Jump to content
The Education Forum

Conspiracy Theories & The Media: JFK & Beyond ....


Chris Barnard
 Share

Recommended Posts

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

Plenty of people waved British flags with pride before a concerted media campaign to make anyone that did it a pariah, simpleton or fascist nut. Why would the media do that? It may have something to do with Britain and many other nations being corralled into a European Federalist block, that was funding academia and news in those countries.

I'm not aware of a "concerted media campaign" against flag-waving in Britain. If anything, the opposite is true: whenever there's some royal event or anniversary, or when England are playing in the World Cup, the newspapers encourage people to get the flags out. Not only that, but the newspapers sometimes even supply the flags!

As for the notion that the European Union discouraged national flag-waving through its funding of the UK media, that sounds a tad unlikely, mainly because almost all of the UK media is owned by individuals and institutions who are very much opposed to the EU. Flag-waving was quite popular in certain parts of Europe around 80 years ago, but not so much now, for some reason that has little to do with EU diktats.

The point I was making about flag-waving is that the prevalence of national flags in the US doesn't imply that Americans are likely to accept the official line on 9/11. If people mostly accept the official line, it's surely because the alternative is inherently implausible, not because people have been conditioned to believe everything they are told. We know that the general population is capable of distrusting official explanations of events, because they do so in the case of the JFK assassination. The widespread distrust of the official line is due to the plausibility of the alternative, which isn't the case with 9/11.

Quote

With mentioning Fox, you’re assuming one side is the righteous one, we’re back to the good vs evil narrative.

I wasn't assuming that. I used Fox as an example of propaganda that encourages people to doubt official information rather than accept it.

Quote

CNN is as important as FOX. Without FOX, the public will treat the remaining networks with greater scrutiny and suspicion.

That's a good point. One important effect of the Fox News insanity is that it makes the rest of the corporate media look vaguely respectable.

Quote

Think about the following effects that resulted from 9/11: America suddenly had a gold pass to enter any country in the middle east or islamic world ... [various corporations] got a pass to milk the tax payers of The USA for 20 years ... The Pentagon / Govt gets the Patriot Act and the biggest data capture in history begins

All of those effects are true, but their existence doesn't require that 9/11 was an inside job. Terrorism and other emergencies have been used by regimes all over the world as an excuse to do the same sorts of things the US government did after 9/11.

Quote

Let me ask you a question, if we provide you with scenarios that are impossible, or against logic or all probability regarding 9/11 and the evidence points toward the state, like many think it does with the JFKA, will you accept 9/11 was carried our by some other guys than the ones in the 9/11 report?

Yes, of course! If there is any incontrovertible evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, I'd be happy to accept it, just as I'd be happy to accept the lone-nut interpretation of the JFK assassination if incontrovertible evidence existed.

The problem is that, as far as I can tell, there is no incontrovertible evidence that 9/11 was an inside job (or, for that matter, that Oswald shot JFK, with or without assistance). For example, the technical arguments that we've been given by W. Niederhut don't seem to be widely accepted by those with the technical knowledge to evaluate them. In the absence of majority expert opinion, that evidence isn't worth much to a non-expert.

One item of evidence that would be convincing is W. Niederhut's claim that "many of them [the hijackers] were known to be alive after 9/11, having miraculously survived the 9/11 plane crashes." If that's the case, then the official account must be wrong.

Unfortunately, anyone who is familiar with the JFK assassination knows that these sorts of claims invariably turn out to be rather less watertight than they are made out to be: Oswald buying trucks in New Orleans when he was actually in Minsk, for example. The result is that the person making the far-fetched claim ends up looking like a ... how shall I put it? ... unreliable source of information, and people start to doubt everything else that person says.

Could W. Niederhut tell us what the evidence is for those hijackers being alive after 9/11?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 416
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

30 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I'm not aware of a "concerted media campaign" against flag-waving in Britain. If anything, the opposite is true: whenever there's some royal event or anniversary, or when England are playing in the World Cup, the newspapers encourage people to get the flags out. Not only that, but the newspapers sometimes even supply the flags!

As for the notion that the European Union discouraged national flag-waving through its funding of the UK media, that sounds a tad unlikely, mainly because almost all of the UK media is owned by individuals and institutions who are very much opposed to the EU. Flag-waving was quite popular in certain parts of Europe around 80 years ago, but not so much now, for some reason that has little to do with EU diktats.

The point I was making about flag-waving is that the prevalence of national flags in the US doesn't imply that Americans are likely to accept the official line on 9/11. If people mostly accept the official line, it's surely because the alternative is inherently implausible, not because people have been conditioned to believe everything they are told. We know that the general population is capable of distrusting official explanations of events, because they do so in the case of the JFK assassination. The widespread distrust of the official line is due to the plausibility of the alternative, which isn't the case with 9/11.

I don’t think you can get away with an absence of flags at national sports events or royal events. They are two examples when its socially acceptable to brandish one. The wider coverage in the media has attached a very negative stigma with nationalism, which is associated with the flag or hooliganism. The rejecting of national anthems is another thing. The media campaigns aren’t saying don’t do those things or love your country, its much more suggestive and subtle than that. If we dissect the Brexit campaign, so much of the MSM campaign in the UK was making one side of the argument out to be right wing supremacists or nationalist racists or having something against mainland Europeans. In reality it wasn’t true or the reasons most people voted out. As a result people are ashamed of the stigma manufactured by those networks. The EU weren't paying for footy coverage of flags, they were paying for the dissolution of a nation state so that British people would fall into line with the EU block, which seems to be based on Kalergi’s ‘Practical Idealism’. You have to take away peoples attachments to wean them onto something new. Hence the funding of academia too. 
I understand your point on American flags but, you have a dozen news networks running the good vs evil story that we’re all conditioned to, how can average American reconcile the idea that the state he pays taxes to just offed 3k + people with a false flag attack, so that a bunch of ruthless people could increase their net worth. He/she is accustomed to politicians being god believing patriots and espousing virtues which set them apart from the average man. Roughly 50% of the country voted for the president delivering the news to the public, how can they suspect him, he’s promised so many good things. Attacks on a country from an overseas threat usually unites a country too. Pearl Harbour for example. With the event of 9/11 and the news coverage fanning the flames, the fear created has the psychological effect of sending the people into hysteria, they become headless chickens and do not think clearly, they think emotionally and look to the state to save them. What I am saying is, everything is geared for the public to run with it and accept it. This is the power of propaganda and how false flags usually work. 

 

31 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

All of those effects are true, but their existence doesn't require that 9/11 was an inside job. Terrorism and other emergencies have been used by regimes all over the world as an excuse to do the same sorts of things the US government did after 9/11.


Of these emergencies all over the world, how many of them have been manufactured and how many have been genuine happenings? Somewhere near the start of this thread, page one or two, there is a whole list of such crisis, coups and all sorts that seem to have CIA, Israeli or British involvement. We know now what happened in places like Guatemala (Arbenz) or Iran (Mosedeq). At the time, a powerful media campaign suppressed and concealed a dark reality. The public just swallowed it.
 

I think what I am alleging challenges your whole view of recent history in a way. To be on my side of things you have to understand there is massive corruption and that wealthy interests fund regimes, so they can profit from conflicts that ensue and grasp the resources of these places affected. If those parties are ok with thousands or millions dying in a conflict, why would they bat an eye lid when 3k Americans die in 9/11 if there was massive potential for profit. Its the same thing, killing your troops and the citizens of another country abroad, or killing 3k people at home. Why would they care? Their belief in god? Love of their countrymen? They live in gated compounds, travel in limousines or private jets and socialise with people in their own class. They are completely detached from you or I and are often think that population is the worlds biggest problem. Thats essentially the hard thing to accept, because the average persons value set, based on morality, is very different. Of course they give lots of their ill gotten gains away via PR agencies who make sure maximum publicity surrounds monies going to charitable causes. The average person thinks, how kind. If this all sounds a bit vague or general, i’ll producing some examples. It’s a bit like old JD Rockefeller giving dimes to the poor children in front of newsmen. All for show. 

 

32 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Yes, of course! If there is any incontrovertible evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, I'd be happy to accept it, just as I'd be happy to accept the lone-nut interpretation of the JFK assassination if incontrovertible evidence existed.

The problem is that, as far as I can tell, there is no incontrovertible evidence that 9/11 was an inside job (or, for that matter, that Oswald shot JFK, with or without assistance). For example, the technical arguments that we've been given by W. Niederhut don't seem to be widely accepted by those with the technical knowledge to evaluate them. In the absence of majority expert opinion, that evidence isn't worth much to a non-expert.

One item of evidence that would be convincing is W. Niederhut's claim that "many of them [the hijackers] were known to be alive after 9/11, having miraculously survived the 9/11 plane crashes." If that's the case, then the official account must be wrong.

Unfortunately, anyone who is familiar with the JFK assassination knows that these sorts of claims invariably turn out to be rather less watertight than they are made out to be: Oswald buying trucks in New Orleans when he was actually in Minsk, for example. The result is that the person making the far-fetched claim ends up looking like a ... how shall I put it? ... unreliable source of information, and people start to doubt everything else that person says.

Could W. Niederhut tell us what the evidence is for those hijackers being alive after 9/11?

Well, that’s good, I am sure things will unfold in the next week or so as some points get made by me and others. I’ll do a little refresher on it. 

I am sure @W. Niederhut will reply himself at some stage. 

Cheers

Chris 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hi Denny,

Most of my views/concerns are further back in the thread regarding Cov19, which is becoming a long one which discusses many topics, including JFK. In short, I believe in the existence of the pathogen in question and I am pro-vaccines that are safe and work (i’ve had approximately 10). What I am seeing is the biggest financial racket of our time, combined with perhaps the most powerful coercive propaganda campaign in history. I think the direction we are taking is deeply concerning in regard to authoritarianism/technocracy. 

Thanks

Chris

Thanks for the response, Chris.

So you believe in viruses, you believe in Covid 19, you believe in vaccines, but you don't believe in the vaccines for Covid 19 and you don't believe in the precautions and preventative measures suggested for reducing exposure to Covid 19, is that correct?

I'm not sure how it is a financial racket. I was not charged any money for my Covid vaccine shot. And I'm not sure how preventative measures are considered propaganda when they seem to be in line with both science and common sense when it comes to airborne communicable viruses.

I guess my basic question is how should the vaccines and preventative measures have been presented that would have made them legitimate and believable to you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

I'm not sure how it is a financial racket. I was not charged any money for my Covid vaccine shot.

Ugh Denny, someone paid for that shot, the public, nothing is free. 

 

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

And I'm not sure how preventative measures are considered propaganda when they seem to be in line with both science and common sense when it comes to airborne communicable viruses.

You are not aware of the censorship? The CDC blocking all alternative treatments that are proven safe and effective and were cheap and widely available? Ignoring thousands of experts warning against this injection during a pandemic? The manipulation of every trial and surrounding data? Now the same people are saying vaccinated persona are spreading the disease but the only way to stop it is to get vaccinated!

I mean, imagine if the president announced a $4 billion dollar budget to propagandize the American people into thinking Oswald killed kennedy? Complete with censorship agreements to the big tech companies and financial incentives to make people sign a “belief” paper. 

I can only say that no reliable information will come from corporate media. Watch the highwire for a couple weeks and you will begin to see that. I could get into germ theory, pcr tests, spike protein pathogenicity etc... but MSM has already programmed people to not understand the importance of those issues and to not think critically. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Thanks for the response, Chris

You’re welcome. 
I am really taken aback that you’ve heard nothing about vaccine deaths, blood clots, myocarditis of spike proteins detaching. That might be a testament to the censorship and efficiency of the propaganda. 

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

So you believe in viruses, you believe in Covid 19, you believe in vaccines, but you don't believe in the vaccines for Covid 19 and you don't believe in the precautions and preventative measures suggested for reducing exposure to Covid 19, is that correct?

- Yep, I believe in pathogens. I’ve had some.

- Yep, I believe safe and effective vaccines. I’ve had some.

- Nope, I do believe in safe and effective precautions backed by bonafide science that are proven to work in the scenario they are being applied to. Of course that’s very logical. 

 

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I'm not sure how it is a financial racket. I was not charged any money for my Covid vaccine shot. And I'm not sure how preventative measures are considered propaganda when they seem to be in line with both science and common sense when it comes to airborne communicable viruses.

As aforementioned in the thread, It works the same way as wars, media & govt manufacture public consent. The tax payer pays for it and private corporations pick up the profits. Its just in this case, its even better for corporations, they have immunity from prosecution and it can go on in perpetuity, ie shots periodically and not just for this particular pathogen, it will branch into other areas too, as its all monetisable and highly profitable. 

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I guess my basic question is how should the vaccines and preventative measures have been presented that would have made them legitimate and believable to you? 

If we buy into Solon’s idea of democracy, which is rule for the people, by the people. Then we should present the case to the electorate, the risk/cost benefit, providing honest/impartial information and have a vote on which direction we are going to take to combat any perceived health threat. In contrast of you’re using coercion, propaganda, deeply psychological techniques to manipulate or deceive the public into thinking something is much more of a threat than it is, using fear as the conduit, then that’s wholly unacceptable in a democracy. (My background is in PR, this all sticks out like a sore thumb to me). 
 

As opposed to me regurgitating everything that’s been said earlier in the thread, on both sides of the argument, it would be cool if you could take a moment to read through the older posts relating to this, as much is explained. I do understand if you don’t have the inclination or appetite or time to do that. Most people are too distracted or apathetical to do so, which is the reason we’re in this situation.  That phenomena is also explained in this thread. 
 

Cheers

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

If those parties are ok with thousands or millions dying in a conflict, why would they bat an eye lid when 3k Americans die in 9/11 if there was massive potential for profit. Its the same thing, killing your troops and the citizens of another country abroad, or killing 3k people at home. Why would they care?

The PNAC types who were waiting for an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan do seem to have been the sort of people who would have happily sacrificed the thousands of people who worked in the World Trade Center. But just because they could have intentionally killed those people, doesn't mean they did kill those people.

The implausibility that I mentioned was to do with the practicality of blowing up the buildings. Placing explosives, cutting through steel joists, and whatever other noisy and disruptive activities might have been required, don't strike me as being straightforward to do without being noticed, anywhere, let alone in huge, heavily populated office blocks in downtown Manhattan.

On the other hand, making use of the helpful physical features of the book depository and Dealey Plaza in order to carry out a shooting, while having some risk of discovery, doesn't seem beyond the bounds of plausibility at all.

There were three things that led me to dismiss the notion that 9/11 was an inside job, when I first looked into it years ago:

  1. The implausibility of blowing up the buildings.
  2. The very limited amount of support among qualified engineers, architects, and so on, for the technical argument that the buildings were blown up.
  3. Preposterous-sounding claims, such as  W. Niederhut's statement that the hijackers "were known to be alive after 9/11".

By 'preposterous', I mean that if the evidence was strong enough for the fact to be "known", that evidence would surely be common knowledge by now.

To give another JFK comparison, if high-quality versions of the Darnell or Weigman films came to light which showed beyond any doubt that Oswald was standing on the TSBD steps, it would be impossible for that fact to be suppressed. Even if the mass media ignored it at first, many thousands of individuals would share the images over the internet, it would be reported in the fringe media, and eventually commentators in the mainstream media would be unable to ignore it. The same should have happened to the evidence that W. Niederhut finds convincing.

Since it isn't common knowledge that some of the hijackers lived on, the claim sounds preposterous. But I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, if someone can produce incontrovertible evidence for that claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Barnard writes:

The PNAC types who were waiting for an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan do seem to have been the sort of people who would have happily sacrificed the thousands of people who worked in the World Trade Center. But just because they could have intentionally killed those people, doesn't mean they did kill those people.

The implausibility that I mentioned was to do with the practicality of blowing up the buildings. Placing explosives, cutting through steel joists, and whatever other noisy and disruptive activities might have been required, don't strike me as being straightforward to do without being noticed, anywhere, let alone in huge, heavily populated office blocks in downtown Manhattan.

On the other hand, making use of the helpful physical features of the book depository and Dealey Plaza in order to carry out a shooting, while having some risk of discovery, doesn't seem beyond the bounds of plausibility at all.

There were three things that led me to dismiss the notion that 9/11 was an inside job, when I first looked into it years ago:

  1. The implausibility of blowing up the buildings.
  2. The very limited amount of support among qualified engineers, architects, and so on, for the technical argument that the buildings were blown up.
  3. Preposterous-sounding claims, such as  W. Niederhut's statement that the hijackers "were known to be alive after 9/11".

By 'preposterous', I mean that if the evidence was strong enough for the fact to be "known", that evidence would surely be common knowledge by now.

To give another JFK comparison, if high-quality versions of the Darnell or Weigman films came to light which showed beyond any doubt that Oswald was standing on the TSBD steps, it would be impossible for that fact to be suppressed. Even if the mass media ignored it at first, many thousands of individuals would share the images over the internet, it would be reported in the fringe media, and eventually commentators in the mainstream media would be unable to ignore it. The same should have happened to the evidence that W. Niederhut finds convincing.

Since it isn't common knowledge that some of the hijackers lived on, the claim sounds preposterous. But I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, if someone can produce incontrovertible evidence for that claim.

Morning Jeremy, 

The issue is, we don’t know how the building was brought down, the mechanics of it, unless we subscribe to the planes and jet fuel being enough. With something so startling, you’d think any diligent investigators might have tested the rubble for thermites, amongst other things. The reality was they disposed of all of that quickly. 
It looks like a controlled demolition, but, we’re also not privy to the tech that the Pentagon has in its repertoire. I wouldn’t 100% rule out something else. There is a bit of a legacy here too, with OKC, as there were multiple people involved in that and only one really took the fall. On that morning people resembling the suspects were frigging around in the basement. There is also the failed Moscow apartment bombing where (alleged) KGB guys were rumbled while laying charges in 1994. Had that been completed it would have been pinned on the Chechen’s. I would argue there is form in the US and abroad for such an act.
 

It isn’t implausible to me. But, if you’re planning something, the more far fetched it sounds, the more the public will reject the idea. People watching with their own eyes will assume its the planes that brought the towers down. God knows why they think building 7 collapsed 🙂 

 

Just touching on the SBD and Ozzie, the public were still left thinking; why didn’t he take the much easier shot as JFK was coming at him, basically unmissable. 
 

In response to the 3 points that made you think it was unlikely:

1) Regarding the plausibility, there are multiple witnesses who claimed hearing a series of explosions, including some more the first plane hit. I can dig out some videos if required. 
2) The lack of whistleblowers or experts speaking out is the easiest thing to explain. One, they’re in shock and have an emotional memory of the event, which will impede their critical thinking. Also, its social and possibly career suicide to make a public statement suggesting it was a demolition. Lastly, if you suspect an inside job, what is the consequence to you and family for speaking out. Better get that life insurance in order. If we put ourselves in their shoes, they’d need to be courageous and most people aren’t, they’d need to be willing to put their safety and security on the line for high ideals. How many politicians who liked JFK spoke out with their suspicions in the aftermath of the JFKA, not enough. Self preservation kicks in. 
3) As preposterous as it sounds, some guy in Saudi Arabia whose photo and name was attached, went to lawyers to protect himself and claim mistaken identity. A little bit like the other George Bush of the CIA did an affidavit after he was being linked with George Bush CIA memorandum. Regarding the hijackers, what W.N said is true, as far as I can verify it. 
 

Regarding Ozzie on the steps, they would have switched plans. If we talk 9/11 camera footage or video. I think I am correct in saying there is only one angle showing a plane ever so briefly. Yet, where are all of the other camera angles from surrounding buildings and from the pentagon. Its one of the most secure places on earth. Lots of images/footage was sequestered. Thats the plane that was doing 536mph, at ground level and makes a sharp 90 degree turn and manages to go through 2 or 3 walls of the Pentagon and all we get left with is a plaque asserting the serial number of the plane. The same flight 77 that a US Colonel said was actually a missile hitting the Pentagon. Its been ages since I looked at this but, how does a Boeing 757 322 or whatever it was do that speed at ground level and make a sharp right angle turn? No pilot could do it. Let alone so guys with hangovers from strip clubs who’ve had a few lessons on Cessna’s or Piper Saratoga’s. Mysterious eh? What would happen to the plane performing such a feat at ground level? 536mph at cruising altitude in thin air, fine, this was at ground level. 
 

This is about the most insidious thing and plenty of cabin crew have said this; that cell phones now work high in the sky but, in 2001 nobody could make calls from a cellular phone at cruising altitude. Where was the plane when those calls were made? 

I don’t know if you are aware but, 9/11 was the busiest day in US aviation history. Do you know why? Because the air force were carrying out aircraft hijacking anti-terror drills. Airline pilots were instructed that a terror simulation was going on and that they were to follow any instructions given to them by the military. I think, well where have we seen this coincidence before? Oh yeh, on 7/7 when London was bombed, the British government had anti-terror people carrying out drills in some of the very stations that were bombed, a minister batted it off as coincidence. It also makes me think about the whole Plumlee abort operation that seemed to be going on while JFK was shot. You may be scratching your head but, there is a really good reason if you’re performing a false flag to have a drill at the same time. The reason is that if anybody discovers your plot beforehand, you have the cover of it being a security drill. Whilst the thing is happening, the security apparatus says nobody knew what was real or the drill, you hide behind confusion.

There is something like 3.3 trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon budget during the 9/11 financial year. Its blamed on poor accounting and nobody gets fired, my jaw drops. 
 

You have this ton of insider trading on 9/11, before and during the attacks. SEC investigates and decides no prosecutions as none of the people suspected of insider trading were commented to terrorists. There was some BS about complex trading strategy. 
 

I am sure WiKi debunkers have had a bo at some of these. You’ll have to see what seems plausible. 
 

Do you think despite the fuel being hot enough to melt the strongest steel going, thAt its plausible to find a passport in the rubble, in tact? What was the passport cover made of, NASA grade asbestos? 
 

Not one bit of footage of the hijackers in the airports they allegedly passed through on the day. Miraculous. 
 

