|
Post by shred on Jun 19, 2013 11:04:42 GMT -5
I would like to contend that the National Socialist German Workers Party used conspiracy theories about Jews in post WW1 depressed Germany as a weapon to win power. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion being a big influence on them. Conspiracy theories about Jewish bankers, such as the Rothschilds (whose bank they confiscated after gaining power) were a potent influence on the SS and were used as a subsequent excuse for the holocaust.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 19, 2013 11:39:09 GMT -5
The Reichstag fire was a false flag fed to the German people as a conspiracy theory. Are you catching on perhaps? All governments use false flags and conspiracy theories fed to the public as "truth" to advance their agenda. The US government is NO EXCEPTION.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 20, 2013 4:47:40 GMT -5
Kindly refrain from insults. Let's just discuss the Nazis, how they conspired and how they used conspiracy theories. OK ? Yes the Reichstag fire was an inside job that they blamed on Jews. And the invasion of Poland which sparked the war in Europe began after they staged the Gleiwitz incident: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 20, 2013 7:29:40 GMT -5
How did I insult you?
Which Nazis do you want to talk about and how they conspired to create false flags and how they use(d) conspiracy theories? The Germans of 70+ years ago or the ones who currently infest our hijacked government? I'm much more interested in the latter because they exist today.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 20, 2013 7:57:35 GMT -5
You accuse me by implication of being out of touch. I am not.
Now, the Nazis who did the Reichstag fire and those who took part in the Glewitz incident had a very simple task. Very easy to carry out and hard to get caught out. And may I remind you that your "hijacked Government", isn't MY Government. I'm a British Citizen and a Yorkshireman at that. MY Prime Minister is former Bullingdon boy the 'Right Honourable' David Cameron, a man with a penchant for travelling to the Middle East to sell Eurofighter Typhoons & Hawk Jets to keep BAE Systems happy after he cancelled (& scrapped) their Nimrod MRA4 planes.
Anyway back to the subject at hand. Adolf Hitler was mad on conspiracy theories about Jews and Jewish bankers. He told the German people that the reason they lost WW1 was down to the Jews and elitist Jewish bankers. He used the Treaty of Versailles as an example of a Jewish foreign conspiracy against Germans and promised work and bread for all Germans. He used conspiracy theories about Jews to instigate the Kristallnacht attacks against Jews. He poisoned the minds of a country and raised an army against Jews and other 'undesirables' who he had systematically murdered.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 20, 2013 8:06:41 GMT -5
"You accuse me by implication of being out of touch. I am not."
I know you're not, I was being sarcastic, you only pretend to be out of touch, this thread you started is an example.
"may I remind you that your "hijacked Government", isn't MY Government."
You don't have to remind me, I'm fully aware. It isn't my government either, mine was hijacked by fascist criminals. That's why I'd rather discuss these Nazis than the ones who are all dead by now (or most of them anyway). 9/11 was a false flag that happened in my lifetime, the Reichstag fire and Glewitz were before my time.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 20, 2013 9:48:29 GMT -5
You have my sympathies but 9/11 was not a false flag despite your opinion. It was a case of criminal incompetence by the people who should have prevented it. It was a case of attempted cover up of criminal incompetence. It was not an inside job.
Some of the people who alleged 'controlled demolition' in the early days of 9/11 conspiracy theories were men like Eric Hufschmid, and Christopher Bollyn, both of whom were sympathetic to Nazi and Neo Nazi conspiracy theories about Jews and Jewish bankers.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 20, 2013 12:04:40 GMT -5
"9/11 was not a false flag despite your opinion."
We'll just have to differ on that one. 9/11 has all the characteristics of a false flag operation, including motive.
"It was a case of criminal incompetence by the people who should have prevented it."
There is an overwhelming amount of EVIDENCE that it was a deliberate STAND DOWN.
"It was a case of attempted cover up of criminal incompetence."
It was a deliberate COVER-UP of a massive crime.
"It was not an inside job."
There is an overwhelming amount of EVIDENCE that all 3 buildings collapsed unnaturally and therefore were brought down. The STAND DOWN, COVER-UP and deliberate DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE alone makes it an inside job and only adds more evidence to support the case that the 3 buildings were control demolished.
"Some of the people who alleged 'controlled demolition' in the early days of 9/11 conspiracy theories were men like Eric Hufschmid, and Christopher Bollyn, both of whom were sympathetic to Nazi and Neo Nazi conspiracy theories about Jews and Jewish bankers."
