ok , which ones do you think are hoaxes ?

my point is , you appear to have studied little of the infowars info . read my "do you remember thread"
eg.Remember when alex warned of military on american streets ? Well now the army is training to tackle tea partiers !
Also i have for over 4yrs presented 1000s of posts on these matters both here and the other forum.I'm just inviting you to do some backstory reading.

ive seen the sites criticising alex jones , and the worst they can come up with is he is not anti zionist enough !
Have you read about the media apologising to alex jones after falsely accusing him in the mmalkin shouting match . There are a litany of lies about a jones to demonise him , like saying the jewish museum shooter was an alex jones fan ,when he was the opposite !
Alex Jones has never lost a court case .
Where are the defamation cases , if what he says is false ??

ron paul appears on the alex jones regularly as a guest - what does that tell you ??

my views are being accepted by more and more people everyday , as the uninforming msm collapses .
i suggest you look at the scientific papers presented by prof. s .jones.

pertaining to these competing states as opposed to the NAFTA/NAU agenda
Read "Tragedy & Hope" C.Quigley .
What do the CFR &TRI LAT COMM do ?

except im saying it because , you appear completely uninformed about the globalisation agenda (which is everywhere , check out the number of tertiary academic courses in globalisation ) , the words of kissinger ( who uses the term"global governance") , the aims of Club of Rome ( from their own papers) , z brzinski ( the grand chessboard) .
the rise of the EU and other geo-trade/govt blocks .
see my "new world order" thread.
and guess where i heard about this : ECB: Global governance today , yep , the most informing source on the planet - ALEX JONES !

so what was kissinger talking about when he used the term "global governance" ?
and what did bushes,blair,brown etc mean by "new world order"
what did g brown mean by "the need for a world constitution for the global financial systems" ?

you bet ! they love globalisation !
China is the U.N's model state !
but its a step by step process , the history of the EU gives you a good idea how this forms . Currently we are in the phase of larger free range serf farming management blocks being set up , and USA being destroyed by design , so as to help usher in further steps towards this global governance .

WATCH

Most, if not all of Jones' "theories" do not contain sufficient evidence as expected by the academic community with any research or study.

Again, the burden of proof lies on the person trying to claim that something (in this case conspiracy) exists, not on the person saying that current evidence does not support such as claim. Read my post in your "do you remember" thread.

That tells me that he likes media attention as does any politician for the obvious reasons- it helps increase name recognition and win votes.

Pure speculation, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter unless you can show valid proof. Most academics still do not accept many of his absurd ideas.

There are billions of people out there- some will surely give in to your pandering. Besides, I thought the concept of a lot of people believing something means nothing to you since you think most people live under an umbrella of conspiracies that they don't know about anyway.

I have read about NAFTA (for the record I oppose it) as well as the EU, etc. I do not think it is a world conspiracy though.

Sure there is a lot of writing on the matter and I have seen some of it. That does not prove the claim though. Give some concrete evidence and we'll talk.

Again, a lot of what leaders have said has been taken out of context. Sure there are some who believe or want a one world government, but I do not see the modern states pushing that in policy right now.

You realize that a more entangled Europe is completely different than one world government right? Ever think that the EU was done as a way to strengthen European power against the US, China, or whoever as opposed to the start of combining everyone into one state?

Short on time right now, will check it out later.

The problem with a lot of the conspiracy theories that are popular today is that they do not contain any institutional analysis, they do not implement any form of the scientific method, and they simply do not have valid evidence to be accepted in the academic world. Do you really think that all the scientists and researchers out there would reject your theories just because they feel like it? Most researchers take evidence very seriously and as such, your theories would be accepted if you had valid proof- which you don't.

Now you can question the requirements of the academic world, but if you have any strong evidence, you would be able to pass their requirements any way.

Axiom, calling me ignorant, childish, naive, or whatever does not help your argument or your ethos. As for being specific- I'll start with the 9/11 inside job conspiracy by Mr. Jones. I told you why the "evidence" he gives is not really proof in my post in your "do you remember" thread that you conveniently chose not to respond to, instead redircting me here:
What of your theory is there for me to debunk when you don't even have any hard evidence in the first place? The burden of proof is with you, not me.

On the MSM: who said I believe everything they say? Every organization and group has an agenda, I realize that. I never said I believe everything the MSM says or that I just go to the MSM for all info, so stop putting words in my mouth or assuming things.

As for the quotation on anarchism- what is your point? Who said I said anarchism is evil? We are talking about conspiracy theories here, not anarchism and even if Jones is an anarchist I don't care because it is not relevant.

Where did you read that? I tried searching for that, but couldn't find a decent link. Either way though, most of the 9/11 conspiracy theory is based on circumstantial evidence that takes things out of context (probably including 6/10 having doubts) and has no hard science or analysis behind it.

On a side note, since you brought up anarchism earlier, what do you think about this when Noam Chomsky, perhaps the most famous anarchist today, says that the 9/11 conspiracy theory is illogical not only in terms of plausibility, but motive too.

9/11 Commission Members Doubt Official Story

On the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, there remain unanswered questions surrounding the events that transpired that day. These questions demand answers, and far from being a “fringe” movement as cast by the mainstream media, many of the 9/11 commission members themselves doubt the official story.

The following are a few examples:

Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a “national scandal”, stated in a 2003 PBS interview,

“I’m saying that’s deliberate. I am saying that the delay in relating this information to the American public out of a hearing… series of hearings, that several members of Congress knew eight or ten months ago, including Bob Graham and others, that was deliberately slow walked… the 9/11 Commission was deliberately slow walked, because the Administration’s policy was, and its priority was, we’re gonna take Saddam Hussein out.”

