Request for comment: Collapse of the U. S. A.

[Huguenot]

You bring to mind hypochondriacs rabidly searching medical sources online to prove that they have finally picked up a terminal disease that will justify their obsession.

Every Doctor who points out they've just got a sniffle is rubbished as a fraud and a liar - but the quacks claiming they've got an obscure, terminal and (most importantly) ravaging cancer are welcomed with open arms.

The Corbett Report - The Road to World War III, subtitle: 'Feeding Your Psychosis'.

People like Corbett are parasites that feed on your paranoia.

[New Nexus]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You bring to mind hypochondriacs rabidly searching

> medical sources online to prove that they have

> finally picked up a terminal disease that will

> justify their obsession.

>

> Every Doctor who points out they've just got a

> sniffle is rubbished as a fraud and a liar - but

> the quacks claiming they've got an obscure,

> terminal and (most importantly) ravaging cancer

> are welcomed with open arms.

>

> The Corbett Report - The Road to World War III,

> subtitle: 'Feeding Your Psychosis'.

>

> People like Corbett are parasites that feed on

> your paranoia.

blah, blah, blah.

[LadyDeliah]

So where do you get your 'news' from Hugo?

[Huguenot]

The Corbett Report isn't news, they've got faked pictures of George Bush snogging a male member of the House of Saud as their headline. Corbett's book is called "Essays on the New World Order". You don't get more mental conspiracy theory than that.

If I want to get similar material I'd go to the Daily Mash, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to call it news.

As for Russia Today - the government owned Russian overseas propaganda station? If you've reached the point where you feel that the Kremlin is more honest than, for example, the BBC you've truly lost the plot.

But then we've got 20 pages of evidence for that already, so I wouldn't be surprised.

[New Nexus]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Corbett Report isn't news, they've got faked

> pictures of George Bush snogging a male member of

> the House of Saud as their headline. Corbett's

> book is called "Essays on the New World Order".

> You don't get more mental conspiracy theory than

> that.

>

> If I want to get similar material I'd go to the

> Daily Mash, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to

> call it news.

>

> As for Russia Today - the government owned Russian

> overseas propaganda station? If you've reached the

> point where you feel that the Kremlin is more

> honest than, for example, the BBC you've truly

> lost the plot.

>

> But then we've got 20 pages of evidence for that

> already, so I wouldn't be surprised.

James Corbett: well sourced, well informed and articulated arguments.

Huguenot: poorly informed, academically challenged and paradigm impairment .

[Huguenot]

'Well sourced'?

Faked photographs?

You're a joke mate.

The Corbett Report describes its own content as "breaking news and important issues from 9/11 Truth and false flag terror to the Big Brother police state"

It's just a little boy's conspiracy wankfest.

[New Nexus]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'Well sourced'?

>

> Faked photographs?

>

> You're a joke mate.

>

> The Corbett Report describes its own content as

> "breaking news and important issues from 9/11

> Truth and false flag terror to the Big Brother

> police state"

>

> It's just a little boy's conspiracy wankfest.

Try stop reading newspapers by just looking at the pictures. Try reading the wiggle lines on the paper, that?s the news.

[Huguenot]

Russia today readily admit that they have an editorial policy to push conspiracy theories.

"Last month, an episode of the show ?CrossTalk? descended into chaos when its host, Peter Lavelle, was berated by the show?s guests for proclaiming that the people who perpetrated the Sept. 11 attacks were not fundamentalists.

One of the guests, British journalist Douglas Murray, expressed outright disgust afterward. "I?ve never encountered a more incompetent presenter," he wrote on his blog.

Asked by The Moscow Times about the show, Lavelle said it was a "fiasco" because he had not been able to get a balanced pair of experts. "Everybody was snowed in," he said."

Everybody was snowed in? Is that like the cat ate my homework?

[New Nexus]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Russia today readily admit that they have an

> editorial policy to push conspiracy theories.

>

> "Last month, an episode of the show ?CrossTalk?

> descended into chaos when its host, Peter Lavelle,

> was berated by the show?s guests for proclaiming

> that the people who perpetrated the Sept. 11

> attacks were not fundamentalists.

>

> One of the guests, British journalist Douglas

> Murray, expressed outright disgust afterward.

> "I?ve never encountered a more incompetent

> presenter," he wrote on his blog.

>

> Asked by The Moscow Times about the show, Lavelle

> said it was a "fiasco" because he had not been

> able to get a balanced pair of experts. "Everybody

> was snowed in," he said."

>

> Everybody was snowed in? Is that like the cat ate

> my homework?

your homework for today, put options 9 11

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

[Huguenot]

Margarite Simonyan (the editor of Russia Today) even said that she does not believe the coverage they offer.

Do you get that LD? The Russia Today coverage is not even believed by the people who create it:

"Simonyan argued that the channel?s policy was merely to provide a platform for marginalized points of view that otherwise got little coverage, like the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. "I personally do not believe them. But I believe that if there are people out there who think so but do not get into mainstream media, they deserve an audience ? and we should give them a forum,? she said."

[Huguenot]

Yay, Next Nexus is really on a roll here - now revealing himself to believe that the 9/11 attacks were fakes!

You go, tiger.

What next? Apollo moon landings?

