About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

GiRTh · 13-11-2013, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

Aww that's a lovely story, G. What kid wouldn't want to watch hundreds of people crash and burn?

Its very morbid of me but I sit there open mouthed every time i see the crash,

Niamh. · 13-11-2013, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Its very morbid of me but I sit there open mouthed every time i see the crash,

tbf it was something completely bizarre, straight out of the movies type of a thing. I actually thought it was some sort of a joke when I heard about it first on the radio

GiRTh · 13-11-2013, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Why would they do that though?

Now you’re moving into the more crazy theories. Take this with a pinch of salt, but apparently, the Us government wanted to invade all the ‘stan’ countries that used to be part of the old Soviet Union. To make sure China and Russia didn’t have any kind of stronghold over the huge oil reserves in that region and The USA could cement its place as the only super power in the world.#

Its all starting to get a bit paranoid but that’s the theory behind why they let the attack take place. The theory is they let one terrorist attack take place so they can get funding to stop all the others and fulfill their agenda in the middle east. And, they have indeed invaded that region. LOL

Niamh. · 13-11-2013, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Now you’re moving into the more crazy theories. Take this with a pinch of salt, but apparently, the Us government wanted to invade all the ‘stan’ countries that used to be part of the old Soviet Union. To make sure China and Russia didn’t have any kind of stronghold over the huge oil reserves in that region and The USA could cement its place as the only super power in the world.#

Its all starting to get a bit paranoid but that’s the theory behind why they let the attack take place. The theory is they let one terrorist attack take place so they can fulfill their agenda in the middle east. And, they have indeed invaded that region. LOL

mmmmm, I don't know if I'd even want to know if that were true tbh, that's just the most despicable and disheartening thing I've ever heard :/

GiRTh · 13-11-2013, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niamh.

mmmmm, I don't know if I'd even want to know if that were true tbh, that's just the most despicable and disheartening thing I've ever heard :/

Fascinating and quite frightening isn’t it? Its all bit X-Files.

Theres something else I want to post but I need to do bit of research first. Theres a book written in 1997 by Zbig Bezinski – who worked for Carter, Reagan and Bush Snr – where he outlines a strategy which if you read it is more or less exactly what the US has done. Its quite chilling to read cuz its like a playbook that has been followed step by step and it includes a section where he outlines a plan to let one act of terror succeed so they can have an excuse to invade the ‘stan’ region.

Niamh. · 13-11-2013, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Fascinating and quite frightening isn’t it? Its all bit X-Files.

Theres something else I want to post but I need to do bit of research first. Theres a book written in 1997 by Zbig Bezinski – who worked for Carter, Reagan and Bush Snr – where he outlines a strategy which if you read it is more or less exactly what the US has done. Its quite chilling to read cuz its like a playbook that has been followed step by step and it includes a section where he outlines a plan to let one act of terror succeed so they can have an excuse to invade the ‘stan’ region.

Oh wow, imagine if that were true, it would be horrifying, i guess there's never going to be a way to prove it though even it was. Would that mean though they would have had to get the airports in on it, to become more lax or whatever?

Ammi · 13-11-2013, 01:28 PM

..but if that were true, would there not be so many people involved that they would now be 'silencing' them all, or would have already because they could never keep something of that scale a secret surely and they would have known that from the start and 'accounted' for it...

13-11-2013, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu

I believe that certain people are half right but that the end goals aren't as sinister of diabolically driven as they are making out.

In a broad sense governments mess up, impose far too much social control and commit heinous acts not because they are driven by evil but because ... well ... they're a bit daft like that, really. A lot of this stuff is still worth pointing out and still worth listening to. You just need to learn to discern.

Someone like David Icke in all honesty has a few interesting things to say on the nature of reality. It's when he gets into dogmatic specifics about his entire overarching world view that things get hilarious. It's well worth sifting through his content though if you have a few hours to spare on an empty weekend.

As usual the truth lies in the middle. Just like hardcore atheists and the dogmatic adherents of the patriarchal religions equally alienate me, so to do the ardent "everything can be answered by a conspiracy theory" bedroom experts and those who want absolutely nothing to do with alternate information because it's for weirdos like me.

The truth rarely lies in the middle. More often than not, one side is simply wrong. Hardcore atheist as a weird term to use. Not believing in a god is a position based on what we know - if that changes tomorrow then so would my opinion. It's a common misrepresentation, and is why people get to throw around "atheism is just another religion". It isn't - it just means absence of belief, and it makes no more of a grand claim than that.

GiRTh · 13-11-2013, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Oh wow, imagine if that were true, it would be horrifying, i guess there's never going to be a way to prove it though even it was. Would that mean though they would have had to get the airports in on it, to become more lax or whatever?

I think its all very interesting theory but nothing more. Its to complex a plan to be implemented IMO but its fascinating to read.

On 9/11 there was a massive security failure due to VP Dick Cheney having planned a number of military exercises on the very same day the attacks took place. So a lot of military personnel were not available cuz they are already taking part in the exercises planned by Cheney. Startling that there was such a coincidence isnt it? Like I say, a lot of strange things happened on that day. LOL

Niamh. · 13-11-2013, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GiRTh

I think its all very interesting theory but nothing more. Its to complex a plan to be implemented IMO but its fascinating to read.

On 9/11 there was a massive security failure due to VP Dick Cheney having planned a number of military exercises on the very same day the attacks took place. So a lot of military personnel were not available cuz they are already taking part in the exercises planned by Cheney. Startling that there was such a coincidence isnt it? Like I say, a lot of strange things happened on that day. LOL

Oh yeah, I saw that on some documentary they showed on the anniversary actually

GiRTh · 13-11-2013, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Oh yeah, I saw that on some documentary they showed on the anniversary actually

Aye that is pretty much common knowledge

Stu · 13-11-2013, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus.

The truth rarely lies in the middle. More often than not, one side is simply wrong. Hardcore atheist as a weird term to use. Not believing in a god is a position based on what we know - if that changes tomorrow then so would my opinion. It's a common misrepresentation, and is why people get to throw around "atheism is just another religion". It isn't - it just means absence of belief, and it makes no more of a grand claim than that.

I used to term 'hardcore' to denote those who have absolute, fixed views based on like you say the absence of belief. The etymology of these words has been dipped in a murky film of misunderstanding since they've begun to be debated in open arenas across forums and YouTube comment sections so I wasn't making reference to some Church Of Atheism more highlighting the strength and conviction of some peoples lack of beliefs [and I'm sure many would argue they require neither strength nor conviction].

My position on spirituality is based on what I feel, not on what I know. It's a much more mushy, arbitrary system that I'm totally open to having other not understand but there you go. When it comes to my whack ass views on these thing I feel equally alienated by atheist mindset and organized religion. I feel I'd rather the atheists have the power just to be on the safe side, but that the more open ended of the religious people are probably on to something greater.

Spoiler:

Anyway ... spiritual waffle from yours truly. Didn't mean to derail the thread.

13-11-2013, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu

I used to term 'hardcore' to denote those who have absolute, fixed views based on like you say the absence of belief. The etymology of these words has been dipped in a murky film of misunderstanding since they've begun to be debated in open arenas across forums and YouTube comment sections so I wasn't making reference to some Church Of Atheism more highlighting the strength and conviction of some peoples lack of beliefs [and I'm sure many would argue they require neither strength nor conviction].

My position on spirituality is based on what I feel, not on what I know. It's a much more mushy, arbitrary system that I'm totally open to having other not understand but there you go. When it comes to my whack ass views on these thing I feel equally alienated by atheist mindset and organized religion. I feel I'd rather the atheists have the power just to be on the safe side, but that the more open ended of the religious people are probably on to something greater.

Spoiler:

Anyway ... spiritual waffle from yours truly. Didn't mean to derail the thread.

No worries. As always, I like reading what you have to say regardless of whether I agree or not, and you're quite right about how an atheist would view your spirituality - it makes absolutely no sense to me, and I don't really know how I could twist it to make sense. It's personal to you, and I have absolutely no issue with that.

When beliefs (whatever they are) cross over into society and expect privilege is where my issue comes in, and that's where people should be able to prove what they say, rather than leave it relying on special pleading.

GiRTh · 13-11-2013, 01:59 PM

The name of the book I was referring to in an earlier post is the Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard

Read the reviews of this and see how many times the the words ‘chilling’ or ‘spine chilling’ are used. At best it’s a scarily accurate prediction of the last 15 years and at its worst it’s a playbook being followed step by step.

smeagol · 13-11-2013, 07:04 PM

elvis is dead thats just silly people refusing to believe he died

we never landed on the moon it was a ploy cause of he russians

yes there were for sure 2 gunmen on the grassy gnowl and that is the biggest cover up. its been proved of sorts

did the queen bump of princess di. i wouldn't be surprised

Verbal · 13-11-2013, 07:23 PM

JFK's secret killer: The Evidence on Ch 5 at 9pm

GiRTh · 14-11-2013, 06:20 PM

Youtube video

Livia · 14-11-2013, 06:34 PM

Wow... that's rather thought-provoking...

GiRTh · 14-11-2013, 06:44 PM

There a lot of questions that no one wants to answer.

Livia · 14-11-2013, 06:49 PM

I saw a DVD about it once... they had an explosives expert explaining how the towers couldn't have collapsed without secondary explosions, and film of little charges popping out all the way down the building. Can't remember what it was called... I've probably still got it around here somewhere... Anyhoo, you're right, there are a few questions to answer.

GiRTh · 14-11-2013, 06:53 PM

That clip covers most of the theories including that one. The big mystery is how the third tower came down when it wasnt even hit. LOL Very strange.

Livia · 14-11-2013, 07:01 PM

The Pentagon hit was really weird too... SO many questions.

GiRTh · 14-11-2013, 07:17 PM

Theres a wild conspiracy over that one that goes; the plane was intercepted, flown to Ohio where crew and passengers all left, then it was replaced by a missile and its the missile that flew into the Pentagon. Thats why there is no security footage of the crash that actually shows a plane and hence why the hole made in the Pentagon was so small. The crew and passengers were given false ID and are now living in the witness protection programme.

Thats one of my faves.