2013: The Year of Alex Jones

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The tapes that the Egyptian made.

Which boil down to:

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/28/n...o-thwart-bomb-used-in-trade-center-blast.html
Potential terrorists discuss possible bombing. That's basically it.

If the FBI had actually gone ahead with the honeypot/entrapment type thing that everyone complains about, then they might have actually caught them.

The problem with the story is that, like with the PRISM story, they orginally went with a more sensationalistic version, then had to retract it when they actually spent some time listening to the tapes. By that time the damage was done:

 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I read a couple of your posts to my hubby and his response to them can't be posted here, because it would be impolite.

You need some EVIDENCE other than what you THINK and what other folks like you think.

Seeing 'patterns' and trying to make them fit YOUR belief is not evidence.


Let's take something that no CTer has managed to notice. The early Celts and the Early Chinese, both used the same shape to illustrate a lion's mane. Now someone LOOKING at that might say that that means that either the Celts went to China or the opposite. They would be wrong. As a friend said "Same hardware (wiggling her fingers), same software (pointing at her head).

Pyramids are STABLE designs. Toddlers playing with blocks will discover that. They are often used as a SYMBOL of endurance and stability for that reason. No elaborate plot needed.

If the kids in family decide they want pizza and they agree on a set of toppings that all of them will eat (parents have refused to order pizza because of the arguments about toppings from the kids), I guess that could be called a 'conspiracy' by some.

Working together for the COMMON good is not a conspiracy, it is common sense.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
It seems to me that impressing people with some type of elitism or charlatanism is your idea of a good time, not mine.
Boosh.
You're not imagining that the "dot" perspectives typical to modern skeptics and linked to Darwinian creation myths is somehow analogous to a "top secret" or elite group of assassins being used judiciously, are you? (What's next, support for assassinations without trial by a top secret group of bumbling fools that like to portray themselves as experts? I would note that it does seem to be fitting for modern agnostics to be ruled by gnostics and the members of secret societies that gave them their idiotic creation myths. Idiotic in this sense, they're based on imagining things based on chaos/nothing and so forth.)
...
In the original context of the novel it was in, it's a quote about political manoeuvring; however when applied in the context of bunk and to poorly formed ideas, examining details will lead to concrete facts which will destroy sloppy thinking or hypotheses which cannot survive being taken to a logical conclusion, which is how I mean it to be taken.

You seem to like to psychologise others according to how you imagine them being 'ruled' by these concepts you disagree with. Why? Will putting your dialectical opponents into boxes you create for them make their opposition to your position easier to comprehend? Do what you have to I guess.
Actually, please stop doing that, it's annoying.

It is fun to play with language, but in debate it is better to be concise. It depends on the subject of course, and this particular topic is open to wider issues or interpretations, but your writing does try to pack in a lot of assumptions and digs at people based on your imagination of what their position is, and not their actual position.
I think the general frustration at this just rose in this particular thread. I'm sure your view has value, just reign in the high-concept burns.
Or maybe we're misinterpreting you, and if so, maybe adjust the style of communication a little?
 

Drew

Active Member
No more poorly supported than the idea that Alex Jones is creating terrorism, a poorly supported hypothesis that you seem interested in advancing.

Wrong. This is a mischaracterization and an evasion—argumentation by red herring.

I am saying that conspiracy theories frequently play a role in radicalizing violent extremists. Not all conspiracy theorists are prone to violent extremism, and not all violent extremists are conspiracy theorists. But the phenomena do intersect in a meaningful way that is worth examining.

If you cannot accept this, I doubt we can move forward here.

Moreover, you again demonstrate that you can't or won't speak directly to the points I'm making without non sequitur digressions involving allegations of banker plots, accusations of CIA conspiracies, and references to George Washington and Maslow.

We may just have a case of incommensurable worldviews, and that there's basically no way to avoid speaking past each other. Happily, my worldview doesn't involve being concerned about nefarious global plots that don't exist. There are plenty of real problems to worry about.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And to paraphrase someone: "just because there are thousands dying of dysentery it does not follow that you should stop wiping your butt"
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I read a couple of your posts to my hubby and his response to them can't be posted here, because it would be impolite.

You need some EVIDENCE other than what you THINK and what other folks like you think.

Seriously?

I don't know why but it seems like every other sentence is a projection of a nice and caring mind with you. Nice to know what your "tribe" thinks, though... hope you feel better and get your worldview straightened out in your mind.

Seeing 'patterns' and trying to make them fit YOUR belief is not evidence.

I've nothing against subjectivity but you seem to be trying to pass off your subjectivity as pure objectivity.

Random note, there is evidence that rewiring your brain takes months... if not years.

Working together for the COMMON good is not a conspiracy, it is common sense.

Same thing.

The word "conspire" also means to breath together and in sync or resonate with each other, so there's already a subconscious element of tribalism forming in the herd being alluded to in the word itself.

Pretty nefarious, huh? It's like Mick's reference to "everyone," i.e. his Metabunk tribe... conspiring against me! Just kidding, there's seldom any conscious form of conspiracy* going on. Of course, you could be nice and caring and still conspire with the tribe... no worries... but I'm curious what your husband said, even if it wasn't nice.

*Although... perhaps it's likely that those capable of imagining conspiracies among "suckers"/mammals will be closer to the truth than those who are incapable of imagining it, for various reasons. So... someone like Alex Jones (almost everything is a conspiracy) may actually be closer to the truth of things than Mick (almost nothing is a conspiracy) in the end, ironically. Because what if imagining the conspiring or "breathing together" of tribes and the pyramidal** power structures that emerge among them as the equivalent of a conscious conspiracy is actually closer to the truth than almost always trying to imagine that no conspiracies exist?

**Uh oh... I like to imagine mentioning pyramids as bringing symbolic stability to a comment sometimes. Maybe I should mention more obelisks.... I can only imagine what you might imagine of them.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Wrong. This is a mischaracterization and an evasion—argumentation by red herring.

