Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: Conspiracy theories

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    Hi all, ... What I found noteworthy was that the insurance on the Twin Towers was claimed twice, because there were two separate hits. Not a bad scam, doubling
    Message 1 of 11 , May 24, 2011
      Hi all,

      On 25 May 2011 03:12, tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:

      > Bill
      > So you don't think Bush was a coconspirator in 911? Do you think Cheney
      > was? To me, there are too many incongruent items concerning 911 to validate
      > official account, things like hijacker's passports not burned or blown up by
      > the wreck found in tons of rubble, pilats making moves so challenging that
      > noone with that little training could do so, doubts by over 1200 engineers
      > and architects on building collapse etc. When we look at 911 not only as a
      > particular happening;but if you consider the declassified Northwoods project
      > where the Joint Chiefs pr4esented JFK a number of false flag alternatives to
      > justify a war with Cuba in 62, the declassified information of CIA research
      > on creating Manchurian candidates, the many high profile guys shot by
      > supposedly lone nuts, the strange death and coverup of Pat Tilman death,
      > Rove's computer guy dying in private plane crash a day before he was
      > required to testify regarding 2000 and 2008 elections, Welstone's private
      > plane crash etc.; I believe we are dealing with people that I would put
      > nothing past.
      What I found noteworthy was that the insurance on the Twin Towers was
      claimed twice, because there were two separate hits. Not a bad scam,
      doubling your billions in twenty minutes or so.



      > Tom
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: William
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:16 AM
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Conspiracy theories
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Bill
      > >
      > > This to me is very indicative of a set up, and the fact that he knew he
      > was likely to be set up.
      > >
      > > Dominique Strauss-Kahn to face fresh sex assault complaint
      > > May 16, 2011, The Guardian (One of the UK's leading newspapers)
      > >
      > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/16/dominique-strauss-khan-tristane-banon
      > >
      > > A French writer who claims Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexually assaulted her
      > nine years ago is to file an official complaint, her lawyer has announced.
      > Tristane Banon previously described the attack, which happened when she was
      > in her early 20s, in a television programme in 2007. The 62-year-old head of
      > the International Monetary Fund - who was widely tipped to be France's next
      > president - was refused bail by the judge, Melissa Jackson, who ruled he
      > might attempt to flee the US. Across France, after the shock of
      > Strauss-Kahn's arrest, came speculation ... and conspiracy theories. For
      > some ... the story was so extraordinary it smacked of a set-up. Only three
      > weeks ago, Strauss-Kahn evoked such a possibility in an interview with
      > French newspaper Lib´┐Żration when he said he thought he was under
      > surveillance and named the three principal difficulties he foresaw if he was
      > to stand for the presidential elections. "Money, women and the fact I am
      > Jewish." He said he could see himself becoming the victim of a honey trap:
      > "a woman raped in a car park and who's been promised 500,000 or a million
      > euros to invent such a story ...".
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Tom
      > > The DSK rape is horribly suspect and will not be settled in many peoples
      > minds. This is another of those situations where people who are skeptical,
      > the kind of people who tend to be existentialists, get labeled conspiracy
      > theorists. I now take it as simple name calling especially when I know a
      > great deal more about the matters in question than the name caller.
      > Last night I watched a program about Robert Oppenheimer. He waged mind war
      > with the ultra brillient and was discredited and died stripped of his
      > security clearance. He might have been heir to Eienstiens mastry of physics
      > but was pulled down by political enemies within the Eisenhour
      > administration. Whenever politics are involved lies, spin, and dirty tricks
      > come into play. When security organisations are involved professional liars
      > and spin doctors are involved. Moralists are pure grist for the professional
      > liars. The deeper you follow cases like Oppenheimer and DSK the more you see
      > the well covered footprints of operatives bent on results not truth. The
      > superficial thinkers ,the static moralists, just take the authoritarian
      > answer and claim dissenters are nuts.
      > These wildly spun situations are ,perhaps , beyond resolution. Someone may
      > say DSK is a rapist, someone may say Oppenheimer was a communist, someone
      > may say Bush was a coconspirator in 9/11 but the nature of a situation
      > dipped and redipped in diametrically opposed lies has no chance of rational
      > disentanglement.
      > I just try to remember the proven facts,which are often few, and mentally
      > file the matter for possible future reference. In the three examples cited
      > in this post I think DSK is set up, Oppenheimer was not a communist and was
      > a political victim, and I refute the idea that Bush2 was a coconspirator in
      > 9/11.These assertions do not make me a conspiracy theorist looking for
      > commandos under my bed. It does make me an open and questioning person and
      > that general position is in line with an existential skepticism in the
      > world. Bill
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: William
      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 1:06 PM
      > > Subject: [existlist] Conspiracy theories
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Tom, spin and now counter spin are the rule today. I ommited names in my
      > last post because the 9/11 tragedy has not been brought to light and naming
      > names after ten long years is premature. I did name Bush 2 as he was
      > certainly involved. Remember when he ran to Offet Air Force Base. Air force
      > officers flying an Air Force President to an Hyper secure security base for
      > briefing. An Air Force officer was in charge of cyber war planning that
      > failed and allowed penetration by Saudi nationals into the civilian air
      > fleet.
      > > I do not think Bush had prior knowledge of the attack. We all watched the
      > suprise and fear in his face when he was told at the grade school. Bush is
      > not that good an actor. We have all seen Bush holding the Saudi Kings hand
      > and a Saudi prince,Bandar, roamed the white house. If these are coincidences
      > they are far to numerous to ignore as 9/11 cost this nation massive physical
      > and financial damage. The world as we know it pivots on Saudi oil and huge
      > resources are contingent upon keeping that world order intact. I am sure
      > there has been enough shredding and document replacement to grant plausable
      > deniability to several cover theories. We will live in the dark about these
      > matters and it is unpleasant to be played for the fool. Adding insult a
      > choir boy like Jim tells us we are nuts. Why should he care ,the new
      > president is an Irish kinsman! Bill
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.