 |
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 03:24 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
|
reply to post by souls
That's a good point. I agree.
There's not much of the world left that doesn't appear to be controlled in some way.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 04:38 PM by CPYKOmega
|
If Jones is a Disinfo agent, as you claim, explain to be how 90%+ of the news he presents on his website are linked straight from mainstream sources.
Such as Yahoo, The Times, CBS, News.com, BBC... just to name a few 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 04:45 PM by downtown436
|
Also I noticed that you are a Ron Paul supporter, and the only radio show I have ever heard Ron Paul as a guest on, was you guessed it The Alex Jones
show. I also have heard him talking about Bilderburg and world bankers running the show, as I have also heard him bash the Catholic church.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 04:45 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
|
reply to post by CPYKOmega
If that's true, how does that prove he's not a disinfo agent? 
If he's just linking to their stories, then why does he even have to have his own website? If they're posting it before him, then what's his
function? To put a spin on those stories while claiming "anonymous sources" gave him the information he's adding?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 04:48 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
|
 Originally posted by downtown436
Also I noticed that you are a Ron Paul supporter, and the only radio show I have ever heard Ron Paul as a guest on, was you guessed it The Alex Jones
show. 
And that proves what, exactly?
Tucker Carlson and Bill Maher have supported Ron Paul too. Does that mean they aren't puppets and I should believe everything they say?
Originally posted by downtown436
I also have heard him talking about Bilderburg and world bankers running the show,
I never said he didn't. I'm wondering why he doesn't make the connection between them and the Vatican.
Originally posted by downtown436
as I have also heard him bash the Catholic church.
Is there a link or an audio or something where I can see what he said?
If he exposes the Vatican conspiracy, then I'll retract everything I've said.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 06:57 PM by bobafett
|
My problem with Alex Jones is with the way he presents news. He often talks (or rather shouts) about the fear based media, and media distortion, yet
his websites are just doing the same thing, except the fear he is trying to spread is just of different things to the mainstream media. He also uses
masses of distortion, so many times I have looked at a story on his sites, then followed the links back to the original source, and found that the
source contains hardly any of what he is saying.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 07:17 PM by uberarcanist
|
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
You're just mad at Jones because he doesn't endorse your weak anti-Catholic conspiracy theory. OK...what have you got on Jones? He uses an ABC
satellite. So what? I bet you just got done using Google not too long ago. So he was paid for a story. That's standard fare with news.
OK, let's talk about John of Nepomuk. Non sequitor. All JoN is supposed to symbolize is that BG participants can't talk about what goes on in there.
AJ didn't talk about the statue because it's insignificant.
en.wikipedia.org...
Come back when you have something substantial.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 07:34 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
|
reply to post by uberarcanist
My my, the hostilities.
I'm not "mad" at Alex Jones for anything, so that assumption of yours is incorrect.
It's not "my" theory, so that is incorrect.
It's not weak if you have actually looked into it, so that is incorrect.
Me using Google and his show being carried on a corporation's satellites that allegedly censors the truth are two different things, so let's not
grasp at straws here. 
He sold the guy out. That's the point. Alex Jones agreed to only show the footage after the standoff was over. This guy trusted Alex Jones. So what
does he do? Turns around and sells the footage before the standoff is over.
That alone should show people he's not trustworthy. I guess that doesn't mean anything to you. 
John of Nepomuk is insignificant? How did you come to that conclusion? Any thing to back up that claim?
So he symbolizes Bohemian people not telling what goes on there. I guess Alex listened to that symbolism, because he didn't really give a complete
and accurate story. The circumstances of his "intrusion" into the Bohemian Grove are rather suspicious as well. And his "run ins" with "Secret
Service" that he "didn't get on tape" 
Face it, man. He's a liar. That's what he does. He sells lies.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 07:41 PM by uberarcanist
|
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
All that post was was indignance and weak "evidence". Bring out something STRONG against Alex Jones, if you can!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 07:48 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
|
reply to post by uberarcanist
I can tell you're not interested in facts, because no matter what I could possibly give you, you'd ignore it. If I gave you a picture of Alex Jones
giving a satanic hand symbol, you'd say it's fake. If I gave you a document signed by him admitting he's a fraud, you'd say it's fake.
