Message to 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists *UPDATED*
As we have explained before we are deleting your comments because they are just spam. The same points made over and over again. We've heard it all before. We've started deleting their repetetive posts and they've got the huff. Actually there are only three of them, but they have posted hundreds of near identical comments and links to the same old page.
One of the things that finally did it for us was, in discussion of holocaust denial, the same people who post on how 9/11 was an 'inside job' started posting links to neo-nazi sites that contained, in their eyes 'evidence' that the holocaust never happened.
We draw a line under that. We told them that that sort of thing isn't tolerated here, last December, but it is only now that they've decided to object to that , and on their own site that does not allow comments!
They are also complaining that we're deleting their comments - a major blow to free speech, but they don't even allow comments on their site! They're also complaing about our notice to stop spammingthat was posted in mid December last year. Even though they visit here daily.
They're now claiming that we're part of the conspiracy. How, terribly, terribly fascinating. If you don't like us, please don't feel the need to return here.
Now excuse me, I've got to go and feed the nine foot lizard who is dictating this post through mind control...
UPDATE - Davide Writes:
There are numerous reasons why we don't wish to be associated with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, some have already been covered and some are all too obvious but I'd like to add a few points. My main point is this: We at Blairwatch wish to be taken seriously. We have a good reputation and we want to keep it and improve upon it. If visitors to our site see loads of off-topic comments about their latest 9/11 theories or Holocaust "revisionism", then that reflects negatively on us. I am a passionate defender of freedom of speech, but that does not mean that I think anyone can say anything anywhere. Our power to restrict free speech is somewhat limited, but we have a good record of trying to hold to account those people who *do* have the power to restrict free speech. There do have to be some limits, and when the freedom of others is affected by what people say, that's where I draw the line. In this case our freedom to run our blog the way we want and to be taken seriously in doing so is being jeopardised by commenters who just want to push their own agenda and are looking for a wide platform on which to do so.
We are not the only people who have had to put up with this abuse. Rachel has had to deal with this bullying as well. Also, the owners of the NO2ID website have also had to moderate off topic comments from conspiracy theorists, and when they did then those same conspiracy theorists targeted us. We are doing nothing different by moderating comments here.
We acknowledge that there are many unanswered questions about both 9/11 and 7/7. Our answer has always been to have full public inquiries into these events which we think will dispel the more outlandish conspiracy theories that circulate. However, we have also found that even if we allow sensible comments about these events, then replies to them quickly cause an entire thread to degenerate into a zoo and before long we have idiots banging on about holographic aeroplanes or whatever, or imploring us to watch yet another badly-made video claiming to know the "truth" and financed by right-wing anti-Semites. We feel that those sort of discussions are better held elsewhere and there is no shortage of sites on which to hold those discussions, so why hold them here?
And if you think we're exaggerating when we speak of neo-Nazis and anti-Semites then I urge you to look at the sort of sites we have to put up with. Here's one. Notice how the little stormtrooper who created this master race masterpiece deletes comments (and these people call us fascist!!). It is our obligation to delete unsuitable comments and even though we hate having to do it, we will continue to do so. This is our blog with our rules, please respect them or go elsewhere.
UPDATE - ringverse writes:
To understand where this row on Blairwatch comes from, we should look at where it started. Since 7/7 we have repeatedly backed calls for an Independent Public Inquiry. This awoke a pretty vitriolic response from a few people who thought repeatedly rubbishing that call was the way forward, preferring instead to give us their various theories on which particular agents of the state were behind 7/7, and 911.
Once we challenged that - the floodgates opened.
What I never hear from the those who think they have the answers to the questions the rest of us want answering is how they are going to demonstrate their theories, and attempt to hold the govt to account over the flaws in the narrative, other than repeatedly posting what are often near hysterical comments on random posts on random weblogs or 7/7 message boards.
There are a huge number of problems and issues surrounding the concept of a fair or independent public enquiry Dave, I agree. When someone comes up with something better, other than random comments on random blogs, we'll back calls for that. Untill then, we will just have to cope with the conspiraloons thinking we at Blairwatch are agents of the state, a Nu Labour disinformation project, a MI6 front organisation etc etc etc
Personally, I think if our position on this leads you to draw the conclusion that we are working for MI5, MI6, the CIA, Mossad, Nu Labour, the Conservatives, the Government, the BNP or the Communist Party etc [all allegations made in comments, via email or on other sites], it says rather more about you than us.
Nobody here is disputing the significance of 911 on everything that followed. But we have posted very little on the subject of 911 here.
