• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A comparison of conspiracies, past and present

At the top of the world's totem pole sit those who create the POV - narrative that they want we the commoners-public to believe,...... in regard to any significant event .... and in regard to life in general.

The "elites" have their agenda ..... We can safely presume the elites seek to increase their power and influence over we who are not in their club.

We non-elites know there is a large body of information we are not privy to. That is what state "secrets" is all about. But, we have good reason to believe we are privy to at least SOME true information.

Some people want to know just who in this world is calling the shots.

Who has got the power over Mockingbird Stream Media. Who has enough clout to do such as make Trump cave in on this or that issue ?


The elites oppose and resent commoners seeking to figure out just who the elites are. So .... the elites and their minions oft heap scorn on those they label "conspiracy theorist".

The elites and their minions are truth hating scum.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Surely you aren't so ignorant as to cling to your delusions in the face of all the facts buddy?

And there's plenty more where that came from.
Click to expand...

Citing a bunch of sources, many of them empty, is not an example of evidence. If you gave such a list to a prosecutor, he/she would laugh in your face.

M-W: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

Can you, or your sidekick, mike, provide some actual evidence to prove OBL was involved in 911? While you are at it, provide some actual evidence that the alleged hijackers were involved in 911. I have often asked mike and other USGOCT supporters for such evidence and none has been presented.
 
camlok said:
Citing a bunch of sources, many of them empty, is not an example of evidence. If you gave such a list to a prosecutor, he/she would laugh in your face.

M-W: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

Can you, or your sidekick, mike, provide some actual evidence to prove OBL was involved in 911? While you are at it, provide some actual evidence that the alleged hijackers were involved in 911. I have often asked mike and other USGOCT supporters for such evidence and none has been presented.
Click to expand...

No bud, none of that was "empty". Your inability to accept the word of even OBL and his cronies that they launched the attacks is utterly laughable.

And your point is? You can't bring dead people to trial regardless, and Osama, the hijackers and most of AQ's leadership are all dead. But I've never heard of any prosecutor "laughing" at repeated confessions from criminals with multiple collaborating sources.

I just gave you a dozen links proving that OBL was the mastermind behind the attack. And that the actual hijackers involved were on the planes, because I predicted your next brand of absurd desperation.

You have covered your eyes and gone "lalala" to avoid seeing the truth.
 
mike liked Ta's massive disinformation dump. Can you explain why you like it, mike or shall I explain it for you?

FBI: No Evidence Osama Behind 9/11

 
Again, the badly duped USians, or the usual suspect USians who are determined in their efforts to provide as much disinformation as possible pretend that OBL was involved in 911. These are folks who can't even prove that the alleged hijackers were involved in 911.

In point of fact, these are the same dismally bad disinformation folks who bumble and stumble all over themselves like a bunch of really bad Keystone Cops.

The US government, the UK government promised evidence for OBL's involvement in 911. None was ever forthcoming.

Point G-1: A Claim Regarding Osama bin Laden
<< Previous Point, Next Point >>


The Official Account
Osama bin Laden was responsible [1] for the 9/11 attacks.

The Best Evidence
The FBI did not list 9/11 [2] as one of the terrorist acts for which Osama bin Laden was wanted.

When asked why, Rex Tomb, when he was the head of investigative publicity for the FBI, stated [3] that the FBI had no hard evidence [4] connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Also, although Secretary of State Colin Powell, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the 9/11 Commission promised [5] to provide evidence of Bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, they also failed. [6]

Point G-1 | Consensus 911
Click to expand...
 
camlok said:
mike liked Ta's massive disinformation dump. Can you explain why you like it, mike or shall I explain it for you?

FBI: No Evidence Osama Behind 9/11
Click to expand...

Oh great. A vid from 2006. Nice cam. Got anything better?
Why does it bother you what posts I like? . You said you look at all information. Why do you dislike information that goes against your views?

OBL admitted to being involved. Are you calling OBL a liar?

Osama Bin Laden's 9/11 Confession (2001) Video - ABC News

9/11: Osama bin Laden's spectacular miscalculation - CNN

Osama bin Laden 'inspired to plan 9/11 terror attacks by EgyptAir flight 990 crash', al-Qaeda claims | The Independent

Hey cam. I "liked" your post. Do you feel better? Do I need to explain to you why I liked it or can you figure it out?:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
camlok said:
mike liked Ta's massive disinformation dump. Can you explain why you like it, mike or shall I explain it for you?

FBI: No Evidence Osama Behind 9/11

Click to expand...


Gee that's funny. You have one dishonest YouTube video; I have about a dozen different sources. Hmm..., seems you've been exposed yet again.
 
mike2810 said:
Oh great. A vid from 2006. Nice cam. Got anything better?
Why does it bother you what posts I like? . You said you look at all information. Why do you dislike information that goes against your views?

OBL admitted to being involved. Are you calling OBL a liar?

Nope, OBL is honest, unlike your successive US governments which are well known as world class liars. OBL denied numerous times about being involved in 911. But you dupes go for a US made propaganda video of a guy that doesn't even look like OBL, which is perfectly natural for you guys who believe the uncountable numbers of lies you have been fed.

Why would OBL deny it and then in a video the USA "found in Afghanistan" by the very liars who wanted the lies advanced? jesus on a popsicle stick, you guys are totally gullible.

As has been described, which you guys ignored.

==========
"The Best Evidence
The FBI did not list 9/11 [2] as one of the terrorist acts for which Osama bin Laden was wanted.

When asked why, Rex Tomb, when he was the head of investigative publicity for the FBI, stated [3] that the FBI had no hard evidence [4] connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Also, although Secretary of State Colin Powell, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the 9/11 Commission promised [5] to provide evidence of Bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, they also failed. [6]"

Ibid.
============

Do you guys have any idea of the legal principle of chain of custody? Do you understand "conflict of interest"?

Again, who had custody of this "evidence", the very guys who were lying their asses off about the entire 911 event. The guys who accused a bunch of people with no proof/evidence presented. The promised evidence from the Bush and Blair governments was never produced.

The FBI never described on OBL's wanted poster that he had any connection to 911.

Proof of a chain of custody is required when the evidence that is sought to be introduced at trial is not unique or where the relevance of the evidence depends on its analysis after seizure. A proper chain of custody requires three types of testimony: (1) testimony that a piece of evidence is what it purports to be (for example, a litigant's blood sample); (2) testimony of continuous possession by each individual who has had possession of the evidence from the time it is seized until the time it is presented in court; and (3) testimony by each person who has had possession that the particular piece of evidence remained in substantially the same condition from the moment one person took possession until the moment that person released the evidence into the custody of another (for example, testimony that the evidence was stored in a secure location where no one but the person in custody had access to it).

Chain of custody legal definition of chain of custody
Click to expand...



Hey cam. I "liked" your post. Do you feel better? Do I need to explain to you why I liked it or can you figure it out?:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

You are getting more and more childish with each passing day, mike.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom