UKC

youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM&

In reply to _sllab_:

How are those critical thinking skills coming along?

In reply to JJL:

I thought, ok I'll bite......but 4 minutes was more than enough for.....3 hours and 23 minutes! No fecking way!

In reply to _sllab_:

The bald bloke played Colonel Klink from Hogans Heros, a real blast from the past.

In reply to _sllab_:

I lasted as much as Father Noel Furlong did.

Conspiracy theorists.

In reply to Dave Perry:
I think money does rule and skew things in a cynical way, including politics, but not as far as being behind the killing of JFK and behind 9/11.

In reply to _sllab_:

When I watch or listen to conspiracy theorists, this is what I hear.

youtube.com/watch?v=KFPXQkZE6hA&

In reply to ByEek:

You a Inner or Outer Party Member?

In reply to JJL:

How is watching TV 50 hours a week working out for you?

In reply to _sllab_:

As I don't have a tv they know me well in John Lewis
I sit in the beds section and watch from there.
Seriously, you can't believe this stuff. No one is that silly

In reply to _sllab_:

Hi, for the people who have to label people as labour voters, bnp supporters, communists, or similar. Those people would class me as a diehard conspiracy theorist. I'm pretty sure I've watched this video before. I'd also be surprised if you get much serious debate about it in this parish but thumbs up from this callsign for sharing.

In reply to _sllab_:

I had no idea John Prescot had joined up with the Bush's ( See 1:02:41) to sponsor Nixon. I see now why he had 2 Jags. Fascinating and very illuminating.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:


Well done you! The message in the top left was enough for me. I lasted about three seconds.(*)








(*) This is a common occurrence...

In reply to ThunderCat:

Thanks, i feel all warm inside now.

Just to make sure we understand each other that's a reference to your positive feedback and nothing to do with your three second 'issue'

In reply to _sllab_: What makes someone "weak minded"? Is that simply someone who doesn't see the world through your particular eye glass?

If they need over three hours to explain these things then they're almost certainly wrong.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:



You're welcome.

I tend to feel warmest at around the four second mark...

In reply to Frank the Husky:




As quantum physics generally requires at least three hours just to cover the basics, does that mean it's also wrong?

In reply to John Simpson:


Any mention of the word 'quantum' in a whoo-whoo discussion renders it even less believable

In reply to ThunderCat:

When did we get on to steam engines?

In reply to _sllab_:

Are you really agreeing with the video's proposition that the Holocaust was supported by the American Super-Rich, with the Rothschilds in control.

If so then you are indeed a dick and probably a Holocaust denier.

(I watched 15 minutes waiting for my dinner to cook but then it got too much)

In reply to John Simpson:
What are you on about? I'm talking about this conspiracy video not quantum physics.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


I was asking about your proof of because a video is three hours long so it must be wrong, can you explain what the length of video has to do with its accuracy?

In reply to Frank the Husky:


Good point. Now then, where is my poppy that I have to wear out of social convention?

In reply to _sllab_:

"[...]Not for the weak minded"

You're absolutely sure about that? (FWIW I managed nearly 10 minutes)

In reply to John Simpson:
An quantum physicist or other expert who can't cover the basics in few minutes lacks understanding of what the basics are and what the nuances for a professional audience or a series of lectures are. Speak to a better one if they can't do the basics in a few minutes.

In reply to John Simpson:


Gosh, this is getting difficult. I've already explained that I was talking about this particular video, and about these conspiracy theories. I've not said that every video explaining something which is 3 hours long is wrong.

After speaking to a professor friend of mine, I have learnt that quantum physics does not require "at least 3 hours to cover the basics". So now you know.

Just so we're clear - this video is bollocks, and the people who believe what it promotes are delusional.

In reply to elsewhere:


Go on the Dr elsewhere, if it's so easy to cover the basics surely you can repeat this info and simplify it a couple of minutes, I'll be kind and give you till 11.00AM today.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

If you made that clear in the first place we wouldn't be here would we now.


I've read at least three books on it and put at least 6 month into it and still don't have the basics, maybe your friend could let you plagiarize his understanding.


Shouldn't this statement include a 'in my opinion' phrase?

In reply to John Simpson:
On a small scale objects don't behave like billiard ball like particiles, they behave like waves.
Equally things we think of as waves like light sometimes behave like particles.
This weirdness is called wve partical duality and the idea backed up by about 100 years of experiments and maths.

Far longer to type than say - that can be expanded on to 10 minutes, 10 hours or 10 years if study.

In reply to elsewhere:





And you're happy with this are you? no mention of why the theory is called quantum, no mention of quanta, no reference at least to black body radiation, nothing about position, this is all very basic.
If you're happy with very short soundbites to describe complex theory that's your look out.

In reply to elsewhere:

p.s you were a minute late as well, in the quantum world well you're still in the last century ;+)

In reply to elsewhere:


"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." possibly Feynman.

We'll never know what electrons et al actually are (waves or particles), just models that describe their behaviour.

In reply to John Simpson:
That took me from 2 minutes to type in.

I'm VERY happy with that for my speed and accuracy of typing.

The important concepts are "wave particle duality" and "weirdness". I would avoid new vocabulary such as quanta in the first 3 sentences.

Black body radiation would be much, much later as it is subtle and abstract example. My first examples would be more likely to be emission lines in spectra or a laser that people are likely to have seen.

In reply to John Simpson:
I thought i did well for reading at 1059 & responding at 1101.

In reply to Lusk:
Very much agree.

In reply to elsewhere:



Ok I'm too busy to get into this tit for tat, but if you're happy just for clarity you might want to run a spell check on your previous first and foremost.

I can't reply anymore on here till tonight.

Have a nice day

In reply to elsewhere:




Ok understanding a few concepts is like adding 2 +2 then saying I can do algebra. Quanta should be right at the start, I.e why is quantum theory named as quantum theory.


Are you sure about that?

In reply to Graeme Alderson: Thank you for the mediocre insult. As for your paltry question.

No of course not, the Poor run the world,as its a Democracy and our Politicians follow the ordinary peoples every wish.

And wars aint being fought all over the world in countries that just happen to have vast Oil fields or Poppy fields.

The miltary Industrial Complex is a Myth and Profit isnt a human motive. And Power isnt the ultimate aphrodisiac.

Yes Keep on telling yourself the world is a wonderful good place chock full of benevolent souls that don't do evil for $$$$ and capitalise on the whatever vile opportunities they can engender to enrich themselves...and whatever else it takes to retain your delusions that it will be all right in the end. You must have lived a sheltered priviledged life . Or have some other motives for your Denial of this films explanation. Especially when you didnt even watch the much more than 10% of the film. I imagine it was too much. The truth is often painful. In psychology the call it Perceptual Defence. Even if only half the things in this film are right it still is pretty impressive explanation. Rather believe this film and hundreds more like it that reveal similar things Than anything That comes out of the Ministry Of Truth: BBC.

The Holocaust ? Well That happened There is so much evidence to support it. Shame not so much light is directed at those that profited from it.
But since you didnt watch more than 15 minutes what would you know about what this film said on this subject. And your criticism is directed at me. Rather Than the film. A false arguement: Argumentum ad Hominem.

In reply to John Simpson:

I'd talk about physics before introducing new words.


Yes, wiki for example mentions wave particle duality before it mentions blackbody
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics

If you look at the contents of sears zemansky (the classic undergrad physics text, new authors updating editions for 65 years) at http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip072/2006032537.html chapter 38 onwards
you will see wave particle duality but not black body

In reply to elsewhere:

You had all day to do some reading, and you're still stuck up your own Arse

http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Quantum_Mechanics/01._Waves_...

Sorry to op for hijack, and keep the faith dude!

In reply to John Simpson:
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Quantum_Mechanics
Black body is in the section after the sections on atoms, photons and wave particle duality

In reply to elsewhere:
Are you a real person? Because it seems like I'm communicating with something else. Here's a rhetorical question for you; which comes first a section on a website, or a period of time in history.

I may contribute to the thread if it stays on topic, but I don't have the motivation to carry on with this nonsense.

Till then

In reply to _sllab_: Does the film mention anything about how people who use apostrophes correctly and have appropriate capital letters in their sentences are falling for the master plan dreamed up by the small cabal of global oppressors?

Just asking. Might explain why you never got on with that English teacher...

T.

In reply to John Simpson:
My original point was that I am dubious of somebody who can't explain the basics in less than three hours. It's definite evidence of poor communication skills and maybe evidence of a lack of expertise.

I expect a hospital consultant could prepare a specialist 3 hr lecture series for doctors or medical students. Equally I expect the consultant understands the specialism and the intended audience well enough to explain the life and death basics in a few minutes to patients with no medical background. Being able to communicate effectively suggests a deeper understanding.

In reply to elsewhere:

Ok last post, what you probably call advanced is what I'll call basic. Basic to me is been able to use this form of physics to produce workable results, not wondering if the cat is dead or alive.

In reply to _sllab_:
Ok. I'll bite again. I watched the first 4 minutes where it clearly claimed "we know" there were 8 shooters present at the JFK shooting.

Please provide conclusive evidence of this claim. Do that and I'll consider watching a bit more.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

Well for a start you need to explain the magic bullet.

In reply to John Simpson:

I define basic as audience specific. The basics you explain to a general audience is the same if the speakeris a school teacher or a nobel prize winner. The former might do a better job of it too.

In reply to elsewhere:

The audience doesn't define the complexity. The level of complexity is the benchmark of knowledge of subject. Current PhD level is probably what they'll teach to 11 year olds in 20 years time.

In reply to John Simpson:


No. I don't. You, or the OP, need to answer my question.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:


No I don't explain the magic bullet, or the answer is multiple shooters simples.

In reply to John Simpson:
The audience may not define the ultimate complexity, but what they can reasonably be expected to understand does define what is the basics to be communicated to them.

In reply to John Simpson:

Ok. So I'll wait for the OP to give an honest answer. You? Well you can just f*ck off.

I asked for an answer and all you can give is another question. Yawn.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:



Oooooooowwww. Answer the magic bullet question?

In reply to elsewhere:


I'm not sure I understand what you've just said maybe there's some communication breakdown?

In reply to John Simpson:

Know your audience.

Something I may have failed at.

In reply to elsewhere:



Yes you want to explain something without even explaining why it is called what it is. Maybe you could write a book quantum theory for dummies and just leave the book empty?

In reply to John Simpson:


Here you go

In quantum mechanics, events produced by the interaction of subatomic particles happen in jumps (yes, quantum leaps), with probabilistic rather than definite outcomes. Chunky physics.

In reply to John Simpson:
OK give me your explanation of quantum mechanics in three sentences and a few minutes.

In reply to Orgsm:
Very, very good.

Not chunky English.

In reply to elsewhere:


Something like. Theory led to Openhiemer quoting the Vedas. Boom.

In reply to John Simpson:
Hmm, I don't like that one. Orgsm did better than we did.

In reply to elsewhere:


Such is life, like I said we're talking about over a hundred years of history and you want it in three sentences, just not possible.

In reply to Orgsm:


>probabilistic

I've nothing to add, I just like that word

In reply to John Simpson:

History? I thought the argument was about physics.

Anyway, you need to read up on unity root matrix theory.

In reply to _sllab_:
anyone with an elementary understanding of logic will be able to see that this 3hr 'documentary' is utter bullshit.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Indeed this is what I'm trying to get to, the basics would cover the history of why it was named, it's development with the main people involved and then the basic description of the mechanics. I already mentioned position which you're getting onto around 12 hours later, we haven't even got started and we're nowhere near a three hour introduction into the subject.

Anyway what are your thoughts on the magic bullet versus multiple shooter theories?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Go on then doctor Logic explain why it's bullshit, as I said earlier I think before I've watched it but maybe not, you see I've been watching these alt media documetries for well over 10 years now so I can't remember if I've watched it. Like this basic explanation of a particular form of physics that a few of us have been discussing, I'm interested in the content of this video as I'm sure you know I have some problems with believing the official 9/11 narrative.

Could you use the logic you use to brainwash, err sorry how rude of me, obviously I'm not a morning person, I mean teach young people to explain the magic bullet?

In reply to captain paranoia:

Add to that list. Early usage, development, current usage.

In reply to John Simpson:


The Basics are what you asked for?

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

OK new day, new start, maybe some one could define what the basics are?

In reply to John Simpson:


How about the wiki article with that purpose?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics

In reply to _sllab_:

I don't doubt for a minute that money rules the world. There is plenty of real hard evidence for this, in reputable publications. The rich and powerful literally get away with murder. That doesn't mean you can believe all the conspiracy theorist drivel that you find on the internet. The truth is bad enough, and conspiracy theorist rubbish only helps to distract people from what's really going on.

In reply to MG:

There you go then, make that into a workable presentation and deliver it to the forum in under 3 hours, as we're all web based YouTube or similar would be the best platform.

In reply to John Simpson:

I know I shouldn't bite, but can't help myself...
You've clearly demonstrated in previous threads that you lack a basic understanding of classical physics. I don't believe for a minute that you understand quantum mechanics.
I don't claim to understand it myself BTW.

In reply to John Simpson:

Umm why? It would take about 10-15mins as a video, and is there to read anyway already!

There is nothing mysterious or particularly complex about quantum mechanics at that level.

In reply to MG:

You could skim read it in about 3 minutes and digest it all if you were Johnny Mnemonic. But to understand that in any real detail you need at least calculus. Nothing mysterious about it, but to say it has nothing complex is just plain wrong.

In reply to Hooo:




Attack the man not the topic, poor form poor troll -7/10

In reply to MG:

I'm out of this till tonight, commercial pressure is my priority in the 9 to 5.

Have fun y'all

In reply to _sllab_:

What's the record for speed reading and remembering Einsteins 1905 paper on quantum physics?

In reply to John Simpson:

When the topic is "can you explain quantum mechanics in under three hours", then the man is the topic. If the man doesn't understand the subject, then his assessment of the feasibility of the topic is irrelevant.

In reply to _sllab_:

Aaaaaah.....it's becoming clear now. Couldn't work out why two people would be deluded conspiracy theorists on this site at the same time. Having checked profiles and the name sllab i'm guessing they're the same person, possibly split personality so won't make fun.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sllab

Either that or a very good troll.

In reply to John Simpson:


Nothing in that article requires calculus. And in any case you were talking about the basics, not the details as you now have.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

From this I can safely conclude you are a pretentious Outer Party Member with an IQ of 96

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

Keep repeating words like this to yourself as the Boot Stamps on your face forever. Or maybe you will be doing the Stamping?

In reply to Hooo:

Where else do you expect them to publish? Harper and Collins? Or the Times?

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

Contact the film makers. Their years of research will provide the answers you need. But its unlikely you have the attention span to follow it.

In reply to _sllab_:

Thank you for answering. Rather than engage in a reasonable debate as to the evidence for exactly eight shooters you choose to insult me. I can only assume you don't have an answer.

PS remember you invited us to watch the film, which i chose to do. I asked for some answers over its assertions, which you have chosen not to do. Says a lot for your character in my book.

In reply to _sllab_:

God I don't know why I'm allowing myself to be drawn into this....gave up at 12 minutes.

Not much of a historian. If they can't even get King George V right, what chance is there for the assassination of JFK and all its complexities.....

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

I didnt invite you to do anything. In fact I cautioned you not to watch: "not for the weak minded."

Eight shooters?

If you had carefully watched the film you would already have the answer to this question. Maybe watch the film a few more times.

In reply to _sllab_:


Alternatively, if you wanted to help, you could give the answer here.

In reply to _sllab_:


Really? "I'll post this then say be careful". How's that not an invitation.



Again I dare you to help me out and give me the answer? I'm obviously too stupid to understand.

Seriously worried about your mental health. See a doctor, please.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:


In a film that reveals numerous relevations with plenty of evidence and witness testimony you choose to focus on the precise number of shooters. To discredit the whole with a tiny part. Quite Feeble! But nice try.

What have you to gain by undermining this film?

Do you write to the BBC Or NBC and ask them to help you understand a particular news report?

I don't work for the makers of this film. I certainly don't work for the Thought Police like you. Do your own Research.

Perhaps you can Undermine the confirming testimony of FBI Chief Ted Gunderson while you are here?

In reply to _sllab_:


Why does a focus on the precise number of shooters discredit the film?

In reply to all: Don't feed the conspiracy theorising trolls

In reply to _sllab_:


Ok. Last try. What evidence does the film present to justify the assertion there were eight shooters?

Would you agree that a historian who doesn't know the correct title of King George V lacks credibility?

In reply to John Simpson: i


The cat is alive if you were wondering

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

The film is the culmination of several years of research by Yorks Francis Richard Conolly.

It lists the dozens of people that helped put it together.

But only a fool would look at this film in total isolation, but taken together with all the events that are happening in the world in the last fifty years and then its very plausible.

But you are quite mad if you imagine I am going to waste me time with your 1 shooter fallacy. In the film the Secret service men reported a "jet sonic Boom" bullet shockwave. Police officers were shown looking down at sidewalk gutters that hid snipers, and named witnesses reported seeing people with rifles in numerous office windows. Lator assorted mafia thugs revealed their involvement and give testimony. Most where assassinated.

What evidence have you got to confirm 1 shooter?

But keep on taking the diazapam and up the dosage and maybe this will all go away.

In reply to Orgsm:

I can bet that the post you quoted won't be his last.

In reply to Orgsm:

Pointless diversionary tactics if you ask me.

In reply to _sllab_:


Who, as I've stated doesn't know the correct title of King George V.

>plausible

I thought it was fact? Plausible implies belief not fact.


Again insults. Thanks, this has been an interesting insight into a world I've never really explored.

In reply to _sllab_:


Central to the argument I'd say

In reply to MG:


I've just had a skim read again and you're probably right, no calculus, but that's pretty basic these days, I seem to remember reading a 9 year old passed degree level maths, yes your link is the basics of the theory, history, and development as already listed. Which is a bit more than the explanation of the double slit experiment listed above by the none conspiracy theorists Team Rational, 'GO TEAM lOgIC rA Ra RA!;+)! From what I remember that amount of detail would add up to at least one university term which is a little over three hours for most people.

In reply to Orgsm:



Cool as Beanz, does it have a hat tho'?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


go on village have a heart, we only eat lard over ere si thi

In reply to _sllab_:


Plausible? So you're open to the possibility that there are other explanations?

In reply to tony: What alternate explanation are you thinking of?

Even in a court of law all conclusions or verdicts are depend upon people to make decisions. Some evidence is always going to be circumstantial and off the record. But in a film with hundreds of verifiable statements most of them I found were correct. How many statements have you checked Tony?

The law of evidence encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision and, sometimes, the weight that may be given to that evidence. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation.
The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered. This includes such concepts as hearsay, authentication, admissibility, reasonable doubt, and clear and convincing evidence.
There are several types of evidence, depending on the form or source. Evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit), exhibits (e.g., physical objects), documentary material, or demonstrative evidence, which are admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law).
When a dispute, whether relating to a civil or criminal matter, reaches the court there will always be a number of issues which one party will have to prove in order to persuade the court to find in his or her favour. The law must ensure certain guidelines are set out in order to ensure that evidence presented to the court can be regarded as trustworthy.

After spend weeks watching this film and doing my own research into its details, I find it overall quite convincing in its documentary material. Although it did make small errors here and there.

But since I have never seen a thread like this heaped with so many inane hijacks, that in itself says this film must be straying very near the truth. As Orwell said: the nearer you are to truth the greater the outpouring of hostility.

Must be quite shocking to those in power that supposed dumb Prole Automatons can make Great films like this.

In reply to _sllab_:









Good post, you're right they just don't want to discuss it. Pretty much every person I know it the real world doesn't believe the JFK lone shooter line. There are some people I know who do believe it and they all seem to be jobsworths, or school
Teachers fully programmed by the system to accept what authority tells them. One guy I knew would take great pleasure in making life for others worse as long as the boss man had ok'd it.
We watch films all the time about above the law criminals, but that's all make believe supposedly. No way the world is way more cynical that that. Any fool knows the Bush Cabal was involved with the JFK assassination, the only people who can kill the president of the USA is rouge elements of the secret service, Oswald and Ruby were just patsys who got in way too deep.

In reply to _sllab_:


1. People are hostile to the truth.
2. People are hostile to this video.
3. This video must be the truth.

Is this line of reasoning used frequently in the video?

In reply to crossdressingrodney:

seems about right. if there's one thing these people are good at, it's circular logic!

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Go on village explain circular logic in so far that it only works in ever decreasing conspiracy circles, maybe you could drop a Latin phrase in to try and appear intelligent.

In reply to _sllab_:

of course you did - by research do you mean checking websites that agree with your own pre-conceived ideas for evidence to support those pre-conceived ideas??

In reply to John Simpson:

We've had the discussion on calling me names before. I shalln't be addressing you unless you play nicely.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

What are you now like Prince, you don't even have a name just a set of symbols. Or do you see yourself as a shoot from the hip tinterweb spaghetti gunslinger. The poster with no name?

In reply to John Simpson:

The only Latin in this thread that I'm aware of was from your co-conspirator, sllab:

"A false arguement: Argumentum ad Hominem."

In reply to crossdressingrodney:
I was speaking to................... He likes to use Latin.

In reply to John Simpson:

Fair enough.

In reply to crossdressingrodney:
Ad hominem literally means 'to the person' and is a genetic fallacy where the source of the personal attack is irrelevent to its truth.


Edit: or where the attack is true, has nothing to do with the original argument

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Yes, I know.

In reply to _sllab_:
I won't quote your post about " the law of evidence" but it really is a doozy.

Your "law of evidence" is an entirely movable law - not something a lot more solid like, say, Newton's laws. Evidence in a court as detailed in your post, is very different from scientific evidence.
For example - civil court, hearsay evidence is admissable, criminal court it isn't.
Attempting to "quantify" evidence is often case specific and usually driven by case law, which again is a fairly arbitrary position.
Evidence at court, certainly in the UK, isn't (unfortunately) about getting to the truth, it's about whether the prosecution can bring enough of it to the table to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, whilst the defence, using fairly arbitrary rules, try and exclude it, muddy it or contradict it.

I'm sure a good legal case could be presented that black is white, that wouldn't have any bearing on whether black actually is white, though it might prove that the prosecutor was a skilled advocate or, worse, that the jury were particularly gullible.

In reply to off-duty:

You may try and cloud it but what happened is as unmovable as newtons laws, the truth is the truth, you could get all into parallel universe theory and pretend that there could have been 1000 different outcomes but once again invalid our universe only had one chain of events which happened which is the truth. The accuracy of the evidence is related to this truth and gathering it can lead to many false outcomes but the truth is the truth therefore the true evidence is the only real quantified data.

So as you've said something like the law is an ass and can get bought by the highest bidder and in a attempt to get all down with the kids and drop some completely random Southern Hemisphere slang, you've attually helped team truth in illustrating that those who own the money. Or the above the law criminals, also own the complete farce that is also called the legal system. It was all perfectly laid out in the Warren report whitewash for anyone with an open mind to see.

Regards.

In reply to John Simpson:


The difficulty being that in the case of a theory of some global conspiracy the evidence is anecdote and opinion, sprinkled with a fair amount of confirmation bias.
In the case of quantum physics it's experiment, mathematics and testable hypotheses.


I haven't said the law is an ass. I have just tried to explain the rather gaping flaws in trying to appeal to some "law of evidence" by referencing legal evidence rather than a more scientific, rational and testable evidence based system.


Ditto.

In reply to off-duty:


Yes and the bones of this statement can be applied to both sides equally


Which under the wrong conditions can also lead to incorrect evidence or miscalculation, measure twice, cut once, always double check your double check and all that.


The law is an ass is a famous quote, which I thought you'd have picked up on; it was that subtle way of complementing someone within the subtext in we sort of agree on that point, obviously too subtle for this time of day.


Cheers, although we may disagree on outcomes, you have always been very respectful to my none mainstream world view. If more members of this fine community followed your example the world would be a much better place.

In reply to John Simpson:

>If more members of this fine community followed your example the world would be a much better place.

I'm personally a tad sceptical that the UKC community has enough clout to influence this whatever examples they follow.

In reply to Willi Crater:

It's a mainstream theory, Chaos theory, or the butterfly effect, the mathematical modelling of fractal geometry. Something like a tiny ant helping it's brother ant to haul a heavy load can cause a school of 1000 endangered tuna fish in the Pacific to safely navigate past the plastic bag island and the flow of dirty water from Fukashima. To find a safe haven.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

That's Mr Simpson all over.

In reply to _sllab_:


This always gets me about conspiracy theorists.
You and I both accept that those in power are absolutely ruthless in holding on to it. People are harrassed, intimidated, imprisoned and killed if they threaten the powers that be, even for minor criticism or peaceful protest. These guys don't muck about, and they don't take risks. If they see a threat, they step on it fast and hard.
So, how the f*** is this film on YouTube, with the makers walking around freely? If there was a single statement in the film that worried the people in power, it would be pulled before you could blink and the makers would be banged up somewhere discrete answering questions.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

He's instructed me i CAnT call him any names anymore and highclimber is a name so I have to refer to him as ......... until further instructed.

In reply to _sllab_:


I wasn't thinking of any alternative explanation. My point was that you described the theory as 'plausible'. That means you believe that it is possibly correct. If it's only possibly correct, it's also possibly incorrect. If the theory presented in the film is possibly incorrect, some other theory must be correct, so you must be open to the possibility that there's another theory which is correct.


None whatsoever, and I have no intention of even starting to make an attempt. I do have another idea about the Kennedy assassination, but you probably wouldn't like it.

Incidentally, have you ever read James Ellroy's 'American Tabloid'?

In reply to John Simpson:


Get some sleep John.

In reply to Hooo: Yes stuff like this is going on all around you. What planet are you living on?

Well the bogus War on Terror is all about putting into place ever more Draconian Liberticidal Laws that will accomplish precisely this. Because at the moment they simply dont have the manpower to silence every piece of dissent physically (although I am sure they would love to). And when they have total Control of the Internet then films like this will go down the Memory Hole.

But at the moment they are relying on paid stooges and inner and outer party members and the Brainwashed like maybe you? to do their dirty work for them in shouting down any dissent. Perhaps you have been a victim of too many Two Minute Hate BBC broadcasts. I pity the deluded that live in a world of lies, and some of them are very comforting and its a horrible then to have to let them dissolve and wake up out of a nice Brainwashed trance. I remember the rubbish history they taught me at school and now I know I was being taught half truths and tedious facts without any insight into who really shaped the world as it is. The obvious Latin Phrase : Cui bono would have been a useful if neglected starting point. Twenty years of study later and I finally wake up. So many lies to wade through!

Also I know of numerous instances wherein the boys in blue* have raided independent people in the Truth movement.

Should really be the Boys in Black because lots (but not all) of them are Fascists that will do anything they are told right or wrong.

In reply to crossdressingrodney:

Wow They Have Wheeled out the big guns their :

O' Brien

Then it follows

1. Many people swallow the 1 shooter myth.
2. Many People swallow that this is fact.
3. This statement must be truth.

In reply to tony:

There are 100's of books and how many are misinformation?

How many are written by the cia? To distract and discredit. To confuse and misdirect.

Too many to read. But if they are out there sitting on shelves in bookshops and libraries that alone tells me all I need to know about them. They probably are "Approved Opposition" published by publishers that are owned by the Rich or cia ! To confuse and misinform.

In reply to _sllab_:



Ok. So now this is getting interesting.

Who are "they"? The illuminati? This hidden group of individuals who seek to control and enslave us all for their own benefit? AKA Specre by any chance?


Again you cite "numerous instances" but I'll bet you anything you can't name one. Go on. Just one. One tiny piece of evidence to confirm your statement?

Interestingly I would have thought you would want to help us come to your understanding of the truth. To help free our minds and reach the clarity of thought you have. You don't. We've asked you numerous times to give us conclusive evidence of the multiple shooter theory and you've yet to come back with anything. No-one has actually said any of us believe the single shooter theory, rather none of us have a clue and probably believe we'll never know the truth. However I'm genuinely asking, please help me. Please show me the evidence of why the film cites 8 guns.

In reply to John Simpson:

The education system breeds these unthinking Automatons and Orwell describes these types in great detail in 1984.

In reply to _sllab_:

Wow, I love this thread, only a few months after the last long, convoluted conspiracy threat too!

Can't wait until we get to the Illuminati Shape-Shifting Lizards with Space Lasers.

In reply to Rampikino:


Are we not there now? Given you've just posted about them? Do tell more, are they controlling me?

God I really should get some work done.....

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

No, we've a long way to go yet. We've not even got as far a the US and Russian joint agreement to fake the race to the moon and the Ku Klux Klan involvement in the assassination of Leon Trotsky yet...

In reply to _sllab_:




So I'll take that as a no. Since you've never read it, or appear to have heard of it, or even appear to recognise the name James Ellroy, you don't know whether it's misinformation, an alternative theory or what. Are you happy in your ignorance?

And you didn't comment on my suggestion that you must be open to the possibility that there are other theories which might be plausible.

Are you interested in my alternative theory? It's something I heard from a woman I used to work for who spent time investigating the whole thing in the late 60s and early 70s. She was absolutely fascinating on the subject.

In reply to _sllab_:


Really? What for, what we're they charged with and have you any examples you can link to (court cases and similar)?


An interesting view. Which "boys" are you referring to - UK ? US? French? German?
All operate with different structures, differing powers and different legal systems.

In reply to Rampikino:

Oh...sorry. I was getting ahead of the game.

I'll just go put the keetle on and settle in for the day.

In reply to _sllab_:







If that's what you consider to be demonstrating a logical argument (or fallacy) then you have rather undermined yourself, or rather your ability to reason.

I think you probably mean something like
1 Many people believe the 1 shooter story.
2 Many people believe the truth
3 The 1 shooter story is the truth.

Which would indicate a logical fallacy - IF - that was how people were concluding the 1 shooter theory was true.

In reply to _sllab_:

"Not for the weak minded." Are you sure? Seems specifically designed for, and aimed at, the weak minded and highly suggestible.

In reply to PeterM:

Ahh Peter - your illusions were not dissolved? Clearly the space laser is running at low power right now.

In reply to _sllab_:



So the CIA has an authors guild on tap to wrote books to confuse these contentious issues, bit can't find the resource to whack the person who has discovered The Truth and revealed it on YouTube for the world to see?

For an all powerful arm of The Powers That Be they're shit at generating an organisational structure that lets them focus on the big stuff?!

In reply to Rampikino:

The thing I find most fascinating is the belief that the american government can keep something as big as an assassination of the president or 9/11 a secret but couldn't stop the Watergate scandal, which, as it happens WAS an actual real conspiracy!! astonishing.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

They got more sophisticated in the following 30 years? (Especially if they managed to develop a space laser that could take out massive skyscrapers!)

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Thats because its not the American government but "them".
The watergate scandal was a set up to get rid of Nixon after he uncovered one of their other plots.

In reply to John Simpson:


Thanks for the heads up, but as I encountered chaos theory circa 1985 whilst working as a senior researcher for a major research institute, I think I probably understand it a bit better than you. And if you believe you can justify your incoherent ramblings by invoking the butterfly effect, then good luck to you. You'll need it!

In reply to _sllab_:


They can do all the stuff in that film, but they can't take down a clip from YouTube? You have got to be having a laugh.


WTF? The moneyed and powerful have armies at their disposal. They don't need to rely on people like me. Oh, and by the way I've done my share of dissenting too, and possibly ended up on a list somewhere as a result. But at least my protesting was about real documented issues, so had a chance of actually achieving something. The authorities love you lot, because you just bleat on about stuff that doesn't exist, and so distract protesters from real issues. It's not like you conspiracy theorists ever get out on the streets and try and change anything, is it?


But not the guys who made that film. They must be proper hardcore then.

In reply to _sllab_:


You are aware that 1984 is a work of fiction? As Orwell himself said, it was written as a warning, not a prophecy.

In reply to John Simpson:

Oh by the way - I just sneezed. By your interpretation of chaos theory, my sneeze might cause your early death. Sorry about that

In reply to Willi Crater:

It just caused me to drop biscuit crumbs on my tablet

You swine!

In reply to Willi Crater:

It really is like holding a dwarf at arms length while they throw punches. They'll hopefully tire soon and shut up.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


That reminds of the small child, Marmaduke, in 'London Fields', whose father tries that technique.
He still got kicked in the nuts

In reply to the Baying Brainwashed Mob:

A man gives you a book or say a Film. You don't like said book or film. You found it difficult and it disturbed your cosy rose tinted impressions of a nice sweet world. Instead of verifying the facts of the book or film and doing some actual research of your own that could take, hours,weeks or months...or instead of maybe writing to the authors and asking them questions. Instead you take the weak pathetic ignoble but convenient choice of attacking the person that give you the book or film.

In reply to _sllab_:


I'd like to think I for one haven't attacked the person. I have disagreed with a number of statements you have made when you try and put some sort of rational framework around the theory you appear to believe.
Though you appear a liitle selective in the posts you choose to engage with (I appreciate that may be because there are so many)

In reply to PeterM:


Then why don't they show it on the Nine o clock news?

In reply to _sllab_:
I don't think anyone is attacking you - they are attacking the substance of the Film ergo your claim of an ad hominem is unfounded.

what's more, you are starting with an assumption that we are somewhat un-enlightened, which if you were truely open-minded, you wouldn't do lest you will constantly fall for your own cognitive biases.

Finally, what 'research' have you done?

In reply to Willi Crater:


Such is life

In reply to jkarran:


I'm currently on about 4 hours a night right now 12 hour work days, I've just passed 240 days of work days for the year. I am a robot, maybe somewhat of a random robot on the fuzzy edge but I like my life, it's mint

In reply to Willi Crater:


Good for you, I saved at least 12 newly fledged butterflies from a spiders web in a shit hole of a toilet this year your sneeze will only turn me into a stronger robot of the tinfoil volunteer Corp.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

I Checked many of the statements made by the author. They appear valid.

Eg all the people mentioned, the banks and companies and lots of dated events and many other details and connections.

And many of the things such as the attempted takeover of the us government mentioned in the film.

Much about FBI cheif Ted Gunderson and his futile attempts to make the world listen to what he found out. And if a powerful man like him couldnt bring out the truth...it don't bode well for the ordinary mans attempts to get people to listen.

Lots about usa and world drug supply.

Lots about assorted rich people and their huge wealth and family connections.

All the stuff about the Nazis and usa interconnections is easy to confirm.

Also checked the deaths of various people mentioned in the film and suspicious circumstances.

This and much more.

But find out for yourself. I don't have much time to devote to this post.

Orwells idea of Blackwhite sums up the pointlessness of arguing here.

In reply to _sllab_:

But that's exactly what you've done to everyone on this thread. Dismissed anything they offer and called them all brainwashed. You haven't offered a response to any arguments.

In reply to _sllab_:

could you post some of the links to the information you've 'researched'?

In reply to John Simpson:

If there are 12 category 5 hurricanes next year, I trust you'll feel a twinge of guilt?!

In reply to Lusk:


No no guilt from this callsign, it's those chemtrailing Sky cats with their classified high altitude aerosol weather modification program that should feel guilty.

In reply to _sllab_:

You still haven't answered the question about the cat.

In reply to Orgsm:

youtube.com/watch?v=RRaezLTU2a0&

In reply to Orgsm:

youtube.com/watch?v=RRaezLTU2a0&

In reply to Orgsm:

It had kittens ... http://www.amazon.co.uk/Schrodingers-Kittens-Search-Reality-Gribbin/dp/1857...
Just read it, I'm still trying to reunify my mind after it was split to opposite ends of the universe.

