Absolute Proof Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

[p4pking]

I'm not sure you even pretend to be genuine half the time you aren't posting gibberish, so I wasn't to interested in your opinion. I don't give a rats what they look like or how they dress and appear, I find it very hard to listen in detail to people who hold core beliefs which I consider nonsensical. I have given both of them a try, I think they are poorly informed, and most any evidence they put forward is purely anecdotal.

[Gandalf]

I read the Independent, but like with several British papers has gone downhill. There is so much that they just won't talk about. If you look at who owns these papers you start to see familiar patterns and understand how the news is working. Just take the absurd Corbyn bashing for instance and basically ignoring issues like fracking and the extent of the harmful policies being carried out by the Tories. The latest being a draconian housing bill that will devastate people. Meanwhile Labours reshuffle is all that matters. Bonkers and a very obvious agenda. And dont get me started on the Putin demonisation! At least with Infowars you get a fair take on other countries and regions that we have destroyed. If you read the British papers the Iraq war never happened and terrorists emerged from a vacuum in their shiny new jeeps. You dont get a perfect picture from anywhere but you do need different sources to try and get some balance. If you just read British papers a worldview is a very incomplete one.

[p4pking]

The independent had an article today about British soldiers in Iraq standing trial for torture, it can't be that bad, I usually find decent articles on there. I am by no means well informed, I'm sure you read a lot more than I do and that's great. Do you believe the 911 wasn't a terrorist attack though? As I don't, it's very hard to take people convinced otherwise very seriously. It just doesn't add up, even your hero Chomsky doesn't go that far :P

[Gandalf]

Mind you, I always have time for Robert Fisk who seems able to say what we wants about the ME. Also as far as papers go the Indy is one of the better ones, but considering I think it is slipping says how much I respect the others. The Telegraph is appalling. And of course normal folk read horror rags like The Sun. Give me Infowars any day of the week over a lot of that. Plus Infowars has great guests like William Binney, Ron Paul, Max Keiser, and even Donald Trump is seeing the light with some of the things he is saying.

[Gandalf]

The independent had an article today about British soldiers in Iraq standing trial for torture, it can't be that bad, I usually find decent articles on there. I am by no means well informed, I'm sure you read a lot more than I do and that's great. Do you believe the 911 wasn't a terrorist attack though? As I don't, it's very hard to take people convinced otherwise very seriously. It just doesn't add up, even your hero Chomsky doesn't go that far :P

I am open minded and have argued both ways on 911. All I know is that the official narrative is flawed and there are a lot of things that do not add up. Building 7 falling on its own and the two towers falling like a controlled demolition obviously raises question marks. There is too much to go into here though. It's a huge topic.

The Indy isn't terrible, I read through every morning. It does have information, but when it comes to economic analysis and honesty about Britains role in destabilising the world, I find it lacking. No mainstream paper will fully go there really. I do love Fisk though who will speak the truth about Israel.

[Gandalf]

Today I see the BBC is also doing its best to get in the fray by undermining a democratically elected party leader. The BBC, like most of the British media has an agenda. If you are Cameron you can cut everything, double the debt, bomb anywhere, sell off council homes, frack, let banks carry out widespread fraud and even allegedly have sex with a pigs head, all just dandy and yet look at the number of negative articles Corbyn is facing and for what? Because he is a man of peace and wants to nationalise over priced services? I defy anyone to say that the British media is respectable or fair in the way it covers 'news' really. RT is another source of information that you often won't find in the British press.

https://www.rt.com/uk/328284-bbc-dou...nation-corbyn/

[p4pking]

The independent had an article today about British soldiers in Iraq standing trial for torture, it can't be that bad, I usually find decent articles on there. I am by no means well informed, I'm sure you read a lot more than I do and that's great. Do you believe the 911 wasn't a terrorist attack though? As I don't, it's very hard to take people convinced otherwise very seriously. It just doesn't add up, even your hero Chomsky doesn't go that far :P

I am open minded and have argued both ways on 911. All I know is that the official narrative is flawed and there are a lot of things that do not add up. Building 7 falling on its own and the two towers falling like a controlled demolition obviously raises question marks. There is too much to go into here though. It's a huge topic.

The Indy isn't terrible, I read through every morning. It does have information, but when it comes to economic analysis and honesty about Britains role in destabilising the world, I find it lacking. No mainstream paper will fully go there really. I do love Fisk though who will speak the truth about Israel.

Building 7 was hit by heavy debris from the north tower and several fires started inside. It was searched once over but then Larry Silverstein and the Fire chief ordered a halt to it as there was nobody inside and so many firemen had already died. There were ZERO casualties as a result of it's collapse. Major skyscrapers are designed to implode in the event of a major structural fault, so that they don't topple sideways. People who simply want to believe it was an inside job without objectively looking at the facts really creep me out. Have you read the 911 commission report? It's entirely uncontroversial.

[brocktonblockbust]

the independent had an article today about british soldiers in iraq standing trial for torture, it can't be that bad, i usually find decent articles on there. I am by no means well informed, i'm sure you read a lot more than i do and that's great. Do you believe the 911 wasn't a terrorist attack though? As i don't, it's very hard to take people convinced otherwise very seriously. It just doesn't add up, even your hero chomsky doesn't go that far

i am open minded and have argued both ways on 911. All i know is that the official narrative is flawed and there are a lot of things that do not add up. Building 7 falling on its own and the two towers falling like a controlled demolition obviously raises question marks. There is too much to go into here though. It's a huge topic.