[LadyDeliah]

The BBC, with pressure from the Murdochs, have been under sustained attack since the 80's and rarely go against the party line for fear of slashed funding and other reprisals from the government.

The majority of newspapers in the UK are owned by corporations and have also been undermined by the actions of the Murdochs and various Acts of Parliament preventing anything that might be construed as secret from being published.

The only major daily which is not owned by corporations, The Guardian, is hardly radical and has been shown to push lies when it benefits the paper. WikiStory and Guardian version.

So I like to get my news from a variety of sources. I don't just rely on Radio 4, Newsnight etc for my news, I also use Russia Today, Al Jazeera, New Scientist, Telesur English, Wikileaks and activists directly involved in campaigns around the world for my news.

Maybe that's why I see the world slightly differently to you Hugo. I don't swallow the mainstream (corporate interest) crap we are all served up as being gospel. I question everything and I like to be as informed as I can be.

So come on, tell us all where you get all your amazing insight into what is happening in the world then Hugo.

[New Nexus]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Margarite Simonyan (the editor of Russia Today)

> even said that she does not believe the coverage

> they offer.

>

> Do you get that LD? The Russia Today coverage is

> not even believed by the people who create it:

>

> "Simonyan argued that the channel?s policy was

> merely to provide a platform for marginalized

> points of view that otherwise got little coverage,

> like the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. "I

> personally do not believe them. But I believe that

> if there are people out there who think so but do

> not get into mainstream media, they deserve an

> audience ? and we should give them a forum,? she

> said."

More distorted information, from an unstable mind.

[LadyDeliah]

And how many mainstream media outlets believe all the stuff they print or broadcast?

[Santerme]

Blimey, what next.....Obama's a Kenyan Marxist trying to destroy America?

NN you are sinking fast!

[Huguenot]

You're being a bit of a wally LD - I don't live in the UK and don't have access to Radio4 or Newsnight.

To claim that the BBC follow the Conservative Party line is just stupid, and warrants no serious response.

Like you I draw my information from a variety of sources.

Unlike you I also make a measured assessment of the quality and reliability of the source before accepting the information. You seem to have lost this skill, and are probably politically motivated in this. I pointed out on another thread that there are clincial studies that prove when politically motivated people get engaged with their subject, the rational side of their brain shuts down.

Are you seriously there standing firm with New Nexus that 9/11 was a put up job? Really tragic.

[New Nexus]

Huguenot, Fox news called, to see if you wanted to work for them.

[mockney piers]

I read a number of British news sources and a number of spanish ones everyday.

They correlate and the loony stuff doesn't tally.

Of course that could be because 'they' control both but if anyone thinks that I genuinely despair

I also read loads of blogs from all over. Those that are intelligent and articulate tend to be savaged as stooges by conspiracy types in their comments. The loons (for it's always interesting to keep an eye on marginalia) just big each other up.

Conspiracy M.O. Is to discount sheer weight of evidence and give unreasonable weight to dubious minutiae. Not so much can't see the wood for the trees, as can't see the trees for plastic leaf they found in the forest that proves real trees don't exist.

[LadyDeliah]

The guy who had a hissy fit about the Russia Today 9/11 questions is a Torygraph journalist whose blog has a distinct anti-islamic feel to it.

Hugo you are quoting opinion. Just because this guy didn't like the questions, does not mean that they should not have been asked, or that facts that don't appear to correlate with the official version shouldn't be examined.

I have no idea whether 9/11 was as a result of Islamic extremists or the US government, but I don't trust the government because they have lied so much to their own people to do things that they would not get popular support for. So it wouldn't shock me if they did either allow it to happen or facilitate it in some way. I don't think the evidence is clear either way, so my mind is still open on that issue.

Screaming that people are loonies and trying to shut down debate on an issue by calling it a conspiracy theory is not helpful and adds nothing to the debate.

If someone is making false claims, you have the intelligence to look at the alleged facts and disprove those facts, so why don't you do that instead of making sweeping dismissals based on some kind of superiority complex.

[New Nexus]

Rules of investigations:

1) Secure the crime scene. Do not ship off shore evidence to China and India.

2) Follow the money. Do not say financing of the attack is irrelevant.

3) Investigate put option activity prior to attack. i.e. 5 days prior.

[Santerme]

This got pointless 19 pages ago.

Now it is pure farce.

[LadyDeliah]

Well read something else then.

[New Nexus]

WTC7

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x180/T-Guide/wtc7collapse.gif

[Huguenot]

LD, it IS a conspiracy theory - one of many.

If you check my posts I've persistently come back with evidence that the assertions being made are unsubtantiated rubbish. All we've had from New Nexus are fabricated quotes, fabricated photographs, sweeping abuse, misunderstood concepts. Read the thread again and start counting them.

The Editor of Russia Today (not the journo, the Editor) says that she doesn't believe the news they peddle. Yet you use it to cite support for this rubbish that New Nexus trots out.

Your long term objective is to bring down society, based on a delusional conviction that this will benefit humankind. Your willingness to believe this rubbish is directly affected by this.

I'm disappointed that you continually claim that I haven't back up my assertions - yet it has been myself and others who are the only ones to provide plausible references through this thread.

[Santerme]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well read something else then.

Oh, I like farce, just for the entertainment value it's worth reading on.