Monroe Transfer 0 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Yeah, clearly a lot of you lot respect the conspiracy theorists views because you keep debating their points instead of just ignoring them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 42484 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 737 replies to a thread in 5 days. Have there been any highlights or is it just wronguns talking wank? Careful there Stevie- you're talking about Wolfy, one of the greatest minds of the 10th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I've watched both videos. The first doesn't support your theory. You can read what you like into the second one; typical Bush look to any off the cuff question he gets - he looks scoobied. The first one shows you that in Bush's mind, Iraq and 9/11 are inextricably linked because that's the link he wants everyone else to make as that what the strategists are telling him. It's the biggest Freudian slip in the history of mankind. The second one looks like he is lying. But no, you want to 'believe' he is telling the truth because you're a rationalist and don't believe in conspiracies. Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 Nuclear tests- big bangy drums. And you wonder why people call you a dolt? I don't wonder why people call me a dolt. I know why people think I'm a dolt and all the rest of it.I'm fine with it though and feel free to carry it on. If the words suddenly jump out and smack me in the face, I might have to ask people to stop. Until then, continue, I'm ok with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7034 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 You're a dolt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 You're a dolt Giggity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 42484 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Fuck me, you even get that wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 The first one shows you that in Bush's mind, Iraq and 9/11 are inextricably linked because that's the link he wants everyone else to make as that what the strategists are telling him. It's the biggest Freudian slip in the history of mankind. The second one looks like he is lying. But no, you want to 'believe' he is telling the truth because you're a rationalist and don't believe in conspiracies. Fair enough. I agree with you 100% about the first video, still unclear why you think it's significant. Listen to the question Bush is answering to in the second one. He's not asked if he had prior knowledge, is he? So what's he lying about exactly? He looks as uncomfortable as fuck, but that's not uncommon for him. It's not hard evidence of anything. If that's a rational opinion, good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7034 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I love Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Bush knew nothing in real time. You can look at the various attempts on the day to brief him and how he kept misunderstanding the information. However the intelligence community knew about a 9/11 scenario 10 years in advance when they found it on an assets laptop in Singapore. Infact on the very day there was a hijack simulation being run which caused so much confusion that Norad refused to believe the real time data putting it down to simulation inputs withing the role play scenario. Edited October 18, 2012 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I go along with all of that apart from imo elements of military intelligence and some Govt players were complicit. The new american supremacy doc you link to is perhaps the most important doc ever comissioned and think tanked by the U.S. govt insiders and high level players. I probably diverge with you on Bush however. I don't think he was in the loop till the others were holding all the aces after the events of that day and he had no choice but to go along with the steamrollering of high impact foreign military engagement. In loose terms it was a coup. The play book of the intelligence agencies with regard to terrorists has been for a couple of decades now mostly infiltration and guiding them to targets and objectives beneficial. This will inc funding via Saudi and Pakistan and pointing them at targets in theatres where the west can actually by hook or by crook benefit. This goes right back to the early days of the Bosnian conflict and of course Afghanistan. Closer to home it was one reason the North London mosque was left open for so long and hook allowed to carry on in that manner. Basically the place was crawling with Mi6 picking up intel all over the place and leaving counter-intel as they go and the odd passport whenever needed. Bush was too stupid to lead on anything, he got into power because of the powerful lobby his family connected him to. Those youtubes at least remind you of the insane depths of stupidity, dishonesty and dangerous ideology that dominated the neo conservative agenda at the turn of the century. The unthinking assumption behind Renton's dismissal of Bush's press conferences as him 'just being stupid' is that it's easy to stick a man in the White House, you can put any idiot there. This may be true, but it's wrong to assume that the people who put him there were even remotely stupid. I think its overall on reflection less plausible to believe that the event was just coincidentally impeccably and perfectly timed 10 months after Clinton's soft Middle East foreign policy came to an end and the whole of the extreme right of America was itching to establish the US military in the Middle East than it was allowed to happen because of how perfectly it fitted with their agenda. I'm not saying I'm convinced one way or the other, the benefit of over a decades worth of hindsight points to it being a remarkable coincidence. A question that has kept me wondering was how come they flew 2 planes into the WTC after Clinton's soft policies and only 10 months of Bush but after an invasion of 2 Middle East counties that took hundreds of thousands of Muslim lives no further attacks ever occurred? Because they banned liquids over 200ml on flights? The historical arc of foreign policy doesn't make sense either. The US was under threat from terrorists, it was part of the mainstream political narrative, there were multiple threats, something went massively wrong with the biggest and richest homeland defence on the planet in spectacular style. The incompetence of knowing who these guys were and allowing it to happen is of course a scandal in itself and must be horrendous for those who lost families and colleagues. That incompetence is very convenient though, it came with nearly a decade of military and economic benefits that seriously enhanced the wealth of the neo con cabal at the heart of the then US government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Totally agree with all of that. We have been dealing with a shadow Govt since JFK. They nearly took out Reagan for not following script ffs! I worry for Obama in the single context of not ok-ing an Israeli strike on Iran and denying satellite telemetry and airbourne refueling for such a strike. We will see within months the full context of how far the cabal are willing to go. Edited October 18, 2012 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I