9/11 Was Staged

Again, you have no researched the subject. You make that statement purely from your own predetermined (conditioned) beliefs. As I've said, you're the one who'll look like an idiot, to anyone with a brain, if you comdemn something before researching it. You have no idea what you're talking about, yet you assume you do. Rather than taking what is said on it's merits, and considering it, you don't for a second even think about it. In your mind you already know I'm wrong, and so you have perverted the process of, as I see it, Listen > Consider > Reply to simply Listen > Reply. In your mind the information is not worth consideration, which it fucking well is.

And that history of the reptilians is rather lacking. I was basically talking about the way they have got people worshipping their ancient gods, not about their actual history. That would take thousands of pages to write out in full, ven if I did know it all, which of course I do not. But what I said above is basically true, although there was a previous near-global civilization based on two continents that no longer exist, Atlantis and Lemuria. And again, despite endless evidence of such continents having existed, you'll just dismiss it again. I don't know why I bother, except that perhaps someone will read this and become inspired to search for the truth. The more people that realize what's happening, the better.

 

I'm sorry. I really can't believe the government staged it. I can definetely believe that the government took the opportunity to do nothing about it, even with the overwhelming amounts of warnings they received prior to the attack, but I just can't wrap my head around such a concept. Are they capable and willing to do it? Fuck yes. That much I can believe, but still. It's a little too much for me to conceive that they would actually do it. I don't know, it's just my denial, I suppose...

 

that's exactly what it is, your denial...and many others who refuse to believe that they've been shammed by their own gov't.

is it really that hard to believe??

people want proof, but even amongst the evidence (which is so fucking obvious), they'll still deny it.

even worse, you have people who absolutely REFUSE to even think about it, and question authority (what the original founding fathers urged patriots to do).

I'd like to think that people are more intelligent than to simply believe our gov't only protects us, but still seeing a lot of W stickers on the back of SUVs, kinda makes me lose faith in that.

 

Crazy Bob, I think we all said those things to ourselves before the question drove us mad enough to research and research

...ultimatley, you know nothing about anything, but with enough delving investigation your perspective of the truth will become more clear in your mind...

Sure, the most powerful and rich people in the world care about us little folks, right? There's no way they'd use their influence in media, television, print press, radio, and internet for their own gain, right?

...right?

 

"Sure, the most powerful and rich people in the world care about us little folks, right? There's no way they'd use their influence in media, television, print press, radio, and internet for their own gain, right?"

Of course they don't care about the little people and of course they lie and cheat to create myths people will believe in.

But Kblaze you can work toward lessening their power by getting involved in the struggle against them not by spreading equally false myths about conspiracy, Lemuria, and Satanists.

 

i think KBlaze is being sarcastic

 

He knows he was being sarcastic.

And I am involved in the struggle against them, Balbus. As I see it, the best way to do that is to educate people. I talk frequently about the plans these folks have for us, but I also discuss their origins, because I find it quite interesting. It just proves they're doing their job when you're so conditioned that you cannot bear to look at the evidence.

I have a challenge for you, Balbus. And this isn't a joke, I really mean it. There's a book I want you to read fully and consider the evidence in it. If you still don't believe it, I'll respect that. People have the right to make their own decisions. However, it do not respect that decision if you base it on nothing but predetermined ideas. So here. Order this book, read it, then PM me. Until then, a quote of this message will be my reply to your arguments on the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/09...f=pd_bbs_8/102-2512949-9966562?_encoding=UTF8

 

Is there a kind way to say this? You sound like a good candidate for scientology (please don't try it though).

 

The first review is just a rant against him. It has no facts, just a lot of bullshit about what a fool he is.

I have read about this first highlight. He said "a son of God", not the. As in we are all "sons of God" which really means part of the infinite consciousness.

The second highlight is a blatant lie. I'll grant that it is a rumor that was going around, and the reviewer probably thought it was true, but it isn't.

The third highlight deserves a [sic] at the end, because he meant the same thing as in highlight #1. He said "a son of God" or something along those lines, and to those who believe in Jesus, that means the Messiah. However, that is not how he sees it, so it's not what he meant. Therefore even a [sic] would be misrepresenting it.

I do know the story on this fourth highlight, but it is a very long one which I will not go into.

The fifth highlight, I have no answer to, except that it was probably a joke.

And the majority of the reviews on there were positive. There are more than two negative, but you did deliberately choose the bad ones and ignore the rest. The challenge stands.

 

Soooo....you guys are saying that the Republican Illuminati Scientology Jew Space Lizards did not blow up the buildings?

 

1. They are not Republican. They have no side but their own. All sides such as Republican and Democrat, Liberal and Conservative are creations of theirs meant for the manipulation and seperation of the people.

2. I'm not even clear on what Scientology is. However, I can tell you the Illuminati are not followers of it. It is likely another manipulation technique.

3. They are not Jewish, they merely manipulate Judaism for their own personal gain.

4. They did blow up the buildings.

 

Nalencer

David has a habit of disregarding those works that don’t fit his theories and hunting around until he finds something that does suit him.

For example if memory serves in chapter 2 or 3 he claims that Sargon the Great was the ruler of an empire that stretched from the British isles to India, why does he make this totally unsubstanuated claim? Because he is going on the work of a L.A. Waddell, why does he accept Waddell’s word because David thinks he is a “genius” and why does he claim he is a genius, well because Waddell says thinks that David wants to believe.

There is no proof of this empire, there is no material proof even of Sargon the Great’s existence (we know of him only from later writings).

**

Here are two books by L.A. Waddell

Waddell, L. A. The British Edda: The Great Epic Poem of the Ancient Britains on the Exploits of King Thor, Arthur or Adam and his Knights in Establishing Civilization, Reforming Eden and Capturing The Holy Grail about 3380-3350 B.C. Reconstructed for the First Time from the Medieval Mss. by Babylonian, Hittite, Egyptian, Trojan & Gothic Keys and Done Literally into English. With 30 Plates & 162 Text Illustrations of Scenes from Sumerian, British & Other Ancient Monuments, Maps, Foreword, Introduction, Notes & Glossary. London: Chapman & Hall Ltd., 1930.

Waddell, L. A. Phoenician Origin of Britons, Scots and Anglo-Saxons Discovered by Phoenician & Sumerian Inscriptions in Britain, by pre-Roman Briton Coins & a Mass of New History. Second edition. London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1925; Third edition. London: Luzac & Company, 1931.

His ideas are not taken seriously by any serious historian, because they just don’t stand up to scrutiny. It is however he is very popular with racists which is why stormfront gust on about how good a historian he is.

**

The thing is that using a suspect and discredited source to back up a theory doesn’t make it suddenly a ‘fact’ it just means you have a suspect theory.

**

The thing that interests me is why you would accept David Icke’s ideas over those of real historians?

 

Nalencer, my post was a joke. Everyone here who knows me knows I don't believe in the Illuminati or any other freaky, otherworldly, conspiracy theory.

 

Does it really seam that crazy to you that the pharmaceutical companies would hold a cure for cancer or AIDS back from the people, think about it like this pointbreak, you make medicine, u sell people pills for wutever they need cured for a dollar, and they never come back, so u make about 200 bucks off 200 people and they never come back to you again, now if you sold them pills for a dollar a piece, or maybe even cheaper like .50 cents, that would take away the pain and the feeling of that disease, but do nothing to cure it, those 200 people would keep coming back and back and back and back and never be cured, so they line your pockets with unlimited cash, now you may say you wouldn't do that because you are a good person which I am sure you are, but these rich pharmacuetical companies have so much power and so much money and pull in the government they can really get away with anything now, they can sell you medicine to get rid of your stuffy nose that takes away your boner, gives you constant headaches and viral infections, but takes away the shit in your nose, these guys really have no conscience and they look at us as lesser people because we have less money then them, thats how society has always worked and thats the way it will continue to work.

 

Well, I think "real" historians are full of shit. They too ignore evidence they don't want to accept, on a grand scale. Now I'm not saying everything David Icke says is correct. I agree with his general theme, I think he's a smart guy, and I think he knows his shit.

 

History is written by those who conquer, not those who are conquered. After all, I don't think native americans would describe the 1800's the same way that an American general would have...

I agree Nalencer about historians. They write what is accepted by the people who pay their bills...

Peace & Love

 

But there ARE "real" (whatever real means) historians who have come to many of the same conclusions as Icke. Most of Icke's research (with the exception of the topic of reptilians) is actually the research of others, like Zecharia Sitchin and Jordan Maxwell, to name a few.

 

LOL

Well I give you this, you conspiracy nuts can always give me a laugh.

Oh where to begin?

**

N

Lets see, if you agree with someone they must be right and be smart and people that you don’t agree are dumb and full of shit?

That is not reasonable or rational thought what you are describing is a faith based system, you are in fact no different than a bible bashing creationist. They have chosen to believe in the written word of some ancient priest and an all powerful god you the written word of charlatans and an all powerful conspiracy.

So for you it doesn’t matter if Icke’s evidence doesn’t stand up, you just got to go with that ‘general theme’ oh yeh hallelujah!

**

Hippie Chick

Now there is a difference between myth and reality. You understand that, yes?

Ok the difference between what people believed might have happened based on things like tradition or hearsay (even lies) and what is shown to have actually happened based on documentation or physical evidence.

Are you with me so far?

It is the difference between imagination and the material.

Yes?

You then have to sieve through the material, understanding the possible bias and the position of the individual leaving the record.

Get it? I mean no one would be stupid enough to take the word of the just one American General fighting in the Indian wars and accept it as a full, honest and unbiased account, oh someone would really have to be thick to do that, wouldn’t they?

So you get as much information from lots of different sources and come to an opinion.

Now there just may be some Americans that think no Native Americans were hurt during the construction of the USA, but that viewpoint doesn’t seem to stand up to the documentation or physical evidence that says otherwise.

One is a myth the other something somewhat closer to reality.

David Icke uses suspect sources (hearsay and lies) to back up his theories the reality based on real verifiable documentation and physical evidence says a somewhat different story.

It’s like creationists they prefer the somewhat suspect source of the bible over all the other evidence for evolution.

**

Oh so we come to my old friend Rat, the well known liar and fantasist. The man who has invented his own religion (possibly just so he can play the role of saviour) and the person who still has not answered the question – why does he claim to be against the wealthy but seem to be doing everything he can to make the wealthy richer and more powerful?

Here are a few things about his supposedly ‘real’ historians

“Zecharia Sitchin, along with Erich von Däniken and Immanuel Velikovsky, make up the holy trinity of pseudohistorians. Each begins with the assumption that ancient myths are not myths but historical and scientific texts. Sitchin's claim to fame is announcing that he alone correctly reads ancient Sumerian clay tablets. All other scholars have misread these tablets which, according to Sitchin, reveal that gods from another planet (Niburu, which orbits our Sun every 3,600 years) arrived on Earth some 450,000 years ago and created humans by genetic engineering of female apes”
http://skepdic.com/sitchin.html


(Jordan Maxwell’s ) “work focuses on theories about secret societies, both ancient and modern, and their symbols. His presentations include documents and photographs that he claims validate his theories. Maxwell claims that he was integral in promoting Zecharia Sitchin and David Icke to their current levels of popularity. Maxwell also claims that Icke uses his work without citing him as one of his primary sources”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Maxwell

 

Well, considering what you said to me is totally false, about my opinions, the fact I think David Icke is a god, etc... I've got no response except to say you're wrong and there is plenty of supporting evidence. Of course people who believe in this aren't going to be publicly accepted historians. And maybe you should read their work and see what you think instead of just parroting what someone as ignorant as you wrote about them on wikipedia. I have read their work and I happen to know it is very solid.

 

N

Oh my

Well this just could be your problem, you don’t seem to be able to understand what people write?

Where do I say you “think David Icke is a god”?

Maybe you should spend less time making up what you think you have read and more time analysing what people have actually said?

You say you have read ‘their work’ but from this evidence maybe you didn’t read them very well?

I mean I show you that David uses suspect sources and you reply “Now I'm not saying everything David Icke says is correct. I agree with his general theme, I think he's a smart guy, and I think he knows his shit”

Which seems to imply that you don’t care if his information is correct or not you agree with him anyway.

The rubbish about Sargon the Great is not an isolated case his books are full of inaccuracies, half truths and down right and utter bull shit.

Now if you stopped just accepting ‘his general theme’ and actually looked at what he bases it on and do it with a rational and critical eye you just might see that it is rubbish as well.

Or would you rather base your views on faith in a ‘general theme’?