In reply to Lusk:

Can't be correct, there is only one!

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Wouldnt it be better to discover your own links to research as mine will certainly be deemed to be biased.

In reply to _sllab_:

9d7eddc7ce421280790a54e1fddd90461aa6154db5e30cfc1488058ca0cb76c8

In reply to _sllab_:

Your 'research' appears to be Youtube

In reply to _sllab_:

How do I know that unless you post them?

In reply to Hooo:

Nazis in the Attic
By Randy Davis

This is part 6. For part 1, go to http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas1.htm

GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH

...Like Nixon, George Bush was deeply involved with supporting the Nazis in the Republican's closet. In fact, support for the Nazis was a Bush family tradition which goes back more than six decades and, once again, to Allen Dulles.

Loftus and Aarons write: "The real story of George Bush starts well before he launched his own career. It goes back to the 1920s, when the Dulles brothers and the other pirates of Wall Street were making their deals with the Nazis. . . ."

THE BUSH-DULLES-NAZI CONNECTION

"George Bush's problems were inherited from his namesake and maternal grandfather, George Herbert 'Bert' Walker, a native of St. Louis, who founded the banking and investment firm of G. H. Walker and Company in 1900. Later the company shifted from St. Louis to the prestigious address of 1 Wall Street. . . .

"Walker was one of Hitler's most powerful financial supporters in the United States. The relationship went all the back to 1924, when Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist, was financing Hitler's infant Nazi party. As mentioned in earlier chapters, there were American contributors as well.

"Some Americans were just bigots and made their connections to Germany through Allen Dulles's firm of Sullivan and Cromwell because they supported Fascism. The Dulles brothers, who were in it for profit more than ideology, arranged American investments in Nazi Germany in the 1930s to ensure that their clients did well out of the German economic recovery. . . .

"Sullivan & Cromwell was not the only firm engaged in funding Germany. According to 'The Splendid Blond Beast,' Christopher Simpson's seminal history of the politics of genocide and profit, Brown Brothers, Harriman was another bank that specialized in investments in Germany. The key figure was Averill Harriman, a dominating figure in the American establishment. . . .

"The firm originally was known as W. A. Harriman & Company. The link between Harriman & Company's American investors and Thyssen started in the 1920s, through the Union Banking Corporation, which began trading in 1924. In just one three-year period, the Harriman firm sold more than $50 million of German bonds to American investors. 'Bert' Walker was Union Banking's president, and the firm was located in the offices of Averill Harriman's company at 39 Broadway in New York.

"In 1926 Bert Walker did a favor for his new son-in-law, Prescott Bush. It was the sort of favor families do to help their children make a start in life, but Prescott came to regret it bitterly. Walker made Prescott vice president of W. A. Harriman. The problem was that Walker's specialty was companies that traded with Germany. As Thyssen and the other German industrialists consolidated Hitler's political power in the 1930s, an American financial connection was needed. According to our sources, Union Banking became an out-and-out Nazi money-laundering machine. . . .

"In [1931], Harriman & Company merged with a British-American investment company to become Brown Brothers, Harriman. Prescott Bush became one of the senior partners of the new company, which relocated to 59 Broadway, while Union Banking remained at 39 Broadway. But in 1934 Walker arranged to put his son-in-law on the board of directors of Union Banking.

"Walker also set up a deal to take over the North American operations of the Hamburg-Amerika Line, a cover for I.G. Farben's Nazi espionage unit in the United States. The shipping line smuggled in German agents, propaganda, and money for bribing American politicians to see things Hitler's way. The holding company was Walker's American Shipping & Commerce, which shared the offices at 39 Broadway with Union Banking. In an elaborate corporate paper trail, Harriman's stock in American Shipping & Commerce was controlled by yet another holding company, the Harriman Fifteen Corporation, run out of Walker's office. The directors of this company were Averill Harriman, Bert Walker, and Prescott Bush. . . .

". . . In a November 1935 article in Common Sense, retired marine general Smedley D. Butler blamed Brown Brothers, Harriman for having the U.S. marines act like 'racketeers' and 'gangsters' in order to exploit financially the peasants of Nicaragua. . . .

". . . A 1934 congressional investigation alleged that Walker's 'Hamburg-Amerika Line subsidized a wide range of pro-Nazi propaganda efforts both in Germany and the United States.' Walker did not know it, but one of his American employees, Dan Harkins, had blown the whistle on the spy apparatus to Congress. Harkins, one of our best sources, became Roosevelt's first double agent . . . [and] kept up the pretense of being an ardent Nazi sympathizer, while reporting to Naval Intelligence on the shipping company's deals with Nazi intelligence.

"Instead of divesting the Nazi money," continue the authors, "Bush hired a lawyer to hide the assets. The lawyer he hired had considerable expertise in such underhanded schemes. It was Allen Dulles. According to Dulles's client list at Sullivan & Cromwell, his first relationship with Brown Brothers, Harriman was on June 18, 1936. In January 1937 Dulles listed his work for the firm as 'Disposal of Stan [Standard Oil] Investing stock.'

"As discussed in Chapter 3, Standard Oil of New Jersey had completed a major stock transaction with Dulles's Nazi client, I.G. Farben. By the end of January 1937 Dulles had merged all his cloaking activities into one client account: 'Brown Brothers Harriman-Schroeder Rock.' Schroeder, of course, was the Nazi bank on whose board Dulles sat. The 'Rock' were the Rockefellers of Standard Oil, who were already coming under scrutiny for their Nazi deals. By May 1939 Dulles handled another problem for Brown Brothers, Harriman, their 'Securities Custodian Accounts.'

"If Dulles was trying to conceal how many Nazi holding companies Brown Brothers, Harriman was connected with, he did not do a very good job. Shortly after Pearl Harbor, word leaked from Washington that affiliates of Prescott Bush's company were under investigation for aiding the Nazis in time of war. . . .

". . . The government investigation against Prescott Bush continued. Just before the storm broke, his son, George, abandoned his plans to enter Yale and enlisted in the U.S. Army. It was, say our sources among the former intelligence officers, a valiant attempt by an eighteen-year-old boy to save the family's honor.

"Young George was in flight school in October 1942, when the U.S. government charged his father with running Nazi front groups in the United States. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, all the shares of the Union Banking Corporation were seized, including those held by Prescott Bush as being in effect held for enemy nationals. Union Banking, of course, was an affiliate of Brown Brothers, Harriman, and Bush handled the Harrimans' investments as well.

"Once the government had its hands on Bush's books, the whole story of the intricate web of Nazi front corporations began to unravel. A few days later two of Union Banking's subsidiaries -- the Holland American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation -- also were seized. Then the government went after the Harriman Fifteen Holding Company, which Bush shared with his father- in-law, Bert Walker, the Hamburg-Amerika Line, and the Silesian- American Corporation. The U.S. government found that huge sections of Prescott Bush's empire had been operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted the German war effort." (1)

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

You overlook every thing i say.

A man gives you a book or say a Film. You don't like said book or film. You found it difficult and it disturbed your cosy rose tinted impressions of a nice sweet world. Instead of verifying the facts of the book or film and doing some actual research of your own that could take, hours,weeks or months...or instead of maybe writing to the authors and asking them questions. Instead you take the weak pathetic ignoble but convenient choice of attacking the person that give you the book or film. And also try to put him to work labouring and slaving away to do the work that you should be doing yourself. You would make a pretty good concentration camp commandant and get lots of hard labour out of your charges I am sure.

In reply to _sllab_:

I haven't attacked you. I am merely trying to get some information from you and you are being obnoxious. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claims.

In reply to _sllab_:
and I haven't said I didn't like it. Just because I don't believe a word it claims has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. they are mutually exclusive things.

other mutually exclusive things are people asking questions and people attacking you.

In reply to _sllab_:

BTW sllab, when does someone cease to be an immigrant and start to become a citizen? One generation, 2, 3, 4 or longer?

In reply to higherclimbingwales: eg:

Smedley Butler
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Major General
Smedley Butler

Awards Medal of Honor ribbon.svg Medal of Honor (2)
Marine Corps Brevet Medal ribbon.svg Marine Corps Brevet Medal
Ordre de l'Etoile Noire Officier ribbon.svg Order of the Black Star (Officier)
Other work Coal miner, author, public speaker, Philadelphia Director of Public Safety (1924–1925)
Smedley Darlington Butler[1] (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940) was a United States Marine Corps major general, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. During his 34-year career as a Marine, he participated in military actions in the Philippines, China, in Central America and the Caribbean during the Banana Wars, and France in World War I. Butler is well known for having later become an outspoken critic of U.S. wars and their consequences, as well as exposing the Business Plot, an alleged plan to overthrow the U.S. government.

By the end of his career, Butler had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only Marine to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.
In 1933, he became involved in a controversy known as the Business Plot, when he told a congressional committee that a group of wealthy industrialists were planning a military coup to overthrow Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler selected to lead a march of veterans to become dictator, similar to other Fascist regimes at that time. The individuals involved all denied the existence of a plot and the media ridiculed the allegations. A final report by a special House of Representatives Committee confirmed some of Butler's testimony.

In 1935, Butler wrote a book entitled War Is a Racket, where he described and criticized the workings of the United States in its foreign actions and wars, such as those he was a part of, including the American corporations and other imperialist motivations behind them. After retiring from service, he became a popular activist, speaking at meetings organized by veterans, pacifists, and church groups in the 1930s.


In addition to his speeches to pacifist groups, he served from 1935 to 1937 as a spokesman for the American League Against War and Fascism.[58][59] In 1935, he wrote the exposé War Is a Racket, a trenchant condemnation of the profit motive behind warfare. His views on the subject are summarized in the following passage from the November 1935 issue of the socialist magazine Common Sense:[14]


I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

In reply to _sllab_:
When did you wake up. I had my doubts from about 2004, but it was Christmas 2007 when I first saw 9/11 for what it was. I've watched those videos 1000's of times now, they're not even real planes it's so obvious. I have great respect for you that you've decided to stand up and be counted. You won't get far with some of these charectors tho, they're not bad people they just can't accept that they've been lied to since the first day that they could comprehend language.

In reply to Bulls Crack:


Just trying to make it easy for you to understand.

In reply to _sllab_:

Great, so you are quoting Wiki about a man who openly worked with "The Man" but then accused "The Man" of treachery, but without proof or evidence. Nice work Mr Less Than Vertical. I know believe, Hallelujah-f*cking-Loo=ujah, where's my tin hat

In reply to John Simpson:

So what isn't a lie?

In reply to John Simpson:

Was it space lasers or nukes, John? I keep forgetting which batshit theory is your favourite.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

The truth, which is woven in between all the rest of it, all hidden in plain sight.

In reply to John Simpson:

I guessed it was a false flag operation within a few years when all the hysteria started about terrorists and then the endless new laws which they dropped on us like bombs all for our own safety. A campaign of terror like something straight out of the French revolution. It didnt help their case that the mendacious Tony Blair was Prime minister and the whole pantomine of GW Bush being in a childrens nursery school when that event occurred on TV...as if to say: look it wasnt me I am here being nice to children..I have an alibi.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I don't know how the towers were brought down, but if I had to put my money on something it would be mini nukes. What I do know is the planes are fake I don't know how they did it but they're not real planes, they just disappear like a special effect in a film.

In reply to _sllab_:

FWIW, The 'business plot' was an actual conspiracy

In reply to John Simpson:

Lovely. Beating around the bush without ever rousting the partridge.

In reply to Graeme Alderson: Then put your £ where your big mouth is and Buy this mans book! He has proof.

But who am I supposed to quote, Monica Lewinsky?

In reply to John Simpson:

I think it was lasers http://www.911conspiracy.tv/space_weapons.html

In reply to _sllab_:


Shit, you were quick off the mark. The terrorist shit started within days. You are one smart cookie.

In reply to _sllab_:

Which man? Which book?

Why the f*ck should I fund some idiot. If he has proof it should be open source.

In reply to John Simpson:

And this is written by a doctor http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Honestly what do you think, do you fully believe the official narrative verbatim. Or do you have any doubts?

In reply to _sllab_:

Wasn't it the trained gerbils that did it?

In reply to John Simpson:

Which narrative?

WW1
WW2
Kennedy
9/11
Blair and WMD

You seem to just believe that everything is an Illunimate/Govt/whatever plot. That is why I see you as a nutter. Yes Blair lied and he has been found out, big time. You say that the panes on 9/11 were obviously fake, bull shit, yes maybe the CIA had some intel that they f*cked up on but to claim what you do it total tin hat paranoia.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


We've all read Judy Wood she got a lot of things right and a lot of things wrong. Pound for pound she's far closer to the truth that the mainstream conspriacy theory of box cutting hijackers that led to an impossible chain of events ending in the total collapse of WTC 7.

But we've done this at least 5 times on here now, usually the morons that hang out in the secret forum put it in the pub, so it gets deleted and then like lemmings we do it all over again.

Could anyone really explain why we spend so much time on this bullshit forum having the same debates over and over again 9/11 was an inside job, sooner or later people will see the videos for what they are and say shit the whole worlds upside down, let's kill these motherf*ckers. Which isn't the point at all. We need to evolve into a more peaceful race for the quarantine to be lifted so we can finally join our long lost galactic family.



Peace and love brothers and sisters I'm going for a lie down

In reply to Graeme Alderson:








See me as what ever you want it really doesn't matter to me, we're just too guys trying to make a wage, you have you view I have mine, that's life.

In reply to John Simpson:

But the giant lizards will never accept us, salamander said as much if you read the pre Old Testament scriptures.

In reply to Orgsm:

Yeah we've all read the legend of the Dracos too, they have some clout but they're not the biggest fish in the pond.

In reply to _sllab_:

This thread is great. Unfortunately can't easily quote from my phone but now we're talking about quarantine's being lifted and joining our intergalactic friends!!!! ALL the videos of 9/11 are fake!!!! 9/11 Was caused by mini nukes!!!!

F*cking brilliant. Do you nutters actually climb? Why? Surely you should've getting busy saving us from galactic slavery?

In reply to _sllab_:

At times like these I'm reminded of occums razor. The simplistic answer is often the right one. Most of the governments in the world couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery let alone orchestrate massive global plan to control the world for generations upon generations. Evidence like the stuff in these conspiracy videos could be spun to represent a lot of different "truths"

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:



Galatic slavery is inflicted on us by us, can you explain the point of war?

In reply to _sllab_:

What was that supposed to be? Did you mean to reply to me? It bears no relation to my post.
I asked a simple question a while back - if the powerful are worried about this film, why are they letting us poor brainwashed sheeple watch it?

In reply to Hooo: and the rest.

They have few fears precisely because most are what you say you are: brainwashed sheep. We are the herd. The world is the farm. The governments are their sheepdogs and slaughter house personnel. And the mega rich few are the land owners. In england 99% of the people live and work on less than 5% of the uks Land. Think about that!
Rich landowners get £83 an acre in subsidy yet the dumb urban poor get taxed £1200 to £1500 a year on their tiny properties which are less than a tenth of an acre and are the smallest plots in Europe.
England is known as treasure island and its a land overrun with Pirates. Theres been a war declared against the poor, a feeding frenzy of greed, directed at them. Its carefully managed. The bank taps are shut off and the Loanshark taps are opened. Usurious despicable interest rates that were once illegal and were a hanging offence throughout the world. Total War against the worlds poor. A war of endless lies laws terror and greed. If you think its all accident you are so beguiled.


And lets face it nothing will wake up people like you, and the others here. Thats what the count on! But the truth is so abhorrent that most cannot face it and and you hide behind the illusions they put in place, but most of all your own self constructed ones.

This for me is the last thing I will say on this thread. Do your own research because no one ever believes anyone else and the cia invented phrase conspiracy theorist will always apply. If you discover the other possible truths to the ones you have been fed all your life, maybe it time you will have it applied to yourself.

Also look into the possible False Flag burning of the police car in London recently.

Goodbye and Good luck wish you all freedom happiness and prosperity!

In reply to _sllab_:

You, sir, are full of shit and I wish you well in your quest for the 'truth' though I implore you not to share it with us when you find more 'truths' as we are all sleeping peacefully and if you wake us up again with more of this bullshit we'll get grumpy and start calling you more names and attacking you like we have done.


Thanks

Buh bye.

In reply to _sllab_:

Woohoo we got to the space lasers and shape-shifting illuminati lizards eventually.

You lot are sooooo predictable.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:




No one can call you names or you can throw all your toys out of the cot, but you can vent your spleen whenever you want.

Really village, is thier a Latin phrase for deluded hypocrite?

In reply to Rampikino:


Come on you train spotting zoomer dickhead mini nukes and Babylonian money magic slave system! Get it right!

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:



Will _sllab_ or John Andrew Simpson do for starters?

In reply to Rampikino:


So you're now so arrogant that you think you can make up an ancient language as a poor insult. Fool.

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:

No - having seen the same boring conspiracy theories trucked out at regular intervals I've got to the stage waaaaay beyond trying to reason with those whose only reasoning comes from jerking off over YouTube videos and specious Wikipedia entries.

The truth is out there, but sadly for you the truth is really simple and really dull, so you lot feel the need to spice it up with your own paranoia, delusions and downright idiocy.

I have been fortunate in my time to see an interesting chunk of what goes on in the intelligence services, because I was one of them for 9 years, (cue lame "brainwashed" comments from you lot if you like). I have some interesting tales that help bring to life the sheer numptiness of the so-called truthers, but can I be bothered? No, you don't deserve the effort.

On a totally separate connection, I have a number of American friends who are employees of the major airlines. I would love to see the truthers in a room with them claiming that the 9-11 planes were fakes and holograms and missiles and other tosh. Those flight crews and passengers were real people who were really murdered when their very real planes were crashed into WTC. What the pathetic, unfounded truther nonsense does is to jerk off over the graves of those people who died. It is an insult to the families and friends of those victims just for the deluded, paranoia and smarminess of some numpties who think a YouTube video is proof of an illuminati shape-shifting lizard plot to control the world with space lasers.