Cleland, speaking with Democracy Now, said,

“One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

In 2006 the Washington Post reported that several members of the 9/11 Commission suspected deception on part of the Pentagon. As reported,

“Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.”

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry also has unanswered questions. As reported by Salon, he believes that there are legitimate reasons to believe an alternative version to the official story.

“There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,” Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration.

Commissioner Tim Roemer, speaking to CNN, stated that Commission members were considering a criminal probe of false statements. As quoted,

“We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting,” Roemer told CNN. “We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy.”


The Awful Truth The Media Hides: Highly Credible People Question 9/11 - all quotes linked to source.

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest“.

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

maybe chomsky could respond to that !

plus ! Are These 9/11 Whistleblowers Credible?

Axiom, please clam down and listen to Hayek. He seems to know what he is talking about. Hopefully you have begun to realize how far fetched this silly conspiracy theory of yours is?

No Axiom, I am not stunned by your fake reality, I have just been busy of late. Your last post really helped the argument- that is mine of course. That is just the sort of "evidence" that the 9/11 conspiracy and many other such theories use and it is precisely because of that sort of "evidence" that the academic community takes no notice of you.

In your above post, you take several out-of-context quotations and try to twist their meaning into something that you want it to say. About the White House delaying the release of information or covering some of it up- how exactly does that help your theory? I think most people know that the government may not have released every single detail of every report they made- frankly they probably never do. This does not mean its a conspiracy though- it could simply mean the info was sensitive intel that if released into the public would hurt the government's chances at finding who they need to find. The delays on some of the info certainly suggest that. Furthermore, even if there was some crime or fraud created by government and that was the reason they wanted to hide some things- that does NOT mean it was an inside job- if you think so, you are just jumping to conclusions.

As humans we not omniscient and as such we base what we accept as fact on rationalism- often through probability. There are holes in every fact out there for this very reason- we do not know everything and most likely we never will. You can not use this human trait as a basis to push any theory or idea because then you can claim anything is true. That is why we have analysis, experimentation, evidence. Provide some real evidence and we'll talk, otherwise maybe it is time for you to reconsider your own reality.

You queried my post on the NIST commissioners , i give unequivocal statements from their own mouths , but now you say they are out of context twisted to suit my meaning !!??
Is there not enough there to support my claim that nist comissioners had serious doubts about their own findings ??

What do you think Cleland was talking about here : “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”. ?

The "cave directed boxcutters" explanation is so full of holes as to be ludicrous.
Why has osama bin laden never been on the fbi's wanted list for 9/11 ?
answer: because they admit there is no evidence linking him to the crime !
How did the cave director get norad to stand down and scramble the jets over the atlantic ?

Study the oklahoma bombing case . You will see that criminal elements within the halls of power have a history of false flag attacks .
Tim Mcveigh himself says it was to discredit the rise of the constitutionalist patriot movement at the time .

Remember that people can be convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence alone .
A good detective does not buy the first story he hears ( ubl "guilty" within hours) , he looks at all inconsistencies and "coincidences" he considers context/ history (back-story) , who benefits and he follows the money .
Think of "all war is a racket"-S.Butler and the "threat of the military industrial complex" - D.Eisenhower and consider the wealth ,power and motive for such acts .

My position on 9/11 is that the official story is so full of holes ,inconsistencies and absurdities , that any clear thinking person once availed of a more full spectrum of the information would conclude that the true real story of 9/11 is significantly different to that of the official fairytale.

on your "academic community taking no notice of" us , you obviously are not aware of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Why also did you gloss over the list of credible high ranking people who question the official 9/11 story i posted earlier ? Are These 9/11 Whistleblowers Credible?

There is real evidence against your claims. You have no valid evidence- I will respond to your quotation as an example:

And how exactly does this quotation tell you that he/she is saying the conspiracy is true? All they are saying is that the White House might be covering some things up. That does NOT mean it was an inside job.

Why don't you give some actual proof instead of just speculating. Anyone can do what you are doing. And do you really think we are not trying to find Bin Laden?


And you are now using Mcveigh as a credible source? Would most similar criminals not say the same to make themselves look better?

A detective also considers everything and while you may have one or two small inconsistencies that fall in line with your grand conspiracy, that does not mean the whole thing is true. When told so many times, any story is bound to have inconsistencies. It is the one that has the least and seems most logical (and has hard scientific evidence- which in this case is there) that is usually the accepted one.
Not only does that site allow anyone to be considered a scholar as it says in the "about" section, but even if there are a couple of educated people on there, that does not mean they are right. Do you really want to play that game? Do you really want me to start naming professors, experts, etc. that DO believe in the official story or atleast something close to it? There is no doubt my numbers will outweigh yours- even you have to admit that.

I followed the first link and was done because it is just more of the same sort of quotation you posted above. Nowhere does the ex-Reagan cabinet member say anything about it being an inside job. Furthermore, if you are going to argue this on ethos alone, then I clearly have the edge as stated in my previous argument. If you want to point out one particular person that you feel is great "proof" of your little story, then go ahead and post it and I will respond. Until now I have not seen anything credible whatsoever. Using your logic, one can make the argument that almost anything in this world is real- and if people believed it, it would tear apart the fabric of all scientific and societal progress over the last 6000 years. Thank God most people think more logically than you do.

you talk about evidence , without addressing the fbi's (lack of) evidence on ubl !
why do you keep referring to "your conspiracy theory" ?
did you read my position on 9/11 above ??

and could you for the sake of clarity in this debate ,do likewise and summarise your position .