Jump to content

Recommended Posts

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> paradigm scmaradigm

>

> you've said it all before HAL


Now let me see, was not HAL given conflicting orders and programming by the NSA, so no change there then.


USA

Ya, Saddam, go invade Kuwait we don?t care.


USA

Ha, look that bad old Saddam has invaded Kuwait, we better go kick his ass.


Hallibuton ? blackwater new song, we are in the money-lots of money.

Lyrics by Dick Cheney.



Jeremy Wrote:

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

> New Nexus Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > http://torontohearings.org/

> >

> > The Toronto Hearings

> > 8 to 11 sep

> > start 9am local

> > 2pm UK

>

>

> Now I know you're taking the p!ss.


If your statement was fact.

I am nether equipped nor qualified to extract urine.


If your statement was metaphoric.

Given the Toronto hearings have only started yesterday, you may want to wait and see what information is put forward before casting judgment,

or maybe the tabloid have already told you how to think.


http://torontohearings.org/

There was a good programme about the 911 conspiracy theories on BBC2 last night.


My view on the 911 conspiracy theory is there was no conspiracy by the US Government. I don't think they're that competent enough to pull something of that scale successfully.


I don't doubt there are pockets of evidence which points to conspiracies but on the other hand normal science explanations supports a different view.

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> There was a good programme about the 911

> conspiracy theories on BBC2 last night.

>

> My view on the 911 conspiracy theory is there was

> no conspiracy by the US Government. I don't think

> they're that competent enough to pull something of

> that scale successfully.

>

> I don't doubt there are pockets of evidence which

> points to conspiracies but on the other hand

> normal science explanations supports a different

> view.


NIST did not find evidence of demolition materials, i.e. explosives - because they did not look for any.


If a building falls down because of fire (WTC-7) standard practice.


Do?s

Look for an accelerant.


Don?ts

Ship evidence across the sea?s to China and India

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> The BBC programme covered accelerants and WTC-7.

>

> While the financial crisis is still an ongoing

> matter which concerns us all I think the 911

> conspiracy theory has run its course.


Did the BBC cover the nano-thermite ?


Parts of the financial issues of today have their origins in WTC.

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> Yes they did. Even featured the Danish scientist

> who suggested the substance.

>

> You should be able to catch the programme on

> iplayer.

>

> The financial issues started well before 911.


U.S. crisis started 1913

2001 WTC was pivotal in expanding this crisis further.

Greed have always been a factor in any financial bubble and I don't think there are enough controls to stop the next bubble either. There will always be financial bubbles. With the bets getting larger, can taxpayers be able to afford to cover the next set of losses?


Sorry NN but I disagree with your suggestions.

what trick is that? What's tricksy about the post?


it links to a review of a TV show which had a number of conspiracy theorists, which were described in the review. Some of them seem very familiar types. It's not controversial or tricksy is it?

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> Greed have always been a factor in any financial

> bubble and I don't think there are enough controls

> to stop the next bubble either. There will always

> be financial bubbles. With the bets getting

> larger, can taxpayers be able to afford to cover

> the next set of losses?

>

> Sorry NN but I disagree with your suggestions.




It?s cool to disagree,


Let give you a possible scenario,

1993 first attack on WTC, turns-out CIA running that one, but opppps didn?t fall down. You were right EDT, CIA are not ?competent enough?, Dam not got enough support to go to war.


So 2001 we have an outsourced attack, but just to make sure they get all goals met, lets wirer up the buildings, good way to make the securities and exchange problem go away too, plus US get to invade any country they want.


US already said in 2000 they needed a new pearl harbor, well they got it, and just like pearl harbor they made sure they got it.


Wars make profits for some and austerity for others.

Money is just money, power is the real game in town.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Just a quick note that my son was mugged last night on Dunstans Road just after 6pm. Two youths on bikes with balaclavas stole his phone, headphones and driver’s license near the mansion block next to Dawson’s Heights. Please be vigilant when walking in the area after dark. 
    • They clearly don’t.  I would expect better from the council.  Rather dismally, it sounds like any complaints or requests just fall on deaf ears.
    • No, because they are a business and their job is to make a profit. It is the local council, on our behalf, who should be giving regard to the environment. Gala, not unreasonably, might take the view that it is the council's role to protect the environment of Southwark, and if they have no objection to this scheme then frankly why shouldn't they (Gala) go ahead? And the council also seems to take the view that they are focused on revenue and not the environment. Otherwise they might listen to the environmental pleas here. The mistake you are making is assuming that either party to this transaction (we are clearly only bystanders) gives a flying fig for the environment when there is money in the offing.
    • It struck me last year that any dialogue with Gala themselves e.g. at the box-ticking "Community Engagement Sessions" is completely pointless, as they are just a business trying to do whatever is necessary to hold their event; the park is just a venue to them, a necessary facility, and they'll say anything to secure it. They don't care about it's welfare or upkeep, over and above making sure there's no complaints big enough to prevent them using it again. I've found that discussing issues with them has just led to them using that info to counteract that issue - effectively helping them strengthen their position. What I find frustrating is that the council, despite being the body that decides on this, and should be representing local residents, takes no active part in any discussions or presentations, so there's no way to engage with them apart from an online consultation which is clearly also a box ticking exercise, bearing in mind for the last two years the overwhelming majority (97% of respondents) objected to the event. Why are Gala running the community meetings? Why do Gala run the issue hotline? If the council really care about the park and the surrounding community, and still allow this type of event, they should be way more hands on with taking responsibility for it's running, not just handing it all over to a profit making company.  Sorry, probably tldr but so sad about the repeated negative impact on our (once beautiful & peaceful) park and just exasperated that there's so little that can be done to halt it. This is just the start, it WILL turn into another Brockwell Park, and Gala & the council just don't care.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...