Conspiracy Fact: Every Major Terror Plot In U.S. Was Contrived

Carpro, you need to add - The lack of evidence is proof of a cover up.

 

You mean 'evidence' like I dream this stuff up?
No.
It's a matter of observing the times and the seasons in which we are living; observing patterns in reports; observing the priority given some events over others which might be comparable were it not for added sensationalizm; listening carefully and separating facts from opinion and then comparing facts to see how they link; noticing unseeminglly related factors such as what is being eclipsed or watching for markers which wrongly mischaracterize groups based upon such things as dissent with political policies or social changes. It is not conspiracy 'theory' except to those who would rather not be bothered to know the facts or the open questions. They willingly accept their conditioning of believing what they are told, trusting the authorities and sources behind the news without knowing 'who' and accepting being told what to think. As new changes in stories occur, they willingly become amnesic for the former explanations and details and accept the new.

It is realistic than many are much too busy within their own lives and calling to try to keep up with everything. But the consequence of their too busy lives to concern themselves with research or questions and answers means that they must rely on someone or something for information. What remains to them is to believe MSM, or try to find reliable sources who seem to get it right most of the time. I would not recommend to anyone that they put their trust in any one person. No one can get it right all the time: We do live in a world with much deception and manipulation and people who deny this might as well hide theiir head in the sand like the ostrage.

I have new information to report about the news in the OP..... see next post.

 

More information here: Interesting, Coincidence????? maybe, maybe not????

 

In reading post 23, please note the date of this recent report (March 14th) and the opening questions posted in the OP after the Pentagon shooter (march 7th). I can't speak for Poncho, but I know I possess no prophectic ability: But I am an observer and report based on patterns which I see in what i observe. This added information, in post 23, does not in itself establish a conspiracy...... it merely adds to the intrigue as to why this incident was elevated above many other crimes occurring across the country on the same day, and the quickness to associate it with political dissention and the presence of a data base not normally seen at the beginning of an investigation unless a person is already a criminal or involved in criminal activity under observation.

 

It is familiar. And when one confident prediction fizzles, no matter. On to the next one!

 

PCTs vehemently oppose any challenges to their theories. The first line of defence is to issue personal attacks (see: ad hominem) against their opponents. These are generally in the form of ridicule; their opponents not having the ability to see "the real truth".

 

The trouble with much of what is reported and many folks observations is that they accept what is being reported as fact and consider all events as though created equal.
For example..... a beauty contest, or a sports event..... the presentation of opponents, the plays or various levels in the contest..... and the outcome of score and winner. All just facts.

But, there is a difference between those types of reports and the reports of a crime.
When a crime has been committed you have:
The crime scene and the clues and facts known to have happened, including the reports of witnesses.
Then there's the study of the knowns(facts/evidence) and for the unknowns(leads, assistance, or coordination?)
Important to the investigation is what knowledge, coordination or assistance was needed from others (if any), by whom was it obtained, and how deeply involved were they either knowingly or by deception, etc.

By what means?
For what motive?
Who had opportunity?

Some crime scenes are cut and dry.
Most of these involve local law enforcement in the investigation.... and the crime scene is preserved for gathering of evidence until there is sufficient satisfaction that all evidence which may be collected has been found. Interviews are done with all available or discovered witnesses. Etc.

So we have some other questions:
Who is involved in these investigations?
Are more than one agency involved and which or how many..... indicative of greater complexity?
How long is the crime scene preserved and what are the findings (usually not made public until a conclusion or a conviction)?
How quickly is information and explanations given the public before the investigation is concluded........ and are the opinions expressed just suspected implications, or facts of association..... and is the association and connection really supported by evidence past or present as characteristic?

These are not paranoid questions.
They are some of the normal processes of a reasonable investigation.
And as a person who has no access to information beyond that which is publically available... these are some ways I look at the information which I do have available before drawing my own opinions against accepting conclusions as given.

Many crimes which are committed fall into general categories of expected norms of probability, and usually they are not given much news, unless they can serve as a distraction from events which might have greater importance if kept in the public eye. The Tiger Woods accident, fall from public grace, etc., is one such exsample of news so sensationalized which didn't even involve crime, but was such a distraction and the subject of conversations that it eclipsed more important national and international news.

But there are some events and crimes which seem to have a more sinister motive..... either by the target/victim and what or who they may represent.... or by the perpertrator and the conjecture of his motives as intended to alter a public perception or policy or as being driven by inspiration of a group .......a 'thought crime' or process which may be harder to prove...... or may be a false flag of association purposely planted in the public mind to discredit groups of people or movements to cause others to disassociate from principals which they might have identified with.... a sabbateur. A discerning person is careful before accepting the opinions of news reporters or public polls concerning such matters.

A person who readily accepts these quickly given explanations or conclusions may be doing so from habits formed by the 'herd' mentality, based upon his programmed response to behavior modification, which was a part of his experience and shaping of thought and behavior without his even knowing it. Behavior modification is a form of training which creates a predictable response in most people. The training may include a few or many things manipulated in the environment to reward the desired response or discourage or punish the undesired response.

When we present facts on a message board, there should be no contest..... unless another can present facts which conflict with the first source and prove inconsistancy of facts or problems in presentation. There is the difficulty of reliability no matter what source material is used. Merely disliking the source or knowing that the source presents his information as imbalanced and highly selective is not sufficient to discredit the facts as being false but is appropriate as a question. (In the news presented in this post, it is just as reasonable and fair for me to question those news areas which represent opinions instead of facts..... as it is for any other poster to question me when I present opinions mixed with facts by pointinf out how the facts do not agree with my opinion or how the facts support their own difference of opinion.)