You're not worth it, you can't even pass the Lamont Test. If you had even a basic grasp of hypothesis testing you might get close to passing Lamont but you don't.

In reply to Rampikino:

Well stop bothering us and stay off the truth threads, as you add nothing to the subject as the vacuum of your empty and closed mind is beyond any sort of reason and maybe do something that you have the IQ for like basket weaving.

Good luck with your life, and I think until you learn a few manners we're done here.

Kind regards.

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
Lame. Utterly lame. If you were right you would try to stimulate debate, but your provenance is YouTube and Wikipedia ie none.

"truth threads". Ha ha ha. Love it.

PS as for manners, you're the one jerking off over the graves of the dead.

In reply to Rampikino:




And know you're onto emotional blackmail, like I said kind regards. It's all done and dusted here, nothing left but empty fag packets and Maccy d litter. See ya

In reply to _sllab_:

As I've said before, I agree with the basic gist of what you're trying to say, that the rich have far too much power and have abused it for far too long. But instead of doing anything to tackle this issue you hide behind an invented bogeyman, absolving yourself of any responsibility to action by saying that the bogeyman is invincible. So you sit there spouting drivel, and when we make attempts to engage you abuse us. I genuinely think that you are too frightened to face reality, because it would mean actually doing something.
I know you'll not listen to me, but I really wish you'd seek out some form of therapy from someone you trust. I've known people who descended into paranoia, and it's a horrific experience for everyone around them. I can just ignore you, but no doubt you have loved ones who you are putting through hell.

In reply to Hooo:



Can you not see the abuse goes both ways why don't you ask the posters who agree with your worldview to wind it back a peg or two and let's talk about these issues with out the lizards from outta space got my girlfriend preggers and now my offspring are all shape shifting children of the stars.

In reply to Hooo:
That's a very well put post Hooo. Sadly I'm past such empathy having engaged with these threads in the past only to end in a despairing, head shaking kind of pit.

Now I apply the Lamont Test before I choose how to engage.

Think Turing Test but instead the Lamont Test is a series of questions and conversation routes that help you decide if someone is capable of reasoned debate or is just spouting drivel. Since I started using the test none of the conspiracy theorists on UKC have passed it, so I can limit my interactions to a bit of mockery rather than wasting my time actually trying to have a debate.

I'm pleased you can still be empathetic!

In reply to _sllab_


PLEASE keep spreading this nonsense. The more photos highlighting the "short haircuts", "issue boots" and similar "tell tale signs" of the supposed undercover cops setting the car on fire, the easier it will be for us to identify and prosecute them.
So thanks, I guess.

In reply to Rampikino:

You are a lying moron. Estimated IQ 77

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

you are too far gone to engage with.

In reply to Rampikino:

youtube.com/watch?v=bKwO1onXAaI&

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

You obliviously have no understanding or any knowledge of history....maybe a ladybird book level understanding.

A mindless Prole you certainly are.

In reply to off-duty:

off duty? That I suppose is a hint of your anal retarded personality.

In reply to Hooo:

Then we dont live in a world with American Concentration Camps and legalized Kidnapping imprisonment and torture without trail?
Then we dont live in a world with American Concentration Camps and legalized Kidnapping imprisonment and torture without trail?
Then we dont live in a world with American Concentration Camps and legalized Kidnapping imprisonment and torture without trail?
Then we dont live in a world with American Concentration Camps and legalized Kidnapping imprisonment and torture without trail? Aided and abetted by the British and other Governments?

And you tell me I am the paranoid one with no connection to reality? What a fool. Men like you do a great disservice and malice to the many people that have made great sacrifices in time and energy to discover these truths eg the men that made the film you all hate. Enjoy your two or longer minute hate.

Pointless engaging with you also...you have no mind left.

And I guess many here are doing quite well thank you very much out of the system.

Obvious inner or outer party members or associates.

www.trueactivist.com/bbc-journalist-comes-clean-believe-nothing-you-read-or-watch

In reply to thread:

Would all those who've said goodbye to each other please stop returning for one last pop. It's ruining the flounce.

Thanks
Andy

In reply to _sllab_:


I've made a number of points challenging the way you appear to be constructing the rationale to support your argument.

You haven't replied to any of them to clarify how I might have misinterpreted or misunderstood what you are saying.

Your only generic reply that might have included me, complained
" Instead you take the weak pathetic ignoble but convenient choice of attacking the person that give you the book or film."

Then you finally choose to engage with me by saying :

It does rather suggest that you aren't prepared to critically examine the building blocks that you are using to support your view, which appear to consist of searching for confirmatory "evidence" rather than an objective look at the argument itself.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Come on Andy you must know in modern tinterweb terms a flounce is only valid for 33 minutes, then its game on all over again.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Yeah ok. But I like cheap Parthian shots:

youtube.com/watch?v=qSWSgcuYqDo&

In reply to off-duty:

I have provided lots of evidence. Havent had anyone here so far invalidate anything I have said.

In reply to _sllab_:


No you haven't.

Please have a lie down and take a breather. You seriously need help. See a doctor, please.

In reply to _sllab_:

Ahh yes - post a YouTube video and challenge everyone to prove you wrong.

Another fail on the Lamont Test.

As for your very low, cheap and obnoxious insults - you have simply proved that, when challenged you regress to the only genuine thing you have - your cowardice.

You are a coward.

In reply to _sllab_:


To start with it was the post you made about some sort of "law of evidence" which seemed to indicate underpinned how you felt your case was constructed, but instead displayed a clear misunderstanding of evidence.
Then there was an attempt to construct a logical argument when a logical fallacy was pointed out. That displayed a misunderstanding of logic.

With those two fundamentals shown to be poorly grasped it does suggest your house is built on sand.

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:


TBH I don't think it's my place to criticise the other posters. I do think _sslab_'s posts are bonkers and people are perfectly entitled to be taking the piss. Several people have tried to talk about the issues with him (or her), but s/he will not engage in conversation. I do think we are dealing with a disturbed person here, or at least someone on the verge of paranoid delusions.

I've also tried to be reasonably respectful with you. You remind me (and I mean this in a positive way) of some friends of mine. I think you are a sane, intelligent person who is inquisitive and shares similar core values to mine. You just like to come out with wacky ideas and I shoot at them. Basically, I respect you but think some of the stuff you say is crazy or simply wrong in a straightforward factual sense.
_sslab_ on the other hand, needs help.

In reply to Hooo:

You may think that, pretty much everyone local I know and respect would agree with him, he's allowed to defend himself however he sees fit.


Yes this is your view and I have mine, I would prefer we could talk about this respectfully and thanks for this, as its not going to go away.


Ok he may need help, I don't know the guy I sent him a PM saying i had respect for the stance he'd taken, but I haven't had a private message reply. So do you think the best way to help someone is by insulting them?

In reply to _sllab_:



If you want to make a parthian shot then I would suggest using a marksman who was younger, wasn't retired, and was using a weapon he had practiced with.

In reply to _sllab_:


I always find having a copy of the latest issue to read makes confinement in stress positions much easier to bear, so I'm with you 100% on that one, vile and inhumane for sure. ...

especially the gear reviews.

In reply to _sllab_:


You do know what "Prole" is a shortening of don't you? Are you saying you're not a prole? Or just that you're not a mindless prole? Your class analysis seems a bit unlikely for a member of the Bourgeoisie, but then again you do keep saying things like "Estimated IQ 77" which suggests you don't see IQ as a socially constructed tool of the oppressive hegemonic power structures. So maybe you are Bourgeois. In which case, watch out matey, you'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes!

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

You are the Chief of the Useful Idiots. With persons like yourself in the land its a wonder they need security services at all...debased imbeciles like you do their work for free.

In reply to TobyA:

Go and read 1984 and read everything else Orwell wrote then read it again..then come back and unleash your DuckSpeak mind at me.

In reply to off-duty:

Yeah you forget to mention the moving car and the huge stress a lone hitman would have felt alone and taking on the Secret service protecting the supposedly most powerful man on earth. With a third rate rifle. You know nothing of guns, or shooting.

This video did make references to the many other organizations that tried to duplicate these shots...and failed.

In reply to off-duty:

So far your powerful logician mind hasnt made even 1 valid dent the validity of Frank Connellys film.

Go back to your Sky Movie Box sets and enjoy your Prolefeed life.

In reply to _sllab_:

Ok. I would never normally say this on a thread - but this is the last post i will make on this one.

I tried to engage with you but you do nothing but hurl insults and refuse to anwser questions. I have quite a few theories as to why you act the way you do but i won't allow myself to feel responsible for your health issues. You are damaged, no arguement you make can alter that. I'm genuinely intrigued by alternative theories of the JFK shooting and 9/11 etc. i have no doubt the official version of events is in some way tainted. You however, despite my asking you time and again to provide evidence of your theories, move onto other topics or hurl insults.

You posted the original YouTube link i assume to encourage us to watch it. I did and then asked you to help me undestand it. Your numerous replies have insulted me by accusing me of clearly being stupid or part of the 'establishment'.

