100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I got sick of the bleeding hearts who kept telling me that I "shouldn't judge" others.
Wanna bet? LOL  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree some are way out there and some of those are possible "sockpuppets" put out there to cloud the topic. What I cant stand is if someone raises the serious questions of 911 they are called a CT'r. Two months ago if anyone had said seriously the government is recording every Email and text damn near all over the world they would have been labeled a crazy CT'r. create your own label then... you can be anything you want... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To judge all skeptics who question the official conspiracy theory the same, and label them as "nuts" or "truthers" or "conspiracy theorists" is just lazy and ignorant.
In spite of that tactic, developed by the untrustworthy CIA, I am still a skeptic. Of course they are going to want everyone to believe people who have an alternate theory are some kind of nut. That's probably because they themselves are the perpetrators of most of the terrorist activity being carried out in the world. The CIA does not want any thinking scientist or citizen to start snooping around in their wet work and black ops. People need to use right discrimination and question everything that does not ring true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To judge all skeptics who question the official conspiracy theory the same, and label them as "nuts" or "truthers" or "conspiracy theorists" is just lazy and ignorant. In spite of that tactic, developed by the untrustworthy CIA, I am still a skeptic. Of course they are going to want everyone to believe people who have an alternate theory are some kind of nut. That's probably because they themselves are the perpetrators of most of the terrorist activity being carried out in the world. The CIA does not want any thinking scientist or citizen to start snooping around in their wet work and black ops. People need to use right discrimination and question everything that does not ring true. opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one... one of the problems is that everyone thinks they are right, when if fact, there are very few people that actually know the real truth in most CT comments... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bestinshow
on
Tue 07/16/13 01:08 PM
|
|
To judge all skeptics who question the official conspiracy theory the same, and label them as "nuts" or "truthers" or "conspiracy theorists" is just lazy and ignorant. In spite of that tactic, developed by the untrustworthy CIA, I am still a skeptic. Of course they are going to want everyone to believe people who have an alternate theory are some kind of nut. That's probably because they themselves are the perpetrators of most of the terrorist activity being carried out in the world. The CIA does not want any thinking scientist or citizen to start snooping around in their wet work and black ops. People need to use right discrimination and question everything that does not ring true. opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one... one of the problems is that everyone thinks they are right, when if fact, there are very few people that actually know the real truth in most CT comments... I know what is not true The "official government sanctioned" version of 911 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To judge all skeptics who question the official conspiracy theory the same, and label them as "nuts" or "truthers" or "conspiracy theorists" is just lazy and ignorant. In spite of that tactic, developed by the untrustworthy CIA, I am still a skeptic. Of course they are going to want everyone to believe people who have an alternate theory are some kind of nut. That's probably because they themselves are the perpetrators of most of the terrorist activity being carried out in the world. The CIA does not want any thinking scientist or citizen to start snooping around in their wet work and black ops. People need to use right discrimination and question everything that does not ring true. opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one... one of the problems is that everyone thinks they are right, when if fact, there are very few people that actually know the real truth in most CT comments... Including you and yours. One thing I know about myself is that I don't color information either white or black, true or false. I know there is some truth (and clues) in even the worst conspiracy theories. Yet you rail on people who might "profile" a certain person for their race or their clothing, and you turn around and "profile" information by dismissing the messenger and you lump all alternate theories or information as something you call "CT nonsense." And you dismiss information if it does not agree with your butthole/opinion. (note: the butthole/opinion refers to MM's remark that opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one.) And of course I think I am right. I am right. If I thought I was wrong I would change my point of view, and my opinion. If you want to convince me I am wrong, you will have to improve your argument skills. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To judge all skeptics who question the official conspiracy theory the same, and label them as "nuts" or "truthers" or "conspiracy theorists" is just lazy and ignorant. In spite of that tactic, developed by the untrustworthy CIA, I am still a skeptic. Of course they are going to want everyone to believe people who have an alternate theory are some kind of nut. That's probably because they themselves are the perpetrators of most of the terrorist activity being carried out in the world. The CIA does not want any thinking scientist or citizen to start snooping around in their wet work and black ops. People need to use right discrimination and question everything that does not ring true. opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one... one of the problems is that everyone thinks they are right, when if fact, there are very few people that actually know the real truth in most CT comments... I know what is not true The "official government sanctioned" version of 911 no, you only think you know it's not true... if you know for sure, present your evidence and lets get rolling on the trials.. but after 12 years, and no evidence whatsoever, you might to reflect on what you know and don't know... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To judge all skeptics who question the official conspiracy theory the same, and label them as "nuts" or "truthers" or "conspiracy theorists" is just lazy and ignorant. In spite of that tactic, developed by the untrustworthy CIA, I am still a skeptic. Of course they are going to want everyone to believe people who have an alternate theory are some kind of nut. That's probably because they themselves are the perpetrators of most of the terrorist activity being carried out in the world. The CIA does not want any thinking scientist or citizen to start snooping around in their wet work and black ops. People need to use right discrimination and question everything that does not ring true. opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one... one of the problems is that everyone thinks they are right, when if fact, there are very few people that actually know the real truth in most CT comments... Including you and yours. One thing I know about myself is that I don't color information either white or black, true or false. I know there is some truth (and clues) in even the worst conspiracy theories. Yet you rail on people who might "profile" a certain person for their race or their clothing, and you turn around and "profile" information by dismissing the messenger and you lump all alternate theories or information as something you call "CT nonsense." And you dismiss information if it does not agree with your butthole/opinion. (note: the butthole/opinion refers to MM's remark that opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one.) And of course I think I am right. I am right. If I thought I was wrong I would change my point of view, and my opinion. If you want to convince me I am wrong, you will have to improve your argument skills. i'm never trying to convince you your wrong, we differ on a few things, thats all... sometimes we go a little overboard trying to convince others that we are right... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To judge all skeptics who question the official conspiracy theory the same, and label them as "nuts" or "truthers" or "conspiracy theorists" is just lazy and ignorant. In spite of that tactic, developed by the untrustworthy CIA, I am still a skeptic. Of course they are going to want everyone to believe people who have an alternate theory are some kind of nut. That's probably because they themselves are the perpetrators of most of the terrorist activity being carried out in the world. The CIA does not want any thinking scientist or citizen to start snooping around in their wet work and black ops. People need to use right discrimination and question everything that does not ring true. opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one... one of the problems is that everyone thinks they are right, when if fact, there are very few people that actually know the real truth in most CT comments... Like me! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Wed 07/17/13 07:53 AM
|
|
Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events. The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites. The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority. Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.” Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.” In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it. Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.” Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.” In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations. DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime. Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief. In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information. The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote: “If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.” But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous - and more rational - than anti-conspiracy ones. No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/ They compared two different Groups of Conspiracy-Theorists! That's all there is to! Ain't said nothing about the Physicists and the Engineering Professions! Then,of Course,PressTV put it's Own Little Spin to it,and,as usual,put Apples,Oranges and Bananas together,and created yet another Fruitsalad!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events. The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites. The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority. Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.” Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.” In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it. Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.” Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.” In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations. DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime. Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief. In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information. The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote: “If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.” But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous - and more rational - than anti-conspiracy ones. No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/ They compared two different Groups of Conspiracy-Theorists! That's all there is to! Ain't said nothing about the Physicists and the Engineering Professions! Then,of Course,PressTV put it's Own Little Spin to it,and,as usual,put Apples,Oranges and Bananas together,and created yet another Fruitsalad! Are you ready? Can you take the suspence? Here it is. My favorite sentence. "No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks." |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Thu 07/18/13 09:47 PM
|
|
"No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks." That's exactly what they are!...They are the banksters who are even now shaking in their little golden boots, now that the jig is up! Their desperate effort to keep the people divided and frightened has fallen on it's ear, and they are now looking at billions of people all over the world who are quite upset that hundreds of millions of their brothers & sisters have been murdered for the sake of a criminal conspiracy to preserve the banksters' fraudulent control of the global economy. There is no need to nuke the BIS, however...All the world's people have to do is walk into it and arrest the principals & bring them to trial. Those people in the US can do the same with the Fed. You have been conned...THE NATIONAL DEBT IS OWED TO YOU, NOT THE BANKS!! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Tue 07/23/13 04:30 AM
|
|
Of course, presstv would promote such drivel.
Oh dear. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events. The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites. The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority. Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.” Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.” In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it. Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.” Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.” In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations. DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime. Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief. In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information. The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote: “If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.” But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous - and more rational - than anti-conspiracy ones. No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/ They compared two different Groups of Conspiracy-Theorists! That's all there is to! Ain't said nothing about the Physicists and the Engineering Professions! Then,of Course,PressTV put it's Own Little Spin to it,and,as usual,put Apples,Oranges and Bananas together,and created yet another Fruitsalad! Are you ready? Can you take the suspence? Here it is. My favorite sentence. "No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks." Yep,The Other CT-Group they compared!  you need to read your Paste again! They compared two different Groups of Conspiracy-Theorists! That's all there is to! Ain't said nothing about the Physicists and the Engineering Professions! Then,of Course,PressTV put it's Own Little Spin to it,and,as usual,put Apples,Oranges and Bananas together,and created yet another Fruitsalad! The Tehran Fruitcakes created another Fruit-Cocktail! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got sick of the bleeding hearts who kept telling me that I "shouldn't judge" others. Wanna bet? LOL 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is a thin line between reasonable suspicion and constant paranoia,,,,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is a thin line between reasonable suspicion and constant paranoia,,,, thing is, why are they called conspiracy theory's in the first place? key word here "theory"... there is no proof of what they are babbling about.. whenever people start making accusations about something with absolutely no proof, they get the label... then they wanna whine about being called a CT'er...  that's why i just laugh at them, they accumulate all this worthless info, and then turn it into a "theory" as to what happened, and then tell everyone they know what happened, and anyone who disagrees with then is a government mule...  classic |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jagbird
on
Tue 07/23/13 08:06 AM
|
|
Anybody who thinks that we are told the complete truth about things from newspapers and TV needs to come and see me.., so I can sell them some nice dry land in the Everglades.. LOL!
All news agencies are just minions for the supreme powers.., but we do have much more accurate news in Canada, than you guys do in the USA... (sorry, but it's a fact)... We even knew about 911 before the US agencies started reporting it.. and if you heard "all the FACTS".., you would see how much is suppressed... The poster above condemns others for having an opinion..? That should be a red light in itself... "Dis-Information" exists... and is paid for by the top brass... (and without putting myself in the spotlight with names & references, I will say that I KNOW this to be true)... Good thing that the Internet is helping to break down some walls... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anybody who thinks that we are told the complete truth about things from newspapers and TV needs to come and see me.., so I can sell them some nice dry land in the Everglades.. LOL! All news agencies are just minions for the supreme powers.., but we do have much more accurate news in Canada, than you guys do in the USA... (sorry, but it's a fact)... We even knew about 911 before the US agencies started reporting it.. and if you heard "all the FACTS".., you would see how much is suppressed... The poster above condemns others for having an opinion..? That should be a red light in itself... "Dis-Information" exists... and is paid for by the top brass... (and without putting myself in the spotlight with names & references, I will say that I KNOW this to be true)... Good thing that the Internet is helping to break down some walls... i don't disagree with you, but saying it without any form of verification is exactly what a CT'er is... a lot of CT'ers may be right, but without proof it's meaningless.. i quit watching the mainstream news during the Iraqi war, when the reporters were not allowed to say anything but what was prepared for them by the generals... i personally think the government is up to something right now, as for what it is, not sure... but it may be to late when we find out... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Tue 07/23/13 08:31 AM
|
|
Anybody who thinks that we are told the complete truth about things from newspapers and TV needs to come and see me.., so I can sell them some nice dry land in the Everglades.. LOL! All news agencies are just minions for the supreme powers.., but we do have much more accurate news in Canada, than you guys do in the USA... (sorry, but it's a fact)... We even knew about 911 before the US agencies started reporting it.. and if you heard "all the FACTS".., you would see how much is suppressed... The poster above condemns others for having an opinion..? That should be a red light in itself... "Dis-Information" exists... and is paid for by the top brass... (and without putting myself in the spotlight with names & references, I will say that I KNOW this to be true)... Good thing that the Internet is helping to break down some walls... Innuendos? If you have the incontrovertible TRUTH,spill it! We have heard 12 years of Innuendos,yet not a shred of Evidence from the CT-Crowd! Not even their physical evidence was up to scratch,kept changing faster than the direction of the Wind! Now they bring up "psychological" Studies as to their "Sanity" to prove what they couldn't do in 12 years,that there was a Government Conspiracy,and the Buildings were blown! Holy Cow! Wonder how many other ways they are going to try to skin that Cat! Hey,there isn't any Skin left on that Cat!
|
|
|
|
|
