The conspiracy theory thread.

[Chimpy]

I just realised both David Icke and this Ripple Effect chap think they're the second coming of Jesus Christ. Coincidence?

[Ki Adimonky]

Ki - Dismissing something because of the source is surely something you'd lecture us against doing, so why do it yourself? Just because something is the 'official story' doesn't necessarily make it wrong. If you want to debunk what the documentary says you'll have to actually attack what it says rather than the people that made it.

 

It doesn't take a genius to see that program was bias towards what the government says happened, and even went as far to say that the 'conspiracy theorists' were inciting hatred from the muslim community towards the government.

[Delfi]

It doesn't take a genius to see that program was bias towards what the government says happened, and even went as far to say that the 'conspiracy theorists' were inciting hatred from the muslim community towards the government.

 

Or is it perhaps that what was supplied was the most convincing argument?

 

I thought that Rachel North - the survivor of one of the bombs - not only acquitted herself well but put across an extremely cogent argument. Far more convincing that some' son of god' nut job with an Arab sounding pseudonym. Why use an Arab name and not his own?

[Chimpy]

It doesn't take a genius to see that program was bias towards what the government says happened, and even went as far to say that the 'conspiracy theorists' were inciting hatred from the muslim community towards the government.

 

On top of what Delfi says it is a result of your own cognitive bias that sees the program as bias towards the government. That the program is dedicated to debunking the conspiracy theorists doesn't make it factually incorrect.

 

If you believe the program to be incorrect you must show where they are incorrect and produce the evidence that supports the hypothesis you wish to replace the inaccuracies with.

 

These sorts of things are divisive to communities as it allows people at worst to dismiss the idea that there are any issues with Islamist terrorism and at best couch it in terms where the agency is removed from the bombers themselves. If theories like the bombers were patsies of Mossad (already playing towards direct antisemitism) or our own security services are allowed to stand unchallenged and are accepted uncritically by prominent members of Muslim communities such as Dr Mohammed Naseem then it does present a serious issue since it makes that community feel under an entire false threat. It's a great example of the harm these bogus theories can cause in wider society.

[jay bee]

I just realised both David Icke and this Ripple Effect chap think they're the second coming of Jesus Christ. Coincidence?

And lets not forget David Shayler!

 

These sorts of things are divisive to communities as it allows people at worst to dismiss the idea that there are any issues with Islamist terrorism and at best couch it in terms where the agency is removed from the bombers themselves. If theories like the bombers were patsies of Mossad (already playing towards direct antisemitism) or our own security services are allowed to stand unchallenged and are accepted uncritically by prominent members of Muslim communities such as Dr Mohammed Naseem then it does present a serious issue since it makes that community feel under an entire false threat. It's a great example of the harm these bogus theories can cause in wider society.

Exactly. It's not often brought to light how potentially damaging these conspiracy theories can be.

[Delfi]

And don't think that Dr Mohammed Naseem is so smart either. He's just a GP who specialises in circumcision.

 

Just don't eat the free crisps if you ever visit him

 

[Chimpy]

I just finished watching the BBC documentary and was struck by two things:

 

1) How they agree on the divisive nature of these conspiracy theories.

 

2) How contrary to what Ki said only about 2 minutes of the whole thing covers the official account. The rest of the time is taken up with explaining and debunking parts of the Ripple Effect and showing the various contributors in their own glory.

 

They should also have taken a closer look at Tony Gosling as he is also a grade A nutjob.

[Delfi]

I'd still like to know why the 'nut job' John Hill - the author of the widely distributed '7/7 Ripple Effect' - felt it necessary to spread his 'theories' directly to muslim communities using the psuedonym 'Muad Dib'. He posted DVD's as well as promoting a web advertising campaign for his film. Why didn't he do that using his real name?

 

Well, actually, I think we all know why ... it's to do with trying to gain credibilty through deception and 'smoke and mirrors'. To a degree it appears to have worked too. After all, Zionists are clearly to blame and they're colluding with our government and secret services.

 

Couple this with an inclination for self-denial and self-preserving single issue religious politics by the likes of 'Dr' Naseem and his cronies and we have a very dangerous social cocktail.

 

John Hill (Muad Dib) has been arrested and is facing extradition from Eire to the UK on the basis of attempting to pervert the course of justice by sending his fiction to a judge and other court officials involved in the 7/7 incidents. Still, that'll be a conspiracy too huh?

