Discussion in 'Escaping The Rabbit Hole' started by Soulfly, Jun 9, 2013.
He has been outed as a BBC paid shill for sometime in CT circles from what I can gather. David Icke has been ranting over an article in the Telegraph.
It looks like Charlie's fear might have already come true, the Boston bomber was into them, though we really don't know how deep he was into conspiracies yet, at least not officially. Dzhokhar's computer will show if and how much he read into them and it could come out in the trail if it is significant. I don't know if they will be able to use the brothers computer as evidence since he is dead. They did live together though so it could go either way.
Here is part 2.
That was very interesting. He seems like such a sensible chap now that it's hard to imagine he used to be so hard-core. But there's videos of that too.
The meeting with WAC Manchester reminded me of Scientology. Cult-like behavior.
The guy who filmed it has a 7 part 911 debunking, talks to truthers at ground zero. Also does some cool science experiments and other debunking.
Yeah, the 9/11 debunking stuff is well worth watching. There's some interesting interactions with truthers, but also some useful information.
He was quite funny at Canary Wharf. (vid in link)
IMO, he's in it for the money. Got made redundant, set out to be popular on yt... rehearsed and finessed it like the salesman he already was... now he's switched to the bigger money.
Simple as that.
You would all love AJ, if he switched over to lamestream. 'Oh yes he deserves every penny of his millions... marvelous job he's doing lampooning the new militants'.
Charlie Veitch is one thing, had his nose in the corporate trough, got laid off so he kicked up a bit of dust and made a nuisance of himself, (probably used to work in Canary Wharf anyway so knew the wrinkles there), until such times as he got bought off to come back in the fold and stop being a nuisance.
I liked the, 'we are not protesting, simply speaking through megaphones', lol
But what beliefs did he have in the first place, that he could give up... wilothewisp.
Who is paying him now? And what are they paying him to do?
I'll research it for you Mick.
In the meantime, he has a history of 'popping up in front of cameras'. Coincidence... of all the witnesses... he is the one to tell it. It also appears he tells it very much in the police's favour which it was proven to complete BS later on.
Here is Veitch's complete fabrication, 'as an upright city trader'.
This is really what happened.
So please don't judge me too harshly if I am totally underwhelmed by anything that the debunkers new poster boy, Veitch, has to say about anything. If people were taken in by him, so be it. It's not their fault... people get taken in by con artists all the time.
I say... there are no messiah's, do your own work, use your own brain and buyer beware.
As George says, "The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B"
Sounds like he was describing Tomlinson's second collapse, not when the police pushed him.
Veitch has obviously changed a lot over the years. But people often do.
He changes by the day.
1.15... (With extreme incredulity) "These people actually believe that the American Government wiped out it's own people ..."
Alex Jones on the USS Liberty attack...
Erm,that's not Veich talking, and nor is most of that video. So what's your point.
Yes, he changed his mind about 9/11 being a controlled demolition. He did this after examining the evidence and talking to experts.
The point is he goes with the BBC to NY as a 'truther', (that was him talking in the bus about the revolution man...) and then does a complete turnaround afterwards. No, talk about from one extreme to the other and back again... trader/truther/debunker....
So the point is also, Veitch goes from believing "the American Government wiped out it's own people ...", to not believing it... why?
Surely he knows about Northwoods and USS Liberty etc... so why the incredulity?
No I thought you would appreciate AJ debunking the USS Liberty crap. Very calm, very rational... good job eh? I would suggest starting a thread but that's not really still in dispute is it?
According to Wikipedia there's quite a bit of dispute.
And Northwoods is not a good example, it was a starting point discussion document that was quickly scrapped, and did not even involved killing any Americans.
But again, off topic. You can start new threads on those if you like.
This is on topic as it pertains to Veitch's bona fide.
I couldn't help but notice the nearly verbatim account of this policeman and Veitch's account. Both of which appear to be entirely false. This video shows how protesters came to Tomlinson's aid (1.40), after his collapse and there was no trouble there at all.
But that just shows a few seconds after the collapse, before the police arrived. So it does not really contradict either account. Again, I think Veitch is describing what he saw in the second collapse - and at the time he was a young banker with somewhat different views about the world, and hence different perceptions of the events.
And there was some indication of trouble later - police standing around his body surrounded by large crowd.
