PDA

View Full Version : Ten Top Ongoing Conspiracies of 2008


Martin Timothy
5th April 2008, 03:15 AM
Edited for Rule 4. See comment 8: http://www.infowars.com/?p=1297&cp=1#comments

You cannot present someone else's work as your own, by merely removing a handful of words.

Brainache
5th April 2008, 03:19 AM
Oh look, another anti-semite. Just what JEWREF needs!

T.A.M.
5th April 2008, 03:22 AM
please retitle this thread...

"Top Ten most ridiculous, racist, STUPID Conspiracy Theories of 2008".

TAM:)

chillzero
5th April 2008, 03:22 AM
Everyone, please remember not to attack the member. Address the post, or ignore it.

T.A.M.
5th April 2008, 03:24 AM
I did....lol

TAM:)

SpitfireIX
5th April 2008, 04:36 AM
Edited for Rule 4. See comment 8: http://www.infowars.com/?p=1297&cp=1#comments

You cannot present someone else's work as your own, by merely removing a handful of words.


Here is a video that very succinctly summarizes the OP. WARNING: NSFW!


hyXggq-dvu0

gtc
5th April 2008, 04:44 AM
At the moment you have simply presented assertions. If you can not provide evidence to back up your assertions, then there is nothing to discuss; except of course to discuss why you hate Jews so much.

gtc
5th April 2008, 05:04 AM
By the way, you seem to be spamming this around the internet. You've posted point 9 almost word for word on Truth News (http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1877); except there you also mention how the Jews are behind abortion.

You also posted point five at the same place (http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1908).

Most of the rest seems to come from someone called MSEHPA (http://www.infowars.com/?p=1297&cp=1#comments) at Alex Jone's website:

Edited for Rule 4. See comment 8: http://www.infowars.com/?p=1297&cp=1#comments

You cannot present someone else's work as your own, by merely removing a handful of words.

Martin Timothy
5th April 2008, 05:15 AM
Almost word for word is fine, were my tracts completely word for word you might have a case.

gtc
5th April 2008, 05:21 AM
Are you going to present any evidence for your assertions?

Evidence is important, it lets us evaluate whether your assertions are true or not.

Take this point of yours:
8 Chertoff, he of Homeland Security ordered the release of as many as sixty two Israelis taken into custody on 911, says he's Mossad.


I could make the assertion that:
8 Chertoff, he of Homeland Security did notorder the release of as many as sixty two Israelis because none were taken into custody on 911 and did not say he's Mossad.


Our two assertions contradict each other, so how are we to decide which assertion is correct? Obviously, the only way we can do that is by looking at the evidence.

So please provide evidence for your assertions.

gtc
5th April 2008, 05:31 AM
This thread seems to be dead now that the OP is zapped.

I think the best way to start a discussion on these topics is to create a new thread which covers a single one of those topics. Posting the evidence along with the assertion will be the only way to get a meaningful discussion going.

Martin Timothy
5th April 2008, 06:28 AM
I dont present anybody's work but my own, now understand that. OOOOOOOOOOOh you make my guts turn.

DGM
5th April 2008, 06:33 AM
I dont present anybody's work but my own, now understand that. OOOOOOOOOOOh you make my guts turn.
So let's see some evidence to support "your" assertions.

Par
5th April 2008, 06:56 AM
Almost word for word is fine, were my tracts completely word for word you might have a case.


So, as long as it isnít exactly the same, it isnít plagiarism. Interesting. The good old high-redefinition fallacy rides to the rescue again. Further, you seem to be under the impression that you make the rules for this forum.

Par
5th April 2008, 06:58 AM
I dont present anybody's work but my own, now understand that.


Iíve no idea whether you make a habit of it. But you did exactly that in the opening post.

Par
5th April 2008, 06:59 AM
OOOOOOOOOOOh you make my guts turn.


Was that intentionally camp? What a weird chap you must be.

Cl1mh4224rd
5th April 2008, 10:29 AM
No one's asked the obvious question? Come on, guys... :(

Martin Timothy: Are you MSEHPA on Infowars?

Bobert
5th April 2008, 10:34 AM
I dont present anybody's work but my own, now understand that. OOOOOOOOOOOh you make my guts turn.

Could that be where the evidance is at?
So is it safe to say you are pulling the evidance out of your ass?

Architect
5th April 2008, 01:07 PM
You cannot present someone else's work as your own, by merely removing a handful of words.

Unless you're an architect; miss out a few bits, add some twiddly stuff, and an RIBA award can be yours.......

Architect
5th April 2008, 01:09 PM
Chertoff runs Homeland Security he is an Israeli, they secretly run America, only it is not a secret, just that a few talking heads like Obama, Hillary, Ron Schmaul and Jesse Ventura swear blind it does not exist. They never heard of the dancing Israelis taken into custody or the sixty two follow up arrests, all ordered released by Chertoff: Silverstein gets the money so many billions so far, what happens to it then.


Whit a load ay mince...is this lad ***** doited or some'hin'? *

[/Scots]




* Transl: I have some doubts as to the accuracy of this material. Is the author perhaps a little hard of thinking or somesuch?

Mince
5th April 2008, 02:41 PM
How whimsically whimsical!

Martin Timothy
5th April 2008, 05:46 PM
Content removed.

Martin Timothy, if you disagree with a moderator's decision, you are welcome to appeal (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=88) it, but you may not simply repost the deleted material. If you continue to ignore moderator directives, you do so at the risk of further action.

twinstead
5th April 2008, 05:52 PM
I as well am waiting for any evidence to back these up.

And I'll even use an example given to you, Martin, above:

I say that Chertoff, he of Homeland Security did NOT order the release as many as sixty two Israelis taken into custody on 911. Since one can't prove a negative, you need to prove he DID.