Not really.

You're saying that "conspiracy theories" are associated with or cause violence. And while that's basically true you're not dealing with the fact that those who seek to maintain a monopoly on violence (the government) invoke and deal with conspiracy theories all the time. By your own logic wouldn't creating or promoting the idea that "Muslims" are conspiring to kill Americans cause Americans to conspire to kill Muslims and so forth? If only there was a way to manage these things, huh? You'd need a department of conspiracies or something along those lines.

I am saying that conspiracy theories frequently play a role in radicalizing violent extremists.

That's probably why the CIA spread them around among Islamists. I.e. the people who come to The Grand Chessboard with checkers... well, not checkers, maybe some tic tac toe pieces?

In any event, there may be some evidence that the Russians are getting in on the act and trying to pick up the scimitar of Islamism and so forth.

But when you play with the fire that Prometheus and Lucifer the light bearer brings, expect to get burned... (The mysterious and ever shadowy "they" built some nice statues in NYC where the "Big Apple" of the forbidden fruit lies, huh?) There again, our whole civilization runs on the concept of playing with fire. That's the basic concept of a car running on an internal combustion/fire engine fueled by fossil fuels and so forth. So there is that.

Not all conspiracy theorists are prone to violent extremism, and not all violent extremists are conspiracy theorists. But the phenomena do intersect in a meaningful way that is worth examining.

I don't really disagree. It's just that those who hold a monopoly on violence are usually more dangerous conspiracy theorists than those who do not.

Happily, my worldview doesn't involve being concerned about nefarious global plots that don't exist.

That's the attitude of "the base" in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Keep them happy... and there you go. This is why one analyst points to food and fuel budgets as a metric for social unrest or revolution among "the base." And that's the extent of it. It probably applies more to Americans in general than the rest of the world at this point, though. Huge generalization given all the different factions, of course.... but there you go, that's the way hypotheses are.

There are plenty of real problems to worry about.

Like Alex Jones "causing" terrorism but not the CIA giving Syrian rebels anti-aircraft systems, I'd imagine.

Shrug. Enjoy your entertainment "based" on your culture, tribe and feelings of happiness and safety within it. (I'm all for that, by the way. I'm just against playing pretend that it's close to an accurate picture of reality.)
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
You seem to like to psychologise others according to how you imagine them being 'ruled' by these concepts you disagree with.

I don't always disagree with the ways that people seem to be "ruled."

With respect to imagining hypotheses about tribalism ruling them or a natural tendency to "conspire" with their tribe and so forth everyone can think for themselves and come to their own conclusions about how much explanatory power theories arising from hypotheses of about tribalism have.

Or maybe we're misinterpreting you, and if so, maybe adjust the style of communication a little?

If people want to discuss facts* instead of worldview type issues or hypotheses about tribalism then they'll need to adjust their own style of communication a little.

As for me, in the meantime... I find it entertaining.

*E.g., if I say "pyramid scheme" or "hopium" and try to encrypt information about the banking system quickly in that way then try to deal with the facts behind the word instead of going off on tangents about the worldviews of "conspiracy theorists" if dealing with dots is what you actually want to do. I don't believe that most people want to try to focus on all the facts/dots that inevitably lead to a worldview/image half as much as they say that they do. For instance, if "everyone" here in this apparent tribe of "skeptics" wants to follow Mick's lead as an apparent tribe leader in focusing on dots, then what's stopping you? If it really the case that you have to fail to follow his lead and focus on worldview type stuff? Why do you (collectively) often keep asking about or focusing on the overall worldview or theories that I've clearly created out of what "boils down to" a bunch of dots/facts?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Which boil down to:

Potential terrorists discuss possible bombing. That's basically it.

Yeah. Pretty amazing that the FBI was right there sitting on the plot and so forth but now the intelligence services are saying that if only their budgets are bigger and if only everyone stops listening to Alex Jones and gives up their civil liberties that terrorism will be stopped.

The bomb detonated in the underground parking garage at the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 killed six people, resulted in injuries to a thousand more, and threw lower Manhattan into chaos. At the center of the terror cell was a bombmaker who had been in the Egyptian army. He was also a paid informer and provocateur for the FBI. Other participants in the terror operation had entered the country with the connivance of the CIA, despite the fact that normally they would not have been allowed in.* The FBI was aware of every phase of the plot, but refused to exploit numerous opportunities to stop it. The first WTC bomb of 1993 went off with the full complicity of the FBI, which tried repeatedly to pass off the blame to the Sudanese mission to the United Nations. The Kean-Hamilton Commission has nothing to say about this. A detailed narrative of these events has appeared under the title The Cell. It is a cover-up, written by participants in the operation. This book ignores the central and most dramatic event of the entire affair, which was the publication of the tapes secretly made by FBI provocateur Emad Salem of his own conversations with his FBI controllers–tapes which he wisely surmised he might need later as an insurance policy. [....]
The story starts with the November 1990 assassination in New York City of Rabbi Meir Kahane, an Israeli terrorist leader who had founded the Jewish Defense League several decades earlier. The accused assassin of Kahane was El Sayyid Nosair, an Egyptian fanatic. But Nosair was not just a drifting fanatic: when the police searched his apartment, “there were training manuals from the Army Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg. There were copies of teletypes that had been routed to the Secretary of the Army and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. How had Nosair come up with those? Clearly, he had a source in a sensitive position in the US military.” (Cell 45) Much more likely, his terrorist controller occupied a sensitive position in the US military...
Nosair’s Arabic-language files were said to contain the detailed plan of a series of future terrorist acts, including the 1993 WTC bombing. But the FBI was not interested in having these documents translated**; it simply put them into storage and ignored them until it was too late. This vital evidence, according to our authors, “entered a black hole.” Sheikh Abdel Rahman, known to Kean-Hamilton Commission devotees as the Blind Sheikh, was a known terrorist, a friend of the CIA’s favorite Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and of Osama bin Laden. He had been placed under house arrest in Egypt. Nevertheless, he was allowed to enter the US, coming from Sudan. In the light of the subsequent demonization of the blind Sheikh as one of the key terrorist plotters of the 1990s, we are entitled to ask why he was allowed to come to the US in the first place. The preferred answer: “Abdel Rahman’s visa was signed by a CIA officer stationed at the Sudanese consulate, and one theory advanced by FBI agents is that the Agency sponsored his immigration. The CIA, in that scenario, may have wanted to nurture its ties to the Egyptian fundamentalists in order to avoid a replay of Iran in 1979, when the overthrow of the Shah left US intelligence out in the cold. Another theory was that the officer had ‘gone bad.’” (Cell 54) More likely, the CIA or the moles within it simply wanted to use the Sheikh for terror operations against Egypt and/or the US. As for the Shah, he was deliberately overthrown by the US in the framework of Brzezinski’s Islamic fundamentalism strategy, with the CIA as an active participant. (See Dreyfus)
(Tarpley, Webster Griffin (2012-04-12). 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA)

