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

You throw out shovelfuls of gravel and expect your opponents to go track down every pebble, or just accept it at face value.

Whenever bits of your evidence are looked at, they often turn out to be nothing. Example: CT's asked, "What's this? How could the FBI possibly identify the WTC hijackers within two days??" In fact they all bought tickets using their own names and it is documented here.

But that didn't even make a dent in their thinking. It would seem the CTs ignore evidence as much as anyone else, and just go with their own gut feeling that, of course the Feds (or their NWO puppeteers) are scamming us.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by poncho
Notice how far they stay away from "the evidence"? They accuse us of not having any evidence yet how would they know this? They refuse to look at it and if they do it's only to scoff.

In other words, they have no argument aside from insults and cliches. I reckon they must really believe in keeping it simple.

[QUOTE

3. Any evidence will do.

Any evidence that lends credence to their theories will be uncritically accepted as truth. Any evidence that opposes their theories is dismissed out of hand. The quality of evidence is not important as long as it supports the conspiracy theory.

IOW presenting evidence to the contrary is a waste of time.
The rest of us non-PCTs just have to come to terms with the fact that we are not as smart as they, are sheep with a herd mentality.

 

Does this advice include the sources poncho routinely cites? Does it include you? How can we trust anyone, ever? My problem with your perspective is that your equation seems to be Potential Corruption = Probable Corruption, which is a broad set of parameters and can include everyone.

Also, I think we're talking past each other. When I asked who "these people" are, I already knew that we were talking about the powerful. But specifically, which powerful ones? Every powerful person, everywhere? I mean, Ron Paul has some power as a congressman but he's typically exempt from these kind of "outings" of the evil. Why? Why not throw him and every candidate you'd consider voting for into the fray as well?

FWIW: I supported Ron Paul's presidential bid and don't actually see him as evil. Just a hypothetical scenario.

 

I like many things Ron Paul has to say and see his strongest quality is that he uses his knowledge and his platform of public service to care for his constituents back home, as a representative should, and also to inform the public and hold fellow members in the house of representatives and government at large accountable to the people to answer their questions. If we had more like him willing to present challenges and hold each others' feet to the fire, we might see more progress where it is needed, returning power to the states and their people... and see reduction in size of government, spending, and more fiscal responsibility. I believe he is a morally upright man who takes his oath of office more seriously than most and submits his personal ambitions to the quest to serve, more than most similarly positioned public figures.... but I don't know of his sainthood. He reveals very little of his private conscience or his faith, but he seems to have convictions concerning the rights of the unborn child. But, he presents his views on abortion, decriminalization of drugs and homosixuality in terms of the separation of powers (constitution) where it was never intended that the federal government become responsible for the moral laws or decriminalization, as this was a power to be kept close to communities and the people, to determine that which they would bind and that which they would loose. As broad as he is in this.... he is also a broad minded supporter of the people keeping and exercising their rights, as acknowledge in the first ten amendments of the constitution, which puts the government on notice of its boundaries and limitations stop, and where the people have power.

I would not establish any man as being above criticism or called to accountability, my self included (though I'm not a man). As for list of people and those with whom we should concern ourselves with most are those local and state officials which are responsible to us and most dependent on our vote and our voice.... and who may become leaders at some higher elevation if their performance is good. What we need to stop doing to encourage the best choices are made is to fair critique our leaders... stop justifying their deeds and actions because of by party or by political philosophy we are most agreed, and start denouncing the puny, frivolous, and false inuendos of others who use name calling and labels as though these have meaning as fact.

 

See, that's my entire point. Okay, not trying to be mean here, but why post anything then? You're posts are vague enough that any given person could agree or disagree, depending on whether they've had too much coffee. It kinda reads like,

"Don't trust them... but too late! you already do trust them... and they know that you trust them... and there's nothing that can be done, but some of us still try..."

Again, not trying to pick on you (and hope I don't come across that way) but it all reads like a "Down With Them!" sign. What it lacks in clarity it compensates with zeal.

 

On second thoughts, windcatcher, I'm not sure this dialogue is going anywhere. Could be my fault, could be yours, maybe both. Who knows? In any event, I wish you well and have enjoyed our exchange. :flower:

ETA: the last word is yours. I'm not bowing out without giving you a chance to respond. I'll read your next post.

 

PCTs assume that their beliefs are correct and that those who don't see things the way they do have been duped or that they need to open their minds.

 

Uuummm... poncho, ahem:

Facebook calls for a new world order?!? Ha! Hahahaha! Hahahahaha!

I keep trying to think of a pithy one liner incorporating the phrase, "unusually angry dictates of pimpled emos" but nothing comes to mind as emos ARE usually angry. There's a disproportionately greater chance of facebook resulting in "Synchronized Fart Groups, Eastern Standard Time" than of its producing meaningfully monolithic behavior.

I've never seen a social network mentioned as a global influence (authority?) in a comparable manner as the Pope and Kissinger. To that I can only add, the real web push for universal fascism is here.

The real mystery, poncho, is how it is that both of us are Ron Paul supporters. You've given me pause in my third party leanings.

ETA: Good ole G.O.P. looking better and better all the time.

 

Obviously.

Like the time that CT's were touting "International Lawyer Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd", who was calling for another investigation, and who proclaimed 9/11 a "False Flag Operation and a pretext to engage in Genocidal bombing".

Only problem: Webre is delusional, and believes that our government possesses anti-gravity and time travel technologies passed to them by extraterrestrials. CT's must have felt pretty confident that no one would even bother to check him out at all. Like Carpro says, the quality of the evidence doesn't matter.