Let's see it.

beachnut
5th April 2008, 05:53 PM
Content removed
What real dumb neoNAZI site came up with this list of stupid stuff?

I never knew there were made up CTs that stupid. Did you?

twinstead
5th April 2008, 05:55 PM
Beachnut Martin's post just goes to show that as usual, some people accept things that support their world view without question. Neither of us should be surprised.

Doctor Evil
5th April 2008, 05:56 PM
There seems to be no evidence here. So I conclude that you want to be perceived as a rabid antisemite. In that case I would recommend more creative theories such as the joooos are responsible for the accidental colouring of white shirts during laundry. Alternatively you could claim that there was a second moon made of cheese, but the joooos ate it :jaw-dropp

twinstead
5th April 2008, 06:00 PM
There seems to be more evidence here. So I conclude that you want to be perceived as a rabid antisemite. In that case I would recommend more creative theories such as the joooos are responsible for the accidental colouring of white shirts during laundry. Alternatively you could claim that there was a second moon made of cheese, but the joooos ate it :jaw-dropp

Oh, don't get me started on those joooos and my discolored undershirts. They need to be punished for my pink t-shirts!!!

beachnut
5th April 2008, 06:13 PM
There seems to be more evidence here. So I conclude that you want to be perceived as a rabid antisemite. In that case I would recommend more creative theories such as the joooos are responsible for the accidental colouring of white shirts during laundry. Alternatively you could claim that there was a second moon made of cheese, but the joooos ate it :jaw-dropp
You mean the blue color? That is from Pakistan cleaners working in Saudi Arabia with the goal of making your t-shirt micro sized and your socks lost! But willing to share anyone's socks with you if you think they are yours; "go ahead take them"... "these are not my socks"... Now who took my socks? CTsrUS

gtc
5th April 2008, 06:22 PM
This is a discussion forum. You need to provide some evidence for your claims so that we can discuss them. Simply repeating your claims again and again won't convince anyone.

But if you simply want a soapbox for your views then you should start a blog.

twinstead
5th April 2008, 06:30 PM
This is a discussion forum. You need to provide some evidence for your claims so that we can discuss them. Simply repeating your claims again and again won't convince anyone.


I suspect the OP is just repeating stuff he read on a web site and decided to show us mean old JREFers a thing or two with it.

stateofgrace
5th April 2008, 06:43 PM
I like top tens.

Top 10 Wackiest Conspiracy Theories (http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx)

Loss Leader
5th April 2008, 06:53 PM
Some reports say he is ok, so where did the story come from.


Somebody made it up.

twinstead
5th April 2008, 06:55 PM
Somebody made it up.

Party pooper

Hyperviolet
5th April 2008, 06:58 PM
Whit a load ay mince...is this lad ***** doited or some'hin'? *

[/Scots]




* Transl: I have some doubts as to the accuracy of this material. Is the author perhaps a little hard of thinking or somesuch?

Your translation is misleading, Architect.
The vitriolic tone and streadfast disbelief is now completely lost, ya numpty.

Tut tut!

:D

The Doc
5th April 2008, 07:34 PM
9 Odigo an Israel based computer firm with a Hebrew language instant messaging system, was identified shortly after 911 as sending warnings that resulted in as many as four thousand Israeliís failing to show up for work at the WTC on 911.

The only people that are still repeating this absolute non-sense that was debunked the day after it came out, are the same type of people that deny the holocaust. Anti-Semites.

Cl1mh4224rd
5th April 2008, 08:28 PM
9 Odigo an Israel based computer firm with a Hebrew language instant messaging system, was identified shortly after 911 as sending warnings that resulted in as many as four thousand Israeliís failing to show up for work at the WTC on 911.


Two things wrong here...

1) Odigo didn't send any warning to anyone. Two of their employees received a non-specific warning.

2) The claim that 4,000 Jews didn't show up for work is completely unsubstantiated. http://911myths.com/html/4000_israelis.html

gumboot
5th April 2008, 08:45 PM
Nothing quite as distasteful as blatant unconcealed bigotry and hate speech.

Pardalis
5th April 2008, 09:11 PM
Two things wrong here...

Well, two out of dozens. ;)

And this one just takes the cake:

10 George W Bush and the CIA, Stalin and the KGB, and Hitler the Naziís were and are Zionist puppets, the Holocaust was a Zionist plot to rid Europe of non Z Jews, and blame it on Hitler.

We're way past our solar system here.

1337m4n
5th April 2008, 09:38 PM
5 Jews as the most part of Russian terror since at least well before the 1917 revolution, read Sever Polker at Ynet News .com.

"Jews as the most part of Russian terror"? What the heck does this even mean? The sentence is meaningless, stupid, anti-Semetic tripe.

Sheesh. If you're going to post something that makes you look like a racist, it ought to at least make an ounce of sense within the English language.

Slayhamlet
6th April 2008, 08:04 PM
"Jews as the most part of Russian terror"? What the heck does this even mean? The sentence is meaningless, stupid, anti-Semetic tripe.

Sheesh. If you're going to post something that makes you look like a racist, it ought to at least make an ounce of sense within the English language.

While the grammar is horrible, the obvious despicable suggestion is that the state security apparatus of the Soviet Union, in any of its several manifestations, was mostly controlled by Jews.

The reference is to an opinion article from an Israeli news source. Unsurprisingly, it doesn't support the "ongoing conspiracy theory" one bit; just more proof that bigots and conspiracy theorists in general don't know how to read.

I found the article in Google cache here (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:pLmgPZ5GURIJ:www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3342999,00.html+ynet+news+Sever+Plocker&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us).