[Stealthbomber]

Muad Dib?

 

That was the Fremen name given to Paul Atreides (who also gained the fremen name "Usul" or "Base of the pillar" and was also, of course, the Kwisatz Haderach, final result of the Bene Gesserit breeding program) in the Dune novels.

Apparently it's Fremen for "Little Mouse". Dunno if that's the same in Arabic.

[Delfi]

Muad Dib?

 

That was the Fremen name given to paul Atreides in the Dune novels.

Apparently it's Fremen for "Little Mouse". Dunno if that's the same in Arabic.

 

Ya know ... you're right ... I've got the complete set of books downstairs. Not read them for years.

 

It sounds Arabic and I'll bet nobody involved directly in this will have spotted that.

 

Edit: That just adds more to the fantasy aspect of all of this though :-)

[Xaccers]

Paul was the sleeper who awakened, as his father called for, and saw the truth.

He's also cool, a hero, so a fantasist such as John Hill would be attracted to the name.

 

[Ki Adimonky]

OK then Chimpy, here are some quotes I noted from the so-called impartial narrator and Rachel North.

 

Narrator:

 

‘7/7 ripple effect is at the extreme end of the spectrum’

 

‘For survivors and families the conspiracy theories are pernicious.’ meaning evil for those not quite down with the Beeb’s lingo.

 

‘Like the 9/11 story about pre-warnings, the 7/7 story is fiction’

 

‘No evidence of pre-warnings to the attack’

 

'52 innocent people were killed on 7/7 and 784 people were injured. Although the tragic events are still fresh in peoples minds this hasn’t stopped some conspiracy theorists in their aggressive and ugly persuit in what they think is the truth’ WOW!

 

‘And there’s concerns conspiracy theories could alienate Muslims from the authorities.'

 

‘Ripple effect is stiring up suspicion about the bombings, sewing decent across Britain. The film viscously targets innocent people falsely accusing them of involvement in an official conspiracy to kill innocent people’

 

‘Muad Dib has waged a propaganda war to win Britain over to his distorted vision of reality’

 

‘Muad Dib’s bizarre world view’

 

‘They (Tony Gosling, Naseem etc) want to stage a meeting to unite Muslims and non muslims around the belief 7/7 could have been an inside job. They’re going to play a video promoting conspiracy theories and stir up more suspicion’

 

Where's the impartiality? Cos I don't see any.

 

Rachel North: a survivor of the attacks.

 

‘Conspiracy theories play into the hands of extremists’

 

‘Inflamatory conspiracy theories’

 

‘Petrol onto the flames’

 

‘Conspiracy theorists say I’m a lying, Zionist, *badgeress*, Islamaphobic, predudice, hateful, deceitful, front for the government, source of misinformation’

 

‘If people in mosque’s think that the government is so antagonistic towards them that they’re actually willing to frame them for a monstrous crime that they didn’t commit, what does that do for levels of trust, that is the problem for the government and anyone in this country.’

 

‘You may have seen some stuff about the bombers never being in London. You might have heard a story that the train they got on never ran. You may have heard people saying that the bombs were under the train. We’d like to show you our side of the story. Have a look at the evidence and see if you think it’s reasonable…see that would have helped!’

 

She definately knows what she's doing!

 

I know she highlighted this herself. But who is this woman working for? A woman calling for a public enquiry, 'but don’t you dare utter ‘conspiracy.’ Gatekeeper, controlled opposition at it’s finest. She will cry ‘conspiracy theories are upsetting to the survivors of 7/7 and hey presto the evidence will of course be disregarded.

 

So how was the ‘truth movement’ or the ‘conspiracy theorists’ portrayed?

 

Lets use Tony Gosling as an example, interesting comments from the Narrator such as:

 

‘Working from an Underground Office’

 

‘Raising the unthinkable’

 

Don’t make this guy sound too shifty hey BBC?. They're trying to portray him as demonic and evil.This is all clever propaganda from the BBC. Also I noticed a couple of close up shots of Tony looking through his glasses at the computer screen. The blurry vision representing a distorted view that they are desperately trying to portray him to hold? Clever.

