PDA

View Full Version : The Official Conspiracy thread


HackChu
September 10th, 2011, 03:27 PM
“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” – Amschel Mayer Rothschild 1773-1855

“I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.” – Nathan Mayer Rothschild 1777-1836





Conspiracy theorists say that an Illuminati Banking cartel rules the world. Are they right in asserting this ? In this post I will explore what conspiracy theorists and others say about this and the military industrial complex.

The above quote is fascinating, in part because the Rothschild name is deeply tied to banking and central banks for many centuries. David Allen Rivera asserts in The House of Rothschild (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=840) :

No other name has become more synonymous with the Illuminati than the Rothschilds. It is believed that the Rothschild family used the Illuminati as a means to achieving their goal of world-wide dominance.
……
American and British Intelligence have documented evidence that the House of Rothschild, and other International Bankers, have financed both sides of every war, since the American Revolution. Financier Haym Salomon, who supported the patriots during the American Revolution, then later made loans to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe, was a Rothschild agent. As explained earlier, during the Napoleonic Wars, one branch of the family funded Napoleon, while another financed Great Britain, Germany, and other nations. Their boldest maneuver came prior to the Civil War.
……
There seems to be little doubt that the Rothschilds continue to influence the world economy, and it is known that they are squarely behind the movement to unite all the western European nations into a single political entity, which is just another step towards one-world government.

Another quote by Paul Warburg is even more fascinating :

“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” -James Paul Warburg, whose family co-founded the Federal Reserve – while speaking before the United States Senate, February 17, 1950

So conspiracy theorists do have some factual basis in what they say. Rob Kirby in Whether Or Not We Like It (http://www.321gold.com/editorials/kirby/kirby122308.html):

First, for the uninformed, in America the name “Warburg” is and always has been synonymous with Central Banking. The Warburg family name is inextricably linked to ‘old world banking’ in Europe as well as being one of the prime architects of the formulation and passage of the Federal Reserve Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Warburg) in 1913;

“Paul Warburg became known as a persuasive advocate of central banking in America, in 1907 publishing the pamphlets “Defects and Needs of Our Banking System” and “A Plan for A Modified Central Bank”. His efforts were successful in 1913 with the founding of the Federal Reserve System. He was appointed a member of the first Federal Reserve Board by President Woodrow Wilson, serving until 1918.”

Second, after careful analysis and consideration, it is very apparent that the dogmatic pursuit to inflict private, for profit, Central Banking upon the masses is consistent with the clearly stated goal of Paul Warburg; that of World Government.

A 1 world government in itself is neither good or bad. The worry is when it becomes fascist and dictatorial.

President Dwight Eisenhower has this advice in his farewell speech (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/%7Ehst306/documents/indust.html)to America in 1961 warning about the Military Industrial Complex :

…Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations…

…In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist…

Major General Smedley D. Butler, in WAR IS A RACKET (http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm) says :

WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
…..
Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well. Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn’t they? It pays high dividends.

Rob Kirby again :

The military-industrial complex has no greater champion than the parasitic institution of banking, and for painfully obvious reasons; the staggering amount of money spent on this edifice – more than the net income of ALL U.S. corporations – is exclusively BORROWED.

Forever mortgaging our children’s futures further entrenches the blood-sucking dominance and control that finance exerts over the productive or real economy until finally, left unchecked, the parasite kills the host.

What about the new Obama administration? What are their priorities? Chris Floyd comments in Enduring Priorities in an Age of Change: War and Profits Over People (http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1675-setting-priorities-obama-takes-aim-at-ordinary-folks-while-expanding-the-war-machine.html):

At the same time, he promises to expand – to expand – the multitrillion-dollar war machine that has literally bled the nation dry. He wants to expand a military-industrial-security complex that already devours more money and resources than every other military force on earth combined. He wants more troops, more weapons, an ever-increasing “global strike capability,” an escalation of the endless, pointless “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and Pakistan (for starters). He has never said a single word about “curbing government spending” on this vast conglomerate of death and destruction. He has not said a single word about rolling back even a few of American military outposts that in their several hundreds now cover the entire globe. At every point, it seems, government spending on the war machine – including the tens of billions of dollars spent in secret each year on the various tentacles of the “national security” apparatus – will be increased under the Obama administration.
…..
The president-elect has made his fundamental priorities clear – for anyone who wants to see them. The war machine and the financial markets will continue to be gorged and comforted in their wonted manner. Programs to help ordinary citizens, programs to enhance the quality of life for individuals and the well-being of society, will be the first – perhaps the only – areas to feel the budget axe. Whatever you may think of the efficacy of such programs, this ordering of priorities — war and profits over people — bespeaks the same depraved sensibility that has prevailed for generations in Washington. It is the same old rancid swill in a stylish new container.

Change we can accept or more of the same ? For the people or for large military corporate interests? His actions speak louder than his rhetoric.

Famous quotes on Central Bankers :

“Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”
– The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
- Thomas Jefferson

[I]“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson. History depicts Andrew Jackson as the last truly honorable and incorruptible American president.”
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

We may never know for certain the history of the Illuminati or the Rothschild family. What is certain is that prominent people throughout history has warned us about Central Banksters and the Military Industrial Complex. Draw your own conclusions.

aruchan
September 11th, 2011, 11:38 AM
Conspiracy theories? Thanks. Rule the world is relative, you know. Of course they have a tight hold on the military and banking sectors, but that's sort of inevitable. Consolidation is the word for it.

HackChu
September 11th, 2011, 11:52 AM
This is the official Conspiracy thread.

Here you can talk about 9/11 truth, Bilderberg Group, Bohemian Grove, New World Order theories, the book titled 1984 by James Orwell. And much more.

Here I hope to enlighten the community, and post my evidence, reports both classified and DE-classified. Documentaries, anything that will help get the world out about Government, and the invisible Banking Empire that is impacting our society today.

For more than a century, there has been a single goal in play that even ties into the American Revolution. It goes even before that. It is a goal that has shaped the world as we know it. I want to start off with a quote.

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” – Amschel Mayer Rothschild 1773-1855

Now normally when you come across a conspiracy, you may hear the name "Rothschild" or "Rockefeller" quite often.

It is said that the Rothschild's has funded both sides of every war, including the American Revolution. Since those times, it's said that the Rothschild's are the Illuminati, and that they want to control the currency of the world. Implementing private and federal banks across the world, with all of them having ties to the Rothchild's, I'd say it's very credible that the Rothschild family do indeed in a way, control the world's currency.

We will get into all this. Everything. If you have a question ask, if you feel as though you even disagree, than please post. But don't and most certainly start a flame war!! That get's us nowhere.

Discuss!

Here's a video, a funny one. About CNN admitting 9/11 was a inside job.

uyMIqVfH8zY

Bela
September 11th, 2011, 03:57 PM
Unfortunately the phrase "conspiracy theories" has a lot of baggage; it generally has the negative connotation that people who entertain such ideas are fringe lunatics. You probably shouldn't use that term--especially considering what you're talking about is rather much not on par with some kooky government conspiracy like "aliens in Area 51" or other such nonsense.

The short answer to your question is: yes. The long answer? Yesssssssssssss. It's a rather open "conspiracy" that coercion through lobbying, private sector perks, campaign donations, and the like are what in large part control our government. The problem is making the people of this country aware of this and care enough about it to do something.

Lalapizzame
September 11th, 2011, 04:20 PM
You said you didn't trust the CNN, that it was scripted and biased in favor of the government. Now, you accept that they admit 9/11 was an inside job?

If they are scripted and as unworthy of public trust as you claim them to be, why would they admit 9/11 was an inside job?

will post a reply later.

HackChu
September 11th, 2011, 04:24 PM
If you had viewed it, you'd see that it was a joke video.

Anyway, if I was to post a source regarding Fox or CNN, it'd be because that's what most people would prefer to get their sources from for some odd reason. I'd assume they're media brainwashed or just plain ignorant to the facts I'd post from another source.

HackChu
September 11th, 2011, 04:33 PM
I agree. The term is used very loosely in today's society. If you disagree with President Obama, or if you disagree with anything that the Government tells you, or you question them, than you're labled a terrorist or a conspiracy theorist.

When I post my articles or threads, I usually post the evidence to back it up. But even than, when I do that people still refuse to acknowledge what I post. It's called cognitive dissonance and most of Americans suffer from it. 1/3 of America believe in most credible "conspiracies" so that's a good thing. That means 1/3 of America doesn't believe everything Government tells us, which is good.

When people call me a Conspiracy theorist because of what I promote or my views, I than ask them do they believe George Washington was a conspiracy theorist too. Because he didn't buy everything the British Empire told him nor did he stand for tyranny.

Lalapizzame
September 11th, 2011, 04:43 PM
It is arrogant and hostile towards your interests to claim the people who use Fox or CNN are brainwashed or "just plain ignorant" to the facts you'd post from another source. They may not exactly be neutral news, but there is no news station that ever will be. How can we tell this source of yours is as trustworthy as these news sources?

You decry those sources as having a brainwashed or ignorant audience, yet you demand to be taken seriously. Shame on you, Hackchu, for your haughtiness and willingness to treat others as you do not wish to be treated. Why should we take you seriously if you will not take us seriously?

Lalapizzame
September 11th, 2011, 04:56 PM
I agree. The term is used very loosely in today's society. If you disagree with President Obama, or if you disagree with anything that the Government tells you, or you question them, than you're labled a terrorist or a conspiracy theorist.

When I post my articles or threads, I usually post the evidence to back it up. But even than, when I do that people still refuse to acknowledge what I post. It's called cognitive dissonance and most of Americans suffer from it. 1/3 of America believe in most credible "conspiracies" so that's a good thing. That means 1/3 of America doesn't believe everything Government tells us, which is good.

When people call me a Conspiracy theorist because of what I promote or my views, I than ask them do they believe George Washington was a conspiracy theorist too. Because he didn't buy everything the British Empire told him nor did he stand for tyranny.

No, sir, that's called independence from others in opinions. I don't see how you get the implication that you'll be called a terrorist or conspiracy theorist, otherwise every dissenting Democrat, Independent, or Republican would be called a terrorist or conspiracy theorist.

You claim people who rely on the media are brainwashed or ignorant. I'm not surprised that people are repulsed by you, to be quite frank. All political media is partisan, yes, but that does not mean people are brainwashed or ignorant. You are insulting others and claiming you are the sheep attacked by the lion. Conspiracies =/= not believing everything the Government says. That is an insult to those who oppose or disagree with Government and an attempt to make your beliefs seem mainstream. I may not agree with what the Government says, but I will absolutely not say I'm a conspiracy theorist. If we're talking about those who don't believe everything the Government says, there is a very large number of people who are in that category, not just 1/3 of people.

I don't see why you would compare your scenario to George Washington's time. You are being called what you are, a person who believes in what the majority of people think are conspiracies, while George Washington is upheld as a defender of America and champion of its foundation as an independent and democratic nation. You may try to bend "not believing everything the Government says" into "believing in conspiracies", but that is not what the former means nor necessarily the latter.

HackChu
September 11th, 2011, 04:57 PM
It is arrogant and hostile towards your interests to claim the people who use Fox or CNN are brainwashed or "just plain ignorant" to the facts you'd post from another source. They may not exactly be neutral news, but there is no news station that ever will be. How can we tell this source of yours is as trustworthy as these news sources?

You decry those sources as having a brainwashed or ignorant audience, yet you demand to be taken seriously. Shame on you, Hackchu, for your haughtiness and willingness to treat others as you do not wish to be treated. Why should we take you seriously if you will not take us seriously?
First I want to say, I'm not trying to be a idiot or hurt anybodies feelings, or even get them to believe me. The point of the thread is that I want to get people interested and research and form their own opinion. Don't listen to HackChu or Alex Jones. Just go out and find the evidence yourselves, I'm here to merely push folks in the right direction.

Now as to know rather or not the sources I should post are trustworthy, well it's very simple they would be. Huffington post and Washington Post are very credible sources, I may post a source from Infowars as well. The people there spend most of their time 24/7 doing what I do. They study, they research and study history. Anybody with a brain(again not trying to be hateful)would understand that time and time again, history repeats itself. No government is perfect nor are they truthful. People are blind to that fact and believe that because this is America, that the Government are self-rightous people who care and that's just not the case I'm afraid.

I call folks who only rely on Fox or CNN and don't do research zombies. Now if someone look at a Fox article and are open minded and actually research before taking things seriously, than I wouldn't call them a zombie.

A zombie is a close minded person who believes and entrust a\everything to one source, be it credible or not. Zombies are also folks who don't acknowledge what evidence is provided and lives in the state of mind that everything is bogus, and that Government are saviors. That's never the case at all. So if I call someone ignorant or a zombie, it's because they aren't educated in the facts they are presented with, those who only rely on one source and dismiss anything else that someone may provide.

That is a zombie.

Bela
September 11th, 2011, 05:04 PM
If you had viewed it, you'd see that it was a joke video.

Anyway, if I was to post a source regarding Fox or CNN, it'd be because that's what most people would prefer to get their sources from for some odd reason. I'd assume they're media brainwashed or just plain ignorant to the facts I'd post from another source.
An inquiry to you the author of this thread.

Do you like knowledge? Do you wish to learn?

If you do, then you will certainly see to it that your pursuit for truth is based on facts and evidence, and not a substitute for it. Indeed, I challenge you to verify the weight of these quotes you have presented first for yourself.

It's very easy to want to know something and selectively find evidence which supports your claim. You can very much want to confirm your bias in order to establish your proposition--but this is insincere. Your desire for knowledge only goes as far as your preconceived notions will take you. In other words, you are not truly learning anything, nor are you truly engaging in a pursuit for truth.

Similar exercises are conducted by the religious; their deeply-held belief in their personal deity is something they seek to verify through evidence and reasoned logic. But this too is an insincere endeavor. By confirming your bias in the belief of a god or gods, you have only gone as far as the evidence will take you to that conclusion.

This is essentially cherry-picking, selectively hearing, etc to confirm the result you wish to obtain. This is not how an honest investigation is conducted. This is not how you should conduct yourself, if you truly seek to pursue truth.

So I ask you this, Hackchu: Do you have an actual interest in a pursuit for truth, or is your interest more akin to those who like ghost stories; the excitement of believing in ghosts and seeing or hearing things that you think prove such things are real?

HackChu
September 11th, 2011, 05:07 PM
don't see how you get the implication that you'll be called a terrorist or conspiracy theorist, otherwise every dissenting Democrat, Independent, or Republican would be called a terrorist or conspiracy theorist.
Actually that's very true as that's exactly what we are called. Look at any Fox or CNN news channel and when people discredit the official story of 9/11 or if there's a law we don't like, we get called these things. Heck, I've seen guests on Fox before saying we all should be put tp death, or hanged, and that we are traitors to the country which is absoutely false in every way. Again I have to bring up George Washington, because he is what we're about. Heck I'll be straight yp right now, some of the Government has called Washington a terrorist, FEMA has called him one. Here's a video to see for yourself.

9IhU4D3Fpi0

I'm not surprised that people are repulsed by you, to be quite frank. All political media is partisan, yes, but that does not mean people are brainwashed or ignorant. You are insulting others and claiming you are the sheep attacked by the lion. Conspiracies =/= not believing everything the Government says. That is an insult to those who oppose or disagree with Government and an attempt to make your beliefs seem mainstream. I may not agree with what the Government says, but I will absolutely not say I'm a conspiracy theorist. If we're talking about those who don't believe everything the Government says, there is a very large number of people who are in that category, not just 1/3 of people.
It's been officially announced that 1/3 of America believes 9/11 was an inside job. Now of course there could be more but tha'ts never certain.

You claim people who listen to the media are brainwashed or ignorant.
You should read the post I made in the other thread. Infact maybe these threads should be merged. I explained myself about the zombie issue already.

HackChu
September 11th, 2011, 05:15 PM
An inquiry to you the author of this thread.

Do you like knowledge? Do you wish to learn?

If you do, then you will certainly see to it that your pursuit for truth is based on facts and evidence, and not a substitute for it. Indeed, I challenge you to verify the weight of these quotes you have presented first for yourself.

It's very easy to want to know something and selectively find evidence which supports your claim. You can very much want to confirm your bias in order to establish your proposition--but this is insincere. Your desire for knowledge only goes as far as your preconceived notions will take you. In other words, you are not truly learning anything, nor are you truly engaging in a pursuit for truth.

Similar exercises are conducted by the religious; their deeply-held belief in their personal deity is something they seek to verify through evidence and reasoned logic. But this too is an insincere endeavor. By confirming your bias in the belief of a god or gods, you have only gone as far as the evidence will take you to that conclusion.

This is essentially cherry-picking, selectively hearing, etc to confirm the result you wish to obtain. This is not how an honest investigation is conducted. This is not how you should conduct yourself, if you truly seek to pursue truth.