You're not interested in facts regarding him. That's how you Alex Jones fans are. You look up to him like a god. You've taken this conspiracy stuff
to the point of it being like a religion to you people, and Alex Jones is the creator and the all powerful god, and there's nothing in this world
that could convince you that he's a fraud.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 07:52 PM by mazzroth
|
Novus I suspect you are either Grez Syzmanski, a relative of...or strong supporter of him. Everything you have said Greg has said in recent months and
everything Greg has said on air over the last few years could also be accused of what you accused AJ of. To be fair all this Leo Wanta crap was
disinfo at best if not just totally fiction.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 07:54 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
|
reply to post by mazzroth
To be completely honest with you, I have no idea who Greg Syzmanski is. I know you probably won't believe that, since what I typed apparently
reminded you of this person, but I seriously have no idea who that is.
[edit on 10/27/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 07:57 PM by mazzroth
|
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
Novus I apologise for this accusation then mate and am indeed sorry, just look up arcticbeacon.com and you will see everything you talk about there in
full and downoadable mp3.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 08:01 PM by uberarcanist
|
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
I'm not particularly a fan of AJ, but if that's what you want to believe, fine. It's obvious you have your own little angle to promote, how does
that make you different than AJ? This thread smacks of politics, envy, and a personal vendetta. It's just as easy to say that you are not interested
in the facts.
I challenge you to start a thread on the Jesuits and see how well it would hold up to debate.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 08:44 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
|
Originally posted by uberarcanist
I challenge you to start a thread on the Jesuits and see how well it would hold up to debate.
Let me ask you, have you looked up any of the Vatican conspiracy theories?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 08:45 PM by uberarcanist
|
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
Indeed, I didn't find them credible. But I don't want to derail your own thread. I'm being serious, I think a new thread on Jesuits would be a good
debate.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 08:58 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
|
reply to post by uberarcanist
I'd be more than happy to make one at a later date. I'd need time to gather the best stuff, because by no means do I believe everything they're
accused of.
So, when I do so, I'll inform you that the thread is up.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 09:18 PM by syrinx high priest
|
forgive me if this was posted, but Mr. Jones gets humiliated on debunking911.com thusly;
link to external scource
 But what of the damage to the building? Conspiracy sites say there were small fires. And what of Silverstein's comments in the PBS special? He
used the term "Pull" to describe a decision made. Conspiracy theorists say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many
half truths conspiracy theorists use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during
demolition.
Excerpts from Mark Roberts excellent piece "World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”
Yes, that worker certainly does say they’re getting ready to “pull” building six. Then we have a quote from Luis Mendes, from the NYC Department
of Design and Construction:
“We had to be very careful about how we demolished building 6. We were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the slurry walls, so we
wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.”
Interesting. They needed to be sure that building 6 came down in a “controlled” way. But wait a second: the video clip that Alex Jones presents
– the clip that’s shown on all the conspiracist websites –ends abruptly at this point. Huh? Where’s the money shot? Why’d they cut it
there?
Here’s why:
Because the following scene shows how building 6 was “pulled”: with cables attached to the hydraulic arms of four excavators, not with explosive
charges.
“We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they’re pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try
to pull down a eight story building with cables.”
Narrator Kevin Spacey: “The use of explosives to demolish World Trade Centers 4, 5 and 6 was rejected for fear workers would risk their lives
entering buildings to set the charges.”
Why do they pull that part of the documentary out of the conspiracy story? This is yet another example of outright deception by the so called
"truth" movement and its leaders like Alex Jones. They draw their stories around the truth like a child drawing around their hand. |
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 09:21 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
|
reply to post by syrinx high priest
This isn't a 9/11 debate...
What I see in that part you posted, it only mentions Alex Jones a few times and doesn't really contribute to the topic at hand. It's more about 9/11
than it is this.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 09:24 PM by syrinx high priest
|
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
it's concrete proof Alex Jones deliberately ommitted the true sense of the word "pull" from his videos, isn't that what you mean when you accuse
him of being a fraud ?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