 

Moving onto Nick Collostrum (spelling) Interviewed on a dingy car park roof? Clutching onto the fence, a little twitchy. Ok, this might sound shallow, but look at it from an average Joe’s perspective. This is the way the truth movement is portrayed. His perfectly legitimate questions about train timetable’s undermined by his holocaust denial, somewhat confused demure and that awkward scene where he is stumped by alleged footage of the ‘bombers’ at Kings Cross. Is this the best the BBC could find? Of course it wasn’t and that’s exactly how they like it. 'Take a look at these conspiracy theorists, they are all jew hating, twitchy, muslim extremist, outcast of society nutcases’

 

Or in fact we are just concerned the Government is deploying Nazi tactics against it's people to promote their war on terror, strip away our freedoms and increase the power of the NWO iron fist? I certainly am not aggressive and I would hedge a bet on the vast majority of truth seekers being of good nature who care for their fellow man. We want liberty, not conflict. Truth not lies.

 

How about the way they twisted the words of Bruce Lait, another slightly stuttery, spectacled, ballroom dancer, love how they slipped that one in?! Like Rachel, he is a 7/7 survivor. His account is different in that he witnessed the explosion come from under the train:

 

‘I noticed that there was a hole from the explosion, it came from under the train’

 

Narrator counters:

 

‘Bruce ‘thought’ he saw evidence of a bomb under the train’

 

&

 

‘Bruce doesn’t know whether he actually saw evidence the bomb was underneath the carriage and not in Tanweers rucksack as the authorities said’

 

So Bruce makes a statement and the BBC twist his words and throw doubt over his comments and use that to dispel his account? Why dont the BBC use this approach to Rachel North?

 

This program set out to debunk the Ripple Effect and the truth movement. They partially debunked a few theories. In my eyes the Kingstar van is a MASSIVE red herring. As is the poster ‘Outright Terror, bold & brilliant.’ Why did the BBC focus on such issue’s but ignore the smoking gun of the documented shootings in Canary Wharf? Very telling.

 

The Conspiracy files attempts to claim the Government had got the train times wrong initially. Funny how it was only retracted when pressure was mounting from the public. Isn’t it curious how the statement from the head of the Mossad, General Meir Dagan was retracted from the AP? Dagan initially reported that he received a warning from Scotland Yard at 8.40am and let Netanyahu know. You know they’re on the ropes when the official story is emended. The narrator then concluded there was ‘no evidence of pre-warnings of the attack.’ What, so nowadays all you have to do is retract evidence and everything is now hunky-dory?! It’s not good enough BBC.

 

Why does Peter Power change his story from 1000 people working on the day of the exercise drill down to 6 in an office 4 years later? Why only now speak out and release the name of his client which he claims is Reed Elsevier.

 

More use of words like ‘menacing’ and ‘worrying’ about conspiracy theorists. The narrator describes the evidence as ‘false allegations against him.’ Brilliant!

 

It’s a shame about Muad Dib/John Hill. Why do prominent truth figures in the UK seem to end up believing they are the messiah? He has raised some very big questions. The public deserve a truly free and open inquiry not led by Rachel North. I feel her past is entrenched in Common Purpose NLP? Just my honest opinion.

 

Truth is dragged through the dirt. We (so-called conspiracy nuts) are now being portrayed as the dangerous one's?

 

One of the longest posts I've ever written Glad I recorded the program so I could rewatch it to get them quotes.

 

 

I’ll leave you with the closing comment from Brian Paddick. Note the subtle undertones.

 

‘It is important for the police, the secret services and the government to realise how important conspiracy theories are to Muslims and how important it is to do everything they can to counter and act on them'

[Chimpy]

I started going through the quotes and answering them in turn then I realised it was futile. You've watched the program, cherry picked random quotes and removed the context. You have smeared the people you don't like and accusing the program of smearing the people you do like. You blatantly ignore huge swathes of it in order to present it as not really debunking the points raised. In particular the warning of Netanyahu and the simulation being run by Peter Power. In doing so though you rely on supposition that is not supported by any evidence at all for example that there was something shady in AP changing its story and Power only just naming who he was working for that day.

 

In short your post is a giant jumble of insinuation unsupported by evidence.

 

A pile of ######.

 

If you want to rework a more cognisant post I'll happily go through it for you and debunk your points but I have a very low tolerance for you just making stuff up.

[Chimpy]

Just so you can see what I'm talking about.