And? Are you implying or classifying that all those who don't accept the official conspiracy theory as truth and/or believe the 3 buildings were control demolished are Nazis or Nazi sympathizers? If not, why did you bring that up?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 20, 2013 12:28:59 GMT -5
No it doesn't, faking 9/11 is a logistical impossibility, the Bush government was way too incompetent to stop the attacks let alone fake them. They couldn't even find WMD's in Iraq. If they could fake 9/11 you'd have thought they could fake the find of a lorry load of Sarin or VX or something to justify Iraq.....
Come to think of it, Bush's Republican predecessors couldn't even pull off a simple robbery in the Watergate building.
There is no evidence of a stand down as fighters were scrambled but they weren't vectored to the right planes.
5 buildings (not three) collapsed naturally that day WTC1, WTC2, WTC3, WTC7, and the Greek Orthodox Church of St Nicholas.
Conspiracists have a habit of making stuff up (doctored videos, nano thermite, cruise missile) and getting things wrong (freefall, number of buildings that collapsed following the attack), just like holocaust denier conspiracy theorists (which Chris Bollyn and Eric Hufschmid are).
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 20, 2013 14:36:58 GMT -5
"faking 9/11 is a logistical impossibility, the Bush government was way too incompetent to stop the attacks let alone fake them."
The events of 9/11 are the events of 9/11. They are FACT, not a "logistical impossibility" or a "conspiracy theory". That the Bush administration "faked 9/11" (if that's what you're implying is theory) is not a theory shared by many. If elements within government had deep involvement (whatever involvement that may have been), it had to be a highly sophisticated operation planned and perpetrated by experts under the leadership and control of elements within the Bush administration and perhaps others. But all that is sheer speculation. To say any of it (not your version, i.e. "the Bush government") is "logistically impossible" is nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 21, 2013 3:32:10 GMT -5
The events of 9/11 were down to 19 mujahideen hijacking planes. The Bush administration didn't fake 9/11 didn't stand down, and didn't blow up the Twin Towers with hidden explosives. Both airlines whose planes were hijacked were nearly bankrupted in the aftermath.
Many people believe in the ridiculous, some people even now are stupid enough to believe the world is flat, but no matter how strongly you believe in a fallacy like 9/11 conspiracy theories your strong belief doesn't make the fallacy real. I'm sorry Bob, but you're just plain wrong on that issue. On other issues, like the NSA, I think you've a very good point.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 21, 2013 7:15:57 GMT -5
Anyway back to the topic at hand, wikipedia has this to say of antisemitic conspiracy theories: Antisemitic conspiracy theories are nothing new, they were the motivation behind the antisemitic riots of 1190 in York in which 150 Jews died. www.historyofyork.org.uk/themes/norman/the-1190-massacre
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 21, 2013 7:52:38 GMT -5
"The Bush administration didn't fake 9/11 didn't stand down"
No, Bush, Cheney and the entire $multi-trillion intelligence/defense apparatus didn't fake the STAND DOWN, the STAND DOWN is irrefutable DOCUMENTED history. There is NO EVIDENCE that either the Bush administration, the military, or any of the alphabet agencies did anything to prevent or stop the events of 9/11 from happening. Bush was too busy with the "My Pet Goat" reading, Cheney ordered that the STAND DOWN remains in effect, Rumsfeld and others in positions to act were MIA and the rest did NOTHING. See Consensus Points F & G: www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 21, 2013 10:13:57 GMT -5
No it isn't documented history Bob regardless of what the liar sites say.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 21, 2013 10:25:40 GMT -5
No it isn't documented history Bob regardless of what the liar sites say. Your denial doesn't change the FACTS or HISTORY. What's posted is ALL historical fact and evidence based regardless of your denial. Every single point contains reference links where appropriate, some to published documents, including the 9/11 Commission Report, videos and the like. Calling it a "liar site" doesn't make it that just because you can't accept FACTS and EVIDENCE for what they are.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 21, 2013 10:53:18 GMT -5
I'm not a denier. I accept the realities of what 19 kamikaze hijackers did.
It doesn't mean I support rendition or torture or the illegal detention camp at Guantanamo bay. Furthermore I opposed the invasion of Iraq and protested in public against it. I also opposed the invasion of Afghanistan.
I don't need to believe in 9/11 fairy tales to oppose injustice.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 21, 2013 12:01:40 GMT -5
"I'm not a denier."
Why lie? You are a denier because you automatically reject documented EVIDENCE and other FACTS if you don't agree with these. You don't even bother reading from any of those sites, much less investigating what's posted there. You also denigrate every person and site you disagree with and call them and everything published on those sites lies and fraud, among other name-calling childish nonsense. You promote anonymous ("debunking") sites that were created strictly for the purpose of supporting the official narrative and criticizing everyone and everything that contradicts it.
"I accept the realities of what 19 kamikaze hijackers did."
Correction, you accept what you were fed without any real evidence that any of it is true. You constantly claim theory, much of it unsupported and often contradicted by evidence, is fact and reality.
"I don't need to believe in 9/11 fairy tales to oppose injustice."
I should hope no one in his right mind does, not even you.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 22, 2013 13:02:57 GMT -5
I am not a denier and I am not lying about 9/11. You're the one who denies the documented evidence in favour of doctored photos doctored videos, misquotes and lies. I'm trying to show you the evidence but you keep insulting me and accusing me of being a disinformationist.
I haven't been fed anything. I've looked at both sides of the argument and found the 'truther' side to be fraudulent. I don't need their fairy tales, you shouldn't need their lies either, they discredit you.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 22, 2013 17:50:31 GMT -5
"You're the one who denies the documented evidence in favour of doctored photos doctored videos, misquotes and lies."
This is silly stuff, I've posted an incredible amount of documentation on 9/11 in many forms, anyone can see that. All my opinions are based on that documentary evidence, including "debunking" sites and videos, some created by the mainstream media. And anyone can readily see from your posts that you automatically reject anything and everything that doesn't agree with the official narrative and shoot the messengers, at least 2,000+ of them.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 23, 2013 3:50:40 GMT -5
No you've posted an incredible amount of writing about 9/11. It's not the same as documented fact. And you still claim only three buildings fell on 9/11 when in fact five fell (because the twin towers hit other buildings as they collapsed, and that really is a documented fact).
You ignore any fact that is inconvenient for your distorted view of 9/11. You ignore the effects of the crashes, the jet fuel, and the widespread fires.
You ignore the impact of debris into WTC7 and the widespread fires in it.
You ignore the predictions of firefighters that WTC7 would collapse as it had lost structural integrity.
You ignore raw footage of WTC7's collapse which features no explosions or squib flashes.
You ignore the fact that no explosive controlled demolition has ever been carried out in a burning building and WTC7 was fully involved in fire.
Why you deny the facts I don't know? BUT, you do.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 23, 2013 9:31:47 GMT -5
"No you've posted an incredible amount of writing about 9/11. It's not the same as documented fact."
A lot is expert opinion and documented FACT. Just because you don't accept the FACTS does not mean they're not FACTS.
"you still claim only three buildings fell on 9/11 when in fact five fell (because the twin towers hit other buildings as they collapsed, and that really is a documented fact)."
Only 3 collapsed in their entirety. Others experienced partial collapses. I already posted what happened to ALL the WTC towers, not just 1, 2 and 7.
"You ignore ..."
I don't ignore anything, not even the official stories or the "debunking" sites. This is a typical lie. You're the one who ignores (or more likely pretends to ignore) anything and everything you don't agree with BEFORE you even research it.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 23, 2013 15:42:19 GMT -5
Bob, your 'experts' they're not experts they're exposed frauds and documented liars. I don't accept their lies because they've been disproven.
Five buildings collapsed entirely that day (which if you'd done your research properly you'd know).
You do ignore, you ignore all the key facts all the time, you ignore every eyewitness whose testimony cannot be misquoted to portray 'inside job' you ignored Mike Walter and many other eyewitnesses to flight 77's crash. You ignore Leslie Robertson's testimony. You ignore firefighters like Lt Frank Papalia. I don't know why you ignore the facts but you have been lead down the garden path by frauds mate.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 23, 2013 19:39:34 GMT -5
"your 'experts' they're not experts they're exposed frauds and documented liars."
I don't have or own any experts.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 24, 2013 2:59:30 GMT -5
I know that they're not experts.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 24, 2013 8:06:21 GMT -5
Yeah, why don't you interpret that statement as you see fit as opposed to what it really means. You're obviously trying to invent a case for an "admission/confession" that these people are not experts. I guess English is no longer the primary language in the UK?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 24, 2013 13:46:51 GMT -5
It means they're not experts.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 24, 2013 13:56:00 GMT -5
It means they're not experts. Try again fake one, this time take it into context by including the first sentence in that paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 24, 2013 13:58:41 GMT -5
They're not experts. Go figure.
|
|