I will not read another of your posts, not that you will care of course. And i will say it again, seek help because you are ill.

In reply to Rampikino:

To insult fools is not cowardice its honesty.

If you were here you would have my glove in your face.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

I provided lots and you still say I provide none. You Self brainwashed rogue.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

Yes accusations of mental illness is a common method in the cia book of dirty tricks.

In reply to _sllab_:

Message me then - I will give you the opportunity to assault me in person. Please, do.

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:

I need no help thanks and your mention of there being no aircraft involved in 9 11 is not something I agree with.

But thanks anyway for taking a brave stance against these brainwashed people here. But its useless.

Its pointless fighting with such deluded people.

They are cowards that dare not look for truth. They are afraid they will find it and it will unhinge their weak minds.

Films like these are Not For The Weak Minded.

In reply to _sllab_:

You've not seen it for what it is yet then, just spend a good more few months watching the slow mo, sooner or later you'll understand


I don't care what they think of me, this forum has sent at least 20 truthers away with what they're doing to you. Everyone's journey is difficult and I don't need to convince anyone of anything. I know who I am, and I don't need to insult people or feel offended over anything, yeah if someone wants to trade insults I may call them a f*ckwad or similar, but I bear them no ill feelings


My fighting days are 20 years ago, I'm a peace lovin hippy dude


Such is life


It's just another film, they live is probably my favourite.

In reply to Rampikino:


10 quid says you bottle it

In reply to John Andrew Simpson: I will look over the 9 11 films. Everyone should.

If I was talking about Illuminati, Space Lizards, or similar crazy things fair enough ridicule me mercilessly...But I am talking about things which are easy to look into and often reveal things which they don't teach in school history books or mention on Sky News. This particular film is just a summery of most of the truths...or alternate realities if you like. Realities that are never mentioned in the controlled press.

In reply to _sllab_:

It's exactly as you're saying they just won't discuss it, endless straw men, it's always the same few posters as well there's maybe a dozen of them at most and they just try to play you like a wrestling tag team. The rest of the forum just doesn't get involved I don't know what they think or if they even read these threads. But once you get past the conspiracy theory and get to the hard facts the evidence as you well know is overwhelming. I hope in my life these above the law criminals are dealt with as humanly as possible, but the mainstream may be a full lifetime behind the likes of what you and I can see, but the truth will come out in the end it always does. So I'm in it for the long game.

Stay cool fella

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:







Slipped up there John/sslab, when you make a big deal out of being John you should remember to log out before posting as sslab.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Yes now two people have become one, are you a spice girl fan by any chance?

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:


Of course I'm a fan of the Spice Girls, I'm itching for the reunion. But I've only ever posted under one name, I haven't created any sock puppets during my manic phases.

In reply to _sllab_:

You can see what they want to do, they just try to make you lose your cool, they've got nothing other than insults and stupid things like pretending we're the same person. It's easy to take on the whole mob as they don't have an argument so they try to piss the truthers off so they leave. I'm not going anywhere so they need to up their game because if you stick this out and we watch out for each other's 6, it won't be long till back up is here

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:



10 quid says you don't message me.

I meant _sllab_ sorry!

In reply to _sllab_:

Do you think I haven't? But why do you think Orwell used the word?
Have you read The Road to Wigan Pier as well as 1984? It's really good, but the difference between then as Orwell described, and now is pretty stark and might make you question some of your feelings about the world now, at least in (post-?)social democratic Europe where things clearly have gotten better.

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:


You are kidding right? What have you missed in the _sllab_ insults? That suggests he hasn't already lost it?

In reply to Rampikino:


This does not make you look good.

In reply to _sllab_:


More KGB I would say. Or at least they were better at it.

In reply to Sir Chasm:
i've only posted under one name my own

2002 - 2005 Simmo (nickname)
2005- 2012 johnj first name with j for john

Actually I had a very brief spell as the mystery toad, as I'd asked the mods to delete my profile as I'd got bored with the attacks about my 9/11 beliefs.

But one day I looked at the forum and a good mate Shaun was getting a online kicking from the usual suspects so I rejoined as the mystery toad as a tribute to mystery toad a truthers from the us who got bullied off the forum and had a bit of a bad experience from the usual suspects, but after my months tribute I went back to my name as listed. I added my middle name yesterday.

So you sir title is that a queens commission?

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:

There are as many reasons for not getting involved in these threads as their are users of the site- but their tendency to degenerate into name calling is probably a significant one.

John, I may not believe a word of what you post, but your patience and positivity in these threads is always encouraging to read, and stands out among the bickering...

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to Rampikino:


He's allowed to call you a dickhead if he wants or whatever, it's not like you're very respectful on here is it.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Actually I think it's very important to give cowards the opportunity to make good on their threats. Insults are laughable but threats are a different level. _sllab_ is welcome to threaten me to my face. But he won't, I'm well aware of that, he's a coward.

If you think that doesn't make me look good then I'm sorry but cowards should be called out. In no way does it suggest or mean that I am threatening this coward in return.

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:

You're a liar. And that's fine, it's only the internet. Anyone not in a manic phase can read the above and see that you replied under your "John" persona, when you meant to post as "sslab". It's all good fun though.

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:

It's impossible to respect your approach to your view or your so-called defence of that view. I made this clear many posts ago. My point is not about me but your defence of your alter-ego.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:





Cheers Gregor, this is the important lesson in this which took me a long time to learn, as regardless of what happened we have to start treating each other better. I know I can't change the world all I can do is be the change in myself what I want to see in the world

In reply to Rampikino:


Do you really think I have two logins, that's just bizarre. Recently you may have read about me having a dig at the mods. They could put you straight if you asked them what was what.

In reply to Rampikino:

Fair enough, it just read like you were offering to meet for a fight. That's the risk of getting involved in exchanges like that- in the context of a steadily more ill tempered exchange of insults, it can look like something you don't intend it to.

Why get involved in the argument in the first place? The guys not going to persuaded he's wrong, and its possible he might not be well. There's no glory to be had in getting drawn into a slanging match with him.

He's told you his truth, you tell him yours, the rest is at best a waste of bandwidth,

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I really try not to lie, I do tell the odd one sometimes you just can't help it, but I only have one login, this one, you can ask the mods. Maybe ask Jack Gellard, he's knows me.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I didnt read it like that- the post you linked was way to chilled to be sslab at this point in the thread...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

One and the same, anyone who can't see that is in on it.

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:

No I'm teasing. You are separate identities.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I see what they're trying to get at, I just read ramps message me post, and said he'd bottle it going for a fight over a thread, then he is so confused that he reads it all out of context. I've now got about 10 years of time served getting slagged off by these characters for my beliefs, it was about 2 years ago that it was like neo in the matrix when he learnt to fight the agents, now I have no emotional response to them, slabs in a different place. If they really think that's me I don't care, it just shows me how wrong they are.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Heavens! Don't think I'm doing this for glory, I could easily forgo the broad range of insults (and the threat) by _sllab_ and the insults by JAS (less of them but he still found time to call me a zoomer dickhead, whatever that is, among others).

My take on this has a different point - that there are people out there who have become so exasperated at trying to hold a reasoned debate with the "truthers" that the only thing left is mockery. It's a demonstration that their arguments have not only failed but failed in a spectacular way.

Not one single conspiracy theorist on UKC that I have read has ever applied the basic principles of hypothesis testing to their ideas. Not one.

In reply to Rampikino:

Like teasing that you really want to get a room sorry you're really not my type, slab may like to share some time with you tho' you have had a bit of a hard on for him

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:


What on earth are you talking about?

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:

That's not what I said, as well you know. Nice try though.

In reply to Rampikino:

Come on please explain to me why wtc7 completely collapsed in 11 seconds?

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:


Better and more interested people can put it better than I can, and it's not my job to prove anything about it. But as you asked:

SIMPLE REBUTTAL: Riiiight, so the world's tallest tower collapses on its neighbour less than 200m across the road. You've got 110 storeys of rubble pummelling a 47-storey building, setting it on fire, covering it in untold extra weight and inflicted untold stresses. And later that day, when the smaller building collapses, it's obvious the CIA did it with explosives. And Elvis left the building right before it happened.

Now go for your life - the thread was always doomed to reach this lame, tired, crappy debate anyway, just don't expect me to join in.

In reply to Rampikino:




Come on, stop with the failing to be witty answer, and explain why wtc7 the building which was the emergency HQ for if New York was under attack, nuked, or similar fell down in 11 seconds.

In reply to John Andrew Simpson:

SIMPLE REBUTTAL: Riiiight, so the world's tallest tower collapses on its neighbour less than 200m across the road. You've got 110 storeys of rubble pummelling a 47-storey building, setting it on fire, covering it in untold extra weight and inflicted untold stresses. And later that day, when the smaller building collapses, it's obvious the CIA did it with explosives. And Elvis left the building right before it happened.

In reply to Rampikino:

And then when you've done that explain why the BBC announced it had collapsed when it was still standing and it collapsed 23 minutes later?