A Few Words On Censorship

[quietvoice]

Please describe for me the essence OF the evidence of foul play of which I am speaking as shared in this document.

typo corrected.

Essence of the evidence >> the hardest part is having the guts to LOOK at the evidence.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

Please note I've taken the trouble to type a couple of long pieces here. If reading them instead of clicking a link also seems like I'm giving you "homework", all I can do is suggest you stop going over ancient history and catch up with what's going on NOW.

Here is what is going on NOW…

https://www.worldometers.info/world-pop ... y-country/

It doesn’t require ancient history or “homework”. You don’t even need to click the link as I can spell it out. The global population is going up, not down.

[davidbanner99@]

Candid.....
Too many points to respond to in one go but for now..
I agree with some of your views. What we disagree on hardly matters that much. At the end of the day we both oppose enforcement of drugs on populations. The part of the debate where we disagree is just part of the thread, I guess. To repeat, I don't classify you personally as having gone over the top. My skepticism is directed towards the conspiracy leaders. Not all of them but perhaps the majority. Although it's pointless to quibble, I ruled out the "jab" as a planned euthanasia. If you consider we're on the verge of nuclear war with Russia, and if you take into account the USSR population took a huge dip from 1989 - 2005, it's not logical Putin would collaborate with depopulation. Putin flat does not seek to reduce population. Indeed there's been massive Chinese migration to Siberia. There if you think logically is the big stumbling block. Russia has the Sputnik vaccine but no way in this world would Russia agree to the conspiracy the conspiracy theorists claim is in motion. And you do need global agreement. Again too, a nuclear war would devastate Russia, Europe and the USA and that is a hidden factor.
What does that leave us with? The use of identity tracking is more plausible than population control. Personally I doubt even that but admit it's possible.
The view I hold personally is politicians do believe in all the hysteria they promote. Schwarzenegger, for example, volunteered for the jab and urged others to follow. He believes in the social distancing and thereby angered some bodybuilding communities. Schwarzenegger is worth billions too. Most politicians think the same way. That's the problem.
I agree these "jabs" are best avoided. I have zero intention of giving way on that score. I had no flu jabs either. Now it seems my recent fever was just a hernia issue due to exercise.

[davidbanner99@]

John Lennon once said "Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans".
Should war break out in the Ukraine, that would be an example of life blotting out "other plans."
However, I don't think Russia will invade Ukraine. I imagine an occupation would be too complicated and divisive. Putin is likewise very much a tactician. Even so, one event could spark off a war. Speaking of ancient history, what it does suggest is that instability and decline of civilization tends to terminate in a war.

[davidbanner99@]

I think it saves a lot of time to go as far back to the source of any "evidence" (offered as gospel) so as to save time wading through a lot of spin and nonsense. I agree with Richard on that point.

I wanted to see if the 9 /11 conspiracy theory dates back before David Ray Griffin. Some say the primary source of the 9/11 conspiracy theory was a paranoid talk-show host called Alex Jones. Briefly reading his credentials, I'm left speechless. This man clearly has serious issues. What astounds me is not only did he spin the initial 9/11 conspiracy but has a whole list of conspiracies. Including the Sandy Hill school shooting:

"To Jones, the coming New World Order is a “demonic high-tech tyranny” formed by satanist elites who manufacture economic and health crises, and are using selective breeding to create a supreme race. In November, he claimed that Hillary Clinton was connected to “top occultist Marina Abramovic” because the Yugoslavian performance artist once invited John Podesta, former chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign, to a “spirit cooking” dinner."

Surely, the give-a-way is the fact it smacks of extreme christian fundamentalism and paranoia?

Has the more modern depopulation theory copied and re-glossed the above?

What Quietvoice and Tokeless probably never considered is how the theories they regard as so convincing in reality evolved like a psuedo religion. They were never instantaneous but copy and borrow. That's why it's a must to find the source - which I did. Griffin and Alex Jones.

Pretty much all conspiracy theories lack any foundation in science. Most start out as highly imaginative confabulations, voiced by non scientists and media attention-grabbers, or Christian fundamentalists. As time passes, a few suspect PHd opportunists help make the initial theory sound more credible, but then they create the seemingly more sophisticated "evidence" to fit with the initial doctrine.