So I ask you this, Hackchu: Do you have an actual interest in a pursuit for truth, or is your interest more akin to those who like ghost stories; the excitement of believing in ghosts and seeing or hearing things that you think prove such things are real?
I'd have to take this line as a insult. It';s like you're trying to say I'm crazy because I refuse to believe that jet fuel caused the collapse of the 2 WTC and even WTC7 which weren't hit by anything.

Actually, I encourage many of you that question me to look for yourself. There's videos laying about that shows fireman and policemen saying they heard bombs go off around the area the day these attacks happened.

So I'm sure that almost any point I bring up, that there will be evidence to back those claims. Because most of them are already discussed from any source I may present.

What I'd like to ask you is this. Do you believe that there is a potential of a Global Government(even though it's been annouced more than once). Do you think Government's would ever stage an attack to get things going? An example is back in Nazi Germany when Hitler staged the Reichstag event and blamed it on Communists. I see a resemblence here with 9/11.

Btw I 100% agree with your post. It's what many people do actually.

Yoshimi
September 11th, 2011, 05:26 PM
I'd have to take this line as a insult. It';s like you're trying to say I'm crazy because I refuse to believe that jet fuel caused the collapse of the 2 WTC and even WTC7 which weren't hit by anything.

Actually, I encourage many of you that question me to look for yourself. There's videos laying about that shows fireman and policemen saying they heard bombs go off around the area the day these attacks happened.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vbIFA8snM5Y/SnF9n2WSs6I/AAAAAAAAAXI/UgBFT3ZEhZw/s320/Hansen+-+tin+foil+hat.jpg

I'm curious, what makes you think jet fuel didn't cause it?

HackChu
September 11th, 2011, 05:31 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vbIFA8snM5Y/SnF9n2WSs6I/AAAAAAAAAXI/UgBFT3ZEhZw/s320/Hansen+-+tin+foil+hat.jpg

I'm curious, what makes you think jet fuel didn't cause it?
Well, to begin, construction-grade steel (and I think we can all agree that the WTC engineers would have used only the highest grade steel possible) melts at 2795 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s a proven fact, as can be seen from the website: http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html . Meanwhile, according to a BBC report on September 13, 2001 entitled How the World Trade Center Fell, the WTC steel cores reached a temperature of 1472 degrees Fahrenheit, which, coincidentally, is the maximum temperature of jet fuel, but nowhere near the 2795 degrees needed to melt steel.http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-23-04/discussion.cgi.10.html

Lalapizzame
September 11th, 2011, 05:47 PM
http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

I can see people calling this a biased site from a mile away, but this is a considerable amount of papers by professionals, most if not all peer-reviewed.

Also, just because policemen and firemen claims bombs went off does not mean bombs did come off. I trust professionals and engineers over the average person regarding whether this was an inside job or not.

HackChu
September 11th, 2011, 05:55 PM
http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

I can see people calling this a biased site from a mile away, but this is a considerable amount of papers by professionals, most if not all peer-reviewed.

Also, just because policemen and firemen claims bombs went off does not mean bombs did come off. I trust professionals and engineers over the average person regarding whether this was an inside job or not.
I'd say it is a biased site, but it doesn't mean I didn't learn anything from it. But it appears you haven't acknowledged the link I posted. It doesn't say that bombs were planted or anything, it just denies the fact that jet fuel caused the collapse. Anybody with common sense and knowledge in chemistry, architecture, and engineering could see that.

I have to say that on our side, we also have very talented and well sought out individuals such as Richard Gage who was on the Alex Jones show friday talking about 9/11.


ASp5xG_mZxg
If that isn't enough than watch some of this film.

6jixU7JG4pg

Lalapizzame
September 11th, 2011, 06:06 PM
I have no comment on the talent of those who support your beliefs. As I am not a trained professional, I do not have that privilege.

I have a less biased site to do the explaining for me:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

From this site, we can say jet fuel did not cause the collapse, but it triggered key events for the collapse.

HackChu
September 11th, 2011, 06:11 PM
I have no comment on the talent of those who support your beliefs. As I am not a trained professional, I do not have that privilege.

I have a less biased site to do the explaining for me:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

From this site, we can say jet fuel did not cause the collapse, but it triggered key events for the collapse.
I understand. But Government said themselves that it did cause them. So I can see that perhaps you don't believe that ridiculous story. But I'm am interested in these "key" events.

If you look closely friend, you can see areas on the corners exploding, as debris is blown off. I'd also like to know why bomb sniffing dogs were called off just days before 9-11-01.

I really would like to know. Infact I want a new investigation.

marz
September 11th, 2011, 06:17 PM
Maybe it was part of their plan to have people think it's a conspiracy theory. :0 omg conspiraception

Lalapizzame
September 11th, 2011, 06:31 PM
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Bomb_sniffing_dogs_were_removed_from_the_building

I don't see the point of a new investigation, when professionals are already discussing it and have reached a general consensus. If a new investigation comes out with an unsatisfactory result, are we going to keep asking for one, even when other parties have published their thoughts on it without formally representing the government?

HackChu
September 11th, 2011, 06:36 PM
I see all the more reason to have one than. I'm not aware of the consensus other than the fact that people claim that jet fuel weakened the towers. In which I posted a article that shows that even that isn't possible to do with jet fuel as it didn't reach the required temperature to burn the steel.

I'm not chemist, but I do see a bold face lie when presented and hardcore evidence that proves that jet fuel theory being a complete lie..

It's like im living in the twilight zone..

Lalapizzame
September 11th, 2011, 06:41 PM
I posted an article that explained the jet fuel part. Then I posted several more links explaining other parts of 9/11 you wished to inquire about.

Are you saying the majority of engineers etc. are telling lies?

HackChu
September 11th, 2011, 06:45 PM
I posted an article that explained the jet fuel part. Then I posted several more links explaining other parts of 9/11 you wished to inquire about.

Are you saying the majority of engineers etc. are telling lies?
Absolutely not. Like I said, I'm not a Engineer, but it doesn't take one to examine the facts.

Besides I posted a video that has very many professional engineers that agree that the WTC were controlled demolition. So to me, it seems that you're the one dismissing the engineers.

Lalapizzame
September 11th, 2011, 06:47 PM
Those engineers etc. I posted were examining the facts. What makes yours so superior to mine?

I posted three links explaining various parts of 9/11, and they all had engineers that did not believe it was a controlled demolition. It seems you're dismissing engineers, and not least of all the majority of them.

HackChu
September 11th, 2011, 06:49 PM
Those engineers etc. I posted were examining the facts. What makes yours so superior to mine?

I posted three links explaining various parts of 9/11, and they all had engineers that did not believe it was a controlled demolition. It seems you're dismissing engineers, and not least of all the majority of them.
No not at all. I acknowledge them all. But you don't seem to be paying attention either. That film goes over extensive evidence, where they analyze key structures and things like that.

I think you should take a look at it.

Yoshimi
September 11th, 2011, 06:51 PM
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-23-04/discussion.cgi.10.html

Now than, if you're going to sit here and insult me and portray me to be a tin foil hat wearing individual, I'm going to have to ask you to not post here because it's evident you're just being a..hmm, well just being a moron.

I'm just having fun bro, cool your engines, calm down, keep chilly free willies, etc.

Anyways, the metal doesn't need to melt. All that has to happen is that the metal needs to soften enough so it can't support the structure. It doesn't seem like it's easy to support 15 stories, and I don't think being on fire for a while will help.

Lalapizzame
September 11th, 2011, 06:54 PM
And my links go over extensive evidence, where they analyze many parts of 9/11 and the buildings and stuff like that.

I have spent 2 hours at school watching a 9/11 conspiracy documentary, I have spent time looking for links that discuss 9/11, I have spent time posting here. It is clear I've paid attention to your arguments and those of your colleagues.

Also, I agree with Luck. My links correspond with Luck's line of thought as well.

HackChu
September 11th, 2011, 06:56 PM
The fire died down after awhile, that's evident to see as you can see the smoke turning black. The little fires that were there weren't enough to bring them down. As I said, look closely at a video that shows them falling and you can see areas exploding.

Another thing, the 2nd tower that was hit fell first before the 1st one. Now doesn't that strike you as odd? The story is ridiculous..

Bela
September 11th, 2011, 06:57 PM
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Maddox's article on this subject makes for a humorous read for all!

EDIT: And while we're on the subject of conspiracies, what about the Titanic?!?!?

saHs6J0OXVI

Lalapizzame
September 11th, 2011, 07:00 PM
No one said the fires brought the buildings down. We said the metal was softened enough by the fire to a point its capacity to support the structure was no longer sufficient.

It depends under what circumstances the 2nd building fell.

Also, may I just ask you, why the United States do this to itself?

HackChu
September 11th, 2011, 07:02 PM
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Maddox's article on this subject makes for a humorous read for all!

EDIT: And while we're on the subject of conspiracies, what about the Titanic?!?!?

saHs6J0OXVI
That's for people who believe in Loose Change in which I'm not one of those folks.

That there is demonizing the whole truth movement. Pointing out one thing to discriminate the movement as a whole is something many folks like you all do.

Infact that's what most you can actually really do.

"Instead of trying to disprove him with facts, lets just make fun of them, that'll work alot better!"

The only person that has seemed to hold his own is Lalapizzame

Bela
September 11th, 2011, 07:50 PM
That's for people who believe in Loose Change in which I'm not one of those folks.
I said that it was a humorous read for all--and if you are saying you think such a thing is nonsense, then what is your problem?

That there is demonizing the whole truth movement. Pointing out one thing to discriminate the movement as a whole is something many folks like you all do.
I'm sorry, but who's doing the demonizing? You speak in sweeping generalizations.

Infact that's what most you can actually really do.
There's more I can and have... actually really done, such as the following:

1. I have asked you to not engage in confirmation bias
2. I agreed to a certain extent with you in a previous thread,
3. I had a conversation with you in PMs in which I said this:


I suggest you read books like Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World.

I believe it will help you in your investigation for truth. =)

Are you saying I'm crazy? I picture Demon with crazy..
http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-...5795876&sr=8-1

It's a book which promotes skepticism and free-thinking, which I believe is what your aim is.

"Instead of trying to disprove him with facts, lets just make fun of them, that'll work alot better!"
In case you don't know, the end of the article I posted did have factual sources which would refute what you're talking about.

The only person that has seemed to hold his own is Lalapizzame
With statements like these, you have made it clear to me that you're being insincere about the purpose of this thread. You sound like you're more interested in a debate in which people combat you and your wonderful, salient arguments. Arguments such as, "The little fires that were there weren't enough to bring them down" and "the 2nd tower that was hit fell first before the 1st one," which are compelling until you actually do some research.

What I sense here is intellectual dishonesty. Whether it's contrarily positing the same question back at people who ask you questions, or assailing people who focus too much on any one point as "demonizing the truth movement." This sort of language sounds more likely to come from the subscriber of a religion than it does from an individual who is actually interested in an intellectual discussion of the issue.

HackChu
September 12th, 2011, 08:05 AM
With statements like these, you have made it clear to me that you're being insincere about the purpose of this thread. You sound like you're more interested in a debate in which people combat you and your wonderful, salient arguments. Arguments such as, "The little fires that were there weren't enough to bring them down" and "the 2nd tower that was hit fell first before the 1st one," which are compelling until you actually do some research.

What I'm saying is that he's the only one who has come here, posting links, not making fun of me because of what I believe, and has actually provided a good little debate, because after all...that's what this thread really is. However I'm not saying that I rule out all the facts or sources you two..well him has shown. I haven't seen a source provided by you at..Maybe I'm forgetting as you said you did.

Also, may I just ask you, why the United States do this to itself?Good question there mate. Now just for the sake of this reply, I'm going to totally disregard of what I think about staging attacks on 9/11. Infact I'll let you draw your own conclusion based on what you're about to see.

I just hope they don't do the same with Libya and blame an attack on Gudaffi so we'd have a excuse to invade them and neigboring areas. Even though we've been over there for more than 60 days. Which is treason anyway. War Powers Act.


In 1962, there was a plan to stage terror attacks in the US by it's own government and blame it on the Cubans so that we'd agree with them to invade and assassinate Fidel Castro(see a resemblance with 9/11?)

The declassified document is known as Operation Northwoods. Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we are able to view this document in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Looking at that link, it says so itself that it was a set of proposals for False Flag terror that originated in the US government. These proposals were brought up by the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the JFK era. As he brought it up with Kennedy, he immediately fired the JCoS. I myself think that's why JFK was shot, because he was a true President of the United States. He used his own brain, and didn't do what he was told. Anyway, continuing on.

According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of antiCommunism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.Now I'm going to convert this to recent events.

According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of War on Terror, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Afghanistan.Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.You can read the rest at this site.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

So tell me this guys. If the Government was capable and already mentioning something as sick as this, why don't you think they wouldn't carry it out in this day in age?

I just hope they don't do the same and blmae Gudaffi so we'd have a excuse to invade Libya and neighboring countries. We've already commited treason to the War Powers Act by being over there for more than 60 days.

yankee0724
September 12th, 2011, 11:58 AM
yeah...

The lowest point the first tower was hit at was the 93rd floor. Lowest point on the second tower was the 77th floor. That's 16 extra floors of pressure on an increasingly weakening structure.


Saying it was a controlled demolition is ignoring the numerous 911 calls from people trapped in the South tower above the impact zone telling dispatchers the floors beneath them were falling apart. And how the NYPD helicopters that were flying around surveying the damage radioed in about large pieces falling off the top of the tower about 10 minutes before it collapsed.

If Building 7 wasn't hit by anything, how do you explain the 10 story tall gash through the side of the building? Oh right...that's from where the debris hit it...

And yes, the jet fuel DID cause the towers to collapse...indirectly.

And lol at saying the US being in Libya is treason since we've been there for over 60 days. Congress made appropiations to fund the UN, not the US, intervention in Libya. So your "point" on that is kind of null and void...

HackChu
September 12th, 2011, 01:29 PM
yeah...

The lowest point the first tower was hit at was the 93rd floor. Lowest point on the second tower was the 77th floor. That's 16 extra floors of pressure on an increasingly weakening structure.


Saying it was a controlled demolition is ignoring the numerous 911 calls from people trapped in the South tower above the impact zone telling dispatchers the floors beneath them were falling apart. And how the NYPD helicopters that were flying around surveying the damage radioed in about large pieces falling off the top of the tower about 10 minutes before it collapsed.

If Building 7 wasn't hit by anything, how do you explain the 10 story tall gash through the side of the building? Oh right...that's from where the debris hit it...

And yes, the jet fuel DID cause the towers to collapse...indirectly.

And lol at saying the US being in Libya is treason since we've been there for over 60 days. Congress made appropiations to fund the UN, not the US, intervention in Libya. So your "point" on that is kind of null and void...
And ignoring your eyeballs when watching the areas explode on the corners of the towers is even better? I don't think so. That sounds hypocritical. Now I did say that Jet feul didn't cause the collaspe, but I'm sure that it may have helped some. You must not be paying attention to the firemen and policemen who say that they heard bombs go off. Heck, some people in the towers that survived said as much themselves. If you read one of my earlier posts, you'd see that jet fuel alone couldn't have brung them down. My point on the whole scenario is that the vast majority of Americans believe the official story when the Government said jetfuel caused the collapse. You would think they'd be more specific as to how they really came down. Instead they just said it caused it. Not even mentioning that it was directly or indirectly or even bringing up any other point besides what they fed folks.

And actually, Obama said himself he will "go under the radar" to do what ever he feels needs to be done. He went and stayed in Libya for over 60 days WITHOUT congressional approval not with. And that's why some congressmen are calling for a impeachment. They should've impeached Bush when he gave the statement saying "I'm the damn President, and I can do whatever I damn well please" and "If this was a dictatorship, this'll be alot easier",

Lalapizzame
September 12th, 2011, 02:50 PM
We have been doing everything we can to avoid conflict in Libya. Besides, we have openly acknowledged the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya, why would we take steps to invade them? It's not worth the trouble, it's political suicide, and if we really desired a regime extremely friendly to us we could've demanded concessions in exchange for significant aid.

I can understand the danger of Cuba remaining a Communist stronghold dependent on the USSR, but Libya?

Libya is now predominantly under the hands of the Transitional Council, the rebels. Why would we invade, when the Transitional Council has not openly opposed us, and Gaddafi is already weakened? The Libyans would most likely resent or fear us, especially after we've openly agreed to refrain from troops on the ground, and we have no desire to be hated occupants any more. We have gone too far down the road with this new regime, and it would earn us the disapproval of our European allies and spectators in the Middle Eastern and North African countries. Not to mention, as I've said, it would be a politically incompetent move.

Other North African countries have next to no value for us. There is no reason to invade them other than to squander money which we do not have.

Also, I'm pretty sure the United States blamed the attack on Al-Qaeda, not Iraq. If their entire purpose was to war with Iraq, they could've blamed it directly on the instigator.