If you subscribe to the argument that because 911 is relevant to everything, then any post on any subject here at Blairwatch should be followed by random links to whatever the latest youtube video or latest theory is, then you are in the wrong place.
Oh, and the reason we don't tend to post on the subject of 911? Well, if you have read this, that should be obvious.
Hello Blaiwatch, I am Jason
Hello Blaiwatch, I am Jason Cogan from Canada.
This is my first post on this site, and i would first like to say that I am in love with a beautiful brittish lass named Pamela, and this summer I am coming to brittan to be with her!! Hooray!!
But on a serious note, I came here because the recent action of the moderators on this site have made quite a few ripples in the world of online journalism.
I do honestly hope that the actions of a few retarded posters will not ruin the chance to use this great site as a place for open and honest debate about important topics. This is our revolution, our chance to change the balance information to our favor...the truth.
While i do not agree with flamers posting spam on any website, the question of government involvement, (not just the U.S) in 911 should NOT be an issue that is sidelined or marginalized on any site, in this wonderfull internet revolution.
That events of that horrible tuesday morning had an impact of the lives and daily routine of millions and millions of people around the world, here in canada and in the UK as well, so it is of the ut-most importance that we get all the facts about this event, and others like it, so we may better paint a picture of what the REAL world looks like, every dirty corner, and dusty hole.
There is a moutain of credible evidence, first and second eye witnesses, memebrs of government, police, fire, and abulance workers, and skores of technical papers and articles out there that need proper discussion. Even a few dodgy dossiers that can make for some comical discussion.
please take what i say to heart, lets hope we can turn things around. And remeber, no one censors speech they agree with.
Hoping to post more comments in the future......Jason Cogan.
I take it that the
I take it that the maintainers of this site are incapable of distinguishing between those wishing to share legitimate research into 9/11 and 7/7 and anonymous spammers. If you wish to delete links to neo-nazi sites, I'm certain that I won't be alone among so called 'conspiracy theorists' in applauding you. The last thing legitimate inquirers into the subject of 9/11 want is to be linked with those espousing hatred on the basis of race. Much of the point of the 9/11 truth movement is to prevent the mass-murder of middle-eastern peoples.
I'll make it easy for you. Links to the Beeb's report that several of the 9/11 hijacker suspects are alive and well (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle
I take it that the
I take it that the maintainers of this site are incapable of distinguishing between those wishing to share legitimate research into 9/11 and 7/7 and anonymous spammers. If you wish to delete links to neo-nazi sites, I'm certain that I won't be alone among so called 'conspiracy theorists' in applauding you. The last thing legitimate inquirers into the subject of 9/11 want is to be linked with those espousing hatred on the basis of race. Much of the point of the 9/11 truth movement is to prevent the mass-murder of middle-eastern peoples.
I'll make it easy for you. Links to the Beeb's report that several of the 9/11 hijacker suspects are alive and well (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle
quarsan. As one of the
quarsan. As one of the people who has had at least two posts deleted, allow me to discuss and defend myself against your accusations.
1) The point about the BBC filing a report about an event that had not happened was NEW information, not old! I think most of us understand that there is little point in repeating things and would not wish to cover old ground - on any topic!
2) I complained about by post being deleted from the http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/1509, because I was disappointed that you deleted my post about operation Gladio which was the first time that had been mentioned on the whole website as far as I know, certainly to my knowledge at least.
3) What is wrong with posting links to sites some judge to be Nazi sites when all that is being done is to expose people to certain specific information which is taboo. Nobody is promoting what is perceived as Nazi ideology. Heaven forbid! Some of these sites provide information by Jews themselves e.g. David Cole. Imagine the works of Shakespeare posted on a Nazi site, how does that degrade those works? I put it to you that it does not. I utterly reject any concept of Nazi 'superior race' or supremacy. I reject intolerance against different cultures and religions and I also however reject western lies and propaganda, and embrace the possibility to expose myself and to ANY information. I have a brain and a conscience with which I can use to ignore/reject any evil philosophies.
4) 9-11 and what some would call as Nazism/Holocaust denial can be discussed as two very separate ideas. I suggest that many people can believe 9-11 was an inside job without ever even thinking about Nazis or the holocaust. I reject the strength of the association between them which you indicate between them. So that's 2 issues then that you choose to censor.
5) I never saw ONE post from anyone who denied the holocaust happened. I know some disputed the scale of it and other aspects of it, but I cannot imagine anyone denying that Jews were murdered and butchered. It would be nice to show where this alleged denial occurred.
6) I 'objected' a few months when you said you'd censor posts on 9-11. If a raving racist wants to have a rant, let him. Any lies he tells will be discernable. I never stop people posting on any other site. I also don't recall saying you were part of the conspiracy. In fact I've commended Blairwatch a number of times for the work it does at highlighting important issues (Al Jazeera memo, Extraordinary rendition......) with a British slant on it. But I do criticisms of the Blairwatch team (where warranted) and such criticisms should be listened to based on the strength of the logic put in front of them, not on emotions.
7) You go on about lizards again. Please don’t attribute falsehoods to discredit people who come here to think and analyze. Most of the people who come here are wise in such cheap straw man tactics. It is highly discrediting to Blairwatch to do this.
8) Censorship on matters of thought is a betrayal of the intellectual process. It is also a betrayal of the intellectual process to learn or analyze any information by only exposing oneself to ones pre-conceived ideas and prejudices. Censorship is an anathema for cognitive freedom, the censor, rapidly descending into censorship for personal egotistical reasons away from any initial 'well meaning' censorship he may have had. Posts and links containing things various Blairwatch admins people don't like are meant to contemplation and discussion only. "Martyr Machine" hits upon the principle here.
9) I see virtually zero spamming/flaming of this site.
9/11 was an inside job! A
9/11 was an inside job!
A holocaust (of debatable magnitude) occured!
The thing you should be discussing is the link BETWEEN BOTH events; that they were BOTH contrived by the same warmongering, genocidal fractional reserve banking families
who select our leaders e.g. Blair (as in "Blairwatch") for us to further their megalomaniac agenda for world domination via a fascist world government of a microchipped
world population.
quarsan, you bring up the
quarsan,
you bring up the old lizard thing.I´ll say plainly I don´t like you.
No one is spamming this board.
Now excuse me, I've got to go and feed the nine foot lizard who is dictating this post through mind control...
yeah sure ya clown!!how can you be taken seriously when you come away with shite like that.You obviously should apply for job at Fox news.
What a thread! Such a
What a thread!
Such a "Cathartic outlet" is desperately needed.
I can't see anything wrong with allowing people to post controversial items, if they supply objective evidence. The problem with most of the "out of the box" stuff on Internet forums is that people get emotional, and that allows others to deride the point they are trying to make.
I agree with Tonysakiller that this was new evidence, and deserved a hearing. This thread has given it an opportunity for that hearing.
We have loads of evidence that Bush and Blair have lied, lied, lied... So it is difficult for a rational person to believe anything they say. And that covers the time period including 9/11.
As for "the holocaust". That was a generation before I was born. Were politicians such liars in those days? Numbers may have been exaggerated (probably half a million), but it definitely happened. "Holocaust denial" goes against the facts and lets the exaggerators off the hook. Perhaps we shouldn't judge yesterday's politicians by today's standards.
I'm sorry, blogs are not
I'm sorry, blogs are not owned by the general public. They are private property. If people don't like the way blogs are moderated that's just too bad.
Frankly if I owned this blog I'd be telling these morons to sod off. Why the hell do they think they are 'entitled' to have their comments published? Why the hell do they think that their views are of the slightest importance or interest to the rest of humanity?
Cretins.
Harbinger: You're points
Harbinger:
You're points are quite easy to answer. First, claiming that 9/11 is an inside job is like saying that the Bush administration is competent. They're not. Posting up a list of suicide bomber suspects on the planes, half of whom were still alive is an example of their incompetence.
The only conspiracy-like story that has any evidence to it is the Israeli Art Student Spies www.democracynow.org/article.pl, which has been picked up by Alexander Cockburn, one of the most critical voices against the 9/11 conspiracy movement.
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
ah we are not alone friends!!
Chuck Unsworth
spoken like a true fascist
Frankly if I owned this blog I'd be telling these morons to sod off. Why the hell do they think they are 'entitled' to have their comments published? Why the hell do they think that their views are of the slightest importance or interest to the rest of humanity?
Chuck -- tonysakiller's
Chuck -- tonysakiller's Gladio info is interesting in its own right. He posted the BBC2 1992 video link a while back, well worth watching.
qarsan-- I agree with Chuck about the spammer/flamers, its your site, but I agree with Killer that you seem to be lumping the curious /agnostics on 911 in with the excitable fringe.
Rather a smear to accuse such as old frog of nazi sympathies, what ? Them's this government's tactics.
I visit a few neo-nazi sites and find straight info from the MSM, which they latch onto. I can sort out the garbage, thanks.
Prudishly averting one's eyes is not the way to know your enemies.
Anonymous, Do you like Sex
Anonymous, Do you like Sex and Travel ?
You are not fit to lick Chuck's old army boots, or mine.
He and I differ on some things, but we debate in a civilised fashion.
Flaming, particularly anonymousely, is cowardly stuff.
The Blairwatch admins can
The Blairwatch admins can choose what content to allow - it is their site. The cut-and-paste conspiracy postings are bloody annoying.
 The recent debacle
The recent debacle concerning the BBC's onsite reporter confirming the collapse of WTC7
standing visibly behind her minutes before the actual collapse and the risible BBC non-explanation non-denial
at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html is surely of passing interest
even to those Blairwatcher Cave Arabs Conspiracy Theorists who consider it self evident that Bush, Cheney
et al are far too righteous, humane, and morally upright to have possibly had any hand in the events of 11/09/01.
The fact remains that
The fact remains that buildings designed to withstand being hit by an airliner (as are most skyscrapers) fell down, and one that wasn't hit by anything (WTC7) fell down anyway. All the buildings also collapsed in a controlled manner (i.e. very tidily) - if you can explain that, without recourse to explosives, I'd love to hear.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, the difference between the conspiracy argument, however fractured and inconsistent, and the official explanation, is that the latter has to hold up completely. If it's true, this shouldn't be a problem, but I haven't heard a convincing version yet.
If it isn't true, it's about most important (and disturbing) event of modern times.
Wanting to be "Taken
Wanting to be "Taken Seriously".
"There are numerous reasons why we don't wish to be associated with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, some have already been covered and some are all too obvious but I'd like to add a few points. My main point is this: We at Blairwatch wish to be taken seriously."
The obvious question is: By who?
"The obvious question is: By
"The obvious question is: By who?"
The obvious answer: the rational.
I take BW seriously. A prime
I take BW seriously. A prime recent example is the above story on the "45 minutes".
When, and by whom ?
Freda -- Agreed; all too neat for me, too, and I remain agnostically curious, very curious! I keep 911 theories on the shelf and concentrate on the misuse of it , (committed by whoever,) , to fabricate the disastrous WaronTerra, above all to manipulate the citizens of the "Democratic Free World" . Hollow laugh there ...... .
The various anonymice have gotta grow up and realise that one does not influence people by shouting and swearing at them. Carefully planting small seeds of doubt , and leaving people to discover for themselves is far more productive. I watched the weird BBC pre-announcement video of WTC 7 collapse. No judgement, just waiting... on that shelf.... not forgotten.
Knowing about the historical fact that is Gladio (upon which Killer and I have posted a few times now) does not PROVE anything , about 911 and 77. But I believe people should know these uncomfortable things.
I've watched this thread
I've watched this thread with interest and I support your view that this is your blog and you don’t want wild conspiracy theories taking up your valuable time and effort.
But there is a bigger issue however that does require attention. This is the way the use of government sponsored conspiracy theories/black propaganda are used persuade the public and other politicians to support courses of action that in the normal course of a civil society would be regarded as mad or bad. The most obvious recent examples are Blair’s 45-minute WMD claim and the Bush/Cheney’s assertion that Saddam Hussein was jointly responsible for 9/11. This has had catastrophic consequences for the people of Iraq and the rolling back of civil liberties for us.
One of the problems is that we have incomplete or partial information of which (as human beings always do) we try to make sense of by constructing a narrative that makes sense to us - it may be barking, it may be true.
A recent example is the internet and media chatter of the coming ‘US attack on Iran perhaps with nuclear weapons’. We have lots of reports from journalists who had off-the-record briefings from people, supposedly in-the-know, that this is going to happen, We’ve also had reports of missile movements and aircraft carrier redeployments and so on,
But Robert Gates (the US defence secretary) has denied this going to happen and so has Tony Blair (I think?) and we’ve certainly had Jack Straw say an attack on Iran is ‘inconceivable’. So will the US attack Iran? - I don’t know, only time will tell.
So the real issue is that governments by the use of their own conspiracy theories and by their actions have allowed a climate of suspicion and distrust to colour everything they do. We don’t believe anything they say even when it might be true. This is a real problem for a working democracy and a major issue for any new regime in the US/UK - if one ever takes over.
Perhaps I'm taking to
Perhaps I'm taking to deafened ears here, but heregoes:
I think everyone understands there are some limits on 'free speech' e.g. something like a BNP turd calling on people to go out and hit a Pakistani, but I would say that if the same turd sincerely discuss why he hates Pakistanis (sorry Pakistani people) this would constitute worthy discussion. And if say some 'revisionist' points to a diamond lying in a septic tank by providing a link/info contained in a Nazi website, then again, there is intellectual merit in that. With hyperlinks, you don’t need to drink the contents of the tank to get the diamond! Kapiche?
BW wants to be taken seriously; we'd all want that right? I think most of us are united by our hatred of what Blair is doing, but your not achieving seriousness by censoring my posts (e.g. Operation Gladio). You censored factual, established and published mainstream history - twice. And what other posts have you deleted that contain factual info which may not to agree with your personal opinions, opinions possibly formed on less knowledge than your antagonist? What's to stop anyone shouting 'oh that’s conspiraloonacy' on a 'sensitive' thread to have that info censored or discredited?
What has become known as the 9-11 truth movement suffers from that. Looking at 9-11 sites you see some obvious attempts to unjustly discredit what real sincere researchers try to do, for example, Zionists who post 9-11 or 7-7 truth movement info embedded with anti-Jewishness messages. Yet these posts are not removed, not because the boards editor agrees with it, but because it shows to the public the deliberate campaign to discredit 9-11 movement and also, more easily seen by the less seasoned analyst, the illogical and hateful nature of the poster.
I was of the opinion that you deleted the Gladio info because it proved Governments lie and do commit conspiracies, therefore the possibility of 9-11 being a conspiracy cannot be discounted, hence to stop talk of things 9-11 would have been an unsustainable position. Is that wrong?
Crucial point here:
I wish you would address the point that some have touched upon, namely, if this current glut of disgusting war obsessed politics is justified by 9-11, then no matter what BW says or does against Blairs wars, he (and who ever follows him) will simply turn around and start chanting at you "it's because of 9-11 7-7, you know - 'flux'?", and as a result, you will NEVER be able to stop him. Like any debate, you have to destroy his justification if you want to destroy his actions. Just look at the pre Iraq war invasion march: 1 to 2million people - the biggest ever protest march in the history of the UK. Blair bluntly ignored it. According to the official Blair doctrine (yeah, I know !!) Blair took the 'responsibility' upon himself (yeah I know again !!) to tackle the basket of interlinked issues exemplified by 9-11. Peace marches ever since have been even easier to ignore. ITS THE JUSTIFICATION that ultimately needs to be focus. Some rather lame top ten single isn't going to do diddley, other than to give us gratification at hopefully seeing Blair show some humiliation (yeah, once again, I know !!). The man sends British troops off to doe for a lie (another provable conspiracy) and cares not one iota.
Be honest with me here, how much disruption have 9-11 conspiracists caused, "spamming" BW? How much credibility has it lost? How many "beams from mars" type posts have appeared? How many lizards make an entrance (other than your double reference to it). From my sense of perspective, its been barely noticeable. I Know Rachel NL hates anything associated with conspiracy (yet illogically enough, rejects the Govt narrative) but it seems to me, her friendship with BW admins has resulted in an undue influence over conspiracy? I know BW and RachenNL get on well - and good!, but that friendship doesn't mean BW2 has to morph into RachelNL2, especially when new and serious issues come to light.
PLEASE, I implore you, have a 9-11 sticky. As an accompanying heading, explain briefly why it is there (insults excluded). E.g. say opinions expressed in it, may be in fierce opposition to BW and its admins, but in the interests of contemporary politics the facility is provided". It would only add to the strength of BW. I am sure you would gain an enormous amount of respect if you did this.
TA
Julian: My previous comment
Julian:
My previous comment should not be construed as anything nearing a complete analysis of all the evidence consistent with 9/11 being an inside job. My point was only that reputable establishments such as the BBC and the Guardian (among many others) have reported some of the available evidence, and that there are interviews with prominent figures that lend credence to the idea that 9/11 and 7/7 were orchestrated or allowed by the US and UK governments respectively.
Your contention that the only published evidence regarding government foreknowledge and/or orchestration of 9/11 is Cockburn's story is simply untrue. I can point you towards many others with a pedigree comparable or superior to Democracy Now or Counterpunch if you're interested. I suspect, however, that you aren't interested.
The question 'to be taken
The question 'to be taken seriously' in the post entitled “Wanting to be ‘Taken Seriously’", March 1st, 2007 by Anonymous is a very very clever one.
First off...
Dicks, 'the rational', doesn't answer the question. Instead of having an largely anonymous and spurious 'we take BW seriously' crowd, Dick simply offers an alternative name for the anonymous and spurious group i.e. 'we the rational'
More importantly...
The clever and subtle question is highlighting the reality that; by distancing yourself from 9-11 conspiracy, a Snow like swing toward the pro-Blair/Bush camps is the consequence. Difficult questions of conspiracy (9-11 and others) questions disposed of, Blairite apologists can now settle into the cozy and comatose BBC Questiontime style 'discussion'., where our movers and shakers can bedazzle us with their irrefutable strength of logic and righteousness.
It's doubtful any of 'the serious' abstain from contributing or using BW because there is 9-11 talk here, yet I think we have already seen from recent BW 9-11 policy, a distancing from those strong Bush/Blair opponents {who happen to he 'truthers'} is already occurring and causing unneeded waves.
I also like frogs comments...Chile Nicaragua Iraq Iran
BW, if wishing to maintain their ban on conspiracies (please tell us which ones you will allow -
Well at least RachelNL will be pleased with the result.
frog, sorry but I just want
frog, sorry but I just want to say this for those who may misread what you say.
Galdio does prove something. It proves the Italian govt (with the collaboration of other governments) lie and commit conspiracies and kill their own citizens in committing black ops.
It can only support, not prove, the notion that US government killed their own citizens on 9-11.
Gladio is those seeds you mentioned.
Akiller-- Gladio research,
Akiller-- Gladio research, Daniel Ganser, BBC, proved that in the recent past an uncontrolled agency did those things;
No proof as far as I know that it was directly ordered from on high, the then current govt. . Of course it could have been, and I am damn sure in other places and times this has been true.
A subsequent Italian Government gave us this evidence. You use the present tense, above, thus describing today's Italian government, , the same lot who want to extradite 25 CIA agents. A bit sloppy on that argument ?
I recommended to the BW team that they view the BBC2 video, and place it prominently in a carefully - chosen "VIDEO SECTION" in the sidebar. . Shhhhhhh.
For me, that would be educational. OK It would give ammo to some "extremists", but is it History, or NOT ?
The same sidebar might have the whole history of the RICIN SCARE ----- more History. Or NOT ?
So, Gladio proves nothing, but it is damn sure bloody interesting....
to frog Thanks for the new
to frog
Thanks for the new info. It's new to me.
More research to do. *simultaneous groan and smile*
lazy to log in...
TA
Being Taken, Seriously To
Being Taken, Seriously
To accept that one must avoid questioning 11/09/01 to be "taken seriously" by, one presumes, the gatekeeper perpetrators (The BBC must now be considered "accessories after the fact") is indeed to irrevocably swing,
embracing the paradigms of Western Benevolence and Just Leadership, allowing Power to frame the only debate that actually matters.
The Very Idea that our Moral Leaders would Stoop So Low
As To Slaughter Their Own is pushed as too fruitloop to be taken seriously precisely because these sad days it is pretty much the Only Issue likely to move the sheeple to active rebellion.
Recall Becket's position before and during the invasion of Iraq that many antiwar protestors were so corrosively and ignorantly cynical as to actually attribute Oil as a primary US motive, and were consequently unfit for rational or responsible discussion. Such stances should be slapped down, not serviced with lizard gags.
If BlairWatches position is, effectively, that you Dare Not Discuss such matters, then perhaps a modicum of respect for those who do would better become you.
Frog I'm grateful for your
Frog
I'm grateful for your comment, but I think neither of us is quite ready for Royal Hospital Chelsea just yet. eh?
Anyway, the loonies here are merely seeking to prolong the discussion on these matters. I regard that as discourteous and, ultimately, counter-productive.
If they really want to persuade us of their wisdom, rather than just hector everyone, maybe they need to consider their style and find or create a blog for themselves. It's not too technically difficult is it?
"If they really want to
"If they really want to persuade us of their wisdom, rather than just hector everyone, maybe they need to consider their style"
I see. What "style" do lizard cracks, glib and empty accusations of irrationaility, and equation of 11/09/01 skepticism with "Holocaust revisionism" represent?
Still waiting for an answer to the "Taken Seriously by who?" question.
The kinds of people that
The kinds of people that Blairwatch wishes to be taken 'seriously' by are (in order of priority) :-
1. Media organisations
2. Politicians
3. Journalists
4. Other bloggers
5. Truth seekers
The first three have colluded from day one to create the 'war on terror', so then the BW response to group 4 and 5 members is entirely appropriate.