It just goes on and on... it only takes on of these things to debunk the 9/11 commission. You know Heinz Kissinger was originally picked as Executive Director of the commission. He was promptly replaced after public outcry. Then Philip Zelicow was his replacement, toward the end he was exposed for being the author of Bush’s Iraq War strategy. You just can’t make this stuff up. 
 

I have just been traveling and I am currently without WiFi but, when I get reconnected after quarantine i’ll dig out some links and video for you. There is so much to this scenario that doesn’t meet the eye.

Cheers

Chris

PS apologies for any typos, this has been rattled out quickly. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

With something so startling, you’d think any diligent investigators might have tested the rubble for thermites, amongst other things.

From my reading:  There were some citizens who collected samples of the dust at ground zero as souveniers.  Some of the "souveniers" were tested and found to have contained thermite residue.

I have a feeling you already know about that Chris.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The implausibility that I mentioned was to do with the practicality of blowing up the buildings. Placing explosives, cutting through steel joists, and whatever other noisy and disruptive activities might have been required, don't strike me as being straightforward to do without being noticed, anywhere, let alone in huge, heavily populated office blocks in downtown Manhattan.

In fact Jeremy, there was work being done on the building in the weeks preceding 9/11/01 -- some of it at night.  They were working in the areas above the ceiling and inside the elevator shafts.  I doubt anyone cut through steel joists, but it's pretty non-disruptive to apply thermite explosives and wiring using hand tools and battery operated drills.  Structures are usually designed to provide easy access for re-doing wiring and plumbing.

Edited by Paul Bacon
add a clause :>)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Ugh Denny, someone paid for that shot, the public, nothing is free.

So I should have turned it down because I wasn't charged for it? I should only accept and trust vaccines that I'm personally charged for? That doesn't make any sense. If the vaccine actually helps me not get deathly ill and/or helps me not pass along the virus to others and also costs me nothing out of pocket, I'd consider that a bargain.

22 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

The CDC blocking all alternative treatments that are proven safe and effective and were cheap and widely available?

Who has proven that they were safe and effective? Who has proven that they were safe and effective in the same time span that you believe the vaccines were proven dangerous and ineffective? How am I supposed to know who has proven that these alternative treatments were truly safe and effective?

If you know about these other treatments and somehow trust the word of those who say they had been proven safe, effective, cheap, and widely available, what is stopping you or anyone else from using those treatments?

What are these treatments that are cheap and widely available that are now no longer cheap and widely available now because of the CDC's actions?

22 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Ignoring thousands of experts warning against this injection during a pandemic?

You think we shouldn't ignore experts?

How many experts are warning against vaccines during pandemics, and how many experts are recommending vaccines during pandemics?

22 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

I could get into germ theory, pcr tests, spike protein pathogenicity etc...

When it comes to technical subjects outside my realm of knowledge, such as science, medicine, engine repair, ect., I admit that I punt to the experts because I do not believe my ignorance is the equal of their expertise. I'm curious, what is your scientific and medical background?

What does the educational institution where you learned science and medicine have to say about the Covid vaccine and whether or not it is safe and effective?

Do you have a family doctor or personal physician? Do they recommend the vaccine or warn against it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2021 at 12:49 PM, Dennis Berube said:

So healthy people who never got sick, or even people that did and recovered who have immunity, will become the enemy.

It is statements like this that cause me to question your medical and scientific expertise, Dennis.

I am definitely no expert and do not claim to be one, but even I know that people who have had a virus and recovered from it are not immune. If that were true, no one on the planet would ever get the flu more than once in their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I am really taken aback that you’ve heard nothing about vaccine deaths, blood clots, myocarditis of spike proteins detaching. That might be a testament to the censorship and efficiency of the propaganda.

I have heard of them. I have also heard anti-vaxxers claim vaccines cause Autism. I don't necessarily automatically believe everything I hear from anti-vaxxers. In fact, the virulence of their opposition to vaccines combined with their lack of medical/scientific expertise on the subject causes me to be skeptical of them more often than not.

It seems to me that this is where we reach the end of useful discussion with cited sources to back up our claims. You and Dennis appear to believe that the CDC is in on a gigantic scam, so if I cite CDC statistics, most likely they will be rejected as false propaganda. Whereas I see citing data about a current pandemic from the Center of Disease Control as appropriate. So, I will be citing the mainstream sources while stipulating that you and Dennis wholeheartedly believe that they are peddling propaganda.

As I noted in an earlier post to Dennis, in technical subjects outside my personal area of expertise, I find it reasonable to give more weight to the informed and educated opinions of experts than to my own uneducated ignorance. But I realize and acknowledge that you and Dennis will likely reject any and all information or statistics that come from either the CDC, the mainstream media, and/or the vaccine manufacturers. I will be curious to see what your sources say about the percentages.