Lance
September 12th, 2011, 02:55 PM
He went and stayed in Libya for over 60 days WITHOUT congressional approval not with. And that's why some congressmen are calling for a impeachment. They should've impeached Bush when he gave the statement saying "I'm the damn President, and I can do whatever I damn well please" and "If this was a dictatorship, this'll be alot easier",

The President is fully within the law in doing so, just so you know. Whether the War Powers Act, Patriot Act, or through an Executive Order. Not to mention it's a joint UN venture, not solely a US one, so please get your facts straight. The involvement in Libya is purely legal and warranted, seeing as there's an actual threat to Middle Eastern security there and an actual reason to engage in war, unlike Iraq.

HackChu
September 12th, 2011, 03:00 PM
We have been doing everything we can to avoid conflict in Libya. Besides, we have openly acknowledged the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya, why would we take steps to invade them? It's not worth the trouble, it's political suicide, and if we really desired a regime extremely friendly to us we could've demanded concessions in exchange for significant aid.

I can understand the danger of Cuba remaining a Communist stronghold dependent on the USSR, but Libya?

Libya is now predominantly under the hands of the Transitional Council, the rebels. Why would we invade, when the Transitional Council has not openly opposed us, and Gaddafi is already weakened? The Libyans would most likely resent or fear us, especially after we've openly agreed to refrain from troops on the ground, and we have no desire to be hated occupants any more. We have gone too far down the road with this new regime, and it would earn us the disapproval of our European allies and spectators in the Middle Eastern and North African countries. Not to mention, as I've said, it would be a politically incompetent move.

Other North African countries have next to no value for us. There is no reason to invade them other than to squander money which we do not have.

Also, I'm pretty sure the United States blamed the attack on Al-Qaeda, not Iraq. If their entire purpose was to war with Iraq, they could've blamed it directly on the instigator.
When I say invde, it could be the neighboring countires like Syria. You have to realize, we don't get told about everything. To be honest, I don't think it matters what Europe would think as there are forces such as Britains who are apart of NATO that are there beheading rebels...

Former US Congressman Walter Fauntroy claims he saw NATO troops behead Libyans as part of the siege to overthrow Gaddafi’s regime, a conflict Fauntroy attributes to the geopolitical agenda to re-colonize Africa.

Read the full article here.
http://www.infowars.com/former-congressman-i-saw-nato-troops-behead-libyans/

In that article, there are official sources.

As for Al-Qaeda, it's said that even they are involved.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/mi6-directed-rebel-terrorists-in-tripoli-siege.html



The President is fully within the law in doing so, just so you know. Whether the War Powers Act, Patriot Act, or through an Executive Order. Not to mention it's a joint UN venture, not solely a US one, so please get your facts straight. The involvement in Libya is purely legal and warranted, seeing as there's an actual threat to Middle Eastern security there and an actual reason to engage in war, unlike Iraq.
We were already there using the War Powers Act. Now it's totally irrelevant since it's been longer than 60 days. The Patriot Act as I believe is now void, even than, how the heck could the Patriot Act be used to invade or "insist" another country? That made no sense..

The involvement in Lybia should be limited to UN troops not the US troops. I don't see Guddafi being a remote threat at all in the Middle East.

yankee0724
September 12th, 2011, 03:09 PM
Here's something I just thought up to explain the "bombs" people say they heard and the "explosions" people see. A building collapsed. When that happens it makes noise, lots of loud noises, some of which I'd assume can easily sound like bombs.

For the "explosions," again, a building collapsed. Can you prove that the floors didn't collapse before the structural support gave out? Because the floors collapsing upon themselves moments before the towers fell would refi Troy create enough forceto blow windows out-which to me is all I looked like happening in all of the "explosion" videos I've watched [windows blowing out]

As for Libya, there is a BIG difference between the us invading a nation and the un/nato providing support for rebels overthrowing an oppressive government.

And you ignored the whole part about the us congress FUNDING part of the un support btw. How exactly is it without congressional approval if congress is providing funding for part of it? Lool

Lalapizzame
September 12th, 2011, 03:11 PM
There is no need to invade Syria. The rebels do not seem to ask for our help, nor do the people desire for an intervention, leaving us with no reason to declare war or invade Syria.

Our aid has predominantly been air support. The United States has not moved beyond this, nor shall it ever, with public opinion inert regarding this issue.

There is no desire to re-colonize Africa. Trying to make sure regimes are not hostile to us is far from a desire to re-colonize. It would be more of a burden than a benefit, public opinion is so firmly against it, and private companies can buy resources more efficiently than the force of arms can extract.

Gaddafi has tried to cooperate with Islamist factions to suppress the rebels, but that is far from Al-Qaeda being "in on it."

Also, do you have a credible source to make these claims? Some source accepted by mainstream society, not just some site a majority of people don't know about or accept.

Xyrin
September 12th, 2011, 03:14 PM
Let me ask you this.

Why in their right mind would they send 4 planes out. The 4th plane was heading towards Washington DC and could have very well been out to destroy the White house, the congress building, or the Washington memorial.

Haven't you ever thought that they could have attacked a smaller place, with one plane and still get people to support invading Afghanistan? I do.

Lance
September 12th, 2011, 03:24 PM
When I say invde, it could be the neighboring countires like Syria. You have to realize, we don't get told about everything. To be honest, I don't think it matters what Europe would think as there are forces such as Britains who are apart of NATO that are there beheading rebels...



Read the full article here.
http://www.infowars.com/former-congressman-i-saw-nato-troops-behead-libyans/

In that article, there are official sources.

As for Al-Qaeda, it's said that even they are involved.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/mi6-directed-rebel-terrorists-in-tripoli-siege.html


We were already there using the War Powers Act. Now it's totally irrelevant since it's been longer than 60 days. The Patriot Act as I believe is now void, even than, how the heck could the Patriot Act be used to invade or "insist" another country? That made no sense..

The involvement in Lybia should be limited to UN troops not the US troops. I don't see Guddafi being a remote threat at all in the Middle East.

You ignored the biggest part of that post. Executive Order. Made by the President alone, Executive Orders can only be made and undone by the President and are above legislative or judicial interference. We could be there for 60 years if need be. And we have no ground forces there, either.


I'm also going to ask you to drop your tone so I don't have to close this thread, as it's gone downhill quickly.

HackChu
September 12th, 2011, 03:24 PM
Here's something I just thought up to explain the "bombs" people say they heard and the "explosions" people see. A building collapsed. When that happens it makes noise, lots of loud noises, some of which I'd assume can easily sound like bombs.

For the "explosions," again, a building collapsed. Can you prove that the floors didn't collapse before the structural support gave out? Because the floors collapsing upon themselves moments before the towers fell would refi Troy create enough forceto blow windows out-which to me is all I looked like happening in all of the "explosion" videos I've watched [windows blowing out]

As for Libya, there is a BIG difference between the us invading a nation and the un/nato providing support for rebels overthrowing an oppressive government.

And you ignored the whole part about the us congress FUNDING part of the un support btw. How exactly is it without congressional approval if congress is providing funding for part of it? Lool
The Congress can fun the UN as the President isn't in control of them. However it's different when the US troops are being sent there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?_r=3
The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), asserted Wednesday that President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.
I think that shows we are going over there without Congress' approval.

Inside sources that were in Fort Hood(soldiers of course) stated that they are preparing for an invasion in October.

http://www.infowars.com/u-s-invasion-of-libya-set-for-october/

This is unconstitutional, and the President can't declare war for no reason. Heck he doesn't have the power to start a war unless it goes through Congress. Obama himself said he "would go under the radar". Are you dismssing that?

Lol, under the radar to me sounds like Obama is saying he doesn't need approval and that he can do whatever he wants.

As for the 9/11 question. I didn't say that the towers collapsed when they said it. Wow. Heck there are videos where the Policemen are around the WTC7 building and are saying, "they're going to bring it down!" "I just heard an explosion".

Larry Silverstein himself said that "they agreed to just pull it!".

Can you explain in several of the live news coverages that when WTC7 was standing, they said "This just in, but WTC7 has just collapsed" when it did not lol. oh my god, I wonder if people think when things like this are talked about. How did she know before hand that it would collapse when it did not, and wasn't hit with anything? It proves that it was all scripted, and that it was planned demolition. Go figure.



You ignored the biggest part of that post. Executive Order. Made by the President alone, Executive Orders can only be made and undone by the President and are above legislative or judicial interference. We could be there for 60 years if need be. And we have no ground forces there, either.


I'm also going to ask you to drop your tone so I don't have to close this thread, as it's gone downhill quickly.
Drop my tone? Because I'm disagreeing with you? How ignorant. As you can see there were post that were mocking me, and yet you didn't say anything to them.

Yeah, I'm going to have to say something about that. You're trying to get the thread locked because you disagree with what's being said here.

yankee0724
September 12th, 2011, 03:29 PM
The involvement in Lybia should be limited to UN troops not the US troops. I don't see Guddafi being a remote threat at all in the Middle East.

What...? The only reason the us is there is because we are part of the un... That makes like no sense

HackChu
September 12th, 2011, 03:33 PM
What...? The only reason the us is there is because we are part of the un... That makes like no sense
The UN don't control our troops...that's why they have their own.

However if Congress decides that our troops should aid the UN that's a different story. It made perfect sense.

Let me ask you this.

Why in their right mind would they send 4 planes out. The 4th plane was heading towards Washington DC and could have very well been out to destroy the White house, the congress building, or the Washington memorial.

Haven't you ever thought that they could have attacked a smaller place, with one plane and still get people to support invading Afghanistan? I do.
Who knows? I don't have all the answers. What I do know for certain is that, according to Operation Northwoods, the Government had at one time decided to stage false flag events to blaim on another politicial entitiy like Hitler did with his own Parliament building.

Lalapizzame
September 12th, 2011, 03:36 PM
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#WTC_7_was_demolished_by_order_of_the_WTC.27s_owner

Presidents can use the Executive Order as Live_Wire has said, without the consent of Congress, if they desire to.

Lance
September 12th, 2011, 03:37 PM
Drop my tone? Because I'm disagreeing with you? How ignorant. As you can see there were post that were mocking me, and yet you didn't say anything to them.

Yeah, I'm going to have to say something about that. You're trying to get the thread locked because you disagree with what's being said here.


I don't have to "try" to get anything locked here. I am Other Chat.

You post condescendingly and rudely, in this thread and others. Any more problems or reports from this thread, and it will be closed and I will infract all of you.

HackChu
September 12th, 2011, 03:45 PM
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#WTC_7_was_demolished_by_order_of_the_WTC.27s_owner

Presidents can use the Executive Order as Live_Wire has said, without the consent of Congress, if they desire to.
Where's the line where Americans start saying something about that than? That being the case, the President could issue a order declaring himself a dictator or even God. These orders need to be kept under control.

It's quite saddening. When the President is signing orders to a Federal Bank because I would hope everyone knows that a Federal Bank isn't a Government. What needs to be done, an executive order that should really be ratified is getting rid of the FED like JFK was going to do. But the Presidents are too scared to go through with that.

I fail to understand why people aren't seeing the problems with the President signing order after order. It's a sneaky way to get passed the Congress, and it really ticks me off.

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson) — and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W. W. (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson) The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States — only on a far bigger and broader basis--Franklin_D._Roosevelt

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.--Franklin_D._Roosevelt

Lalapizzame
September 12th, 2011, 03:56 PM
The President has usually issued Executive Orders with the approval of Congress. While there has been attention devoted to this issue, it is not abused enough to be struck out and removed from the President's privileges. No one would take the President seriously if he went out of line, HackChu. You mistake the Congress and the Judiciary as sheep, and the military as cows. Self-restraint is the name of the game here, or else that power would be taken out of the President's hands like a toy from a baby.

This principle applies to every power granted to a single executive or person; the Monarchy of the United Kingdom does not veto everything (au contraire), because Parliament would disobey the monarch and threaten to strip the Crown of that power.

Are you sure getting rid of the Federal Bank would have benefits that far outweigh its costs? A nostalgic proposal, but a potentially disastrous one. There is a reason Presidents are scared to do such a thing. If the President is not allowed to go through with it or will lose his job for it, he will not do it. It may even cost the jobs of many others, depending on how severely it affects the economy.

The President is allowed to do this because he is trusted with Executive Orders. If that sacred trust is breached, so too will his privilege to use Executive Orders. This fear of retribution keeps him in line.

yankee0724
September 12th, 2011, 04:09 PM
The UN don't control our troops...that's why they have their own.

However if Congress decides that our troops should aid the UN that's a different story. It made perfect sense.
How long do you plan on ignoring the fact that congress is helping pay for the un's involvement? Just because a small group of congressmen/women don't think we should be there anymore doesn't make it unconstitutional.


Who knows? I don't have all the answers. What I do know for certain is that, according to Operation Northwoods, the Government had at one time decided to stage false flag events to blaim on another politicial entitiy like Hitler did with his own Parliament building.

It's nearly universally accepted that van der Lubbe did it, only thing is if he did it alone or with a group of communists. Once again, it's just a relatively small group of historians that think the nazi party was involved.

And seriously I don't see how anything I, hackchu, or lala has said would warrant an infraction.

HackChu
September 12th, 2011, 04:36 PM
The President has usually issued Executive Orders with the approval of Congress. While there has been attention devoted to this issue, it is not abused enough to be struck out and removed from the President's privileges. No one would take the President seriously if he went out of line, HackChu. You mistake the Congress and the Judiciary as sheep, and the military as cows. Self-restraint is the name of the game here, or else that power would be taken out of the President's hands like a toy from a baby.

This principle applies to every power granted to a single executive or person; the Monarchy of the United Kingdom does not veto everything (au contraire), because Parliament would disobey the monarch and threaten to strip the Crown of that power.

Are you sure getting rid of the Federal Bank would have benefits that far outweigh its costs? A nostalgic proposal, but a potentially disastrous one. There is a reason Presidents are scared to do such a thing. If the President is not allowed to go through with it or will lose his job for it, he will not do it. It may even cost the jobs of many others, depending on how severely it affects the economy.

The President is allowed to do this because he is trusted with Executive Orders. If that sacred trust is breached, so too will his privilege to use Executive Orders. This fear of retribution keeps him in line.
I must say, I'm quite happy to discuss these things with someone such as yourself. You're the only one who hasn't bashed me around in any way and you're being level headed. So I appreciate that. Now. Like I said with a few of my other posts. There are loopholes and there are ways of getting around things. Again, like Hitler. He supported the Jews, had everyone fooled. But when it got down to it, well you know what happened from there. A President of the U.S(I doubt the current puppet can do this, unless there is a "terror" event to boost his ratings) could issue orders that could some-what bypass certain amendment rights, such as the order that Obama signed that went against the 4th Amendment to take guns from people in Texas and neighboring states because of the so-called drug cartels(that they profit from anyway)

Another example is using an attack on America, and than say it's not safe so they can have an excuse to decalre Martial Law. That means guns would be taken away totally going against the 4th amendment. Even now the government is using the fear from the 9/11 attacks to introduce more "securities" like the TSA sticking hands down people's pants. So basically, when there is a crises, the people will beg for the Government's help, and of course that would be the time to seige and use the adventage to become dictator. It was seen in Germany, it was how in a similar way that Hitler became dictator. Using the fear of the people that they had for the Communists. See the resemblence here with today's society? Heck if a attack happened at the White House, or the Congress building, the President could use that opportunity to become a dictator than what? If you really look at history you can see the very exact same thing going on that happened in Germany.

All of this explained in many of Alex Jones' films. Heck, seeing how intelligent you are, I challenege to watch a couple of them and see what you can argue against.

As for getting rid of the FED, I think it should at least be audited so they don't have too much power. Former chairmen of the fed said they are above law themselves anyway. They need to have power taken from them at the very least. It's like the quote I posted, the banks rule America, these private banks set up by rich families. If you'd like I can post an article that describes how the FED rapes America. It's basically like they take our money, print nothing and give nothing in return. It's a pansy scheme. The inflation will continue to rise so long as the FED are around.

How long do you plan on ignoring the fact that congress is helping pay for the un's involvement? Just because a small group of congressmen/women don't think we should be there anymore doesn't make it unconstitutional.




It's nearly universally accepted that van der Lubbe did it, only thing is if he did it alone or with a group of communists. Once again, it's just a relatively small group of historians that think the nazi party was involved.

And seriously I don't see how anything I, hackchu, or lala has said would warrant an infraction.
I'm not ignoring, I just think it's irrelovent because it isn't like they are funding the military or anything like that to go there. Congressmen Ron Paul knows it all crap, and that's why he himself is calling for an impeachment of Obama. Our troops have no reason to be there. Leave it to the UN.

And I agree, no one should be recieving an infraction for anything. No one is being hostile towards anyone or calling names.

_A9X_8flGeM

w9npCtqCuRU

Lalapizzame
September 12th, 2011, 05:33 PM
I must say, I'm quite happy to discuss these things with someone such as yourself. You're the only one who hasn't bashed me around in any way and you're being level headed. So I appreciate that. Now. Like I said with a few of my other posts. There are loopholes and there are ways of getting around things. Again, like Hitler. He supported the Jews, had everyone fooled. But when it got down to it, well you know what happened from there. A President of the U.S(I doubt the current puppet can do this, unless there is a "terror" event to boost his ratings) could issue orders that could some-what bypass certain amendment rights, such as the order that Obama signed that went against the 4th Amendment to take guns from people in Texas and neighboring states because of the so-called drug cartels(that they profit from anyway)

Another example is using an attack on America, and than say it's not safe so they can have an excuse to decalre Martial Law. That means guns would be taken away totally going against the 4th amendment. Even now the government is using the fear from the 9/11 attacks to introduce more "securities" like the TSA sticking hands down people's pants. So basically, when there is a crises, the people will beg for the Government's help, and of course that would be the time to seige and use the adventage to become dictator. It was seen in Germany, it was how in a similar way that Hitler became dictator. Using the fear of the people that they had for the Communists. See the resemblence here with today's society? Heck if a attack happened at the White House, or the Congress building, the President could use that opportunity to become a dictator than what? If you really look at history you can see the very exact same thing going on that happened in Germany.

All of this explained in many of Alex Jones' films. Heck, seeing how intelligent you are, I challenege to watch a couple of them and see what you can argue against.

As for getting rid of the FED, I think it should at least be audited so they don't have too much power. Former chairmen of the fed said they are above law themselves anyway. They need to have power taken from them at the very least. It's like the quote I posted, the banks rule America, these private banks set up by rich families. If you'd like I can post an article that describes how the FED rapes America. It's basically like they take our money, print nothing and give nothing in return. It's a pansy scheme. The inflation will continue to rise so long as the FED are around.

The Germany that allowed Hitler to rise was a desperate, starving, and angry Germany, which had a flawed and relatively young democracy. America is a country very conscious of its liberties and system of democratic government, founded as a democracy with rights which are inalienable. The people will not allow the President to deny them their Rights, or they will remove him from office.

I don't see how we profit from drug cartels. They are operating illegally, they encourage a type of system which thrives on corruption and a lack of law, and encourage armed conflict, including the violent downfall of several public figures. There's a reason no one wants to live in the areas affected by drug cartels.

It has to be a serious, serious war for martial law to be introduced, and the President will not move unless he's sure the two other branches of government will approve of it. Lincoln's time is the most well-known time of authoritarian measures, but martial law was a dangerous card to play unless he could arrest or silence opposition. Only in such a scenario would martial law happen, and I doubt the people will pander to him to enforce martial law.

Again, Germany's democracy was flawed and lacked the strength which is present in systems that have been long-established. Germany had just come out of a war that wiped out many young men, forced conditions on it which its people strongly resented, and was suffering from terrible economic conditions which turned it from barely surviving into a state of bankruptcy and near complete collapse. Our government has a clear and strong Constitution, one which will not allow the President to become the dictator you fear. He would be impeached, or the judiciary branch would object.

Germany and the United States are two very different countries; this is comparing apples and oranges.

Former politicians and members of government institutions say what they desire to say. Was he actively calling for limitations on the Federal Bank during his time as Chairman?

Inflation will continue to rise if the money supply outstrips consumption. While encouraging the haphazard issuing of money is inflationary, as long as it is kept under reasonable limits then we can deal with it, as long as growth outpaces inflation. I don't think it should be called a ponzi scheme; an easier example to make of a ponzi scheme would be Social Security and things of that sort. Now, all government institutions must be moderated, and not just by themselves. However, I'm not quite sure whether the Federal Bank is as disastrous as you claim. It may not be doing much to help the economy, but that's different.

HackChu
September 12th, 2011, 05:59 PM
The Germany that allowed Hitler to rise was a desperate, starving, and angry Germany, which had a flawed and relatively young democracy. America is a country very conscious of its liberties and system of democratic government, founded as a democracy with rights which are inalienable. The people will not allow the President to deny them their Rights, or they will remove him from office.

What kind of position do you think we're in now? No one is starving, but we are fearful, and we're in the greatest recession that fit's the days before the Great Depression. Although the mainstream keeps saying that the economy is bubbling and that we're rising out of debt when that's a complete lie. I trust alternative media, because there is no scripted events, light shows and flashy tricks or anything like that. It's all done based on pure evidence that is presented. I balme Fox news and CNN for telling Americans that the economy is getting better brainwashing us, when we all know things are getting worse. People don't seem to realize that the Government is using fear as a way to control us, which again points back to Germany.

When you have a series of news programs based on politcs(Fox being right and CNN being left) than anyone should know they can't be trusted.

It has to be a serious, serious war for martial law to be introduced, and the President will not move unless he's sure the two other branches of government will approve of it. Lincoln's time is the most well-known time of authoritarian measures, but martial law was a dangerous card to play unless he could arrest or silence opposition. Only in such a scenario would martial law happen, and I doubt the people will pander to him to enforce martial law.
On 9/11 we were in a post-martial law. The borders were closed, and people were advised to stay in. The only thing that was missing was the Police being on the streets marching door to door asking for weapons. A mini martial law wasn't officially declared but it was acheived down in Pittsburgh during the G20 summit when protesters were gased and being knocked around. Again, their amendment rights were broken when the mini police state sent out dogs in one case that attacked an old lady and she was thrown around. Do you not see that being tyrannical?

Again, Germany's democracy was flawed and lacked the strength which is present in systems that have been long-established. Germany had just come out of a war that wiped out many young men, forced conditions on it which its people strongly resented, and was suffering from terrible economic conditions which turned it from barely surviving into a state of bankruptcy and near complete collapse. Our government has a clear and strong Constitution, one which will not allow the President to become the dictator you fear. He would be impeached, or the judiciary branch would object.


People don't follow the constituion anymore, otherwise people could protest all they want, they wouldn't be thrown around, guns wouldn't be taken away, people would be able to freely voice their opinions on the streets without police intervention. Heck Obama commited treason when he gave power to the so0called "Commitee of 12". You can't give judicial power to certain indivdiuals, its like saying "yeah, screw Congress, who needs them?" Yeah the mainstream goes over it like they're talking about the forecast or something.

The media is controlled. Bottom line. You hear what they want you to hear and nothing more.

Face it folks, there is a New World Order rising. Here's a quote from scumbag globalist, David Rockefeller.

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." —David Rockefeller, from his own book, Memoirs.

Here are more quotes.

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." —Woodrow Wilson

"[The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most
significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United
States to change it's perceptions." — Henry Kissinger, World Affairs Council Press Conference,
Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel, April 19th 1994

"David Rockefeller is the most conspicuous representative today of the ruling class, a multinational fraternity of men who shape the global economy and manage the flow of its capital. Rockefeller was born to it, and he has made the most of it. But what some critics see as a vast international conspiracy, he considers a circumstance of life and just another day's work... In the world of David Rockefeller it's hard to tell where business ends and politics begins" —Bill Moyers

And it goes on and on. I honestly can't see how the New World Order is a good thing either when I hear some people say that.

Lalapizzame
September 12th, 2011, 06:19 PM
I don't know about you, but the news media I hear about says things opposite of what you claim they say. We have become a nation obsessed with the debt problem, and are mildly gloomy about a recovery.

I'm not sure how alternate media is any better. Smaller media outlets have less sources to rely upon, less prestige to attract recognized professionals, and the same political agenda. The only difference is that less people have heard of them.

That's not post-martial law. Those are extremely low expectations for martial law; I would call that a suggestion and safety precautions. What did these protestors do during the G20 Summit, before you shall claim they were simply gassed? There are always two sides to a story, and the authorities would not want to risk compromising public opinion without a reason. Tell me this story from a recognized media outlet, a mainstream one. Police being mobilized with dogs is not tyrannical, nor is an old lady being attacked by police dogs. That is a public casualty, and an unfortunate one.

The people may hold peaceful protests. Guns shall not be seized unless the government has provided a proper reason, and people are able to voice their opinions in almost every single case ever heard, except where it endangered the public welfare (like Lincoln's time).

The judiciary branch is an example of judicial power being given to certain individuals.

The media is controlled, yes, but not by the government. There is no institution, public or private, that is not controlled by something.

Also, I'm not quite sure how quotes from prominent individuals proves anything. They can say what they please.

I don't think the media's trying to brainwash anyone into thinking the economy is recovering or the debt problem will be solved, especially since it seems they believe the economy is not recovering fast enough and the debt problem is coming to a climax. I believe you have been brainwashed and pushed into some form of irrational fear and belief in quotes. Not to mention your loose standards, since alternate media is still the media, except it caters to an audience different from what the mainstream anticipates.