But when we stoop to perjorative labels, we've gone beyond the discussions of facts, or the presentations of our own opinions, and are manipulating (using behavior modification) and abusing the free expression of others in an attempt to embarass and silence them, or discredit them in the opinion of others. It is a highly effective move by those who are part of the 'herd mentality' upon others who can similarly be manipulated.....when they don't know what is happening. But it is also very weak in producing its desired effect, when people start to think for themselves and start separating facts from opinions and begin to think through things for themselves and form their own opinions instead of adopting those of mine.... or the news or any other person(s). This creates the dynamics, essential to a free society, to maintain the social order of its own people in possession and use of their rights, and restraint upon a government which desires to exceed its limits by a predictable control of the people.

When the government can predict the response of the people, it can then manipulate whatever it must to produce the desired acceptance by the people to do whatever it wants.... whether for good or for bad......... It is not good in preserving the people's rights and liberty. Also, when the government has become actively involved through its powers to control the messages of media and education, through its laws, and through the courts, and even through its economic manipulation..... to intercept and break down the moral compass of the people and their loose links of trust, it is intentionally tearing apart the very fiber which holds a diverse people together as capable of self governance and self restraint in the exercise of their liberty.

When the people are sufficiently separated from their moral compass, the only answer left will be tyranny. When the people lose their sense of responsibility of answering to God, or high standards of ethics and morality based in other standards of principles and ideals or religions convictions by which they hold each other accountable..... and accept situational morality or relativism, then they are losing or have lost the ability to govern themselves as a united agreement with themselves to each other and have made themselves slaves dependent on government to control.

 

Read many of your own posts. :smilewinkgrin:

 

The short two word description is unwavering arrogance.

 

Hold on a second...you assert that "right after" 9/11 the government declared war on conspiracy theories. Your proof of this is that the current information czar wrote a white paper about this in 2008, SEVEN years after the fact? And that when he wrote this he wasn't part of the government, but a professor at Harvard?

Is that what you are trying to tell us?

 

It's that paranoia thing.

CTs mistakenly believe they are important enough that "they"(whoever the boogermen are at the time) have to hush them or get rid of them. CTs never seem to realize they are just more of a nuisance than anything else.

That's part of the arrogance thing.

 

A classic example.

And like so much of their evidence, it amounts to not much once you drill down. As when they all contend that Al Qaeda doesn't exist, but if you check their sources it always comes down to allegations made by Pierre-Henri Bunel, a former artillery officer in the French army who was convicted of passing on NATO war plans to the Serbs during the war in Kosovo. Not a very reliable source.

 

1. If you change 'They assume that they are right' to "They are conditioned to believe what they are told as being right"....you would understand the truth of what I've said.

Essentially, you have your own interest and personal goals in life (limits on opportunity for conditioning). If current events and a grasp of the truth is not a high priority, given your other concerns, it is doubtful that you will take more time with reports other than your favorite media resource for information (a predictable dependence based upon the limitations on your attention and time). Depending upon your level of trust (which they have developed as part of their public focus----conditioned response) you acquiesce to accepting their reports AND opinions as given (conditioned response).

Frequently, people are also guided by peer relationships (feed back/reward) to MSM sources which become part of their daily conversation with others(feedback reward). Opinions are shared in a back and forth with others (feedback....... reward or 'punishment') which exerts an influence upon you comparable with the importance of those relationships closest to you (a further conditioning by feedback....reward). In the course of an unfolding news event..... you may not have opportunity (limitations within your own environment) to follow the facts or notice the presentation of new facts or see the inconsistency between facts unless pointed out. Because you are already reliant upon a particular source or a few limited sources and your trust (dependence and reliance) has been developed (conditioning) you are more inclined to accept and parrot their opinion as your own (a predictable response) and mimic similar behaviors which they use (discrediting, name calling, embarrassment, etc.) to control (feedback and conditioning) their opponents or recognizing (rewards ....approval, elevation of importance) those who agree.

In the final end...... both you and most of us only think that we think for ourselves. Everyone of us is subject to some conditioning........ but, to the degree that we either don't care or don't know..... we are more likely to be controlled by that lack of self awareness. The beginning is to start by separating facts from opinions, and determine to make the facts your first reality and the ground for your own opinions before even considering the opinions of the news commentator or friends, or editorials, or spins given by alternative or competing media.

Even facts deserve a reality check. Do the facts fit with each other? Are there inconsistencies poorly explained? Who is in control? What is being said? Where from did the information come? How reliable is the source? Is TMI being presented in what seems like a much too urgent time frame or is it a reasonable progression of discovery? Are there allegations or opinions expressed which are not based firmly in fact and could be presented purposely to mislead or misdirect, to sensationalize or entertain.... to distract from or to hold attention unnecessarily? Does the event fit with a pattern? If there is what seems to be a pattern...... who is presenting and what is the focus...... ?

Once again the crime scene:
Who ALL had the opportunity?
What was the means?
Who ALL have a motive (or an interest in a predictable outcome)?

In closing, I like Dr. Stan Montieth's saying;
"Reality is often scoffed at. Illusion is usually king. But its reality, not illusion, the future brings."