|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 11, 2015 2:31:47 GMT -5
]This pic made a very strange avatar, it stops my mind that's funny cuz' Laughter's forum work often has the opposite effect   |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jul 12, 2015 17:03:42 GMT -5
One theory that has been fascinating me lately is related to Paul McCartney. You may know, but in the 60s, there was a rumour that he had died and was replaced, well this rumour still continues today. I only heard this for the first time a couple of months ago and I guess I found it interesting partly because I have always loved their music and have read their biographies....but also because, if it's true, then in its own way, its just....huge in its level of deception. Now, when it comes to these kinds of theories, I do tend to be very sceptical. It seems to me that every celebrity that dies has a conspiracy theory attached to it, and I'm like....'surely SOME of them died as per the popular media version'. So, I'm not saying I believe the fake Paul McCartney theory (they call him Faul McCartney hehe), but this is interesting.... A forensic team in Italy a few years ago thought they would put the rumour to rest once and for all by doing a biometrical analysis of Paul, prior to and post 1966. To their shock, they discovered discrepancies that could not be explained by error or plastic surgery, their conclusion was that it was highly unlikely that they are the same people! hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/FromOthers/Paul-McCartney-Italian.htmlI don't know. But I know I find these things interesting. Are you entertaining the idea that it COULD be true? Did you notice that the peeps behind that site seem to have a problem with "the jews"? They have a problem with Zionists, not all Jewish people. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jul 12, 2015 17:42:50 GMT -5
Andrew, you posted this vid in the other thread...
A couple of days ago i was going to mention the indisputable fact that 9\11 was an inside job is Building 7.
And anyone who is unable to accept that building 7 was a controlled demolition, and carries on about it and conspiracies like popee, Envy Adams and wren have done so far in this thread, i simply will not waste my time communicating with them about such matters. It's easier to just let such people believe and behave anyway they choose and i'll simply make beneficial use of my time having mature open and intelligent convos with other like minded individuals.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 13, 2015 3:32:08 GMT -5
Some of those that were 'personally affected' are some of the loudest voices challenging the popular media version. As they should be! One example of a great many: As it stands now, I can't believe that you have researched this matter at all. What I'd say to Rudy or someone similar is quite different from what I have to say to you. It's very natural for someone who's experienced trauma or grief to look for answers and explanations and to try to make sense of the events. For someone so effected the natural response is compassion, listening and honesty. For someone not so effected but originating or perpetuating a paranoid fantasy that would hook that grief, what naturally arises is contempt. The bottom line is that no act of war is ever justified and there is no act of physical violence that isn't senseless. Please spare me the extreme macrabe hypotheticals. Of course you can concoct one where I'd kill Hitler, but that doesn't negate the first sentence, and that's life in form and ideas, kiddo. It's full of contradictions when approached with the thinking/feeling mind. In the end we all believe what we want to believe. That the event happened is undeniable by the experience of lower Manhattan before and after that day. We all saw the video of the planes hitting the buildings and the buildings collapsing. Personally, I walked over to 5th avenue that morning and could see the smoke rising in the distance. The intense chemical smell of the debris lingered for months afterward within 20 blocks or so of the edge of ground zero, as did the sight and the physical barrier of the ruins. The third-hand speculation begins with the official explanation for the cause of the collapse. Really, as far as a forum debate on it is concerned, that it was a tragedy that -- as tragedy's of this magnitude so often do -- led to even more tragedy, is enough for me. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 13, 2015 6:52:24 GMT -5
Some of those that were 'personally affected' are some of the loudest voices challenging the popular media version. As they should be! One example of a great many: As it stands now, I can't believe that you have researched this matter at all. What I'd say to Rudy or someone similar is quite different from what I have to say to you. It's very natural for someone who's experienced trauma or grief to look for answers and explanations and to try to make sense of the events. For someone so effected the natural response is compassion, listening and honesty. For someone not so effected but originating or perpetuating a paranoid fantasy that would hook that grief, what naturally arises is contempt. The bottom line is that no act of war is ever justified and there is no act of physical violence that isn't senseless. Please spare me the extreme macrabe hypotheticals. Of course you can concoct one where I'd kill Hitler, but that doesn't negate the first sentence, and that's life in form and ideas, kiddo. It's full of contradictions when approached with the thinking/feeling mind. In the end we all believe what we want to believe. That the event happened is undeniable by the experience of lower Manhattan before and after that day. We all saw the video of the planes hitting the buildings and the buildings collapsing. Personally, I walked over to 5th avenue that morning and could see the smoke rising in the distance. The intense chemical smell of the debris lingered for months afterward within 20 blocks or so of the edge of ground zero, as did the sight and the physical barrier of the ruins. The third-hand speculation begins with the official explanation for the cause of the collapse. Really, as far as a forum debate on it is concerned, that it was a tragedy that -- as tragedy's of this magnitude so often do -- led to even more tragedy, is enough for me. The only thing I take for 100 per cent certain is that the buildings collapsed. The rest is very speculative. How about you consider that Rudy might know more than you on the subject. If you haven't done research, it might be a good idea if you do. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 13, 2015 7:10:11 GMT -5
Andrew, you posted this vid in the other thread... A couple of days ago i was going to mention the indisputable fact that 9\11 was an inside job is Building 7. And anyone who is unable to accept that building 7 was a controlled demolition, and carries on about it and conspiracies like popee, Envy Adams and wren have done so far in this thread, i simply will not waste my time communicating with them about such matters. It's easier to just let such people believe and behave anyway they choose and i'll simply make beneficial use of my time having mature open and intelligent convos with other like minded individuals. yep the building 7 issue is an extremely important one. What is interesting about building 7 is that it reveals the extent to which those involved must have thought that they could get away with it all. Though to be fair, in a way, they have got away with it so far. It's also why the Paul McCartney issue grabbed my attention. Like I said, I wouldn't like to say whether there is truth to that theory or not, but if it true, the level of flagrant deception fascinates me. I read the other day in a David Wilcock interview that that there may well be off planet colonies that have tens of thousands of people on them. Again, is it true....I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me. The truth of it all will come out, I feel sure. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 13, 2015 9:19:40 GMT -5
What I'd say to Rudy or someone similar is quite different from what I have to say to you. It's very natural for someone who's experienced trauma or grief to look for answers and explanations and to try to make sense of the events. For someone so effected the natural response is compassion, listening and honesty. For someone not so effected but originating or perpetuating a paranoid fantasy that would hook that grief, what naturally arises is contempt. The bottom line is that no act of war is ever justified and there is no act of physical violence that isn't senseless. Please spare me the extreme macrabe hypotheticals. Of course you can concoct one where I'd kill Hitler, but that doesn't negate the first sentence, and that's life in form and ideas, kiddo. It's full of contradictions when approached with the thinking/feeling mind. In the end we all believe what we want to believe. That the event happened is undeniable by the experience of lower Manhattan before and after that day. We all saw the video of the planes hitting the buildings and the buildings collapsing. Personally, I walked over to 5th avenue that morning and could see the smoke rising in the distance. The intense chemical smell of the debris lingered for months afterward within 20 blocks or so of the edge of ground zero, as did the sight and the physical barrier of the ruins. The third-hand speculation begins with the official explanation for the cause of the collapse. Really, as far as a forum debate on it is concerned, that it was a tragedy that -- as tragedy's of this magnitude so often do -- led to even more tragedy, is enough for me. The only thing I take for 100 per cent certain is that the buildings collapsed. The rest is very speculative. How about you consider that Rudy might know more than you on the subject. If you haven't done research, it might be a good idea if you do. What I think I know or don't know isn't important because I'm not interested in debating the cause of the collapse of the towers with you. My only interest was to express my opinion that your ideas are rooted in paranoid fantasy. But this is an interesting idea: in your mind, there's some question as to whether or not the towers were struck by the planes? It was the pigeons, right? Those d@mned pigeons. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 13, 2015 11:41:53 GMT -5
The only thing I take for 100 per cent certain is that the buildings collapsed. The rest is very speculative. How about you consider that Rudy might know more than you on the subject. If you haven't done research, it might be a good idea if you do. What I think I know or don't know isn't important because I'm not interested in debating the cause of the collapse of the towers with you. My only interest was to express my opinion that your ideas are rooted in paranoid fantasy. But this is an interesting idea: in your mind, there's some question as to whether or not the towers were struck by the planes? It was the pigeons, right? Those d@mned pigeons. Then our fire fighter friend along with many others are also paranoid fantasists. And yet it seems you have done no research so are not in much position to judge. I don't think it was necessarily the planes that were reported in the media, no. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 13, 2015 12:21:46 GMT -5
What I think I know or don't know isn't important because I'm not interested in debating the cause of the collapse of the towers with you. My only interest was to express my opinion that your ideas are rooted in paranoid fantasy. But this is an interesting idea: in your mind, there's some question as to whether or not the towers were struck by the planes? It was the pigeons, right? Those d@mned pigeons. Then our fire fighter friend along with many others are also paranoid fantasists. And yet it seems you have done no research so are not in much position to judge. I don't think it was necessarily the planes that were reported in the media, no. So you're backpedaling from this then? The only thing I take for 100 per cent certain is that the buildings collapsed. The rest is very speculative. Do you think that the footage of the 767's striking the buildings was faked? You think that the airlines are lying about what planes they lost that day? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 12:44:08 GMT -5
youse guys are still debating the 9-11 incident? serial? this 'challenge everything that moves' mentality is a little weird.. and paranoid.. and overthink-ering extraordinare |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 13, 2015 12:52:28 GMT -5
Then our fire fighter friend along with many others are also paranoid fantasists. And yet it seems you have done no research so are not in much position to judge. I don't think it was necessarily the planes that were reported in the media, no. So you're backpedaling from this then? The only thing I take for 100 per cent certain is that the buildings collapsed. The rest is very speculative. Do you think that the footage of the 767's striking the buildings was faked? You think that the airlines are lying about what planes they lost that day? No I'm not backpeddling, the only thing I know is that the buildings went down. Whether actual planes were involved I'm not sure, and if they were planes I'm not sure what planes. I'm pretty sure that at least some footage was faked though. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 13, 2015 12:53:35 GMT -5
youse guys are still debating the 9-11 incident? serial? this 'challenge everything that moves' mentality is a little weird.. and paranoid.. and overthink-ering extraordinare Some folks are compelled to challenge lies. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 13, 2015 12:55:05 GMT -5
youse guys are still debating the 9-11 incident? serial? this 'challenge everything that moves' mentality is a little weird.. and paranoid.. and overthink-ering extraordinare Just measuring the depth of the bunny hole, sir. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 13, 2015 12:58:15 GMT -5
So you're backpedaling from this then? Do you think that the footage of the 767's striking the buildings was faked? You think that the airlines are lying about what planes they lost that day? No I'm not backpeddling, the only thing I know is that the buildings went down. Whether actual planes were involved I'm not sure, and if they were planes I'm not sure what planes. I'm pretty sure that at least some footage was faked though. O.k. that's just flat-out whacko wing-nut batsh!t dude. It's one thing to fake a pic of a flying saucer but there were dozens of different angles of the event of the strikes and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of eye-witness accounts. You'd also be implying that the families of the passengers that died were somehow involved in the conspiracy. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 13, 2015 13:12:38 GMT -5
No I'm not backpeddling, the only thing I know is that the buildings went down. Whether actual planes were involved I'm not sure, and if they were planes I'm not sure what planes. I'm pretty sure that at least some footage was faked though. O.k. that's just flat-out whacko wing-nut batsh!t dude. It's one thing to fake a pic of a flying saucer but there were dozens of different angles of the event of the strikes and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of eye-witness accounts. You'd also be implying that the families of the passengers that died were somehow involved in the conspiracy. If I knew the truth of what happened I would tell you, all I can say is that there are major discrepancies in every aspect of what we were told. The only thing I would confidently stake money on is that the buildings went down and thousands were killed. Instead of talking about something that you know very little about, why don't you do your research? |
|