*Same method used on 911, whistle blower:

**Same method used on 911, produced a different whistle blower:


If the FBI had actually gone ahead with the honeypot/entrapment type thing that everyone complains about, then they might have actually caught them.

Sure.
 

Stevowills

New Member
I've just found this site and spent the last couple of hours browsing. As i'm new and favour nobody i thought my opinion may we worthwhile to a thread that seems locked in stalemate.
I think almost every single person posting in the forum refuses point blank to listen to reason. Both sides use fact and opinion when it suits. I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist but it's fairly naive to assume everything you have learned in life is true, whether it be through education, the media, politicians or the internet. How often has history proven that people in power or positions where they can sway the masses will manipulate events to suit themselves and keep themselves in that position?
Anyway i may not be the most educated or particularly good at putting across my opinion, i'm not the most well educated person but i consider myself both reasonable and logical. I haven't got a specific wikipedia page to quote from but the lack of such does not mean it doesn't exist it just means I'm on my phone and am basically not great with forums.

I would also argue that the guy mynm(?) sorry can't scroll up on my phone has not been particularly hard to understand or follow, i have no idea what gish gallop is? Somebody pointed out that basically anyone on this site should know what it means yet mynm was blasted for his use of shorthand. This does somewhat backup the argument for tribalism that has been mentioned on the forum, "if u dont understand us go away" or "if u dont agree with us you're wrong"

Cheers....
 

Stevowills

New Member
Also it makes little difference but i have absolutely no idea who alex jones is so thats what i'll be doing next, however piers morgan is an idiot sensationalist who only cares about ratings in america (see his boring long twitter war with alan sugar) so will put anybody on tv if it riles people up. I guess thinking about it that could cause a spark in somebody which either directly or indirectly leads to an attack of some kind.... Not sure this makes much sense but never mind it's getting posted......
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Transcripts of tapes made secretly by an informant, Emad A. Salem, quote him as saying he warned the Government that a bomb was being built. But the transcripts do not make clear the extent to which the Federal authorities knew that the target was the World Trade Center.

Reading that again, trying to understand their perspective and what it supposedly all "boils down to" given different perspectives.

Seriously?
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
As i'm new and favour nobody i thought my opinion may we worthwhile to a thread that seems locked in stalemate.

How often has history proven that people in power or positions where they can sway the masses will manipulate events to suit themselves and keep themselves in that position?

Thanks for posting, though the latter quote sounds a bit like bias, and doesn't sit well with the former.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Yeah. Pretty amazing that the FBI was right there sitting on the plot and so forth but now the intelligence services are saying that if only their budgets are bigger and if only everyone stops listening to Alex Jones and gives up their civil liberties that terrorism will be stopped.

*Same method used on 911, whistle blower:

**Same method used on 911, produced a different whistle blower:

See, what is so interesting Mynym, is you go to all the trouble of sourcing and posting this type of irrefutable information and it is shortly followed up by the debunkers cry of "Where are all these whistleblowers, why does no one speak up about the conspiracies... duh...perhaps because there are no conspiracies duh"?

The fact is, there are loads of whistle blowers and Obama is purging and gagging them with extreme prejudice, as fast as possible.

The evidence is overwhelming and the debunkers take pride in deny, deny, deny. 'To what absolute absurd degree can we deny the patently obvious'? 'Oh, I can deny the patently obvious to an absurder level than you can'.... 'No you can't'.... 'Yes I can'....
 

Stevowills

New Member
That second quote isnt my opinion it is fact so therefore shows no personal bias. To take the two out of context to make your point is propaganda and reflects your own bias and lack of willingness to listen to anyone who doesnt agree
I personally am somewhere in the middle, dont believe in lizard men but dont blindly follow what the masses say just because numbers are on their side.
An example of people in power trying to cling on is the Suez Crisis, had Britain got its own way it would have retained some power in Egypt and thus the money making canal. Influencing a war for money in basic terms. Again i may not be puttin things across as well as others but i dont think you are ignorant enough to not know the point im making
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
I've just found this site and spent the last couple of hours browsing. As i'm new and favour nobody i thought my opinion may we worthwhile to a thread that seems locked in stalemate.
I think almost every single person posting in the forum refuses point blank to listen to reason. Both sides use fact and opinion when it suits. I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist but it's fairly naive to assume everything you have learned in life is true, whether it be through education, the media, politicians or the internet. How often has history proven that people in power or positions where they can sway the masses will manipulate events to suit themselves and keep themselves in that position?
Anyway i may not be the most educated or particularly good at putting across my opinion, i'm not the most well educated person but i consider myself both reasonable and logical. I haven't got a specific wikipedia page to quote from but the lack of such does not mean it doesn't exist it just means I'm on my phone and am basically not great with forums.