agree with you 100% about the first video, still unclear why you think it's significant. Listen to the question Bush is answering to in the second one. He's not asked if he had prior knowledge, is he? So what's he lying about exactly? He looks as uncomfortable as fuck, but that's not uncommon for him. It's not hard evidence of anything. If that's a rational opinion, good. It's significant because the US rides the wave of 'national security' fears to go to war in Iraq. It's significant because his Dad had unfinished business there, because the new American century group laid down a plan to invade Iraq in the late 90s and because in his mind, the reason why they got the chance to do what they wanted to do was 9/11. It was the strategic justification for their wet dream foreign policy. It could be serendipitous, obviously not for thousands of Americans who died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7034 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I posted this on few pages back but it was ignored There is a precedent for these attacks http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 Something very interesting I found which further makes me believe nuclear power is not what it's made out to be. I looked up a list of countries that had nuclear power plants and came across Japan. Japan 0 (55)* 0 (3)* 0 (10)* As of 2012 Japan turned off all of the nuclear reactors(no electric produced, reactors slowly going to no work mode). Remaining reactors probably won't be turned on, because of the revisions after Fukushima fault. Japan is also planning to phase-out nuclear power by 2030's.[22][23] However Japan announced that the construction of seven new reactors would not be halted, giving doubts if Japan's plan will push through although exemptions may allow these reactors to operate beyond 2040.[24] I was on the understanding that Japan supposedly relied on nuclear power to cater for nearly half their energy, yet they switched off all nuclear power??? Am I missing something here? Can anyone shed any light on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30679 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Something very interesting I found which further makes me believe nuclear power is not what it's made out to be. I looked up a list of countries that had nuclear power plants and came across Japan. Japan 0 (55)* 0 (3)* 0 (10)* As of 2012 Japan turned off all of the nuclear reactors(no electric produced, reactors slowly going to no work mode). Remaining reactors probably won't be turned on, because of the revisions after Fukushima fault. Japan is also planning to phase-out nuclear power by 2030's.[22][23] However Japan announced that the construction of seven new reactors would not be halted, giving doubts if Japan's plan will push through although exemptions may allow these reactors to operate beyond 2040.[24] I was on the understanding that Japan supposedly relied on nuclear power to cater for nearly half their energy, yet they switched off all nuclear power??? Am I missing something here? Can anyone shed any light on this? 1. Nuclear power never accounted for 50% of Japan's electric usage. 2. There are still nuclear power plants in Japan producing electricity. Happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 1. Nuclear power never accounted for 50% of Japan's electric usage. 2. There are still nuclear power plants in Japan producing electricity. Happy? Oh I know there is, ( well what we believe are nuclear plants)...what I mean is. After the Fukushima carry on, they shut down all of the plants, so large areas of the country would have been in the dark, without power....Hmmmm. I have a feeling that these power plants are either run on piped in gas/methane or even something other than what they say. I also think some reactors in plants are really big kettle element type bundles that draw off excess power when consumption lowers at certain times in the day. It's just a theory and no I don't know for certain or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikko 20 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Nuclear power was 1/3 of the electric power supply in Japan. They had black outs across the country due to this policy. They also banned the use of air conditioning and the lights in cities too. Go to any news website and search Japan power cuts and you will see reports of it. I went to Japan in October 2011 and they cut off the lights much earlier in shinjuku and shibuya (districts of Tokyo) then they did 2 years earlier. If you look further into it you will see that their imports of coal and gas grew sharply too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 Nuclear power was 1/3 of the electric power supply in Japan. They had black outs across the country due to this policy. They also banned the use of air conditioning and the lights in cities too. Go to any news website and search Japan power cuts and you will see reports of it. I went to Japan in October 2011 and they cut off the lights much earlier in shinjuku and shibuya (districts of Tokyo) then they did 2 years earlier. If you look further into it you will see that their imports of coal and gas grew sharply too. Oh I know what you mean, I remember seeing the cut in electric at certain times, yet the fact is, there was still electric.Saying their gas and coal supplies went up...why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Oh I know there is, ( well what we believe are nuclear plants)...what I mean is. After the Fukushima carry on, they shut down all of the plants, so large areas of the country would have been in the dark, without power....Hmmmm. I have a feeling that these power plants are either run on piped in gas/methane or even something other than what they say. I also think some reactors in plants are really big kettle element type bundles that draw off excess power when consumption lowers at certain times in the day. It's just a theory and no I don't know for certain or anything. They've obviously got a contingency plan - replace nuclear power with alternative sources. As Rikko has just said above, looks like they're going to use more fossil fuels. Bloody hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 They've obviously got a contingency plan - replace nuclear power with alternative sources. As Rikko has just said above, looks like they're going to use more fossil fuels. Bloody hell. More fossil fuels for what though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikko 20 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 They utilised the coal and gas power stations more. Their contingency plan was cut electricity usage and increase production from the non nuclear facilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 They utilised the coal and gas power stations more. Their contingency plan was cut electricity usage and increase production from the non nuclear facilities. So in the vicinity of every nuclear power station there is a back up coal/gas power station ready to go on line. Is this what you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 More fossil fuels for what though? Burning to produce the energy that would have otherwise been generated by nuclear power stations, which they are phasing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now