That's bunk Mick. Of course there is a large crowd... it's in the middle of London in the middle of the g20 demo... what would you expect a farmer munching on a carrot?
There is no evidence of violence by the crowd, in fact it is entirely to the contrary, they are concerned for the guys safety and trying to help.
If you want to go with Veitch's account, (which sounds so suspicious to me I would lay money on it being a lie), you should back it up with some evidence.
Also this is 2009, not long before Veitch morphs into this really radical anti police/establishment/NWO campaigner.
The allegations made by Veitch concerning Tomlinson, outrageous... same about the police allegations... NO EVIDENCE... ONLY PROVEN CULPABILITY BY PEOPLE TRYING TO ESCAPE FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THEIR VIOLENT UNPROVOKED AND LETHAL ACTIONS.
The allegations about the protesters, where is the evidence.... you seriously expect people to believe that in this surveillance culture where they have pictures of what is up your nose... they cannot back up the claims about protesters with footage. Facepalm
Veitch evidence, (Tomlinson)... 'He was heavily tattooed, in his 50's smelled heavily of drink as if he had been drinking all day, eyes wide like he was on drugs...
(police)... 'I came along at 6.30 last night... the police seemed to be acting very professionally, there was no overkill, no beatings and the only reason this gentleman collapsed, is because the police ran forward, maybe 20 mtrs at a time and then he ran off as well and I saw him collapse and smash his head'.
I had never heard of Veitch before this thread but what I have found out about him sickens me.
Ok Tomlinson was an alcoholic but anyone can see he was posing no threat to anyone and went out of his way to avoid conflict.
Still, at least they didn't tazer him 17 times.
You can't really tell from the overhead video either way. However it does not seems entirely unreasonable that if a crowd had just seen the police be violent towards a guy, who then collapsed, maybe dead, then there might be little anger? One or two people throwing something?
Anyway that's from the police account, not really relevant to Veitch.
All of which was more or less accurate (he was a 47 year old alcoholic with lots of tattoos who had been drinking heavily), it just seems rather mean, elitist, like a rich banker looking down on the dirty peasants.
I'm not defending the actions of the police at all. It seems very apparent it was an unreasonable use of force, and that the police tried to wiggle out of responsibility.
Veigh's account does come across as someone who is on the side of the police. But it also seems broadly accurate, assuming he's taking about Tomlinson's final collapse, not the initial push.
He talks about it here, but is mostly ranting rambling about his own situation and all the haters, and not so much about Tomlinson for the first 12 minutes. Skip to 12:50 for his account.
He is a liar and on record as a liar. When asked if he was a protester (1.44) he evades it saying 'I am a city worker'. In the video you posted, he admits he was there with a megaphone to 'mock the protesters and the police'. Also it is a day or two later when he walks up to the reporters and muscles his way onto tv by 'being the witness'. Yeah... Well you can argue it is not a lie, (because he was a city worker), if you like but I know deceit and a lie when I hear it and he was there as an agent provocateur and to make a name for himself at anyone's expense and for him to talk about the 'truth', I wonder he can get the word out of his mouth. Shallow, self serving, vacuous, opportunistic, lying narcissist.
So you think there and for the initial truther stuff he was just doing it for the limelight, then later he got paid to switch to the other side? Or you think he's just flighty?
And why quote the stuff about "mentally ill ... sex pervert"?
Yes, I think he is an attention seeker and an exploiter. He is out for the money and always asking for donations and bragging about his fanbase
I don't normally have such a strong reaction but there is something about the guy which I really dislike.
I quoted it because I generally agreed with it, inc the mental issues, (I don't know anything about the sexual allegations), didn't really notice that bit overly, it was more the rest of it that struck a chord and I just cut and paste the quote.
Do you think someone is actually paying him?
It wouldn't surprise me.
Do you think someone is paying me?
Lol... It is only natural to consider the possibility but no I don't currently think that.
The latest Veitch video. Rather an incoherent ramble into philosophy in parts, and a more general ramble in others. Doesn't really say much, but I don't think he's being dishonest.
Need to work on condensing his message though.
Here's the Mo Patel video he mentioned, more coherent:
Seriously, I gave the first a minute and the 2nd a minute... I'm out.
Is there a chance he will become as rabid an anti-conspiracist as he was pro-conspiracy, or has he adopted a mellower rationality?
Separate names with a comma.