conspiracy theory doubters.

[pastafarian]

So how did the 'CTs' know about the sex scandals of recent way before it came out in the news?

they didnt

 

[brighton fella]

I wholeheartedly agree that we should question everything, particularly authority and dogmas!

My disagreement with you is that I do not consider an uncited, unsourced amateur YouTube video of an unknown miscellaneous woman without any kind of context to be evidence - it should be dismissed as a waste of time for a multitude of reasons.

Evidence has to be reliable, otherwise it's not evidence. What makes you so sure that the woman isn't a liar, an actress or simply crazy? These are the kinds of questions you should be asking before being duped by these ridiculous conspiracy theories.

you are right I cant be absolutely sure that she wasn't lying in exactly the same way that you cant be absolutely sure she wasn't telling the truth.
if by chance she is lying what exactly does she get out of it ...or anyone come to that fair enough some might lie on the expense of selling a book. but even then you cant dismiss their story just for writing a book..because some things need to be published.
a nobody like me cant just create concrete evidence out of thin air,.it takes someone of high importance and even he cant really .
there are untold amounts of videos.exposing all this kind of stuff, if you can give me some concrete evidence yourself claiming that each and every one of these videos are 100% false & fake i'll raise my hat to you.. .

 

[beorhthelm]

they didnt

dont be so silly, other previously unknown scandals have come to light, therefore all those speculated about must therefore be true.

there are untold amounts of videos.exposing all this kind of stuff, ...

seriously though, there isnt. theres untold amounts of videos *claiming* this and that is exposed. without evidence, dubious witness, reference to other similar videos or plain contradictions.

 

[brighton fella]

Are you referring to the dull 3 hour monologue? Of course no one ****ing watched it, it was dull. I managed 1 or 2 minutes of it, but it was just some old lady talking about her life and her husband.

If there was credible evidence to back up your theory, then of course people would take it seriously, but there isn't.

oh my good f*cking god. what have I just been saying dumbo. ? why bother if no one can be arsed to watch, you've dismissed it before ever f*cking seeing it you goon.

 

[daveinprague]

Because its THREE HOURS long.

 

[symyjym]

That's fair enough. There's a lot of misinformation out there so people miss the obvious stuff, but there's no harm in having an inquisitive mind. If someone else wants to believes that video, they shouldn't be ridiculed for it, especially now.

Many people were and are getting mocked for the Jill dando conspiracy. We need to learn from our mistakes.

Some conspiracies theories are plausible, however any CTer that includes 911 in their mantra damages their own credibility. The trouble with the diehard CTer is that they are unable to dismiss fantasy using a rational thought process, and for all intent and purposes never cast a shadow of doubt on any part of an elaborate sequence of events.

With the WTC a CTer will always insist the explosives were set off in the basement, but it is clear from all the videos, that the buildings collapsed at the point of the plane impacts. My rule is to test a CTer on the WTC and if they fail, I know that they are easily (self) brainwashed and will believe anything.

 

[pastafarian]

oh my good f*cking god. what have I just been saying dumbo. ? why bother if no one can be arsed to watch, you've dismissed it before ever f*cking seeing it you goon.

are you aware of how many people have watched that 3 hour video

 

[daveinprague]

Brighton Fella, post some 'truth' thats maybe 2hrs 55ms shorter, and people may...may...watch it. Im sure its not the only example of the 'truth' ....shirly?

 

[Hillian1]

are you aware of how many people have watched that 3 hour video

*Puts hand up*

Pick me, pick me.

 

[Everest]

I keep seeing "CT".

Is it short for "CJTC"?

 

[Hamilton]

So, I have to dedicate 3 hours of my life to discover whether [MENTION=13552]brighton fella[/MENTION] is right?

If it's all the same, I'll stay brainwashed. Any chance of a little executive summary brighton fella?

 

[pastafarian]

*Puts hand up*

Pick me, pick me.

sit down at the back!

let BF figure it out

 

[WATFORD zero]

So how did the 'CTs' know about the sex scandals of recent way before it came out in the news? how comes the crazy CT's got that right whilst all the really clever, intelligent, open minded people laughed it off as madness?

If you take your open mind and read a bit of recent history, you will find that certain areas of the media were all over this in the 1980s. At that time CT's tended to be limited to mid west rednecks who had been probed by aliens.

Having read that back, CTs haven't really changed much have they,

Oh well, carry on regardless

 

[Megazone]

Some conspiracies theories are plausible, however any CTer that includes 911 in their mantra damages their own credibility. The trouble with the diehard CTer is that they are unable to dismiss fantasy using a rational thought process, and for all intent and purposes never cast a shadow of doubt on any part of an elaborate sequence of events.

With the WTC a CTer will always insist the explosives were set off in the basement, but it is clear from all the videos, that the buildings collapsed at the point of the plane impacts. My rule is to test a CTer on the WTC and if they fail, I know that they are easily (self) brainwashed and will believe anything.

I do understand what you are saying but we must understand the amount of misinformation out there both ways.
You say the 9/11 conspiracy is dis-credible.
What do you make of this BBC documentary? It's where a CT called Charlie Veitch did a bbc documnetary which was supposed to be about 9/11 being an inside job, but bizarrely he suddenly changed his mind based on official evidence given to him. This is just a 3 mins take from it.

Do you take his word? let me know what you think.

 

[Megazone]

This is the same guy (Charlie Veitch) as a witness for Ian tomlinson death



This is what actually happened:



So the 9/11 official version was supported by a professional bullshitter on a BBC documentary?

This man will obviously lie to the lowest levels and that's what he's paid to do. Is it not questionable why he was employed to do the BBC documentary on 9/11 if there wasn't anything to hide?

 

[daveinprague]

...and the BBC would hide something that happened in the USA? Why?

 

[Megazone]

...and the BBC would hide something that happened in the USA? Why?

They aren't exactly enemies.

So what do you make of the 3 videos above?

Can you see why people struggle to believe the 'offiical version' of 9/11 when things like the 3 videos above happen?

Would yo trust that man? I certainly wouldn't.

 

[The Wizard]

Why does anybody even waste their time replying? Quite simply, conspiracy loonies will never change their minds even in the face of undeniable facts so whats the point even attempting to reason.

 

[daveinprague]

They aren't exactly enemies.

So what do you make of the 3 video above?

Can you see why people struggle to believe 'offiical version' of 9/11 when things like the 3 videos above happen?

Would yo trust that man? I certainly wouldn't.

Er, my question was, why would the BBC feel obliged to hide anything, regarding an event in the USA? 'They arent exactly enemies' is a pretty ridiculous stance.

 

[Hillian1]

They aren't exactly enemies.

So what do you make of the 3 video above?

Can you see why very few people struggle to believe 'offiical version' of 9/11 when things like the 3 videos above happen?

Would yo trust that man? I certainly wouldn't.

Corrected for you.