The Knights of Columbus are an evil Papist infiltrator group secretly planning to overthrow the United States government for the Pope.
....
Is the conspiracy I would offer up for discussion, if I didn't happen to be a Third Degree member of the order myself. :mrgreen:
Do you get cool color coordinated ninja belts like in martial arts?
Making it to the Tenth Degree =
OUCH.Catchall -- something that holds or includes odds and ends or a wide variety of things.
That is the OP -- any conspiracy is on-topic so the dreaded Thread Nazis can't stormtrooper naturally progressing conversations because they deviate from the rigid established order of post #1.
So, let's all have one giant conspiracy conversation.
AE911T is an al-Qaeda propaganda unit. :mrgreen:
And no, I don't have to prove it because Koko's Law of Burden of Proof (hereafter referred to as KLOBOF) denotes thus.
1. Said in jest, but is interesting enough as a conceptual dialogue starter -- infiltration. Spy stories of people turning against their country and government and siding with a foreign country and government are commonplace but are nevertheless interesting because there is so much shrouded in obscurity, that is, we know that high-ranking officials have been turned, but just how far can that logically be extended to? I would say all the way to the top of the food chain I.e. the head-of-state or equivalent rank in other industries. I've heard the conspiracies about President Obama being an infiltration agent for the Muslim Brotherhood and someone else IIRC, and while I haven't given the notion any serious thought, I have alternatively thought of the concept of someone being "One of Us" but is actually working "For Them."
2. You're entitled to your opinions...at least I think so 'cause I don't know about yer country's speech laws and regulations. Anyway, it is no skin off my back. I have no incentive to defend the organization. I'm sure this aspect of Me has been algorithm out already, but I am picky when choosing when to reply to someone about any given subject. Like, a foreigner talking smack about my country, it does indeed ruffle my feathers. European or Commonwealth anti-Americanism is different to me than anti-Americanism from the Middle East, Central or South America, Africa and Asia. I respond regardless, but there is more contempt shown to the former than the latter. But claims made against the government or an organization or business is of squat importance to me. I do the same as I do with anything -- start off with a hypothesis and Google it until I've exhausted all of my research resources. If it pans out, great, but if it doesn't, so be it and I move on with my life
Actually, I have always maintained that 9/11 truth are unwittingly working for our enemies by creating distrust of western governments (note the WTC represents Western commercial prosperity). Although, one AQ representative was known to object to 9/11 truth for not acknowledging their 'efforts'.
You do realise that my statement was a parody I hope?
Did you read my statement as anti-American? If so, nothing could be further from the truth.
I can always support my claims and usually do. As for the anti-Americanism, I fight that with my countrymen almost daily. The US is viewed negatively in my country, but it is usually the product of reading a highly biased source as opposed to genuine investigation. Most anti-American sentiment in my country originates from the extreme left.
I've been humbled enough by my country's history to openly admit that much of what the world sharply criticizes the U.S. for is justified and legitimate complaints. We're not all the ills in the world but we sure do know how to **** someone's day completely up!
Actually, I have always maintained that 9/11 truth are unwittingly working for our enemies by creating distrust of western governments (note the WTC represents Western commercial prosperity). Although, one AQ representative was known to object to 9/11 truth for not acknowledging their 'efforts'.
Thanks for the acronym - I will use it. Is it in the public domain? Or do your intend to charge royalties?AE911T is an al-Qaeda propaganda unit. :mrgreen:
And no, I don't have to prove it because Koko's Law of Burden of Proof (hereafter referred to as KLOBOF) denotes thus.
Thanks for the acronym - I will use it. Is it in the public domain? Or do your intend to charge royalties?
Meanwhile try this scenario to show how idiotic the KLOBOF is:
KLOBOF in Texas and a KLOBOF Supporter relies on it for defence in a murder trial. (Which is why I picked Texas. The consequences of a guilty finding for murder are "significant" in Texas.).
Prosecution presents case against the accused and calls for the maximum penalty.
The accused relying on KLOBOF responds:
"The prosecution has not proved its claim. I don't have to respond - they have to make their claim better.
Following a question from the Bench - no doubt concerned about the KLOBOF defence:
Defendant responds:
"No your Honour. It is not my burden of proof to prove my defence. I have said that the prosecution case is not strong enough. That is all I have to do."