 

Here you smear Rachel North questioning 'who see is working for?' without actually finding out if shes working for anyone at all. Then you imply shes controlled by the government or 'NWO' but again provide no evidence. Smears a plenty.

Rachel North: a survivor of the attacks.

 

...

 

She definately knows what she's doing!

 

I know she highlighted this herself. But who is this woman working for? A woman calling for a public enquiry, 'but don’t you dare utter ‘conspiracy.’ Gatekeeper, controlled opposition at it’s finest. She will cry ‘conspiracy theories are upsetting to the survivors of 7/7 and hey presto the evidence will of course be disregarded.

 

Now we get on to you accusing the program of smears. Factual stuff like Gosling having an underground office and his raising of the unthinkable aside your comments about the shots of him working are hilarious.

Lets use Tony Gosling as an example, interesting comments from the Narrator such as:

 

‘Working from an Underground Office’

 

‘Raising the unthinkable’

 

Don’t make this guy sound too shifty hey BBC?. They're trying to portray him as demonic and evil.This is all clever propaganda from the BBC. Also I noticed a couple of close up shots of Tony looking through his glasses at the computer screen. The blurry vision representing a distorted view that they are desperately trying to portray him to hold? Clever.

 

The point about Kollerstrom is made in the film itself how could you trust someone so willing to deny an event with so many witnesses and such a large amount of evidence supporting it in being able to be objective about something else? The part where they played him the video was intentional as his claim that the photo is faked is completely rediculous and without supporting evidence. What now, is he going to claim the video was faked? Again with what evidence? Of course you call it an alleged video on what grounds is it to be suspect?

Moving onto Nick Collostrum (spelling) Interviewed on a dingy car park roof? Clutching onto the fence, a little twitchy. Ok, this might sound shallow, but look at it from an average Joe’s perspective. This is the way the truth movement is portrayed. His perfectly legitimate questions about train timetable’s undermined by his holocaust denial, somewhat confused demure and that awkward scene where he is stumped by alleged footage of the ‘bombers’ at Kings Cross. Is this the best the BBC could find? Of course it wasn’t and that’s exactly how they like it. 'Take a look at these conspiracy theorists, they are all jew hating, twitchy, muslim extremist, outcast of society nutcases’

 

I'm not sure why you think a factual report of what Bruce Lait was doing on 7/7 is considered a smear. What do you have against ballroom dancing?

How about the way they twisted the words of Bruce Lait, another slightly stuttery, spectacled, ballroom dancer, love how they slipped that one in?!

 

Two things here. First Rachel North does not want to lead an inquiry she just wants there to be a public one where the evidence is bought out. Secondly bringing in junk science (it's junk in the way you think it can be used) stuff like Common Purpose(?) NLP is stupid, where is you evidence to support your opinion? This is just another retarded attempt to smear Rachel.

The public deserve a truly free and open inquiry not led by Rachel North. I feel her past is entrenched in Common Purpose NLP? Just my honest opinion.

 

What are the subtle undertones and what is your evidence that it is something that Brian Paddick is trying to say discreetly? Or are you trying to suggest he is part of the conspiracy and thus untrustworthy? Again with no evidence at all this just looks like a stupid attempt to discount what he says by smearing him.

I’ll leave you with the closing comment from Brian Paddick. Note the subtle undertones.

 

‘It is important for the police, the secret services and the government to realise how important conspiracy theories are to Muslims and how important it is to do everything they can to counter and act on them'

[jay bee]

Like Chimpy I really can't be bothered to go through all of it with you, as so far you've tended to throw legitimate points out of the window, but I'll specifically address these points as they really bother me:

 

---

 

'52 innocent people were killed on 7/7 and 784 people were injured. Although the tragic events are still fresh in peoples minds this hasn’t stopped some conspiracy theorists in their aggressive and ugly persuit in what they think is the truth’ WOW!

 

‘Ripple effect is stiring up suspicion about the bombings, sewing decent across Britain. The film viscously targets innocent people falsely accusing them of involvement in an official conspiracy to kill innocent people’

 

---

 

You see these 2 points are not biased, they're perfectly reasonable. Conspiracy theorists ARE aggressively and viciously targeting people who they believe to be part of the conspiracy. Supposing the conspiracy theorists are wrong (which I believe they are) and these people are completely innocent, then this is a disgustingly unfair thing to be doing. Sending Peter Power and that controlled demolition company threatening emails (Peter Power especially seems to be getting some particularly nasty ones) is frankly *fruitcage*ed up, until ANYTHING is proved, these people should have the basic right to walk the street without having to look over their shoulder, or have their reputation damaged. I used to find conspiracy theories entertaining in a strange way, but this documentary has made me realise how dangerous they really can be.

