I love 28th's take on the news, that they only show bad stuff to keep the population afraid.
I can imagine his version of the news:
PRESENTER1: Tonight on 6 NEWS: Three million motorists safely complete their journeys. We have an interview exclusive.
PRESENTER2: Meanwhile, Mayor Stevens continues to be a fair and reasonable leader of the city. We find out why.
PRESENTER1: We go live to Albert Memorial Park, where nothing much is happening.
PRESENTER2: And law enforcement correspondant Janet Dayes gives her summary of a quiet uneventful day with the boys in blue.
PRESENTER1: Meanwhile in International News, The United Kingdom sets a new record with its 940th straight year without being invaded.
PRESENTER2: And the World Health Organisation raises concerns that the price of panadol in the Middle East is rising at 1% higher rate than local inflation rates.
Yeah, that would be exciting news... everyone would watch that.
-Gumboot
Thats definetly being added to my list of "Best Debunker Quotes", thanks Gumboot :D
19 comments:
"best debunker quotes"...##??
really?
ok then. what is this supposed to debunk again ? you mean to say that fear is not being used by politicians these days or what?
FX9,
Please tell me where, in this post, I said I was debunking something.
Of course people are using fear to convince people. This idea is not new and examples can be looked throughout history, such as when voting wasnt secret, MP's would threaten members to vote for them and what not. People are constantly using fear to try to keep people in line, but only the weak fall for it.
well, you said its one of your best 'debunker quotes', so i assumed it would 'debunk' something#.?
"only the weak fall for it"
then tell me, did only the weak fall for the fear caused by the false flag terror attacks done in 'operation gladio' , by the secret army of the NATO ?
That is official btw. Not a theory.
The role of the CIA and NATO in sponsoring Gladio, the extent of its activities during the Cold War era, and its relationship to stay-behind operations in other European countries is the subject of ongoing debate and investigation. Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have had parliamentary inquiries into the matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
Nothing is official yet. No-one has been convicted, only accused.
well, several people who were involved have blown the whistle. maybe watch the bbc documentary on this.
what i meant is that it is official that it existed and happend , or do you deny this too??
i did not say anybody got convicted, and i dont see how this makes it any better. actually, its one more point against your worldview, isnt it. or, do you really want to deny that gladio happend???
Great! Accuse me! Keep it coming, it only makes you look sillier.
No I do not deny that it happened.
Please tell me what you think my world view is.
well, ok then, you do admit that false flag terrorism is a reality. How was it possible to keep this secret for *so long* ? have you thought about that too?
i think your worldview is pretty naive. ok, sorry, i only judge that from your 911 view, which is totally black and white. you seem to divide the issue by loose change. from your history, i get you first 'believed' the film, then later you 'believed' the "debunkers". see, that tells me something about you;) i for one never 'believed' or was convinced by loose change.
i recommend to excercise some critical thinking. out of the box. and from more than one view.
What does it tell you? That I was convinced and then after reviewing the evidence on both sides I came to my decision.
This blog was created to give the view of what some CTers think because I was one of them!
Of course state terrorism exists.
it tells me that you easily believe something, without exercising your own critical thinking.
Also, i guess that when you say you looked at both sides, you mean:
side A - loose change
side B - the "debunkers"
correct me if im wrong.
now you also say state terrorism is real. so, do you think we need thourough investigations into terrorist attacks, and we need to think critical when looking at them? i guess you do, right?
ok, one more question:
what do you think of the wargames/excercises that were going on on 911 ? do you think they are a myth, or do you think its not important ?
Wrong.
Side A - 911 conspiracy theories STARTED by watching LC. I've read many articles and books and watched many docus
Side B - Logic, the debunkers, obvious things like after 5 years the majority of the world remain unconvinced by the lies.
You're correct in as much as I didn't critically think when I watched LC but I did critically think to reach where I am now.
Wargames? NORAD had been conducting such activities well before 9/11.
well, im talking about the multple wargames that went on on 911. or do you mean to say its normal they do that everyday? (one was about hijacked planes being used as weapons, btw).
Oh, and you say 'logic'. LOL
You mean the type of logic people like Mark + Ronnie preach to explain the freefall speed symetrical collapse? LOL
Youre probably not very good in math, right?
which books did you read, btw?
one more thing:
you might want to read this, concerning the wargames, and your priest Gravys way to discuss the issue:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2335&st=180
.../Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2335&st=180
..Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2335&st=180
sorry about that... hope u can figure out the url
I'm banned at LC, I can't view it, and the proxy won't load it.
Logic, stuff like, why would they 'pull' WTC7 8 hours later.
I don't think of Gravy as a Priest, I just think he is a great man who has yet to have any of his claims debunked.
I think that you should have a debate with him.
well, if you could visit that link you'd see how his claim 'there were no wargames' gets debunked. and how he reacts.LOL.
Look, i see where youre coming from, you use the 'Ronnie Wieck' "there is no coherent narrative for a conspiracy" argument.
Well, good, that might be true, the problem is, there is even less a coherent narrative for the official version. Look man, i have talked to several professors of structural engineering , with a whole group of students too, and guess what. They looked at WTC7in detail, and ALL of them came to the conclussion that it was taken down in a controlled demolition.
The problem with your "logic" argument is that is neglects that it is NOT logic at all that buildings fall like that due to fire, may the fire be as big as whatever. It doesnt happen like that. period.
But, since i don't have a "coherent narrative" about WTC7 for you (as said, im not interested in making up conspiracy claims, i just discuss the facts) ... ah well
WTC7 had at least a 10 story hole in one side, and there was so much smoke at that side, you couldn't even see the building.
Name your professors.
Post a Comment