vResistance Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 Are you going to respond to the point raised or just keep on with keep being sheeple crap? What point would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 What point would that be? lol would you have caught on quicker if he uploaded a video to youtube about said point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 What point would that be? I think the broad point fj was making was that if you're going to go to the trouble of faking the largest terrorist atrocity in modern times then including the BBC in it would stretch opsec beyond any reasonable limits. Or in short you're talking rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EbonyBranch Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I think the broad point fj was making was that if you're going to go to the trouble of faking the largest terrorist atrocity in modern times then including the BBC in it would stretch opsec beyond any reasonable limits. Or in short you're talking rubbish. I think you're missing the point. A secret race of alien lizards could easily infiltrate all our major national and international institutions and opsec would be absolutely guaranteed, because it's only the actual conspiratorial crypto-lizards who are involved on doing anything underhand. Unfortunately, one of them messed up on the day and accidentally put the wrong piece of news out at the wrong time. Luckily, most of the human sheeple are prepared to rationalise this away, apart from a small hard core of good-looking, suave, super cool and intelligent, committed YouTube watchers WHO MUST BE ELIMINATED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 I think the broad point fj was making was that if you're going to go to the trouble of faking the largest terrorist atrocity in modern times then including the BBC in it would stretch opsec beyond any reasonable limits. Or in short you're talking rubbish. In a psy-op like 9/11, media reporting is key to fooling the public, do you think TPTB do not have ultimate control of such a powerful weapon?. So yes some within the BBC would have to be complicit and maybe even have foreknowledge. This is what should be investigated further. The claim it would have to involve tens of thousands is ridiculous. It could turn out the BBC merely repeated what they were told by a source at Reuters and are innocent of any wrong doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 In a psy-op like 9/11, media reporting is key to fooling the public, do you think TPTB do not have ultimate control of such a powerful weapon?. So yes some within the BBC would have to be complicit and maybe even have foreknowledge. This is what should be investigated further. The claim it would have to involve tens of thousands is ridiculous. It could turn out the BBC merely repeated what they were told by a source at Reuters and are innocent of any wrong doing. Oh, right. Well I guess the "truth" will come out when the next truther is up before the beak for fiddling with himself in a bush near a playground which you'll no doubt portray as the entire establishment on trial for faking 9/11 and 7/7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Keep living the dream. You do realise that by responding to him in this glib manner and ignoring my substantative post goes quite some way towards proving him right don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 In a psy-op like 9/11, media reporting is key to fooling the public, do you think TPTB do not have ultimate control of such a powerful weapon?. So yes some within the BBC would have to be complicit and maybe even have foreknowledge. This is what should be investigated further. The claim it would have to involve tens of thousands is ridiculous. It could turn out the BBC merely repeated what they were told by a source at Reuters and are innocent of any wrong doing. So the BBC had to be complicit and were also innocent but duped by someone else. Make your mind up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 You do realise that by responding to him in this glib manner and ignoring my substantative post goes quite some way towards proving him right don't you? You mean this?? I saw something about lizard people and didn't take much notice. If you want me read and respond, stick to the point and don't be so childish. A logical principle called Ockham's razor. Some people there would have had to know something. And if you're right then surely they didn't stop at the BBC, and must have fed news stories to other organisations right? Ah no sorry I did misunderstand you on that last part. What you said was not clear. Allow me to try again:No I don't think it's that strange at all that the building did in fact collapse half an hour later. The reason they made the mistake in the first place was because they misinterpreted a report saying it was badly damaged. The explanation does not rely on an unlikely coincidence, as you seem to imply. Anyways, if you do reply again I've just thought of another question that seems even more important. If, as you claim, it was a conspiracy, then why on earth would they have to script the news? How would that day have gone any differently? Can you imagine the meeting? Lizard-person no.1 "Hey, you know what? We should write up some reports about how all the buildings we're gonna blow up are gonna collapse and then give them to the media so they know what to say" Lizard-person no.2 "Yeah that's a great idea, that way we can involve loads more people from news organisations across the world in our conspiracy, and have even more people who know about it, for pretty much no reason" Lizard-person no.3 "all glory to the hypnotoad!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 You mean this?? I saw something about lizard people and didn't take much notice. If you want me read and respond, stick to the point and don't be so childish. Ignore the lizard part and respond to the rest of the post then, sorry I thought you might have had a sense of humour. The point I made was a good one, and the little fun bit at the end illustrated it well. Seriously though, can you imagine that meeting? It must have happened if what you claim is true, although maybe it wasn't Lizard people. I want you to imagine for a second that you and I are at this meeting, we're the NWO, or whoever you think orchestrated it, and I make the point that giving the media things to say about it is pointless because every single news organisation in the world is going to be watching and reporting anyway, that there is absolutely no need to feed the BBC or anyone else a story about how WTC7 is going to collapse because they will all report it anyway when it happens, and we know it's gonna happen because we rigged it with explosives. There is no benefit to be had from doing this, and it vastly increases our risk, because firstly we have to involve loads more people, and secondly what if someone finds the scripts we wrote for the news the day before or something. OK, so I've just made that point at our secret meeting, what do you say to try and convince me? How can you possibly convince a room full of people that we need to do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.