 

Just my 2 pence.

[Ki Adimonky]

I used to find conspiracy theories entertaining in a strange way, but this documentary has made me realise how dangerous they really can be.

 

Looks like the BBC's mission was a success.

 

[Chimpy]

Looks like the BBC's mission was a success.

 

Which is a good thing, completely false conspiracy theories such as the one promoted by the Ripple Effect are dangerous. There is no higher agency behind that point of view. Unless you happen to have some evidence that supports that hypothesis?

[Delfi]

Looks like the BBC's mission was a success.

 

Oh so now the BBC (lizard people Zionists?) are in on it too ... awesome reasoning here. All the BBC did was commission and show a programme that put counter arguments against a work of supreme fiction.

 

'7/7 Ripple Effect' has been shown to be a total fabrication put together by a (and I'm repeating myself here) total nut-job who is facing extradition for attempting to pervert the course of justice. He could arguably be accused of attempting to incite religious and/or racial hatred too.

 

Now Ki, if you want to defend that then that's your right. I wouldn't expect too many people to show any respect for your opinions or, perhaps more importantly, you.

 

I would think twice about what, and who, you are trying to defend and/or attack if I were you. You lack any sense of objectivity or reason. Perhaps more importantly you should really examine your ability to construct a valid argument as well as analyse those put forward by others who are clearly much more capable than you.

[Ki Adimonky]

I don't know why I bother. Its quite clear that most members here are willing to blindly believe what ever their governments tell them, and that those who question the government are dangerous to society.

[Delfi]

I don't know why I bother. Its quite clear that most members here are willing to blindly believe what ever their governments tell them, and that those who question the government are dangerous to society.

 

A remarkably patronising and arrogant view from someone who isn't old enough to vote yet.

[bbondaloose]

This thread is frightening me...

I need to go watch Spongebob to refill my soul.

[Xaccers]

I don't know why I bother. Its quite clear that most members here are willing to blindly believe what ever their governments tell them, and that those who question the government are dangerous to society.

 

Funny, it's quite clear to many of us that you are willing to blindly believe whatever conspiracy theorists tell you, even in the face of blindingly obvious facts dismantling such theories.

[jay bee]

I don't know why I bother. Its quite clear that most members here are willing to blindly believe what ever their governments tell them, and that those who question the government are dangerous to society.

 

Questioning is not dangerous to society, but most conspiracy theorists don't just question, they just say "This is how it is". It's perfectly fine to say "Hey, in this photo it looks like the railings are in front of the guy?" rather than to say "oh my god the railings are in front of the guy THE GOVERNMENT DID IT NWO REPTILIANZZZ!!! AAAAAAAAGH!!!"

 

This is the fundamental difference between rational and irrational debate, rational people ask questions and look for evidence, irrational conspiracy theorists pose questions, disregard any answers and evidence that doesn't fit with their conspiracy.

[Nooblet]

I don't know why I bother. Its quite clear that most members here are willing to blindly believe what ever their governments tell them, and that those who question the government are dangerous to society.

 

Then why don't you try to address some of the many points that have been raised by other members rather than changing the subject with a quick one liner about the BBC?

 

If people take the time to give such lengthy replies to your posts it's just downright rude to completely ignore their responses just because you can't provide valid/logical counterpoints and/or any evidence to support your points that are questioned.

[Ki Adimonky]

Nooblet, so your saying I'm essentially picking and choosing what and what not to reply to? Well that can be said for most people, especially the government.

 

For example several IDs (even some multiples of the same ID) of the 7/7 bombers were found a distance away from the targets, now surely, they couldn't all have fallen out of the 'bombers' pockets? And why would some of them have multiples? They wouldn't. Sounds very similar to how they found a near perfect passport of one of the 'attackers' after 9/11 amongst the rubble.

 

Also what about the canary wharf shootings that were witnessed by many that day? But to my knowledge there was practically no investigation in to them.

 

No explanation has been given for either of them incidents, yet I'm 'rude' for not responding to every single line of text?