The kinds of people that
The kinds of people that Blairwatch wishes to be taken 'seriously' by are (in order of priority) :-
1. Media organizations.
2. Politicians
3. Journalists
4. Other bloggers
5. Truth seekers
The first three have colluded from day one to create the 'war on terror', so then the BW response to group 4 and 5 members is entirely appropriate.
you got it buddy!
There is a lot of insightful
There is a lot of insightful and credible material posted on Blairwatch regarding our nefarious government. These presence of these ridiculous conspiracy postings undermines everything else by association. I think the admins are notable by their tolerance and patience with this bullshit.
www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/02/20/bayoneting-a-scarecrow/#more-1043
Scarecrows are straw men so
Scarecrows are straw men so Mobiot got his tilte right at least. A very lazy, sloppy piece. Monbiot resprts to invective and decidely feeble arguments. Bush and Cheney don't have to be "all seeing, all knowing, and all powerfull" to pull off a conspiracy when the media covers for their blunders while denouncing those who expose them. Monbiot hurrumphs that more people are interested in the story of the US governent attacking and killing thousands of its own citizens than in his "real" story about a "spy network feeding confidential information from an arms control campaign to... BAE". Well, Gee George, what can they be thinking?
.
Why did the BBC repeatedly announce that WTC7 ((the Achilles Heel of Official Cave Arabs Conspiracy Theory) had collapsed while it was visibly standing? Why did Google pull the webposted BBC footage? Is the BBC's claim to have since "lost" their 11/09/01 coverage even remotely credable?
There is little doubt, now,
There is little doubt, now, that both CNN and the BBC were reporting on the falling of WTC7 before it actually fell. That is fact.
I suspect that they had decided to pull the tower, and prepared the media for it falling. Then, for some unknown reason, after it fell late, and out of synch, they denied that they had pulled it at all. That was probably a cock up - which they tried to cover up. A conspiracy indeed (maybe a little one?), and as far as I can see, for reasons unknown.
Shame on you, Dick Cheney, for not acknowledging the fact, and ridiculing those who wish to bring this to the attention of the world, and its media.
Why did the lizardmen
Why did the lizardmen demolish WTC7 from the bottom up but the WTC towers from the top down?
My conjecture is this: they pressed the big red button but nothing happened. They ran along the wire, found the fault and reconnected it, but the wrong way round. Hence the building collapsed the wrong way.
Dick Cheney you sad
Dick Cheney you sad bastard.
www.ricksiegel.com/web/index.php
www.whatreallyhappened.com/bbc_wtc7_videos.html
whoa dick whaddya say to those Lizard man?www.youtube.com/watch
I reckon those bangs are the
I reckon those bangs are the central core progressively failing. I don't believe this thermite nonsense either - it would require vast quantities to cut through the central load bearing columns. An easier way to bring down the building would be shaped charges in the outer space frame. Or, just fly a fully laden jumbo into the building.
Surely Dick, you mean "bin
Surely Dick, you mean "bin laden'" not "fuel laden'" don't you?
Reading this thread a
Reading this thread a startling truth dawns on me. It's actually an extremely good debate, if you ignore any posts by 'Anonymous'. Keep it up, non-Anonymice.
Dick what do you think of
Dick what do you think of the
911 Commission - Trans. Sec Norman Mineta Testimony??
"during the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, 'the plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got to 'the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the Vice President...said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
This quote means , by virtue of giving a closing distance, THEY KNEW WHAT THE TARGET WAS GOING TO BE BEFORE THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON.
That is the significance of 'the plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out.' They knew where the track was going to end!
So, Dick Cheney knew the plane was attacking the Pentagon. The young man asked 'Do the orders still stand?' But no order to intercept the incoming aircraft was ever given. So, the order left standing had to be NOT to intercept the incoming plane.
whaddya think Dick??
Time after time the most
Time after time the most contributed posts on Blairwatch relate to the Neo-con (not so secret) CONSPIRACY for global military domination, part of which was to create an environment for the 'long war' by using fear, such as that caused by 9/11, 7/7 and 45 minute warnings of nuclear attack, hate; Islamofascism, Al CIAda, Taliban etc. and ignorance; FOX News, BBC, and most MSM outlets. The posting numbers alone must surely indicate a huge unease with the official version of certain (and numerous) events.
Any person that dismisses anything other than the official version is probably too scared to contemplate the alternative, i.e. our governments kill us in order to have their wars, or perhaps that person may already have malevolent feelings towards the people of the Middle East, Africa and Asia (especially when they're muslims), e.g. most Israeli and American people, or maybe they are just too stupid to understand anything other than what their 'nanny' government tells them.
Also, what is the big deal if somone uses 'Anonymous'? To suggest a comment is not valid because someone does not choose an alternative (and equally anonymous) screen name is ridiculous. Many pertinent posts come from the 'Anonymous majority'. I now feel obliged to have a screen-name whereas before I felt comfortable with 'Anonymous',
 Latest "No Story Here so
Latest "No Story Here so Shut Up Now" blather from BBC's Richard Porter at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html
"Lost " BBC footage still being pulled from Google/YouTube.
A perfectly sane explanation
A perfectly sane explanation on behalf of the BBC!
Unlike this: "I heard this real loud noise coming over my head," he told the Mirror. "I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50 ft. above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke."
Anybody see anything wrong with that "eyewitness" report?
Special for frog?!? Police
Special for frog?!?
Police release CCTV images of man in Cash for Honours scandal.
Can somebody explain clearly
Can somebody explain clearly exactly what is morally wrong with holocaust revisionism (in the sense of querying received wisdom about ASPECTS of the holocaust)?
If I were to say that 750,000 and not 1,000,000 Ruandans (or Armenians, or Cambodians) were massacred (ie, 25% fewer) I suspect there would be little reaction. If someone were to apply the same percentage reduction to the number of holocaust victims he would have buckets of metaphorical shit poured over him.
If someone were to apply the
If someone were to apply the same percentage reduction to the number of holocaust victims he would have buckets of metaphorical shit poured over him.
Or incarceration as in the David Irving case. But then; he has a very prominent Nazi streak.
Here you will find well researched stats for virtually all 20th century conflicts + Tobacco death/stats for perspective.
Extermination of the Jews:
• Reitlinger, Gerald, The Final Solution (1953): between 4,194,200 and 4,851,200 (this number is accepted by Kinder, The Anchor Atlas of World History (1978))
• Brzezinski: 5,000,000
• Chirot: 5,100,000
o 3,000,000 in death camps.
o 1,300,000 massacred.
o 800,000 by dis./maln. in ghettos
• Rummel: 5,291,000
• Grenville: 5-6M
• Davies, Europe A History (1998): avg. c. 5,571,300 (puts the minimum at 4,871,000 and the maximum at 6,271,500.)
• MEDIAN: ca. 5.6M
• Nuremberg indictment: 5,700,000 (accepted by Britannica)
• Gutman, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990): 5,596,029 to 5,860,129
• P. Johnson: 5,800,000
• Wallechinsky: "nearly" 6,000,000
• Urlanis: 6M
The guy who has done this research has no point to prove. Maybe that's the secret?
I would like to add: Part of
I would like to add:
Part of the problem we have is that we are expected to "pick sides"; but in reality life ain't like that, unfortunately.
We know that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not have honourable intentions toward Israel. We also know that Israel would also be quite willing to wipe Iran off the map; they have much in common.
Therein lies the problem!
But as usual, it will be innocent citizens that suffer from this political/religious crap; people that would be quite happily and willingly live side by side, if it weren't for the selfish, bigoted, ambitions of those that would control them; whoever they are, and whatever their reasoning!
The whole subject makes me so angry: Not for me but for the poor fuckers that have to live with the consequences.
I have no more to add.
Lifesastumblingblock :ÂÂ
Lifesastumblingblock : thank you for those figures (and also for the link to the statistics for various other causes of death in the 20th century).
You only give dates for Reitlinger, Davies and Gutman - do you happen to have them for the other sources you mention?
You also don't mention Raoul Hilberg ("The destruction of the European jews") - any reason for that omission?
Try: Bibliography Or: mail
Try: Bibliography
Or:
mail faq
Personal favourite:
Different perspective
eh what does the holocaust
eh what does the holocaust have to do with this thread??absolutely nothing as I see it.
this thread is about 911 or 7/7 and the anomalies thereof.
so whats the deal?are you hoping some 911 sceptics will take the bait?
"eh what does the holocaust
"eh what does the holocaust have to do with this thread??absolutely nothing as I see it."
BW cocategorised 11/09/01 "conspiracy theorists"
with "holocaust revisionists " in its original abusive rant:
"If visitors to our site see loads of off-topic comments about their latest 9/11 theories or Holocaust "revisionism", then that reflects negatively on us."