To respond to your claims of vaccine deaths, blood clots, and myocarditis of spike proteins detaching. I'd like to know how those numbers stand up to the numbers of people not experiencing ill effects after receiving the vaccine.

Quote

...

With more than 156 million Americans fully vaccinated, nationwide, approximately 153,000 symptomatic breakthrough cases are estimated to have occurred as of last week, representing approximately 0.098% of those fully vaccinated...

...

Experts stress that no vaccine can provide 100% protection, but they are still very effective at preventing severe illness and death.

...

“The risk to fully vaccinated people is dramatically less than that to unvaccinated individuals. The occurrence of breakthrough cases is expected and, at this point, is not at a level that should raise any concerns about the performance of the currently available vaccines,” Matthew Ferrari, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at Pennsylvania State University, told ABC News.

...

Statewide in Massachusetts, state health officials report there have been at least 5,166 breakthrough infections as of July 17. More than 4,800 of these infections resulted in no hospitalization or death. A total of 80 of these breakthrough cases resulted in death, representing 0.0015% of individuals fully vaccinated -- and 272 cases resulted in hospitalization, representing 0.006% of those fully vaccinated.

...

https://abcnews.go.com/US/symptomatic-breakthrough-covid-19-infections-rare-cdc-data/story?id=79048589

-

Attached photo: Screenshot of FOX News graphic that reads

Quote

VACCINES WORK

OF 163.9 MILLION VACCINATED IN U.S.

BREAKTHROUGH HOSPITALIZATIONS

5,601

.003%

BREAKTHROUGH DEATHS

1,141

.001%

CDC

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm

cdc.JPG

Edited by Denny Zartman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

If we buy into Solon’s idea of democracy, which is rule for the people, by the people. Then we should present the case to the electorate, the risk/cost benefit, providing honest/impartial information and have a vote on which direction we are going to take to combat any perceived health threat

Is that really how we have handled the other viruses and vaccines in our past? We voted on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

From my reading:  There were some citizens who collected samples of the dust at ground zero as souveniers.  Some of the "souveniers" were tested and found to have contained thermite residue.

I have a feeling you already know about that Chris.

Thanks for your reply, Paul. Yes, I seem to remember from when I looked at this,  the deflection implied that it was the normal/expected amounts of thermites to be found in the soil of a city. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Is that really how we have handled the other viruses and vaccines in our past? We voted on it?

Hi Denny, thanks for your reply. 
 

Actually, all of this is pretty new to us in many respects concerning the governmental response. We had two pathogens, one in the 1950’s and one in the 1960’s that are absolutely comparable to the fatality % of the population (that even makes allowances for the innacurate attribution of caused of death, and we didn’t lock the world down then, or embark on the biggest propaganda campaign of fear in modern history and facilitate the biggest transferal of wealth in human history. In short, we didn’t need a vote as the response was proportionate. Do you know the % of the population that Sars Cov2 is fatal in? Do you also know how many people die in your country every day? Do you know what the biggest killers are? This is all very relevant. 
 

Thanks 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I have heard of them. I have also heard anti-vaxxers claim vaccines cause Autism. I don't necessarily automatically believe everything I hear from anti-vaxxers. In fact, the virulence of their opposition to vaccines combined with their lack of medical/scientific expertise on the subject causes me to be skeptical of them more often than not.

 

Just as you pointed out above that you don’t necessarily automatically believe everything you read from anti-vaxxers. I don’t either, I like to read, 1-2 books per week and listen to podcasts. I also don’t automatically believe everything I hear from government. Another belief is that intelligent human beings have the capacity to grasp and understand fields of study outside of their usual domain of expertise. 

Is it conceivable to you that government could be used as a mechanism for private corporations to profit? If so, what would be the circumstances and conditions required for that to happen? 

Are you conscious of how philanthropic, charitable foundations operate and are used in America and globally? ie The Rockefeller Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation etc

Are you aware that there are two companies in the world that have a monopoly in every major industry? If so, do you understand what kind of a culture that creates, as well as the to people & democracy?

I can share something with you, I felt just like this, thats these purple and green haired types screaming at the tops of their voices at authority about vaccines must be maladjusted, uneducated or resentful. MSM originally created that perception in my mind. However, when this crisis started, I not only read about the history of vaccines, and the times we’ve screwed up with their safety but, I also had time to look at the Autism argument. I went into this on the fence, after doing some reading from the CDC site and those against the CDC, I came to a rather interesting finding. The finding was that most of these people trying to fight the CDC on the MMR vaccine and allege it causes autism, aren’t actually anti-vaxxers. Most of them are pro-vaccine safety. The next question you have is; why is the media portraying them as something they are not? The argument of those alleging some vaccine or a vaccine is causing autism is very simple. All they are asking is that the government releases the data (which should be owned by the tax payer). You see around 30% of Americans haven’t had the shots in question and around 70% had. They say, show us the date and it either kills or vindicates our argument. To me that seems a very fair request, given the tax payer funded it. And it puts the situation to bed. But, the government will not release the data.
What are your conclusions? with 50% of Americans with serious underlying health conditions from childhood, is it just diet and environment thats causing it. Any idea why we have just 5 or 6 shots in the UK to give us immunities and you guys in the USA are having 69 shots or something like that now? I have probably had 10 shots, allowing for ones that covered me in the far east, middle east and south/central America. Americans are having a lot. 
 

Robert F Kennedy Jr has written and talked about this plenty, he understands the crux of the issue perfectly. It’s easy enough to find outside of MSM. 
 

7 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

It seems to me that this is where we reach the end of useful discussion with cited sources to back up our claims. You and Dennis appear to believe that the CDC is in on a gigantic scam, so if I cite CDC statistics, most likely they will be rejected as false propaganda. Whereas I see citing data about a current pandemic from the Center of Disease Control as appropriate. So, I will be citing the mainstream sources while stipulating that you and Dennis wholeheartedly believe that they are peddling propaganda.


In regard to the CDC & the WHO, as you can probably tell, Dennis and I are accusing them. So to accept their figures, which I have pointed out earlier in this thread are disingenuous, would be like us having the local fox running the enquiry into why 3 hens are missing from the hen house. It’s entirely antithetical. Or having the probable conspirators in the JFKA, being the architects of the investigation of his murder. I am sure the FBI and CIA were very useful. As I say, its antithetical. 
 

I 100% believe what I am saying, my expertise isn’t in virology. It’s in public relations and that really was why in late March 2020, I began to question what we were being fed, as the techniques used were straight out of the handbook. It doesn’t surprise me that people wouldn’t understand this, as most people are completely unaware that they are being sold products, there is zero difference between selling ideas and products, the principles and psychological techniques are the same. 

 

7 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

As I noted in an earlier post to Dennis, in technical subjects outside my personal area of expertise, I find it reasonable to give more weight to the informed and educated opinions of experts than to my own uneducated ignorance. But I realize and acknowledge that you and Dennis will likely reject any and all information or statistics that come from either the CDC, the mainstream media, and/or the vaccine manufacturers. I will be curious to see what your sources say about the percentages.

Cary Mullis - Inventor or the PCR test stated that his test is not to be used to detect viruses, as it’s wholly inaccurate for that and produced false positives. Is this one of the experts you prefer to listen to or ignore? 
 

Dr Robert Malone, inventor or the MRNA technology is telling is the MRNA vaccines are dangerous and should be pulled. He has been speaking out from the start. 
 

I don’t know how many DR’s, MD’s, PHD’s or virologists need to speak to be taken seriously. There are plenty of them, but, they’re being censored or ignored via MSM. 

To have a balanced argument, we need to look at all sides to make an informed decision. You don’t achieve that with censorship. Or propaganda. 
 

 

7 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

To respond to your claims of vaccine deaths, blood clots, and myocarditis of spike proteins detaching. I'd like to know how those numbers stand up to the numbers of people not experiencing ill effects after receiving the vaccine.

We’d like to know too, but, at present hospitals are telling us the vaccines are perfectly safe, however, the reporting is done via a ‘self reporting system’. How do you report your own death? Harvard conducted a study in 2016 on this self reporting vaccine system and decided that whatever the reported deaths or side effects caused by a vaccine, that this amount would actually be to the power of 10. So, just like in my earlier reply, this needs recording properly so that the public can have accurate date and make an informed decision. 5000 vaccine deaths were reported a month or so ago, as an expected consequence of using an experimental treatment, that skipped animal testing and only has emergency permissions granted. If you’re taking the Harvard study seriously, then the actual amount might be 50k deaths, which suddenly is a noticeable figure, namely because that means it killed more people than actual Covid during the same period. Which may or may not concern you. In short, the data is not fit for purpose and outrageously the news networks who have told us for months that the vaccines are perfectly safe, bow have the audacity to turn around and say that we always knew the vaccines would be imperfect, as they were produced in an emergency scenario. Great. 
 

Thanks

Chris

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...