Are you a Conspiracy Theorist?

[Dahlia Babe Ailhad]

Hi broncofan,

Speaking of referendums, i live in a Province that has had three major referendums to separate from Canada.
I didn't suggest that there was a referendum concerning Rockefeller's decisions.

I did say that people are quoting from his book.
I've already posted one video which shows his quotes. Here's another from this guy, who holds the book in his hands and reads.

youtube.com/watch?v=XPt-22Tqs1k

There was one other video of a girlfriend and boyfriend doing the same thing but they show several quotes from different books from the man, and they show the pages and the words. I can't find that one, now. I saw it last night.

Anyways.

Babe,
xoxo

[Dahlia Babe Ailhad]

Hi again broncofan,

In response to your second post.

I get the funny feeling that even if someone could show you a truth, you might choose to call it hogwash. I can't say why you would, but, i think you would.

It appears to me, you will only believe any of this is happening when they are finally injecting the chip into your arm (when it's all too late), and something tells me you will believe them when they say, "It's in your better interests".
And once inside the box car, taking you and others to the FEMA camp, you'll still be thinking it's all for your protection and that this all will soon pass and when it passes, you'll be back in front or your TV screen enjoying the all shows you like to watch.
Silly me, they'll probably have television sets installed into every room so they can keep everyone from free thought.

sheeple1.jpg Photo by da6is9 | Photobucket

Once inside, they provide the food, too.
sheep-and-lies.jpg Photo by da6is9 | Photobucket

I know, i know...
Stupid-Sheeple-125124833422.jpeg Photo by da6is9 | Photobucket


LOL, i love these pics. Especially this one.
ignorance1.jpg Photo by da6is9 | Photobucket

Come to think of it, they'll be more likely to be dragging me away while leaving you sitting in front of your television set. I think i'm doomed. I think you're safe.


Babe,
xoxo

[trish]

I agree that some videos are really misleading - SOME videos...
I hope you don't say that because the person quoting from the book on youtube in lying JUST because it's on youtube.

I did say "certain" YouTube postings, just as the Wikipedia article used the modifier "primarily", although I do suppose it is possible to be so undiscriminating in one's beliefs that the term New World Order almost always translates: world wide totalitarianism.

The opening quote of the Rockefeller video has no known source. It just appears in conspiracsist propaganda in the early nineties. Do you know for sure that the book in the video is Rockefeller's and the underlining his? Were you at the Rockefeller estate when the crew was allowed by the family to take those slow zoom in shots? Conspiracy theorists have demonstrated an untempered willingness to manufacture evidence out of whole cloth, that I really need to see the chain of custody of evidence and convinced of its integrity. I presume, since you believe the video, you already researched that.

It is true that Rockefeller wanted a more integrated global political and economic structure. So do I, in light of the perils of climate change. He mocked those who criticized his global perspective with the sarcasm, "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

Einstein also once wrote, "In my opinion the only salvation for civilization and the human race lies in the creation of a world government, with security of nations founded upon law. As long as sovereign states continue to have separate armaments and armament secrets, new world wars will be inevitable."

The sentiment expressed here was common in the twentieth century. You can find H.G. Wells saying pretty much the same thing. What we in the twenty first century can say is: if Rockefeller did conspire with others to establish a world government, then either they failed or it quickly fell apart.

I would think that what is important in the twenty first century is: why are we still so un-united? Why is the world everywhere engaged in decade long wars, and rampages entangled in tribalism, religion, political ideology, personal vanity and greed? Should I believe a cabal of conspirators keep the pot well stirred and drain off the profits of war; or should I believe that the disagreements in the world, though connected by politics and economics, have genuine, complex and individual causes rooted in local history, geography and their ongoing adjustment to the globalization of information and trade? Couldn't our greedy overlords be making more money in a more productive world? Before we address the coming ravages of climate change and the concomitant migrations, plagues and agricultural burnout, do we have to declare war against an unknown cabal of tyrants who secretly rule the world; or can we please just start to address our existing problems directly?

[Dahlia Babe Ailhad]

(Sighs!) Okay. You're right. I'm wrong.

Babe,
xoxo

[broncofan]

I very rarely watch television. I would imagine I am in the bottom one percent of television watchers in the U.S.

You didn't address any of the arguments I made which were about the value we should give someone's inculpatory statements. Instead you just resorted to claiming to know hidden truths, which you don't.

I am not going to take your word for it when you say you know something implausible and can explain it vaguely.

[Dahlia Babe Ailhad]

Hi broncofan

Sweety, i know what i see and hear when these people read from Rockefeller's book. I know that to be a truth of what the man, himself has written. I don't claim to know it all.

Heck, i just admitted in a post that i am wrong and you and who ever else are right.

When i post videos of people reading straight from a book, i do not claim that to be my word.

Let it be known, as it states in my very first post in HU, that i am not here to argue or debate.

Babe,
xoxo

[broncofan]

No hard feelings Dahlia. Just including this for argument's sake.

Let me put it this way. Imagine George W. Bush came out tomorrow and admitted that he planned and executed the attacks on our world trade center in 2001. Would that be the end of the story? Do you think someone might ask, how did you do it operationally? How did you fake the footage of the 19 hijackers or did you hire them? How did you cover up your complicity? How many people were involved in the scheme and how did they maintain their secrecy? How did you know that Bin Laden wouldn't vehemently protest his innocence?

Yet, even if Bush were making a false confession, this would be indisputable proof for some people that he was behind the attacks without anything corroborating it. Yet, the evidence against Al Qaeda is much stronger than one man's word and includes actual operations that can be traced to their command and control. But why isn't that enough? It is the end conclusion that the truthers are aiming for and their approach to the evidence is unbalanced. The burden of proof for one thesis should not be so much lighter than for the conventional, disfavored thesis.

[broncofan]

Hi broncofan

Let it be known, as it states in my very first post in HU, that i am not here to argue or debate.

Babe,
xoxo

No hard feelings. Just arguing the point. Let's take it in stride. All the best.

[Dahlia Babe Ailhad]

Hi broncofan,

I feel no hard feelings. But thanks for offering that.

Two simple questions, seeing as you bring up 911.

Do you think jet fuel brought down the towers 1 and 2 (and building 7) and made everything disintegrate into dust?
It's a simple yes or no question.

Another question, did you watch the Dr Judy Wood video that i posted in this thread? Another yes or no question.

Babe,
xoxo

[broncofan]

Hi broncofan,

I feel no hard feelings. But thanks for offering that.

Babe,
xoxo

I am glad you're not upset, but I'm puzzled. I thought you were not here to argue or debate. Now it seems you might want to do that.

I think the culprits in the wtc attacks were the 19 hijackers (Al Qaeda members) and the proximate cause of the damage to the buildings was planes flying into them. Had someone asked me before the attacks whether I would think it unusual that a plane flying at hundreds of miles per hour could cause a building to collapse, I would probably have said no. I would also not expect a building to be constructed with that kind of stressor in mind.

As for the physics of it, I think I should defer to Trish. This is a subject she knows much more about than I do and she has written very comprehensive posts about it. But it seems like the consensus among our experts here and in the scientific community is that we are not talking about something physically impossible based on the conventional narrative.

Edit: I don't know whether it was jet fuel or the force of the collision but yes I think planes crashing into the buildings caused them to fall. I did not watch the video. I'll read what you've written but I am not big on outside links.