'9/11 Inside Job Denialists'

[conspiracy analyst]

10 Ways Old Conspiracies Resuface to Support Old Lies

1. JFK was killed by a single gun, by a lone gunman yet no evidence EVER showed that that was either possilbe physically or scientifically. They even made a film questioning its central premise but it is repeated ad nauseum...

2. The Lusitania wasn't sunk by the US armed forces to enter WWI. Neither did they know about Pearl Harbour beforehand despite making a film showing precisely that. Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened despite everybody knowing now it was the cassus belli for the escalation of the Vietnam war.

3. Seeing Elvis in a supermarket is always mentioned as a way of 'proving' that the official story of everything is always the only plausible one...

4. Diana was killed exactly as it was reported so was Dr. David Kelly. To believe anything else brings you back to believing other 'conspiracies'. So believe in none. Just believe what the government tells you.

5. Despite multiple versions of one story, every real conspiracy has only one belief, what the government tells you. Anything else is a conspiracy. Believe in multiple versions of the one truth. 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy because it ...was!

6. Where logic ends 9/11 inside job denialists begin. Ever tried arguing simple points that a picture from a CCTV camera is no evidence of anything, never was, never will be. Someone walking from point A to B shows nothing.

7. 9/11 inside job denialists are more akin to the Catholic Churches flat earthers. Everything boils down in the end to a matter of belief. A belief that the laws of physics can be suspended, that the laws of science can be reverted. Bringing flat earthers down to earth makes you a heretic.

8. The more people believe 9/11 was an inside job, the more the organised forces of the state, journalists, politicians, radio talk hosts will be in denial about the past, the present and the future. For to believe anything else would make them in their eyes what in reality they already are, crackpots.

9. Even if every lie regarding 9/11 was ironed out beforehand, even if the scarlet pimpernel of 'terrorism' ever surfaced from Hollywood Osama Bin Laden, it would still be impossible to believe if told by a bunch of war criminals, spivs, gangsters and liars, commonly known as the neo-cons.

10. What is the difference between denialists in different aspects of life? Here is a question the 9/11 inside job denialists will never answer as they always pick out the best from the past, that nearly absolutely everyone dismisses to defend their current lies...

[Bushwacker]

Gosh, a brand new conspiracy theory! No one has previously suggested that the Lusitania was sunk by US forces. Have you some new evidence that Kapitänleutnant Walther Schwieger doctored U20's log when he claimed to have sunk her? How exciting!

[conspiracy analyst]

admitting Osama Bin Laden wasn't responsible for 9/11 may become a 'thought crime', like other 'denialists' on other issues.

Assuming the history of the USA isn't one of provocations, fake cassus bellis is assuming that Osama is alive and well.

Works well if you want a story to frighten you kid at kindergarten, but in the real world, or real wars and real invasions everyone knows its made up.

Who sunk the Lusitania, who attacked a US ship at the Gulf of Tonkin, you tell me. You seem to support every official conspiracy theory going back in time.

Like I have told you before your real identity isn't Bushwacker but Bushlicker, like the bosses you support of the new world order.

[conspiracy analyst]

http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-1/ww1.htm

as you assume most were born yesterday, like yourself, history is a lot more complex and less simple.

There is no man in a cave organising international terrorism.

There are though men with the minds of cavemen who want to send us back to the stone age. But they wear suits are educated at the most prestigious universities and plot behind closed doors and walls.

[Bushwacker]

[marky 54]

[Bushwacker]

[Batrabill]

Priceless. (Only back to enjoy the joke, I promise)

How do you know there wasn't a conspiracy?

So conspiracy is the default situation?

Now it's up to us Liars (TM - I thought of it first. If a Truther look like this I'd rather be a liar) to prove there wasn't a conspiracy?


Sigh

[/list]

[marky 54]

[Johnny Pixels]

[marky 54]

[conspiracy analyst]

[quote="Bushwacker"]

[conspiracy analyst]

the Yanks sank the Lusitania. I did not imply they physically sank it although that is how it has come out. I meant that they have placed it in harms way knowing it will be sunk thus creating the conditions of a cassus belli to enter WW1.

The Yanks didn't blow up Pearl Harbour. But knowing in advance it is going to be bombed doing nothing about it is equivalent to doing the job yourself.

That is why a majority of people believe in collusion/or actual inside job of the US government.

As times have progressed since the era of Pearl harbour I believe they did it to themselves openly and clearly with no questions asked as the press is in their pockets. I mean who would ask questions?

The Maxwell, Murdoch, Black proprietors? Give me a break. A bigger chance in converting Dracula off blood than these papers to not print lies.

Their medium is the lie. Truth does not sell. Never has so far.

[Bushwacker]

It would be truer to say that your medium is the lie, conspirator.

You are now trying to weasel out of what you wrote, but "The Yanks sank the Lusitania by placing it in harm's way" is still as nonsensical as your first effort, and is not supported by anything you can quote. The Yanks had no ability to direct the ship, the site you quote repeats the theory that Winston Churchill contrived to get the ship sunk. Spot the difference?

Talking about a man in a cave planning 9/11 as the "official story" is another lie. There is no reason why living in a cave prevents you from planning such an operation, but Al Qaeda and bin Laden were actually living in quite an elaborate headquarters when 9/11 was planned.

That FDR knew in advance of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is the theory of one US historian, disputed strongly by every other historian of the period. It makes little sense that FDR, as a former naval man, would risk severe damage to the US fleet in order to start what would inevitably be a largely naval war. But it is a valid theory.

"As if the country with a nuclear shield couldn't track 4 planes that hit at its military headquarters or went off radar." is an absurdly simplistic statement. All NORAD defences were outward facing, and with 4000 planes in the air at any one time, keeping track of them using primary radar is quite impracticable. However, I doubt you have done the slightest research on that either.

I have not supported Bush in anything at all, apart from believing him innocent of organising 9/11, he is quite possibly the worst ever US president, certainly in terms of foreign policy. You are lying there again.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want, even quite implausible conspiracy theories you only half understand, but not to lie in support of them.

[Johnny Pixels]

[Batrabill]

"The Atlantic Ocean is a big place and slow ships can be tracked"

Do you read this stuff before you post it?

[marky 54]

[Johnny Pixels]

[marky 54]

[Johnny Pixels]

[conspiracy analyst]

[Bushwacker]

[conspiracy analyst]

[pepik]

I think if Pearl Harbour was done 911 style according to the CTers it would have been Chinese spies planting bombs which the US would have used as an excuse to invade Japan and take over their car companies even though we never actually took over their car companies but still the point is there were some jews spotted eating sushi in Honolulu.

[Mark Gobell]

Chaps.

You may like to avail yourselves of the account given by Lt. Commander Joseph Kenworthy given in his book called Freedom of the Seas.

Commander Kenworthy was at the Admiralty meeting where the decision to withdraw the cruiser Juno from escorting the Lusitania was taken.

Disgusted that this decision was taken, Kenworthy withdrew from the conference, in part due to the fact that a further decision was taken not to inform the Lusitania that it was to lose it's escort when the admiralty knew full well that the U boats were in the area as they had already sank two other ships.

Kenworthy suggests in his book that the decision to withdraw Juno was made so as to deliberately expose the Lusitania to the U boat threat.

[Bushwacker]

[Johnny Pixels]

[conspiracy analyst]

[Johnny Pixels]

[Bushwacker]