Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book House Cleaning TheTick TheTick TheTick  Amazon Echo now $99.99 Limited-time offer: All-New Fire 7, starting at $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Tailgating STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > History forum

Ten Tips to Becoming an Accomplished Conspiracy Cultist


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 254 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 1:17:54 AM PST
Suet says:
It's fairly clear what left loser gets out of conspiracy beliefs. They enable him to indulge in an illusion of "superiority".

Posted on Nov 13, 2012, 1:18:54 AM PST
Finally: Barry Chamish Concedes Israel's Involvement in 9/11

Zionist Extremist Chamish Admits Bollyn is Right, Zionists did 9/11!!

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august142012/solving-911-bc.php

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 1:20:33 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 13, 2012, 1:21:01 AM PST
thanks for illustrating my recent point. you and yours have no real answers so you just resort to ad hominem. Can't answer the question, but can't just come right out and admit it. I "debunk" you, shill.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 1:33:44 AM PST
Suet says:
Congratulations, you found a right wingnut Zionist who blames 9/11 on the "Labor Zionists". LOL.

Posted on Nov 13, 2012, 2:04:07 AM PST
Don't let this get around, Suetonius - you're my very favorite fifth columnist. Just think, you could, and probably should, be dealing with those, "conspiracy theorists" in Great Britain, who have figured out the connections between 9-11 and the "7/7 London Bombings."

How very thoughtful of you to concentrate on 9-11 when your own country was led into the whole, "Global War On Terror" in spite of the, "Downing Street Memo," which acknowedges that the Dick & Bush Junta was manufacturing, "intelligence," to initiate the, "war." "Your" government admitted KNOWING it was all a lie, yet you ignore 7/7 entirely. What's up with that, Suetonius?

Don't you have enough of your own, "conspriracy theorist" to deal with in your own, "homeland?"

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 3:52:17 AM PST
Suet says:
The connection between 9/11 and 7/7 is that Islamist fanatics did both, but more Britons died in the 9/11 attacks.
7/7 conspiracy "theorists" are pathetic losers, even more than the 9/11 type.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iBEBMrzHpc

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 6:32:17 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 13, 2012, 6:32:50 AM PST
left coaster says: "Let me ask you 'coincidence theorists' why you are so afraid of so-called, 'conspiracy theory.' Why does it upset you so much?"

Asked and answered. Why do you ignore the responses only to post the same questions in a different form?

http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx2GFTYG8UG12Q0&cdMsgNo=135&cdPage=6&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx29UEIAOHVXA5M#Mx2GFTYG8UG12Q0

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 7:25:25 AM PST
The conspiracy theories don't go away because there are always people looking for complicated explanations to events. The idea that sometimes bad people do bad things on their own just doesn't compute to conspiracy theorists. Most of the time the bad things are only partially successful, but sometimes like JFK anf the Twin Towers they accomplish something far beyoned their fondest hopes.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 7:43:32 AM PST
anne says:
Richard: <Most of the time the bad things are only partially successful.>

anne: Yeah, like on 9/11, 4 planes were supposed to hit four buildings.

<sometimes they accomplish something far beyoned their fondest hopes.>

Yeah, like on 9/11, if they were trying to prove how unsafe the three WTC towers were because the builders cut corners by hitting them and making them fall down and in contrast, the Pentagon--which we know had no corners cut when built--was barely scratched, they did that in spades.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 8:15:21 AM PST
Suet says:
You think the 9/11 attackers might have been intending to show that all buildings should be built like a bunker and have no more than five stories? That's the first time I've heard that one.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 8:21:30 AM PST
anne says:
Suetonius: <You think the 9/11 attackers might have been intending to show that all buildings should be built like a bunker and have no more than five stories?>

anne: Well, I'm not fond of the "they were protesting Western decadence" explanation. So, yes, and be reinforced. That's if they want to be safe from air attack.

