Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 23-07-2012, 04:02 PM   #1
lobuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Roger That
Posts: 21,944
Likes: 3,706 (2,108 Posts)
Default 'Truth Tellers Deserve an Apology'

Conspiracy Theorists Deserve An Apology

July 19, 2012

http://disquietreservations.blogspot...e-apology.html

Quote:

The world must apologize to 9/11 truth-tellers.

The reason why there is so much hate and scorn for 9/11 truth activists is because they are right and consistent. The destruction of the 9/11 myth and war on terror ideology is unbearable for the children who are emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically attached to the U.S. government and the Israeli government. They are under the delusion that these evil governments actually care about them, their security, and their future.

The mature men and women of America and the West are waking up and confronting the lies of 9/11 and 7/7. And this political awakening is not unique to America and Western civilization. There is a global political and spiritual awakening happening. All totalitarian regimes in the world will fail in hijacking history and they will fall into ruin. The state terrorists in Washington, London, and Tel Aviv have already lost the battle for history and the souls of mankind.

Alternative accounts of history and reality under totalitarian regimes have always been denounced by regime political mouthpieces as crazy and conspiratorial. And they always failed because truth and history were not on their side. The crazy and the conspiratorial were proven right in the end. This is what history shows, and especially the history of the demonic 20th century. So we should have hope and continue to speak the truth about 9/11 to wake up as many people as possible before the U.S. and Israeli governments blow up the whole world.

II. Unthinking and Regressive: Think Progress Attacks 9/11 Truth, Drudge Report, And Infowars

The political mouthpiece of the Obama administration called 'Think Progress' tried to shame and belittle Drudge Report for highlighting Infowars stories. Paul Joseph Watson writes in his article, "Obama Front Group Attacks Drudge For Linking To Infowars":

"Think Progress is a little more than a PR firm for the Obama administration. No wonder they are so terrified that thanks to traffic from Drudge, the likes of Infowars and World Net Daily have grown to become two of the most visible anti-Obama news outlets on the web.

Think Progress claims it is upset that Drudge is promoting what they call “conspiracy theories,” but in reality the root of the anger is that Drudge is providing a platform for some of the Obama administration’s most ardent critics."

Think Progress is not worth talking about. It is an irrelevant thought-control political operation. Their reporters defend myths and fallacies while putting down truth-tellers as conspiracy theorists. What they are doing is not only unjust but just plain stupid. They are embarrassing themselves. It is actually very sad.

Truth is more powerful than totalitarian propaganda. The mainstreaming of the 9/11 truth movement is unstoppable. 9/11 truth deniers should rejoin reality and admit that it is wrong to defend the official conspiracy theory that was spread by the Bush administration and Israeli government quickly after the traumatic events.

III. The Religious Nature of The 9/11 Deception and Propaganda

Author and Christian theologian David Ray Griffin explained why the belief in the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is religious in nature in his lecture in October 2007 called, "9-11 and Nationalistic Faith." Griffin was recently interviewed by Jan Frel of AlterNet in an article called, "David Ray Griffin: How a Retired Theologian Became a High-Priest of the 9/11 Truth Movement." Describing Dr. Griffin as a "High-Priest," suggesting that the 9/11 truth movement is somehow a new age mystery cult, is really aiming low.

9/11 truth has nothing to do with religion or priests. Scientific facts are the basis of the movement. Architects, engineers, chemists, scientists, and university professors are the leading spokespeople. Religious figures like Dr. Griffin have contributed great wisdom and understanding but to imply that the 9/11 truth movement is led by "priests" is a lie.

Priests are nowhere to be found in the 9/11 truth movement and that's okay because they are not needed. They are too busy defending evil empires on the pulpit and sacrificing moral principles for temporary power. Their days as the rulers of the spiritual life of Western civilization have come and gone.

Dr. Griffin is a noble exception, but, in general, Christianity has proven to be useless, corrupt, stupid, blind, and power-driven. The same is true for every other moronic religion that makes individuals submit their heart and soul to a corrupt clergy. The majority of Christians are too obsessed about the second coming and the holiness of Israel to really understand that 9/11 was an inside job committed by the occult elite in America and Israel. They don't want to admit that the criminal wars in the Middle East have nothing to do with defending the security of USrael.

What do priests and religious idiots offer humanity and the world? Nothing. They are absent in the battle for souls and the battle for freedom because they are corrupt, blind, and stupid. Expecting Christians to fight the totalitarian state and liberate America is laughable. I'm generalizing here, but Christians, Muslims, and religious Jews are the most tyrannical, greedy, hypocritical, hateful, soulless, and ungrateful people in the world. They want to have a monopoly on the human soul and human mind. What maniacs! And the totalitarian priests who head the CIA and Mossad are just as crazy and demented because they also want to monopolize the thoughts of citizens and control the growth of society.

The role of blind religious faith in preventing people from seeing the truth about 9/11 is big. American Christians, who have bought USrael's propaganda and blindly accept the official 9/11 story, feel no shame in calling for the destruction of Iran and the Muslim world. They make me sick. They don't realize that they're bringing destruction upon themselves by calling for the destruction of other nations and civilizations. As they say, what goes around comes around. If warmongering American Christians want death and destruction so much then they will get it in plenty, except the fires of hell won't burn in the Middle East alone, but in America as well.

IV. Conspiracy Theorists And 9/11 Truthers Deserve An Apology

Who is trying to stop World War III and wake the West up from its sleep? Progressives? No. Liberals? No. Conservatives? No. Christians? No. Journalists? No. They all believe in the official 9/11 deception, which is the ideological foundation that justifies USrael's aggressive wars in the Middle East.

9/11 truth-tellers, the "conspiracy theorists," have tried to wake up humanity in order to stop the USraeli government from starting the catastrophe of world war three. And for their efforts they have been slandered and smeared in the press. But the 9/11 truth movement still continues to grow by the day.

There is a simple reason why the rise of 9/11 truth cannot be contained by the USraeli government, and it is this: the age of slandering and smearing is over. Belittling people by calling them mentally ill conspiracy theorists and truthers is not working anymore. We embrace these terms. We are proud of being called conspiracy theorists because it means we're thinking.

Slandering and smearing Infowars and other alternative news websites is futile. It is a waste of time. Censorship, disinformation, and propaganda are failing. The global free market and global civil society have spoken. People want the news, not smears; truth, not lies; facts, not totalitarian propaganda; freedom, not tyranny; peace, not war.

Last edited by lobuk; 23-07-2012 at 04:05 PM.
lobuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2012, 04:07 PM   #2
ultimate_warlord
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Andromeda
Posts: 4,331
Likes: 4 (2 Posts)
Default

You said it, mate ! +1
ultimate_warlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2012, 04:59 PM   #3
mishy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 54 (42 Posts)
Default

__________________
mishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2012, 08:47 PM   #4
porridge
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: emigrating to Scotland..
Posts: 10,947
Likes: 1,651 (822 Posts)
Default

Its a dirty job but someone's gotta get rid of all that government bullshit these septics keep consuming.

porridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2012, 09:29 PM   #5
cjnewson88
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 50
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

9/11 'Truthers'..;

- Insist that the last words people heard from their loved ones before they were murdered were fake.

- Accuse Charles Burlingame and his family of being directly involved in covering up an attack on The Pentagon.

- Accuse Bernard Brown of sending his son away to die.

- Involve the FDNY in covering up the murder of 300 of their own brothers in the twin towers, as well as direct involvement with WTC7 (as per the 'pull it' claim)

- VicSims.

- Dylan Avery indirectly accusing the passengers of the flights of being cowards, claiming he would have 'laughed in the face' of the hijackers.

- And of course the wall-to-wall antisemitism.

And you say Truthers deserve an apology??? What a Joke.

Last edited by The Mighty Zhiba; 23-07-2012 at 11:25 PM. Reason: not nec
cjnewson88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2012, 10:11 PM   #6
macgyver1968
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,748
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
The reason why there is so much hate and scorn for 9/11 truth activists is because they are right and consistent.
Yeah right...consistent...thermite, explosives, no-planes, missiles, DEW's, mini-nukes, vicsims...etc...etc. If you throw a rock at a truther convention, you can't help but hit 3 different theories on what happened that day.

Last edited by The Mighty Zhiba; 23-07-2012 at 11:13 PM. Reason: please dont discuss moderation
macgyver1968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2012, 10:33 PM   #7
macgyver1968
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,748
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Ok...I have a layman's knowledge of physics...so I don't comment on the technical threads. I generally take the approach of common sense/logistics into my debunking.

Last edited by The Mighty Zhiba; 23-07-2012 at 11:16 PM. Reason: quote
macgyver1968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2012, 10:33 PM   #8
cjnewson88
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 50
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Disregard.

Last edited by cjnewson88; 23-07-2012 at 11:24 PM. Reason: quote ref
cjnewson88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2012, 10:34 PM   #9
dr steam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,930
Likes: 382 (234 Posts)
Default

God post OP

I would call it a little troll-like to come up with funny comments and insignificant observations on such an important issue even though this gives an expression of wanting to discuss and have a good debate ... a collective ignoring of such elements is commendable
__________________
"To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness; chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself.”
― Timothy Leary

Last edited by dr steam; 23-07-2012 at 11:12 PM.
dr steam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2012, 10:50 PM   #10
cjnewson88
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 50
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

If you must know, I don't often consider myself a "debunker", I just know a lot about what truthers believe and what rebuts their beliefs. My 'expertise', if I am to have one, would be anything to do with the aircrafts themselves. I am a pilot by trade, have a Bachelor of Aviation and a commercial licence, so arguments regarding aircraft, airspace, regulations, radar, ATC procedures etc I am very familiar with and can easily rebut the woo which truthers think is fact regarding these aspects.

Last edited by cjnewson88; 23-07-2012 at 10:52 PM.
cjnewson88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2012, 11:01 PM   #11
macgyver1968
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,748
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Ok...so we have two skeptics (not septics) willing to discuss 9/11 on a conspiracy board...and we have no takers.
macgyver1968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2012, 11:22 PM   #12
the mighty zhiba
Inactive
 
the mighty zhiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 20,828
Likes: 5,989 (2,995 Posts)
Default

Moderator Note.

Ok, i have removed a number of none topical posts - please at least try and stay on topic, post topically as a reflection of the premise delivered within the OP and subsequent topical points.

Further derails will be dealt with in accordance with the forum rules on posting - consider this a first warning.
the mighty zhiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2012, 11:52 PM   #13
skanny
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: G.C.H.Q Cheltenham
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

the term "conspiracy theorist" is old and tired.

it is being aimed at the wrong crowd in my eyes, the term should be used when describing the proponents of the official conspiracy theory cos they are the real conspiracy theorists who dream up all sorts of nonsense to try and justify their beliefs that they are told to accept without question.... after all what sort of fruitcake doesn't believe what their government tells them to accept blindly.

also the same with the term "debunker" usually used to describe people like chris mohr, mark roberts when it just isn't logical to describe them as that... they haven't debunked anything to do with the Controlled demolition aspect..... for me it's the only valid explanation for what happened to those buildings.

whereas on the other side of the fence we have many good people exposing the lies and half truths of the officially sanctioned conspiracy theory who are the real debunkers, just like everyone who has actually looked into the official fable of 9/11 we can all see it's shit dressed up as custard.....i'm not hungry

good post though.
skanny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 01:04 AM   #14
macgyver1968
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,748
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Please show us this "consistency" that the OP talks about. Hell....you had the Toronto Hearings....then the No planers shit a brick and had their own conference on the west side of Canada.
macgyver1968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 01:55 AM   #15
psikeyhackr
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Just do the physics!

Skyscrapers have to hold themselves up. How does the steel have to be distributed down the buildings to do that? There are 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall. The Empire State Building was completed before the neutron was discovered.

Skyscrapers must withstand the wind. How much concrete do they put in the basements and lower levels to do that?

Where has the Physics Profession been demanding accurate and human readable data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the twin towers since 9/11?

Scientists can find the Higgs Boson and send robots to Mars but they can't deal with skyscraper physics. Before 9/11 I would have regarded the physics of skyscrapers as beneath the notice of competent physicists. But it seems they don't have the guts for it.


psik

Last edited by psikeyhackr; 24-07-2012 at 01:55 AM.
psikeyhackr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 05:26 AM   #16
cjnewson88
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 50
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Wrong thread psik??..
cjnewson88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 07:55 AM   #17
dave52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,141
Likes: 985 (411 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
My 'expertise', if I am to have one, would be anything to do with the aircrafts themselves.
This is cool. You might be able to clear something up for me. If I were to fly a plane into a large skyscraper. Would you expect the plane to react in some way as it impacted the side of the tower, or would you expect the plane to glide in, through the facade unaffected? No buckling, no twisting, wings and tail in tact all the way into the building until it disappeared from site...?

Cheers.
__________________
Dave.

www.DaveWare.co.uk
Are You Listening...?
dave52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 09:53 AM   #18
rosie789
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 1,609
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I will apologise if I've actually insulted anyone or bullied anyone, but I'm not going to apologise for my opinions. This is after-all a forum. Everyone should be allowed to change their mind.... but does that really mean apologising? The whole changing one's mind thing is rather dependent on being significantly convinced first.

Last edited by rosie789; 24-07-2012 at 05:49 PM.
rosie789 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 11:05 AM   #19
cjnewson88
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 50
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave52 View Post
This is cool. You might be able to clear something up for me. If I were to fly a plane into a large skyscraper. Would you expect the plane to react in some way as it impacted the side of the tower, or would you expect the plane to glide in, through the facade unaffected? No buckling, no twisting, wings and tail in tact all the way into the building until it disappeared from site...?

Cheers.
Hi Dave. With the type of aircraft involved, and the speeds involved, yes I would expect pretty much what occurred. You cannot think of this as some light aluminum aircraft hitting a steal wall. When forces of this magnitude are involved, its construction is irrelevant. The only way you can think of it is Mass and Velocity. A small mass with a high velocity will have the same momentum as a large mass with a small velocity. In other words, if a marble was going fast enough, it would punch through a concrete wall. On 9/11, the aircrafts had both a very large velocity, and a very large mass.

The Boeing 767-200 is a very large, wide bodied aircraft, a take off weight of over 140,000 Kg. When a huge mass is traveling close to 260ms, such as flight 175 was after it had just finished diving towards the South Tower, I would expect to see exactly what I have seen.

To say however that the aircraft 'glided in' with no buckling, I would argue there is no way to say it didn't. There is no footage so highly detailed that we could see this buckling occurring as the aircraft tore into the building. You wouldn't be able to tell, because even when the aircraft was buckling, its massive forward momentum still pushed the entire aircraft into the building. Similar, in a way, to how Flight 93 was pushed by its forward momentum up to 20 feet into the ground.

Last edited by cjnewson88; 24-07-2012 at 11:12 AM.
cjnewson88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 11:20 AM   #20
greencard
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 783
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave52 View Post
This is cool. You might be able to clear something up for me. If I were to fly a plane into a large skyscraper. Would you expect the plane to react in some way as it impacted the side of the tower, or would you expect the plane to glide in, through the facade unaffected? No buckling, no twisting, wings and tail in tact all the way into the building until it disappeared from site...?

Cheers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Hi Dave. With the type of aircraft involved, and the speeds involved, yes I would expect pretty much what occurred. You cannot think of this as some light aluminum aircraft hitting a steal wall. When forces of this magnitude are involved, its construction is irrelevant. The only way you can think of it is Mass and Velocity. A small mass with a high velocity will have the same momentum as a large mass with a small velocity. In other words, if a marble was going fast enough, it would punch through a concrete wall. On 9/11, the aircrafts had both a very large velocity, and a very large mass.

The Boeing 767-200 is a very large, wide bodied aircraft, a take off weight of over 140,000 Kg. When a huge mass is traveling close to 260ms, such as flight 175 was after it had just finished diving towards the South Tower, I would expect to see exactly what I have seen.

To say however that the aircraft 'glided in' with no buckling, I would argue there is no way to say it didn't. There is no footage so highly detailed that we could see this buckling occurring as the aircraft tore into the building. You wouldn't be able to tell, because even when the aircraft was buckling, its massive forward momentum still pushed the entire aircraft into the building. Similar, in a way, to how Flight 93 was pushed by its forward momentum up to 20 feet into the ground.

Thank you for that answer CJNewson! Finally someone with experience giving their opinion.
greencard is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
9/11 truth, conspiracy, cover up

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:10 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.