[davidbanner99@]

The leading conspiracy theorist and champion of the anti-vax movement in the U.K. is as esoteric and mystical as Griffin. David Icke clearly borrows from books by the far more educated Zecharia Sitchin. Ironic isn't it that Icke is hugely antisemitic yet bases his theories on Sitchin (a Jewish academic)?

Icke profile.

"In The Biggest Secret (1999), he introduced the idea that many prominent figures derive from the Anunnaki, a reptilian race from the Draco constellation.[119] In Human Race Get Off Your Knees: The Lion Sleeps No More (2012), he identified the Moon (and later Saturn) as the source of holographic experiences, broadcast by the reptiles, that humanity interprets as reality.[120][15]

Icke is a critic of the scientific method, describing it as "b*****ks" in 2013. When asked by The Sunday Times to explain the existence of television, he said "It's not that all science is b*****ks," but rather "[t]he basis of the way science judges reality is b*****ks."[121] He also thinks climate change is a hoax.[122]"

What I can't figure out is why so many people waste time reading all this baloney? You can make a stand for human rights and free-choices without choosing to follow the cults of the pseudo-religious zelots.

[tokeless]

David, I'll say it again... my recommendation isn't from shock jocks, profiteering merchants, just architectural experts, emitrius professors with no agenda other than to examine the evidence, offering no smoking gun or finger pointing, yet you still try and smear it with the Alex Jones of this world. It must be great when you know who's telling the truth, based on your own reading. The infallible fountain of truth eh David. You clearly don't wish to check my recommendation, which you are free to ignore, but don't then slate my opinion without checking out what it's based on. That's just arrogance

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

... my recommendation isn't from shock jocks, profiteering merchants, just architectural experts, emitrius professors with no agenda…

And in a world of architectural experts and emeritus professors, there are multiple explanations for 9/11. Why does any individual choose to accept one version over another?

I am more prone to follow Occam’s razor. If something can be accomplished in a much, much simpler manner, I tend to favor that explanation. Does it mean I’m correct? Nope. I recognize that the straight forward explanation can be wrong.

[davidbanner99@]

David, I'll say it again... my recommendation isn't from shock jocks, profiteering merchants, just architectural experts, emitrius professors with no agenda other than to examine the evidence, offering no smoking gun or finger pointing, yet you still try and smear it with the Alex Jones of this world. It must be great when you know who's telling the truth, based on your own reading. The infallible fountain of truth eh David. You clearly don't wish to check my recommendation, which you are free to ignore, but don't then slate my opinion without checking out what it's based on. That's just arrogance

All I can say is I was shocked. Till doing a bit of reference work, I didn't know much of what many people assume to be bona fide searching for truth, has its root source in fundamentalist manipulation. Akin to soap box evangelism or profiteering cults. One thing is rational distrust of governments and the healthy need for skepticism. It's another thing entirely to spin ludicrous interpretations in order to milk a profit. And Jones, the architect of the 9/11 theory has been sued by communities for fraud.
Personally (and this is just my own take) I would never get involved with these conspiracy groups. Sure, many of the members have good intentions. The fact they protest is also a plus. However, my own view after some digging is the source and core of conspiracy is manipulative, profit driven and purely speculative. That is, we can choose not to vaccinate or be controlled by trusting our own judgements.

[davidbanner99@]

... my recommendation isn't from shock jocks, profiteering merchants, just architectural experts, emitrius professors with no agenda…

And in a world of architectural experts and emeritus professors, there are multiple explanations for 9/11. Why does any individual choose to accept one version over another?

I am more prone to follow Occam’s razor. If something can be accomplished in a much, much simpler manner, I tend to favor that explanation. Does it mean I’m correct? Nope. I recognize that the straight forward explanation can be wrong.

I call that "forward logic". How can I achieve goal X? Most people choose the simplest path. Conspiracy I call "backward logic". It uses one event or tragedy that happened, ignores forward logic and tries to work backwards. So the explanation then offered is the indirect path. It comes out as a long-winded approach or just a very bad plan.

[tokeless]

And Jones, the architect of the 9/11 theory has been sued by communities for fraud.

I thought you said it was Griffin who started the 9/11 conspiracy for profit? I'm not going to repeat myself again David, but I have never mentioned Alex Jones, it was you that did. Maybe you gaslight to avoid taking on board other views that challenge your own? I don't need an answer because it's proven itself to be pointless so far

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

… but I have never mentioned Alex Jones, it was you that did. Maybe you gaslight to avoid taking on board other views…

I’m not sure if it is intentional gaslighting. It does seem to be a form of deflection or a “red herring”. It is creating a tangent line of discussion that fails to address, and in some sense blatantly ignores the observation that tokeless has made.

[davidbanner99@]

The logic is simple. To avoid the time-consuming issue of reading reels of "proofs", trace the debated theory to its source. The logic dictates all quoted evidence always has a source. A very early source was David Griffin but it seems the originator of the 9/11 conspiracy was indeed Alex Jones. Put simply, no matter how the original theory has *refined" over time (as Jones's theory gained support), it remains his theory.

Should the initiatior of a theory be suspect, do we just write that all off and accept the doctrine offered regardless? Not me personally.

Having made that conclusion, I see no reason why the background and credibility of the originator of a theory shouldn't be investigated. Does the individual have qualifications or established scientific reputation. Are they making money out of the theory put forward.

This speaks volumes. The 9/11 theory - if the truth be known - generated a lot of income. As did other conspiracies.

"The conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was found liable on Monday for damages in lawsuits brought by parents of children killed in the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, over Jones’s claim the massacre was a hoax.
Families of victims said they have been subjected to harassment and death threats from Jones’s followers because of the hoax conspiracy broadcast on Infowars. They sued Jones and his companies in courts in Connecticut and Texas, for defamation and infliction of emotional distress.
Lawyers for the parents claimed Jones and his companies, including Infowars and Free Speech Systems, violated court rules by failing to turn over documents, including internal records showing how and if Jones and Infowars profited from talking about the school shooting and other mass shootings.
“Their pattern of defying and ignoring court orders to produce responsive information is well established,” lawyers for the family wrote in a court brief in July."

[davidbanner99@]

And Jones, the architect of the 9/11 theory has been sued by communities for fraud.

I thought you said it was Griffin who started the 9/11 conspiracy for profit? I'm not going to repeat myself again David, but I have never mentioned Alex Jones, it was you that did. Maybe you gaslight to avoid taking on board other views that challenge your own? I don't need an answer because it's proven itself to be pointless so far

Griffin is indeed one of the pioneers but as I dug deeper, Jones appears to be the originator. As far as I know, the theory 9/11 was deliberate was Jone's conception.

"Now, Jones is back on more than 60 radio stations, with an all-time-high audience of 3 million listeners per day, and he boasts of his role in spreading the 9/11 conspiracy theory: "I am the progenitor of the entire enchilada."

"Six weeks later, on the day the Twin Towers fell, Jones began his broadcast by declaring that, as he had predicted, the Bush administration had taken part in a staged terror attack. "I'll tell you the bottom line," Jones said. "98 percent chance this was a government-orchestrated controlled bombing."

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

… as I dug deeper, Jones

Tokeless is not referencing jones…

“Have you seen Richard Gage’s lecture, purely from an architectural perspective? He points out that the towers were built to withstand several airliners colliding with them, the way the tower collapsed on itself instead of towards the wound to its side. When you chop a tree down, you make a wedge to one side so it falls in that direction, not straight down. How did girders weighing several tons get flung across large distances from a fire?” - Tokeless

David…you keep asking for qualifications. Gage has been an architect for decades. And until recently… Gage was the CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth)…The organization claims to represent more than 3,000 architects and engineers who want a “real investigation” into the 9/11 attacks.

Now, I’m not saying Gage is correct. And I’m not even saying the claim of 3,000 architects is true. But, I don’t think a good way to address the argument of expertise is to keep referencing people that are non experts, that no other member has ever referenced.