The indy isn't terrible, i read through every morning. It does have information, but when it comes to economic analysis and honesty about britains role in destabilising the world, i find it lacking. No mainstream paper will fully go there really. I do love fisk though who will speak the truth about israel.

building 7 was hit by heavy debris from the north tower and several fires started inside. It was searched once over but then larry silverstein and the fire chief ordered a halt to it as there was nobody inside and so many firemen had already died. There were zero casualties as a result of it's collapse. Major skyscrapers are designed to implode in the event of a major structural fault, so that they don't topple sideways. People who simply want to believe it was an inside job without objectively looking at the facts really creep me out. Have you read the 911 commission report? It's entirely uncontroversial.

hahahaha!!!! What rubbish.

[p4pking]

Care to tell me why, you beacon of higher learning? Where do your facts on the matter come from? If it was an inside job, why even bother with building 7?

[brocktonblockbust]

Plenty of gold and secrets was stored in building seven. Did you not hear the owner say let's pull it let's pull it hurry up pull it pull it I had it pulled. The stupid piece of s*** said that a half an hour before the building at actually collapsed plus it was said several times afterwards

[Gandalf]

The independent had an article today about British soldiers in Iraq standing trial for torture, it can't be that bad, I usually find decent articles on there. I am by no means well informed, I'm sure you read a lot more than I do and that's great. Do you believe the 911 wasn't a terrorist attack though? As I don't, it's very hard to take people convinced otherwise very seriously. It just doesn't add up, even your hero Chomsky doesn't go that far :P

I am open minded and have argued both ways on 911. All I know is that the official narrative is flawed and there are a lot of things that do not add up. Building 7 falling on its own and the two towers falling like a controlled demolition obviously raises question marks. There is too much to go into here though. It's a huge topic.

The Indy isn't terrible, I read through every morning. It does have information, but when it comes to economic analysis and honesty about Britains role in destabilising the world, I find it lacking. No mainstream paper will fully go there really. I do love Fisk though who will speak the truth about Israel.

Building 7 was hit by heavy debris from the north tower and several fires started inside. It was searched once over but then Larry Silverstein and the Fire chief ordered a halt to it as there was nobody inside and so many firemen had already died. There were ZERO casualties as a result of it's collapse. Major skyscrapers are designed to implode in the event of a major structural fault, so that they don't topple sideways. People who simply want to believe it was an inside job without objectively looking at the facts really creep me out. Have you read the 911 commission report? It's entirely uncontroversial.

I have read excerpts, but I haven't sat down and read it in full. I have heard it was a whitewash. What you say does not tally with what I know about building 7 at all. There are a number of sites out there with a lot of information and from people who know far more than me. Give it a look as what you say above suggests you do not even consider alternative sources of information. The people who creep me out are statists that trust the system. Not that I am saying you are one, but if you were to believe the government then there would be WMD in Iraq, that the Taliban carried out 9-11, that ISIS appeared out the blue. Of course that is all gibberish and the story of 9-11 doesn't really hold together very well when you look into it either and that of course started the descent into madness.

[p4pking]

I'm not a shill, I think Politicians are all bought and paid for and the official narrative for going to war is usually complete BS anywhere. Suggesting that these same people actually orchestrated 911 is a different thing though, and that's what doesn't add up. Never mind that it's a nasty idea, it is giving them FAR to much credit. Nobody could have pulled that off as an inside job without it leaking out somehow, when you really think about what it would have taken. Who planted all the explosives? When, nobody saw them? Not one of them ever told a loved one or anybody else who wasn't completely involved, no deathbed confessions, yada yada yada.

Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage

This is a very good website with far more concrete information that the sources you likely refer to, like it or not Miles. Obviously the narrative is set, but it does completely disprove, or provides far more likely explanations than most of the conspiracy nonsense if you actually read it. Building 7 is fairly straightforward really.

[Gandalf]

What Brock said was true though, the owner of the building admitted that they had it pulled down which is an odd thing to say. All 3 buildings went down in the same manner as a controlled demolition. Then of course there are the 1700 scientists and engineers that dispute the official narrative and the narrative of rescue workers whose voices have been ignored. Now would the typical congressman be in on it? No, very unlikely, but there are shadow forces at play beyond the knowledge of most including the President and you know that. It shouldn't be the case, but that's what Eisenhower warned about all those years ago. I will have a look at the site, but there are plenty of sites that counter the official narrative and people with expert knowledge too. Considering the unwillingness of officials to investigate properly also means there are inevitably a lot of question marks also.

[p4pking]

There is a section on that site about building 7 which explains it in depth, you should read it and tell me what you think. Who are these 1700 scientists and engineers, or rescue workers you speak of? Care to point me to anyone remotely credible who gives any firsthand account to support an inside job? What kind of shadow powers do you think could have pulled this off? This will become a bit like arguing against religion, I suspect.

[Gandalf]

What kind of shadow powers would give weapons to Isis, or enforce financial tyranny through fiat, or start wars, or spy on people illegally? Shadow governments are wieldy, diverse, and notably silent and unnacountable. It is nothing like religion with nothing backing it up, it is all out there and with people in expensive buildings paid by the taxpayer. Just read some Chomsky, Griffin, Roberts, or Klein to get a general understanding. Maybe you already have, I don't know. I mostly just read books, so don't have many links, but just a look at Wiki will put you in touch with the 9-11 ideas and give you more info about the types of conspiracy and who says what. You have to admit there is a lot of good information out there and it doesn't really point in the direction of Saddam Hussein. Bit of a strawman to throw religion in there really, nothing alike.