HackChu
September 12th, 2011, 06:40 PM
I don't know about you, but the news media I hear about says things opposite of what you claim they say. We have become a nation obsessed with the debt problem, and are mildly gloomy about a recovery.

I'm not sure how alternate media is any better. Smaller media outlets have less sources to rely upon, less prestige to attract recognized professionals, and the same political agenda. The only difference is that less people have heard of them.

That's not post-martial law. Those are extremely low expectations for martial law; I would call that a suggestion and safety precautions. What did these protestors do during the G20 Summit, before you shall claim they were simply gassed? There are always two sides to a story, and the authorities would not want to risk compromising public opinion without a reason. Tell me this story from a recognized media outlet, a mainstream one. Police being mobilized with dogs is not tyrannical, nor is an old lady being attacked by police dogs. That is a public casualty, and an unfortunate one.

The people may hold peaceful protests. Guns shall not be seized unless the government has provided a proper reason, and people are able to voice their opinions in almost every single case ever heard, except where it endangered the public welfare (like Lincoln's time).

The judiciary branch is an example of judicial power being given to certain individuals.

The media is controlled, yes, but not by the government. There is no institution, public or private, that is not controlled by something.

Also, I'm not quite sure how quotes from prominent individuals proves anything. They can say what they please.

I don't think the media's trying to brainwash anyone into thinking the economy is recovering or the debt problem will be solved, especially since it seems they believe the economy is not recovering fast enough and the debt problem is coming to a climax. I believe you have been brainwashed and pushed into some form of irrational fear and belief in quotes. Not to mention your loose standards, since alternate media is still the media, except it caters to an audience different from what the mainstream anticipates.
I don't agree with you saying they have less sources to rely on. To be honest, the only alternative media I listen to is Alex Jones, the one and only man who predicted 9/11 just 3 months before it happened. The man who infiltrated a place called Bohemian Grove, where top Government officials go to partake in rituals(as been recorded) and partake...in homosexual origies. Clinton revealed that himself. Henry Kissinger is seen on posters with a bra on. So I do believe crazy acts happen in the grove. I think that mainstream should be getting into the important things, instead of worrying about what football team beat who, or the Casey Anthony trials and things like that.

And no, those protesters weren't advocating hate or anything so I don't know why they were gassed and tossed around. I guess it's about feeling whos in control. The media has gotten us so twisted, and telling everyone that we protest out of hate that it's sickening. I imagine that's why you asked if the protesters did anything. Protesters who disagree with the government are always attacked by mainstream news and it's pathetic. That's because the mainstream teaches us to love our government and believe they are our saviors.

For you to say that I"M brainwashed really allows me to question your knowledge. I say this, because I do plenty of research, I read books, I look at the declassified documents, and study evidence. I don't see how that shows I'm brainwashed when I look up the things I'm being told before actually believing it.

I have to also say, that yes my friend, the Media is controlled. Perhaps maybe not from the Government but from corporate interests. There was a site somewhere that showed that many major networks in America that air on TV are controlled by the interworkings of the shadow government. The Rothschild's run Reuters and many other stations in Europe.

Bottom line is that, I think you and others should really go out and read and do some research before saying someone is brainwashed. I have to say that I listen to both sides of the story, the "Conspiraies" and the "truths". I find myslef normally leaning toward the "conspiracies"(in which most really aren't when there is evidence that usually backs it up) However there are many who disagree with me that believe and only hears one side, and that's normally the side the Government wants you to hear.

EDIT: Have you forgotten about the free speech zones?

Lance
September 12th, 2011, 07:00 PM
Heck Obama commited treason when he gave power to the so0called "Commitee of 12". You can't give judicial power to certain indivdiuals, its like saying "yeah, screw Congress, who needs them?" Yeah the mainstream goes over it like they're talking about the forecast or something.


How do you suppose we appoint new judges/judicial officials? That would be giving a person judicial power. Granted, they go through a review process before they get the job, but the President appoints people to positions of judicial power, which kinda refutes your point that doing so is somehow treasonous. And I'd like to see some evidence please, aside from irrelevant, anecdotal videos and incredibly biased conspiracy websites.

If Obama committed treason, then my cousin is the Loch Ness Monster.

HackChu
September 12th, 2011, 07:11 PM
How do you suppose we appoint new judges/judicial officials? That would be giving a person judicial power. Granted, they go through a review process before they get the job, but the President appoints people to positions of judicial power, which kinda refutes your point that doing so is somehow treasonous. And I'd like to see some evidence please, aside from irrelevant, anecdotal videos and incredibly biased conspiracy websites.

If Obama committed treason, then my cousin is the Loch Ness Monster.
You're telling me that the 12 appointed members were reviwed? Are you serious? This isn't like going to Wendys for an interview. Besides even if it were, no one was reviewed at all. They were just appointed. The members vote for a piece of legislation, and if they themselves get an even vote, the legislation gets passed. Scew Congress, they don't pass bills anymore, lets leave it all to the Commitee.

And evidence to what exactly? You don't believe the commitee of 12 exists?

Infowars isn't biased by the way. I'd say Fox and CNN are though..

Zet
September 12th, 2011, 07:14 PM
Awww it's always cute seeing super paranoid kids getting themselves involved with conspiracies. Let me tell you that the minute God crapped out the third caveman, a conspiracy was hatched against one of them.

If you think something is a conspiracy like Obama being a warmonger or committing treason, you're just a paranoid republican with an IQ lower than five.

Zet
September 12th, 2011, 07:23 PM
Lol, I'm a kid. Haha. You're 4 years older than me, what makes you say I'm a kid. I guess we all are if we're at a Pokemon forum, hahaha. Oh the irony in that post.

Anyway, if you haven't gotten something constructive to post don't post at all. It's clear that you're just apart of the minority who bashes people around because we unlock minds, and aren't apart of the robot system that is America today.

The irony of your post is that republicans are robots. Also America != the world. Just so you know for future reference.

I've already reached enlightenment and realized that I was truly foolish to believe things like conspiracies. It was certainly childish, and the very idea of "unlocking" minds with your asinine posts is ridiculous at best.

HackChu
September 12th, 2011, 07:27 PM
I didn't realize you're from Australia, still that means nothing.

Obviously not, if you've reached enlightenment than you'd realize that most of "conspiracies" have valid proof and evidence backed by it. I think being childish is when you believe what everyone else says, and when your eyeballs stay glued to a television set as your mind absorbs total disinforamtion.

If you want to call me funny, or childish tha's fine. Just don't call me one because I research and study history. That's quite ridiculous in itself.

Zet
September 12th, 2011, 07:34 PM
I aced history, I know how dark America and other places can be, I stand a the very precipice of time itself.

Your paranoia of the twin towers is ridiculous, if there is equipment inside the building such as a computer, gas, etc. Wouldn't a plane crashing into the building and exploding set off the other equipment in a chain reaction? Science tells us "Yes, yes it can".

HackChu
September 12th, 2011, 07:36 PM
I aced history, I know how dark America and other places can be, I stand a the very precipice of time itself.

Your paranoia of the twin towers is ridiculous, if there is equipment inside the building such as a computer, gas, etc. Wouldn't a plane crashing into the building and exploding set off the other equipment in a chain reaction? Science tells us "Yes, yes it could".
So all of a sudden, Gravity was defied on that tragic day.

Those towers came down at free fall speed in a "pancake" like collapse.

Look, I've posted a video where Engineers goes over what really happened there. I find it even more rediclous when you say I'm paranoid. I study history, and I know Government is corrupt. I've read Operation Northwoods, I know the US government has potential to stage attacks. Apparently you don't since I'm paranoid.

Bela
September 12th, 2011, 07:37 PM
I didn't realize you're from Australia, still that means nothing.

Obviously not, if you've reached enlightenment than you'd realize that most of "conspiracies" have valid proof and evidence backed by it. I think being childish is when you believe what everyone else says, and when your eyeballs stay glued to a television set as your mind absorbs total disinforamtion.

If you want to call me funny, or childish tha's fine. Just don't call me one because I research and study history. That's quite ridiculous in itself.

It's a shame, because you are so convinced of your own ideas.

If you took the time to be skeptical and reviewed the claims you yourself have made, and weighed the arguments you've made (look at the videos) versus what others like myself have given you (read reports), you'd probably find yourself looking back at this happenstance evidence and misinformation, half-truths and the like to not be the truth you claim it to be now.

Lance
September 12th, 2011, 07:38 PM
This farce has gone on long enough, this thread has devolved considerably and has just turned into back and forth flaming between multiple parties. And now it's over.


*Locked*