I would also argue that the guy mynm(?) sorry can't scroll up on my phone has not been particularly hard to understand or follow, i have no idea what gish gallop is? Somebody pointed out that basically anyone on this site should know what it means yet mynm was blasted for his use of shorthand. This does somewhat backup the argument for tribalism that has been mentioned on the forum, "if u dont understand us go away" or "if u dont agree with us you're wrong"

Cheers....


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

"The formal debating jargon term for this is spreading.[1] It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bullshit on the practice, like the internet, such techniques are remarkably common."


I had not know what a gish gallop had been either before seeing the tern used in these forums in relation to mynyn posts, upon looking up the definition I had to agree that was exactly what he had been doing.... as if in imitation of Alex Jones in this interview on the BBC.

Also it makes little difference but i have absolutely no idea who alex jones is so thats what i'll be doing next, however piers morgan is an idiot sensationalist who only cares about ratings in america (see his boring long twitter war with alan sugar) so will put anybody on tv if it riles people up. I guess thinking about it that could cause a spark in somebody which either directly or indirectly leads to an attack of some kind.... Not sure this makes much sense but never mind it's getting posted......



https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1756-Alex-Jones-BBC-Sunday-Politics-Meltdown

Just tried to list all the things he referenced in 5 minutes, as it's quite fascinating the complex world view he's developed.


  • Flouride in water caused 7x increase in bone cancer
  • BBC got documents that Bilderberg helped found the Euro
  • The Euro was a Nazi German plan to take over countries economically
  • Lockheed scandals in the '70s caused SS Officer, founder of Bilderberg, to step down
  • Jones has forced Bilderberg from cover to admit they are puppeteers above the major parties.
  • infowars.com!
  • NY times denied bilderberg even existed 5 years ago
  • Jones and his wife got death threats because of his expose
  • They listen to everybody's phone lines and call up and harass people who expose them
  • The spying is like Nazi Germany
  • A UK minister said that too.
  • Tyranny!
  • infowars.com!
  • They don't kill Alex because then he's be a martyr
  • Megabanks get $85 Billion a month of taxpayer money, mostly going to Europe and England
  • People have been acclimated to spying now
  • We are in a Police State
  • BBC is part of the conspiracy, and is trying to "manage" Alex.
  • Alex has a large audience
  • Cancer virus in vaccines for eugenics is "on record"
  • Tuskegee syphilis experiments
  • Porton Down nerve gas experiments
  • (Shouting) Here to warn people, this isn't a game.
  • FEMA Camps
  • NDAA "disappearing" people
  • Arrest for public safety with life in prison
  • infowars.com!
  • Liberty is rising! Liberty is rising! Freedom will not stop! You will not stop freedom! You will not stop the republic. Humanity is awakening.
  • infowars.com!
  • No, you guys are crazy!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stevowills

New Member
My point being that he was lambasted for use of shorthand people could apparently not keep up with yet i read all his posts fairly easily and it was infact gish gallop i did not understand. Do u see my point? The meaning of the word is irrelevant....... Again i dont agree with following the masses so was pointing out something that others seemed to have missed
 

Stevowills

New Member
Thanks just found that thread and video, he is a ridiculous person who i would agree with most members is putting on a performance
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I would also argue that the guy mynm(?) sorry can't scroll up on my phone has not been particularly hard to understand or follow...

Don't worry about me, friend... I never get trampled by a herd once it forms based on how its information is flowing. If it's looking like it may stampede then I tend to just step aside and watch it settle as each "skeptical" member gets back to sniffing the butt of another while pretending that nothing stinks. But there I go again, using metaphors and colorful language. So how about thousands of pages of studies on crowd dynamics, psychology and so on to try to connect mere metaphors and colorful imagery with some dots/facts? No, too boring... so, giddy up.

In any event, I was listening to Alex Jones today since people here keep talking about him. (I stopped listening before because I got tired of his "fear loop" way of being loopy sometimes.) But guess what, as far as the half hour or so I listened to today he was right on point on the topic that he was talking about. Anyone that's higher information content would know that, while the lower information content types might think that he's "crazy." A satire: "They're spying on us? No, I'd imagine that there would be hundreds of whistle blowers and that I'd stop eating Twinkies long enough to know about them or somethin'. Plus I'm not feeling happy and safe now. Safety first! There, that's better. Shew."

I'm not sure about the rest of his ideas or every single thing that Jones may or may not say... or the theatrical production of his reality show. I would actually prefer different production values and a different mindset than doom and gloom almost all the time. (The reason that I stopped listening.) But basically, the actual information he was talking about with respect to the NSA and Snowden and the long "doom and gloom" history of building up the surveillance infrastructure for a growing police state* was basically sound. (I still wouldn't get too loopy about it, all technology is dual use. But we do need more people like Snowden and others to put aside their happiness/safety first and nothing to see here, move along with the herd mentality and actually pick more of it up and use it. Just saying. RIP Aaron Swartz)

It's mynym, by the way... loosely associated with Anonymous.

*I.e. suckers/mammals being incorporated into building their own cages, etc. No conscious conspiracy necessary, at most levels of it. After all, there's a sucker born every minute.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
See, what is so interesting Mynym, is you go to all the trouble of sourcing and posting this type of irrefutable information and it is shortly followed up by the debunkers cry of "Where are all these whistleblowers, why does no one speak up about the conspiracies... duh...perhaps because there are no conspiracies duh"?

The fact is, there are loads of whistle blowers and Obama is purging and gagging them with extreme prejudice, as fast as possible.

The evidence is overwhelming and the debunkers take pride in deny, deny, deny. 'To what absolute absurd degree can we deny the patently obvious'? 'Oh, I can deny the patently obvious to an absurder level than you can'.... 'No you can't'.... 'Yes I can'....

I'd be more than happy to discuss these whistleblowers. Did you watch the videos?

Perhaps we could make a list of the 9/11 whistleblowers and what they say about controlled demolition?

(I'll move this to another thread if it gets interesting)
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Flouride in water caused 7x increase in bone cancer

Bone defects possibly linked to fluoride had been noticed at Newburgh back in 1955, after just ten years of water fluoridation. A radiologist, Dr. John Caffey of Colombia University, called the effects "striking" in their "similarity" to bone cancer. They were detected on X-rays and seen more than twice as frequently among boys in Newburgh as among boys in nonfluoridated Kingston. ... In 1977 a National Academy of Sciences panel took a second look at Dr. Caffey's report, which had been published in 1955. The Newburgh cancer clue had "never been followed up," the experts said. "It would be important to have direct evidence that osteogenic sarcoma [bone cancer] rates in males under 30 have not increased with fluoridation," the panel said.
Also in 1977 Congress discovered that despite a quarter century of endorsing water fluoridation, federal health authorities had never cancer-tested fluoride. When cancer tests were finally performed twelve years later, it was found that fluoride caused excess bone cancers in young male rats. (The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson :222)
Etc.
  • BBC got documents that Bilderberg helped found the Euro
  • The Euro was a Nazi German plan to take over countries economically



Lockheed scandals in the '70s caused SS Officer, founder of Bilderberg, to step down




  • Wasn't Petraeus at Bilderburg this year? Why do you suppose that is?
 

Stevowills

New Member
Sorry i should have paid more attention i hate people getting my name wrong......

The more i see of him the more i see a charicature, what your average joe thinks of when picturing a conspiracy theorist. However it takes more than an idiot to hide that some of the points being made are valid.

Heres something which im sure will make some people laugh but i genuinely dont understand. I have no real idea about the whole fluoride in water thing. What exactly is the purpose? Is it for our health? If so i would understand that here in England but not america where you have to pay for medical care and that whole obama care thing kicked up such a fuss. Maybe fluoride is free to put in but surely not? So, why does the US government care enough about health to put fluoride in water but stand so firmly against universal healthcare? There may actually be a proper reason, anyone? And im not being sarcastic i genuinely dont get it?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Heres something which im sure will make some people laugh but i genuinely dont understand. I have no real idea about the whole fluoride in water thing. What exactly is the purpose? Is it for our health? If so i would understand that here in England but not america where you have to pay for medical care and that whole obama care thing kicked up such a fuss. Maybe fluoride is free to put in but surely not? So, why does the US government care enough about health to put fluoride in water but stand so firmly against universal healthcare? There may actually be a proper reason, anyone? And im not being sarcastic i genuinely dont get it?

It's for dental health. It's not a US government thing, it's done at the local municipality supply level (in the US). Often individual towns will vote on if they want it or not.
https://www.google.com/search?q=town+vote+fluoridation
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
They listen to everybody's phone lines and call up and harass people who expose them.

This one was interesting.

And he didn't even mention the "conspiracy theory" that people and top secret factions may be using the information that they get from all the spying that goes on for insider trading, blackmail or building up their "hidden hand" secret societies and so forth. (Of course, for Congress insider trading is legal anyway... )
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I have no real idea about the whole fluoride in water thing. What exactly is the purpose? Is it for our health?

Seems unlikely, given its history. It's more likely that it was merely a way for the military industrial complex to get rid of toxic waste*, seems to me. People with a herd mentality will generally believe anything if you tell them it's for their health and safety. That's all it seems to amount to.

*
Water fluoridation is the practice of adding industrial-grade fluoride chemicals to water for the purpose of preventing tooth decay. One of the little known facts about this practice is that the United States, which fluoridates over 70% of its water supplies, has more people drinking fluoridated water than the rest of the world combined. Most developed nations, including all of Japan and 97% of western Europe, do not fluoridate their water. Fluoride Action Network

I filter it out with reverse osmosis. Figure the only "tribe" I'm interested in being a member in probably gets enough of a daily dose by bathing in it, washing food in it, drinking it whenever we're at a restaurant and so forth.

that whole obama care thing kicked up such a fuss.

We do prefer to make a fuss about things. But in the end both Romney Inc. and Obama Inc. were both going to make us pay more to the financial services industry and into the bankster's paper ponzi for one reason or another. I actually prefer the safety first excuses of the welfare state as opposed to war within the warfare/welfare paradigm that the banksters have built. One thing is certain, those that own our puppets will be able to continue creating more and more money/debt out of nothing. That's written into the system. But think about it this way as the paradigm of "full faith and credit" seems to begin to groan from its own excessive weight, if everyone in the world is in debt now and has tons and tons of money/debt... to who are they in debt to?

Maybe fluoride is free to put in but surely not?

No, I'm pretty sure they actually pay corporations for their toxic waste and so forth.



So, why does the US government care enough about health to put fluoride in water but stand so firmly against universal healthcare?

People are misguided, dumb and corrupt and so forth. One could write thousands of pages but that's all it seems to amount to.

There may actually be a proper reason, anyone? And im not being sarcastic i genuinely dont get it?

Ironically natives and indigenous people had healthier teeth before they were given a high sugar diet by "civilization"* and so forth. So look at it this way, after the government subsidizes the corn industry so that everything has high fructose corn syrup in it and the soda companies dump food grade phosphates in their sodas and so forth... then they need to add some fluoride in there to keep it healthy.

But even after all that, Boomberg says that some sodas are too big to drink. I wonder if the American people are rapidly growing too big to fail with all this chatter about being too big by their ruling classes.

In any event, at least most seem to have a lot of fat saved up for the lean years that are ahead if people like Bloomberg and the banksters screw something up in the derivatives markets again.

*But I'm reminded of a picture of a guy with no teeth vs. his brother who stayed in the countryside and still had a full set of good gleaming teeth even without dumping toxic substances in the water and so forth. The guy with almost no teeth said something along the lines of: "I prefer civilization. So give me more donuts!" Whatever the issue is, it's still a matter of personal preference. And apparently some mammals/suckers prefer to keep pushing the button to release a sugary solution to their problems even if they're starving to death, in reality. I empathize with them... but on a different level as far as Maslow's hierarchy of needs goes. Yet what I tend to dislike is when people mistake their personal preferences and forms of entertainment within the context of civilization for a perfectly objective and "skeptical" view of reality. After all, it would be my preference that people didn't do that. In any event, with some people you can show them the empirical evidence: "Here's the indigenous person... see how their teeth seem fine but yours don't?" and they'll still reject it: "Dump fluoride in the water.. official reports... conspiracy theories... uh, safety first or somethin'!" Etc.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
I'd be more than happy to discuss these whistleblowers. Did you watch the videos?

Perhaps we could make a list of the 9/11 whistleblowers and what they say about controlled demolition?

(I'll move this to another thread if it gets interesting)

Agree, at least three times recently pro 9/11 conspiracy friends have referred to 'all the whistleblowers', yet have been unable to name any.

Seems to be a pretty powerful topic that people don't take the time to flesh out with the facts, in my circle at least.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Sorry i should have paid more attention i hate people getting my name wrong......

The more i see of him the more i see a charicature, what your average joe thinks of when picturing a conspiracy theorist. However it takes more than an idiot to hide that some of the points being made are valid.

Heres something which im sure will make some people laugh but i genuinely dont understand. I have no real idea about the whole fluoride in water thing. What exactly is the purpose? Is it for our health? If so i would understand that here in England but not america where you have to pay for medical care and that whole obama care thing kicked up such a fuss. Maybe fluoride is free to put in but surely not? So, why does the US government care enough about health to put fluoride in water but stand so firmly against universal healthcare? There may actually be a proper reason, anyone? And im not being sarcastic i genuinely dont get it?

The system we have in the UK is essentially the same as the US but it is done at the request of the Primary Care Trust(s). There should be a public consultation and a vote however a strange state of affairs exists in Southampton. The vote essentially went against the health authority and it went to court. Even the council did not want it but the court ruled that the water should be fluoridated. Some 4 years later there is still a fight on http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/103...ampton_homes__is_plan_now_dead_in_the_water_/
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
See, what is so interesting Mynym, is you go to all the trouble of sourcing and posting this type of irrefutable information...

I think you'll find that nothing is irrefutable when people have formed a herd* or are willing to cite their own imaginations as the epistemic equivalent of evidence. After all, why should Chomsky Inc. try to focus on the real whistle blowers when he can cite imaginary whistle blowers instead while keeping his job? The interesting thing about it, people who can't keep their eye on the ball are convinced by stuff like that. Nothing against them, at all... I'm sure that they have their own skill set and they're great and caring people and so forth. But "skepticism" isn't one of them or else they would probably see through the rhetorical sleights of hand through which Chomsky protects himself and his interests. (I'd like to see him debate Gilad Atzmon.)

Side note, Sibel Edmonds is pleading for money on Boilings Frog Post again. Things would probably be simpler for her if she was incorporated into Zionist networks in which people maintain the ability to create money out of nothing and so forth. That's becoming the real test of truth... whether it shows up in a big fat guy like Jones having to sell tangy tangerine or a former FBI agent pleading for money. But at least they didn't have to move to Australia and so forth like another whistle blower on the Zionist/Fascist Inc.** factions of false flag criminals that seem to be in charge of the warfare side of the warfare/welfare state. Another side note, they and those incorporated into their tribe and factions don't view themselves as criminals and so forth as I would argue. That's the interesting thing about it.

*Having lower IQs after believing what "official sources say" about fluoride probably doesn't help much either.

**If that's a tribal "trigger" in your mind and you feel like going off to try to identify me with occupy/anti-Semite/hateful alien from another planet territory then just leave it at that. I am nothing that the tribe here seems to be imagining, so here's an idea... try to focus on what is being written (theory) and its explanatory power with respect to evidence (fact).
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
**If that's a tribal "trigger" in your mind and you feel like going off to try to identify me with occupy/anti-Semite/hateful alien from another planet territory then just leave it at that. I am nothing that the tribe here seems to be imagining, so here's an idea... try to focus on what is being written (theory) and its explanatory power with respect to evidence (fact).
Although you seem to have no problem with categorizing us and others.

But you are not willing to follow your own advice.

Don't come to the conclusion that we are refusing to speak to the evidence.....it's that you continue to bring up too many topics at one time, then claim we "can't/won't speak to them. That is the function of a gish gallop.
Side notes are not a way out of a gish. In some ways a gish gallop is nothing but side notes........a whole bunch of them.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The only 'tribe' I belong to is the HUMAN one. You don't seem to like it that I want fall for your 'belief system' when all it seems intend to do is to dazzle folks with opinions based on shear nonsense and an amount of what appears to be to be hatred of one group of folks.

Direct question to you, mynym. Do you believe the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is true?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Direct question to you, mynym. Do you believe the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is true?

I haven't read it. Have you?

You don't seem to like it that I want fall for your 'belief system' when all it seems intend to do is to dazzle folks with opinions...

You must already be falling for it, otherwise you wouldn't be looking to tribalism to reify your own apparently clueless "belief system," nice and caring as you are. If you care... and I believe that you do, then let's try to stop the military industrial complex (inc.) and everything that it tends to result in instead of attacking its critics as "conspiracy theorists" and terrorists. After all, the people who create the wars and terrism all around the world have probably attended one too many Cremation of Care ceremonies.

With respect to the tribalism that some people "conspired" to bring about here, here's a comment on CNN's Snowden story, 89 upvotes and only 4 down:
The facts, the FBI didn't stop the Boston boys even if they had meetings with them and were in the process of spying on them. They didn't stop Osama even when CNN found him and they were already spying on him. (Synthetic Terrorism by Webster Tarpley) So the facts demonstrate that it doesn't matter if you give up all your liberties and privacy, that won't stop the type of terrorism being created by the intelligence services that serve your oligarchs. They don't serve you and other pawns on The Grand Chessboard, so the people that you want to keep you safe aren't even necessarily interested in your safety. They are to some extent... but it's not as if they're putting your safety before the interests of the multinational corporations and the oligarchs that employ them. That's why you can never give up enough of your civil liberties to them to be kept "safe."
Plus one: "Best comment ever written." with 14 upvotes. (May the herd be with me.) Plus another comment with 65 up and 1 down... and the one down said something along the lines of: "You just used the word oligarchs to look smart... or somethin'." In other words, they're "skeptical" (cough).

I like to imagine that I don't need a herd to form around me and so forth but perhaps I do. In any event, these are some of the reasons why your "skeptical" attempts to manufacture consensus (a hallmark of pseudo-science) to protect your collectively clueless ideas about terrism* didn't work. We need better conspiracy theories to understand how people are or may be conspiring just as they always have, not no conspiracy theories.

*Your theory, it's all grass roots and organic and therefore may be caused by Youtube videos or talk radio just like Hillary and Bill say. Is that a fair summary?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
In some ways a gish gallop is nothing but side notes........a whole bunch of them.

Shrug. The reason this doesn't convince me is because the Gish Gallop wouldn't apply, at all, on the internet.

In any event, side note... I'm going to connect your random brain events emerging from the void to something or other here in a second. Wait a second... order out of chaos, something out of nothing... ok, here you go. Ironically the Gish Gallop itself (Or what I can make of it.) sounds like something a public relations person like Dawkins would come up with after losing debates. Something along the lines of: "I could have beat them in theory. I really could have! It's just that I couldn't, in fact, beat them at that time... or somethin'. So here's this other more elaborate theory about why I failed. I would succeed if we debated again. Imagine that! It's just that I won't, in fact, debate anymore."

Etc.etc.

I'm not bringing too many topics up at one time, most of it is just having some fun with the numerous defense mechanisms that people tend to use. It's certainly possible that I shouldn't do that... but it's fun, so I do. Regardless of all that, I'm deadly serious about the necessity of real skeptics* coming up with better conspiracy theories and better theories of terrorism that have explanatory power in reality instead of sitting around trying to imagine that whoever they don't like for cultural reasons are responsible for terrorism. (Or that they potentially, could be, in an imaginary world... basically responsible for terrorism.)

*I.e. real skeptics and not the public relations people marketing skepticism within the "scientific" State that Masonic networks built up or low level apologists for the "order out of chaos" creation myths that they gave to "the base" in order to keep top secret knowledge for themselves, etc. I mean real skepticism... I can dream, can't I?
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
Shrug. The reason this doesn't convince me is because the Gish Gallop wouldn't apply, at all, on the internet.

In any event, side note... I'm going to connect your random brain events emerging from the void to something or other here in a second. Wait a second... order out of chaos, something out of nothing... ok, here you go. Ironically the Gish Gallop itself (Or what I can make of it.) sounds like something a public relations person like Dawkins would come up with after losing debates. Something along the lines of: "I could have beat them in theory. I really could have! It's just that I couldn't, in fact, beat them at that time... or somethin'. So here's this other more elaborate theory about why I failed. I would succeed if we debated again. Imagine that! It's just that I won't, in fact, debate anymore."

Etc.etc.

I'm not bringing too many topics up at one time, most of it is just having some fun with the numerous defense mechanisms that people tend to use. It's certainly possible that I shouldn't do that... but it's fun, so I do. Regardless of all that, I'm deadly serious about the necessity of real skeptics* coming up with better conspiracy theories and better theories of terrorism that have explanatory power in reality instead of sitting around trying to imagine that whoever they don't like for cultural reasons are responsible for terrorism. (Or that they potentially, could be, in an imaginary world... basically responsible for terrorism.)

*I.e. not public relations people for the "scientific" State that Masonic networks built up or low level apologists for the "order out of chaos" creation myths that they gave to "the base" in order to keep top secret knowledge for themselves, etc. I mean real skepticism... I can dream, can't I?

mynym: I have to ask if you have read and understand the politeness policy that members of the discussion board are asked to respect? I am doubtful that you talk like this in non-anonymous settings.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1224-Politeness-Policy
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Shrug...


In any event, side note... I'm going to connect your random brain events emerging from the void to something or other here in a second. Wait a second... order out of chaos, something out of nothing...

Etc.etc.

....

*I.e. real skeptics and not the public relations people marketing skepticism within the "scientific" State that Masonic networks built up or low level apologists for the "order out of chaos" creation myths that they gave to "the base" in order to keep top secret knowledge for themselves, etc. I mean real skepticism... I can dream, can't I?


Seriously, what the feck are you talking about? There was one paragraph that actually contained information. Your signal to noise ratio is low.
Or are you somehow encoding your sentences to activate subconscious responses according to where you deem we are in the eight-circuit model of consciousness?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I'd be more than happy to discuss these whistleblowers. Did you watch the videos?

Perhaps we could make a list of the 9/11 whistleblowers and what they say about controlled demolition?

(I'll move this to another thread if it gets interesting)
'

Yes it is interesting. I had already seen the RT, Sibel Edmonds, one but the 'cia, visa's for terrorists' one was new to me.

Why would you want to restrict it to controlled demolition only?

I think a better thread would be something along the lines of a 'Comprehensive CT whistle blowers list'. The CT scandals are far ranging but also closely linked and intertwined; many needing the other aspects in order to survive.

Naturally the whistle blowers are attacked/discredited on many levels and perhaps this is what debunkers actually mean when they continually state, 'Why are there no whistle blowers'? Perhaps the question actually pertains to 'credibility', as in being 'officially recognised', :).
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
terrist [terrorist I assume, since I don't know what your first language is I've been ignoring that] cells and privateering is typically an artifact of ruling class of oligarchs and their intelligence services... e.g. the Clintons and the Bushes/Bin Ladens in modern times, etc.?