Anyone want to back KLOBOF in a real court?
True. Then, at a level slightly more 'micro', the truth movement activists are IMO the most effective force working against the legitimate goals of the truth movement.
There are IMNSHO legitimate areas of concern in the socio-political aspects of 9/11. (I have no doubt that there are BUT the truth movement generally is incapable of identifying them with any pursuable precision.)
AND most "leaders" such as Gage and AE911 persist in dead set loser strategies founded on claims of CD.
"This looks like CD, therefore this was CD therefore we want another investigation".
Since it is easy to prove "No CD" "beyond reasonable doubt" to any honest "reasonable person" strategies premised on CD will inevitably fail. Forget the CD claims on internet forums from the claques of those who are dishonest and/or unable to think clearly. (OK - or are playing games..)
If "they" - those who still comprehend that there could be a genuine core of concerns about 9/11 AND want to be serious about investigation of political sins they need another strategy. CD claims will self destruct. Already have multiple times.
[/QUOTE]Yes I agree the socio-political aspects are far more important than pursuing such silliness as a CD. I would like to converse with you on that subject in the future.
Again, to paraphrase Chomsky, this silliness merely serves to distract people away from serious issues. A new investigation may alter some minor details, but the reality of the situation would hopefully prevail above the hysteria.
Taking Chomsky's views into account, perhaps it could be said that 9/11 truth is working for the government (unwittingly).
If "they" - those who still comprehend that there could be a genuine core of concerns about 9/11 AND want to be serious about investigation of political sins they need another strategy. CD claims will self destruct. Already have multiple times.
Thanks for the acronym - I will use it. Is it in the public domain? Or do your intend to charge royalties?
Meanwhile try this scenario to show how idiotic the KLOBOP is:
KLOBOP in Texas and a KLOBOP Supporter relies on it for defence in a murder trial. (Which is why I picked Texas. The consequences of a guilty finding for murder are "significant" in Texas.).
Prosecution presents case against the accused and calls for the maximum penalty.
The accused relying on KLOBOP responds:
"The prosecution has not proved its claim. I don't have to respond - they have to make their claim better.
Following a question from the Bench - no doubt concerned about the KLOBOP defence:
Defendant responds:
"No your Honour. It is not my burden of proof to prove my defence. I have said that the prosecution case is not strong enough. That is all I have to do."
Anyone want to back KLOBOP in a real court?
A recycling tip on my gmail banner earlier:
'You can make a lovely hat out of previously-used aluminum foil.'
LOL, I'm sure one can.
View attachment 67177393
yeh after he retracted his implications it was an inside job.
How does one work for the government that does not agree with the general thrust of the official story. This should be good.
Yes, he saw sense.
they were dressed in black
made another claim you cant back up eh..... why does that not surprize me
WTF?
What are you babbling about now? What claim? Are you drunk?
whats the matter too complicated? Crayola time?
Your place or mine? Do I bring my own vino? - seriously ball in your court to pick time and place.Yes I agree the socio-political aspects are far more important than pursuing such silliness as a CD. I would like to converse with you on that subject in the future.
Without over emphasising the trivial nonsense that is most of the "discussion" here - I have no doubt that the CD at WTC, not that plane at Pentagon and Shanksville shoot down style claims are counter productive for genuine truth movement concerns. HOW much effect they have is a different issue.Again, to paraphrase Chomsky, this silliness merely serves to distract people away from serious issues. A new investigation may alter some minor details, but the reality of the situation would hopefully prevail above the hysteria.
Taking Chomsky's views into account, perhaps it could be said that 9/11 truth is working for the government (unwittingly).
The saddest reflection on "their" level of thinking is that "they" don't even comprehend the problem with their own tactics/strategies.Yes, they also need better PR, for their current tactics merely serve to alienate those with genuine questions.
Sure - but it is even more fundamental than 'style'. They simply cannot state clearly what their concerns are OR present a politically persuasive approach to progressing them. The "style" aspects are one part of that more fundamental set of issues.Can you imagine how they would react if government agencies responded to their queries with such.....venom and contempt? Persuasive language is not in the 9/11 truth toolbox.
seriously ball in your court to pick time and place.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?