The Pentagon proved it was, yes?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 8:23:21 AM PST
anne,
The aim of the 9/11 attackers was never to destroy the buildings. That was just a happy coincidence. What they probably envisioned was something like when the B25 hit the Empire State Building in 1945. A lot of very visible damage and publicity. The plot to take down the building was the truck bomb in the garage, when that failed, I think they lowered their aim and accepted that damaging the buildings was all they could achieve.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 8:30:13 AM PST
anne says:
Richard: <The aim of the 9/11 attackers was never to destroy the buildings. They wanted damage and publicity.>

anne: If they wanted publicity, shouldn't they have come forward by now and told us they did it?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 8:35:21 AM PST
They did, Osama claimed responsibility for Al Queda shortly after the attack.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 8:36:32 AM PST
anne says:
Richard: <Osama claimed responsibility for Al Queda shortly after the attack.>

anne: Source, please.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 8:39:40 AM PST
News reports and video at the time. My memory goes that far back even if your's doesn't.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 8:55:57 AM PST
anne says:
From Wiki, I read about what Osama bin Laden said about 9/11:

On September 16, 2001, he said, ". . . I have not carried out this act . . ."

and

On September 28, 2001, he said, "I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. . . . I had no knowledge of these attacks . . ."

and

the date he said it is unknown, but this surfaced in May 2006 that he said, ". . . I was responsible for . . .those raids . . ."

So are you referencing the last one which no one knows when he said it?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 8:59:01 AM PST
Suet says:
Al-Qaeda's deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has blamed Iran for spreading the theory that Israel was behind the 11 September 2001 attacks.
In an audio tape posted on the internet, Zawahiri insisted al-Qaeda had carried out the attacks on the US.
He accused Iran, and its Hezbollah allies, of trying to discredit Osama Bin Laden's network.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7361414.stm

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 9:25:53 AM PST
anne says:
Richard: <The aim of the 9/11 attackers was never to destroy the buildings. They wanted damage and publicity.>

anne: <If they wanted publicity, shouldn't they have come forward by now and told us they did it?>

Richard: <They did, Osama claimed responsibility for Al Queda shortly after the attack. >

anne: Now that I've proven that he didn't, you'll want to edit your post to exclude 'and publicity'.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 9:26:44 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 13, 2012, 9:30:55 AM PST
anne,
he said HE did not carry out these attacks, not that Al Queda didn't carry them out. I saw footage of hiim claiming "credit" for Al Queda. AS I remember the footage he was with two other Al Queda leaders and they were going on and on about being happy that the attacks accomplished even more than they had planned. That's a pretty clear indication of responsibility to me.

I'm not going to waste my time going back and forth with you. Nothing I could say or show you would change your mind about it being some shadowy conspiracy on the part of unnamed people to bring down the buildings.

Posted on Nov 13, 2012, 9:43:59 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 3, 2012, 11:45:12 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 11:49:30 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 13, 2012, 11:49:55 AM PST
Greg Goebel says: "As a commentary on the CB, I might add that it is a fundamental element of conspiracist thinking that simply because the obvious is not always true, then what is obvious MUST be false. This is why they keep claiming that Oswald was innocent. And why, by the other side of that coin, they keep insisting that people such as LBJ who seem by all evidence obviously innocent (well, at least as far as the assassination goes), must be guilty."

I don't disagree, but as far as LBJ goes, I think it's a little more complex. LBJ is seen as the usurper to the throne that rightfully belonged to JFK and then RFK after him.

As such, he must be scratched out somehow, he must be removed. He doesn't belong. If the conspiracy involved the FBI and the Secret Service and the autopsy doctors, but NOT LBJ, it doesn't solve the problem -- LBJ is then the legitimate successor to JFK according to the constitution of the U.S. and he belongs as President.

But if he is actually a guilty conspirator, then he can be nicely excised from the history books as an illegitimate heir to the throne, so to speak.

And for some, that solves the problem nicely.

At least, that's the sense I get from some of the "LBJ is guilty" conspiracy theorists.

Hank

Posted on Nov 13, 2012, 12:24:56 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 13, 2012, 1:04:09 PM PST
Greg Goebel says:
The basis for accusation against Johnson is generally given as "LBJ had a motive" (as much motive as any vice-president), and "LBJ was power-hungry" (a power-hungry politician, who knew?).

These items are emphasized because of the absolute lack of evidence (no, Madeleine Brown and Barr McClellan do not constitute "evidence") that LBJ was implicated in the assassination.

Oh dear, we keep on this subject and R*bert P. M*rr*w is likely to show up and repost his "LBJ was guilty" script again.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 3:35:37 PM PST
Suet says:
anne, did you overlook bin Laden's video of October 2004?

"I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind..."

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1964.cfm

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012, 5:28:56 AM PST
anne says:
Suetonius,

First, he said Osama confessed shortly after 9/11. Is two years considered 'shortly after 9/11?'

Second, that's not a confession.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the History forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  254
Initial post:  Oct 25, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 1, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers