conspiracy theory defenders on the thread, it was.:thumbs:

 

[James_Newman]

The very first words spoken in the video were:

"This is an attempt to prevent the American people from knowing the facts about how we could have prevented 911 and people are covering it up today."

Who said that? Was it Alex Jones? Or Poncho?

 

[Rufus_1611]

Who said that? Was it Alex Jones? Or Poncho?

I do believe it was a congressman of the United States of America named Curt Weldon. Congressman Weldon was the Vice Chairman of the House Armed Service Committee and a Republican. You'd think that would get the blood of any self-respecting American to pay attention.

 

[carpro]

I do believe it was a congressman of the United States of America named Curt Weldon. Congressman Weldon was the Vice Chairman of the House Armed Service Committee and a Republican. You'd think that would get the blood of any self-respecting American to pay attention.

Why?

There are conservatives who are conspiracy theorists, too.

I think I know at least one on this board. Any guesses who?

 

[poncho]

Quote:
Originally Posted by poncho
I think he's saying he didn't watch the video. :laugh:




If the title of the video, "The Ultimate CON"...spiracy weren't enough to give one a clue...

The very first words spoken in the video were:

"This is an attempt to prevent the American people from knowing the facts about how we could have prevented 911 and people are covering it up today."

That should be enough to get the blood of any self respecting conspiracy theorist cooking.

Judging by the usual assortment of conspiracy theory defenders on the thread, it was.:thumbs:

So you judged the video on the title, the very first words and who else watched it? That would explain the lack of a genuine critique of the content within the video I reckon. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[poncho]

I don't have time at the moment to sit and watch all the other videos associated with this one, but I did watch the one linked to in the OP. I also remember watching the tv footage (on various news media) that day and days afterward, and I remember the references to explosions at the time. I also remember it was utter chaos at Ground Zero and all across the country people were speculating on the details--often conflicting--that were being broadcast....as is usually the case during a crisis situation.

Could someone tell me what the conspiracy theory is? That the government has lied about the fact that there WERE explosions? That the government PLANTED explosive devices? What?

The conspiracy theory is that 19 arabs, 15 of them Saudis conspired together and attacked the United States of America using planes as weapons. This of course has never been proven (beyond the theory) despite the fact that the government has grabbed massive amounts of power and control, reduced our liberties, grown twice it's size, put us closer to financial ruin and launched two invasions and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq, opening a third front in Somalia while alienating much of the world against us and coming up with the "legal reasoning" of a "unitary decidership" in the USA all based on this one still unproven conspiracy theory.

 

[poncho]

I don't have time at the moment to sit and watch all the other videos associated with this one, but I did watch the one linked to in the OP. I also remember watching the tv footage (on various news media) that day and days afterward, and I remember the references to explosions at the time. I also remember it was utter chaos at Ground Zero and all across the country people were speculating on the details--often conflicting--that were being broadcast....as is usually the case during a crisis situation.

Could someone tell me what the conspiracy theory is? That the government has lied about the fact that there WERE explosions? That the government PLANTED explosive devices? What?

Did I mention that on 9/10/ 2001 Donald Rumsfeld admitted that 2.3 trillion dollars were "missing" from the Pentagon? Or that with additional amounts found "missing" since totals 3 trillion dollars. Of course we all know of the wasted billions and "missing" millions since then. That would bring a total of something like four trillion dollars give or take a billion or two wasted and or missing now. And no one has been held accountable, some have even recieved rewards in medals and promotions for their parts in this um, latest militarist adventure.

Who is it that benefits most?

 

[mnw]

I have heard the so-called theory about the news teams reporting a building collapse before it happened and that is where it all fails for me.

You really think that Bush has people working for his agenda all over the world in various news teams? These presenters are not high political figures, they are ordinary people with shiny white teeth and a good reading voice.

 

[Rufus_1611]

I have heard the so-called theory about the news teams reporting a building collapse before it happened and that is where it all fails for me.

You really think that Bush has people working for his agenda all over the world in various news teams? These presenters are not high political figures, they are ordinary people with shiny white teeth and a good reading voice.

You're right to call that a "so-called theory" as the issue you describe is pure unadulterated, documented, provable, observable, F A C T.

BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell

It's not that "Bush has people" it's that Bush and others are working for a unique group of people, who report to a narrower and narrower chain of command with Lucifer at the top of that "pyramid" for lack of a better word. Everyone within that chain reports to someone. Just like any organization, orders come from the top and each layer below follows through on those orders. The BBC was given a script to follow and they followed it, they just jumped the gun as they were supposed to do that story, after the Solomon Brothers building collapsed, not report that it collapsed while it was still visible in the background.

 

[carpro]

So you judged the video on the title, the very first words and who else watched it? That would explain the lack of a genuine critique of the content within the video I reckon. :smilewinkgrin:

Standard journalistic technique. Start by outlining your theme and getting the attention of the viewer. Opening statements set the tone.

Fellow conspiracy theorists are reeled in. Thinking people have heard it all before and find better things to do.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

You're right to call that a "so-called theory" as the issue you describe is pure unadulterated, documented, provable, observable, F A C T.

BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell

It's not that "Bush has people" it's that Bush and others are working for a unique group of people, who report to a narrower and narrower chain of command with Lucifer at the top of that "pyramid" for lack of a better word. Everyone within that chain reports to someone. Just like any organization, orders come from the top and each layer below follows through on those orders. The BBC was given a script to follow and they followed it, they just jumped the gun as they were supposed to do that story, after the Solomon Brothers building collapsed, not report that it collapsed while it was still visible in the background.

The BBC in cahoots with the President. That's rich.:laugh:

 

[KenH]

Thinking people have heard it all before and find better things to do.

And you are unable to counter any of the news reports in the 10 minute video. That speaks volumes about the lack of substance to your stance.

 

[carpro]

And you are unable to counter any of the news reports in the 10 minute video.

Unable?

Uninterested is a better word.

Hard evidence would help...interest me.

 

[DQuixote]

I learned something on this video that I hadn't heard before, that the collapse of WTC7 was reported on BBC News BEFORE IT HAPPENED. The news woman was talking about the collapse while a live picture behind her showed the building still standing.

I'd really like to know how that happened if there wasn't a conspiracy.

Reporters in the foreground often have video from the control center playing in the background. Who said that the scene in the background was live?

 

[Rufus_1611]

Reporters in the foreground often have video from the control center playing in the background. Who said that the scene in the background was live?

Lower left of the screen there is a caption that says "live". Jane is in New York and there is smoke in the background from the buildings that were demolished prior to the Solomon Bros. building going down.

 

[KenH]

Unable?

Maybe, or maybe just acting cowardly to not watch the 10 minute video.

 

[DQuixote]

Need to go to the producer of that segment. "Live" could have been on the screen when that segment was recorded. The reporter could be "live". I'm not convinced. Five people see an automobile collision involving two cars. A third car comes along and collides with those two. You'll get eight different accounts of what happened, at least.

p.s. Rumsfield didn't say the 2.3 trillion was missing. He said it couldn't be accounted for. That's pretty horrible bookkeeping, at worst.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Need to go to the producer of that segment. "Live" could have been on the screen when that segment was recorded. The reporter could be "live". I'm not convinced. Five people see an automobile collision involving two cars. A third car comes along and collides with those two. You'll get six different accounts of what happened, at least.

Wow. That's a greater conspiracy theory than mine. Run with it. :thumbs: