Are conspiracy theories destroying democracy?

[Goldstone76]

To what end?

To what end what?

 

[Goldstone76]

Hills borough . Just saying

Police cover-up for years.. a conspiracy!! But according to some here there is no such thing and governments etc. dont lie..

 

[Nibble]

To what end what?

Perfectly simple question. To what end ie for what reason do "they" want to take away rights and democracy, what rights exactly and from whom?

 

[Seagull on the wing]

a) democracy does not exist, anyone that truly believe the UK is a democracy is insanely ignorant.
b) CT cannot be all put in a basket. Diana, JFK, 911 (main ones) are seperate and need to be looked at seperately.
c) the BBC is highly toxic and a Government propaganda device.

Cannot agree with the last statement...the BBC is well known for it's left wing bias,so hardly a government mouthpiece...

 

[Mental Lental]

A lovely bunch of chaps these conspiracy theorists....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...conspiracy-theorist-who-changed-his-mind.html

For me it's a simple equation.

I will not be taking anything seriously that has David Icke as one of it's main progenitors.....

 

[Mental Lental]

So it appears that Mr Goldstone 76 has firmly nailed his flag to the mast of clan Icke....

How about the rest of NSC?

 

[Goldstone76]

So it appears that Mr Goldstone 76 has firmly nailed his flag to the mast of clan Icke....

How about the rest of NSC?

Mr Icke? Well some of what he says makes a lot of sense. I think the real issue is that some of us live in a different reality.. those who accept all that we have been taught not only by our parents but through education and those of us who have an open mind to all possibilities. The irony is that history as its written is not the whole truth and it started with the Bible and the church. Education is based on old Victorian 'workhouse' principles that doesnt actually allow for free thinking imho.

 

[MICK PATCHAM]

 

[Goldstone76]

Perfectly simple question. To what end ie for what reason do "they" want to take away rights and democracy, what rights exactly and from whom?

Well thats a huge question.. Technology has enabled government and private companies to sneek peek into what we do, what we say and where we go. For most they would say 'well I have nothing to hide' and your right.. but as governments become more paranoid about the so called terror threat and so democracy and privacy are being reduced. The USA's Patriot Act is a prime example. The NSA and GCHQ for example are accessing all data we send and receive with keyword identification software. If you come from a mindset that the war on terror was created by the USA/UK then its logical that the spying on the population and enforcing draconian powers is just a short step and evolution to Orwell's 1984 scenario.The bottom line is that we are all being watched and who is there to oversea the snoopers? Will it be a case in years to come that at birth we will be micro chipped not only with our national insurance numbers but also with GPS tracking? That doesnt seem right to me if thats the way we are heading.

 

[pastafarian]

Will it be a case in years to come that at birth we will be micro chipped not only with our national insurance numbers but also with GPS tracking? That doesnt seem right to me if thats the way we are heading.

what on earth is wrong with you?

but

perhaps in your case it might be best for society if you were micro chipped and kept under close supervision

 

[symyjym]

Goldstone76, you still haven't answered my questions from the other day.

I really want to go through 911 with you point by point rather than being forced fed what has gone on in the world for the last hundred years. We cannot have a rational debate if the subject matter is on everything.

Now I made the point earlier about the collapse of the towers starting at the exact point the planes hit. As with the video below.

Question 1: Do we agree the towers collapsed at the exact point the planes hit?

Question 2: Did you see any explosions preceding the collapse of the tower?

Question 3: Did America need the towers to collapse go to war, or do you think that just the planes crashing into them were enough to initiate it?

Question 4: If you believe that the planes crashing into them was enough to go to war, why would they need to take down the towers?

 

[Goldstone76]

This has happened.. “The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
― Thomas Jefferson

“The essence of capitalism is to turn nature into commodities and commodities into capital. The live green earth is transformed into dead gold bricks, with luxury items for the few and toxic slag heaps for the many. The glittering mansion overlooks a vast sprawl of shanty towns, wherein a desperate, demoralized humanity is kept in line with drugs, television, and armed force.” - Michael Parenti

 

[Guinness Boy]

“The essence of capitalism is to turn nature into commodities and commodities into capital. The live green earth is transformed into dead gold bricks, with luxury items for the few and toxic slag heaps for the many. The glittering mansion overlooks a vast sprawl of shanty towns, wherein a desperate, demoralized humanity is kept in line with drugs, television, and armed force.” - Michael Parenti

*jacks up in front of Escape to the Country*

 

[Goldstone76]

Goldstone 76, you still haven't answered my questions from the other day.

Question 1: Do we agree the towers collapsed at the exact point the planes hit?

Yes.. but Ive already made a point that charges were laid in a way that the controller had the option to blow at any level. First the structural girders were blown (hence the reports of explosions being heard)

Question 2: Did you see any explosions preceding the collapse of the tower?

I wasnt there.. but there are many reports and witness statements that say there were explosions (including the basement) prior to the collapse. Plenty of actual witness videos here.. have a look and get back to me.. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_wtc_implosion.html

Question 3: Did America need the towers to collapse go to war, or do you think that just the planes crashing into them were enough to initiate it?

Well yes they needed them to come down. The thought behind this (especially in regards to building 7 where the CIA had offices) was the loss of top secret documents that could have implicated the USA from past. The other issue is that the owner of the Towers .. Larry Silverstein is raking in the cash.. he was trying to sue the airlines involved for 3.5 billion and hes already collected nearly 5 billion from insurers. Some sanity prevailed though as his request was rejected.. on July 24, 2001 he bought the lease to the Towers. This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management. The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal. The terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed. He insured them.. to include terrorist attack..

Question 4: If you believe that the planes crashing into them was enough to go to war, why would they need to take down the towers?

I dont believe planes crashing into the Towers was enough. To much had to 'disappear', plus the insurance revenue. It needed to be big enough that the USA and the West would seek fast and direct revenge. The question is who profited and how did the Towers collapse affect the West's foreign policy? Bush profited by way of a reason to invade Iraq and Afghanistan (oil and a gas pipe line) plus the ability to enable the Patriot Act (“The PATRIOT Act was written many, many years before 9/11,” Ron Paul said. The attacks simply provided “an opportunity for some people to do what they wanted to do,” ). The arms industry profited which indirectly profited via Halliburton (Rumsfeld, Cheny etc.). Its also destroyed a lot of sensitive documents. There is also the issue of insider trading.. Between September 6 and 7, the CBOE saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million. (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NC21Dj05.html)

 

[symyjym]

Goldstone 76, you still haven't answered my questions from the other day.

Question 1: Do we agree the towers collapsed at the exact point the planes hit?

Yes.. but Ive already made a point that charges were laid in a way that the controller had the option to blow at any level. First the structural girders were blown (hence the reports of explosions being heard)

Question 2: Did you see any explosions preceding the collapse of the tower?

I wasnt there.. but there are many reports and witness statements that say there were explosions (including the basement) prior to the collapse. Plenty of actual witness videos here.. have a look and get back to me.. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_wtc_implosion.html

Question 3: Did America need the towers to collapse go to war, or do you think that just the planes crashing into them were enough to initiate it?

Well yes they needed them to come down. The thought behind this (especially in regards to building 7 where the CIA had offices) was the loss of top secret documents that could have implicated the USA from past. The other issue is that the owner of the Towers .. Larry Silverstein is raking in the cash.. he was trying to sue the airlines involved for 3.5 billion and hes already collected nearly 5 billion from insurers. Some sanity prevailed though as his request was rejected.. on July 24, 2001 he bought the lease to the Towers. This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management. The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal. The terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed. He insured them.. to include terrorist attack..

Question 4: If you believe that the planes crashing into them was enough to go to war, why would they need to take down the towers?

I dont believe planes crashing into the Towers was enough. To much had to 'disappear', plus the insurance revenue. It needed to be big enough that the USA and the West would seek fast and direct revenge. The question is who profited and how did the Towers collapse affect the West's foreign policy? Bush profited by way of a reason to invade Iraq and Afghanistan (oil and a gas pipe line) plus the ability to enable the Patriot Act (“The PATRIOT Act was written many, many years before 9/11,” Ron Paul said. The attacks simply provided “an opportunity for some people to do what they wanted to do,” ). The arms industry profited which indirectly profited via Halliburton (Rumsfeld, Cheny etc.). Its also destroyed a lot of sensitive documents. There is also the issue of insider trading.. Between September 6 and 7, the CBOE saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million. (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NC21Dj05.html)

1) I don't buy the "charges were laid in a way that the controller had the option to blow at any level" bit because any explosive set up would have either been destroyed at the point of impact, or gone off at the time of the plane impact.

2) I know you weren't there, I was asking you to view the video of the collapse and asking you if you saw any explosions at the point of collapse when it collapsed.

3) They didn't need to bring down the buildings to go to war, the plane crashes would have been enough, and I am not moving the debate to WTC 7, their are other explainations of how it came down.

Why do you think it strange that someone insured the towers against terrorist attack when it is widely known, since the day they were built, they have always been considered a target, and had previously been targeted? It would have been even stranger had they not been insured? It's not like forgetting to insure a car.

I know lots of odd things happened and I do buy into Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," however "Loose Change" is just some American kid putting a whole lot of stuff together and making a movie.

Now you must agree that CT's also profit from conspiracy theories, like making films, documentaries and selling books for their own notoriety gain?

If Michael Moore gave his thumbs up to “Loose Change” I would find it more credible, but even he won’t touch it.

Which movie makes more sense "Fahrenheit 9/11," or "Loose Change"?

 

[symyjym]

I would also add that lots of people heard many noises that echoed around the area and that booms and sounds of structural failure may have been interpreted as explosions.

Slow structural failure isn't a silent experience? A lift crashing into a basement, or heavy debris crashing down for example would make some noise would it not?

Could people genuinely believe they heard explosions? Yes they could.

 

[beorhthelm]

so let me get this right, Goldstone76. the twin towers had to be reduced to rubble, not just to precipitate a war in the middle east, but also to ensure that Larry Silverstein got a big payout and lots of sensitive documents could be destroyed? i wonder if you realise how much more was lost to the US economy by the impact (US economy was boaderline in rescession at the time) and that any money paid out came from other organisations. how come Silverstein got so powerful for his interests to outweigh the insurers? and couldnt they just have used a shredder?

also, i note you are back to explosions now, so agree there wasnt any thermite?

 

[The Truth]

It's amazing how many NSC users were actually there when 9/11 occurred!

 

[symyjym]

It's amazing how many NSC users were actually there when 9/11 occurred!

The trouble is the "Truthers" cannot differentiate betweeen "Fahrenheit 9/11," and "Loose Change".

For some reason if you believe Fahrenheit 9/11 but not Loose Change, you are still ignorant or have a lack of knowledge and are generally insulted.

Having an open mind does not mean believing in every conspiracy, far from it and that is the irony when CT's throw in the open mind argument.

 

[The Truth]

The trouble is the "Truthers" cannot differentiate betweeen "Fahrenheit 9/11," and "Loose Change".

For some reason if you believe Fahrenheit 9/11 but not Loose Change, you are still ignorant or have a lack of knowledge and are generally insulted.

Having an open mind does not mean believing in every conspiracy, far from it and that is the irony when CT's throw in the open mind argument.

Having an open mind also means you shouldn't just assume someone who believes one conspiracy believes them all.