Clinton is part of a ruling class of oligarchs? Really? Do you know where he was born and the family he came from? Hardly ruling oligarchs.

At least, that's what I'd imagine the perspective must be from the "skeptical" way of imagining modern creation myths that's been giving to "the base" by the Masonic networks that the Darwins were incorporated in. I'd imagine it as something along the lines of a void, a Big Bang, some mating habits of ancient ape like creatures, some modern marketing of creation myths and the invention of iconic Cave Men... and here you are as a """"skeptic""""? Better throw in a few imaginary worm like creatures and a return trip back into the void in the end, I'd imagine.)

This is the second time you've posted gibberish about Darwin, creation myths, Masons and such. What is your point here? Why can't people who come to this site to debate just lay out what they believe in one concise post? Why does it have to be like an afternoon soap opera where you can come back a month later and essentially be on the same page.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
People often engage in false forms of pattern recognition and so forth... that's basic knowledge with respect to "the base." It would be more interesting to focus on the priests of knowledge closer to the top of the pyramid scheme who never seem to conclude that they need to sacrifice themselves to make the sun move across the sky or stop blowing things up to prevent global warming (cough)... climate change.

Blowing things up causes global warming?

Interesting thing about it, when people with an "elite" or "top secret" mentality used to do this stuff in the past no one would notice because they couldn't look down from the sky and see the pattern. After all, it's usually all "top secret." And if you look at "the base" or what some call the sheeple trampling each other to death at Walmart or others that seem to be fit for nothing but shearing by banksters or being led like lambs to the slaughter by their ruling classes... then you understand that type of higher or "top secret" type of perspective.

Why do conspiracy theorists speak with such SNEERING CONTEMPT for everyone else? It seems as if these CTs feel they belong to a type of ELITE GROUP who are above the masses and what they consider the dregs of society. Sounds as if they are like the very group they fear. INteresting.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Can't you just communicate without using carefully crafted and brazenly flourished buzz-words and phrases that are supposed to impress on others the depth of your erudition?
You haven't used 'epistemic inertia' for a while.


Thank you Pete Tar.

And learn to spell "terrorist".
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
here's a comment on CNN's Snowden story, 89 upvotes and only 4 down:
Plus one: "Best comment ever written." with 14 upvotes. (May the herd be with me.)

If you are not part of 'a herd', you are powerless to effect change unless your herd is growing. There is nothing wrong with a herd mentality per se, (and of course it does not preclude individuality), in fact it is an essential survival trait.

I think the problem arises when people abdicate input into the herd and follow blindly.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
And you divide the world into "sheeple," who are too stupid to see what's really going on, and those disposed to an "elitist" mentality, who seek status by carrying water for a nefarious global conspiracy. So in your view, we are either stupid or evil, which hardly seems to be a reasonable starting point for someone who earnestly seeks to learn anything from discussion here.

The ironic thing is, since he isn't one of the sheeple, what is he? WHat are conspiracy theorists? Members of the ELITE obviously.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Trailblazer Reutlingen Fake UFO Video 2013 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
Leifer Orb in baby monitor, Long Island Medium (2013) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 10
deirdre Debunked: The band on Lanza's hat wasnt used by Flexfit until 2013 Sandy Hook 27
TEEJ Reported Fireball in Oregon Sky - 20th November 2013 [Sunset contrail] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 9
Jarmey 657 Strange sighting over Kent 10th Oct 2013 [Long Exposure of Star] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 26
xenon The Other Side – Bashar al-Assad Interview with Izvestia 9/2/2013 General Discussion 4
Mick West The Amazing Meeting 2013 - My Impressions Practical Debunking 13
Boodles National Scout Jamboree 2013 Conspiracy Theories 257
Rroval Video: "BREAKING!!! UFO ALIEN DISCLOSURE by Canadian Minister of Defense May 2013 " UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 13
Mick West Debunked: 2013 NDAA Thornberry amendment, domestic propaganda, disinformation Conspiracy Theories 12
JFDee Insight into Infowars, Alex Jones General Discussion 2
Mick West Alex Jones Deplatforming and Related Conspiracy Theories Current Events 49
Dan Wilson Debunked: Infowars product damages sperm Health and Quackery 2
deirdre Debunked: Alex Jones claims kids '[walking around firehouse] with hands up' in Megan Kelly interview Sandy Hook 1
Mick West Debunked: Foley's Sister Katie Foley vs Lanza's Friend Alex Israel [Not the Same Person] Conspiracy Theories 105
David Alex Jones Video: Government Weather Manipulation Exposed Conspiracy Theories 129
Jay Reynolds Alex Atamenko Canadian MP petition and new lawsuit fundraising Contrails and Chemtrails 37
MichaelStox Joe Rogan on the Alex Jones Show (On 9-11-2001) General Discussion 0
Alhazred The Sane Alex Jones & the Navy Yard Shootings Conspiracy Theories 1
AluminumTheory Alex Jones' and his Moon Landing Conspiracy. Conspiracy Theories 18
Mick West Alex Jones vs. BeforeItsNews.com - conspiracy theorist infighting Conspiracy Theories 39
Mick West Alex Jones BBC Sunday Politics Meltdown Conspiracy Theories 48
Mick West How Much Money Does Alex Jones Make? People Debunked 17
AluminumTheory Website traffic and radio audience of Alex Jones, Infowars, Prison Planet, etc. People Debunked 2
Clock Alex Jones- Debunked! People Debunked 239
SR1419 Debunked: Alex Jones People Debunked 135
Mick West Debunked: Secrets of Prometheus Film Leaked - Alex Jones Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Alex Jones, PJ Watson, Geoengineering: Our Environment Under Attack Contrails and Chemtrails 12
S Alex Jones new rant on GMOs People Debunked 10
J Paul Joseph Watson (writing for Alex Jones, “Infowars”) and Fukushima Conspiracy Theories 1
Related Articles






























Related Articles

Top