View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby SydneyPSIder » 09 Dec 2012, 12:09

ProfWag wrote:
really? wrote:
Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.


This is not only an excellent point, but key to why 9/11 CTs (and others) are not logical. Although "nothing is impossible," it most certainly would have been quite difficult for a group of people in the numbers required to cover up 9/11 to have many of them not spilling their guts to others. It just isn't feasable.

You should in fact be very afraid of this anti-democratic and unethical STASI-like apparatus in your midst. Unless you're a paid part of it or sympathise with it for some reason, of course.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24






Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby Arouet » 09 Dec 2012, 12:26

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Arouet wrote:The question was if someone had the information to leak, who would publish it.

I don't understand the 'question' as you've rephrased it, I'm just going on what has been said earlier.


?? I was responding to the post directly before mine if that helps...
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby SydneyPSIder » 09 Dec 2012, 12:34

Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:I don't understand the 'question' as you've rephrased it, I'm just going on what has been said earlier.


?? I was responding to the post directly before mine if that helps...

Still doesn't make any sense. You're in top diversionary blather form today, are you?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby Arouet » 09 Dec 2012, 12:48

I give up. I have no idea what your objection is here.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby SydneyPSIder » 09 Dec 2012, 13:52

Oh, you're saying someone would have wanted to leak, and they would have rushed to Wikileaks right away to tell them. The first attender firefighters and cops have all been placed on official gag orders. It's not worth their jobs and sanity to buck the system. The other bunch, who knows, there's clearly a lot of psychopaths in the world, and they've all been recruited by govt agencies.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby Arouet » 09 Dec 2012, 14:08

I'm saying in this day and age it is really easy to information out there - even if the mainstream newsmedia is not interested for some reason.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby Misha » 09 Dec 2012, 18:18

Arouet wrote:I'm saying in this day and age it is really easy to information out there - even if the mainstream newsmedia is not interested for some reason.


Again, if the "mainstream media" is not puffing the story it is not an event. It gets lost in the cacophony of noise. Any and all stories have to be driven. Otherwise there is no consensus. That means no story. A journalist for AP explained this to me.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Previous

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron