Alternative Knowledge

[Scavenger]

One thing I was always baffled about is that warners always warn about dread things coming but never explain what all the warned people are assumed to do.

Usually they tell people to "wake up" and "teach the controversy".

Like, Zeitgeist literally ends with coloured lights and vague verbal gesturing that doesn't really mean anything. I think the end goal of these conspiracy theories is not to do anything, but to get people to spread them. They have no solutions, only a vague sense of ease that the world is going to hell but at least they're not unawoken sheeple. Then if the world goes to hell, they can say "I told you this would happen", and if it doesn't, they can rest on their vague paranoia that it will and they're prepared for it.

I mean, when there's a world spanning conspiracy with a group of people pulling the strings that is so powerful nobody can identify them or touch them, what can you do but act like every other Doomsday cult and just vaguely wave your arms around and say "the end is nigh"?

I mean at that point you're believing in a vengeful and irrational death god, in a business suit.

[Snarky]

I had in mind some ideas for posts in other formats, but it seems now the time for warning people is over. The inevitable economic collapse, which fringe economists have been talking about since before the one in 2008, is now under way. It's already dwarfed the one in 2008. I guess people think it's going to get better somehow. They assume that currency issuance is not a blatant fraud which ensures an ever-deepening pit of debt with no legal way to reverse it, and they certainly have no idea of the size of derivatives relative to the world economy. The people have neither the required will nor the interest to change this, so it will keep getting worse.

Meanwhile, Murica is about to explode into civil war. After martial law comes down, the citizens of the US will find themselves at war with part of one of the most technologically advanced and heavily-armed militaries on the planet. Imagine for a moment what that's like, and if you find words to describe it, let me know. (Oh, I thought of one. It'll be like Palestine, with more guns) The cause of the unrest is largely financial (amongst other things which I won't go into here), so it's not going away either.

Could we have a timeframe on this prediction? If this doesn't come to pass, at what point will you admit to having been wrong?

NATO and Russia have been making unprecedented moves of military equipment over the last few weeks, as part of NATO's undeniable positioning to invade Russia. Historically, empires collapsing (which have been invariably caused by finance by the way), have found no other way to try and save themselves than war. The US has been demonstrating this for more than a decade but apparently the world has a hearing problem. Billions of people will be dead once this is over.

Undeniable? I do deny it. I do think a conflict between Russia and NATO is a possibility, unfortunately, but again, what timeframe are you talking here?

[Danvzare]

I think the end goal of these conspiracy theories is not to do anything, but to get people to spread them.

So in other words, they're the equivalent of chain emails?
Which in turn must mean that chain emails are conspiracy theories.
Wow, things just took a turn for the paranormal.

[Khris]

Holy shit.

[Jack]

Okay, never really thought about it like that. I guess to me the information, if true, suggested its own courses of action. When you realise that the same few 200 year old banks are now practically in complete control of world finance, and collecting taxes in perpetuity from nearly every nation, well you start paying attention to finance, don't you? A little more dredging through nonsense and you realise that the economy is designed to fail and about to go off. I mean it doesn't take any belief to know what it means when costs keep rising and wages keep shrinking, right? Or I guess you still think it's going to get better somehow?

A real person who has spent time with this material, I think, is unlikely to tell you what to do, because most of us know that the behaviour of always looking to others for what to do is exactly the problem. The world will never be free until people are able to think for themselves. Power attracts the corrupt.

So what do you do? How do you stand against the will of the people with all the resources? Well, one day you realise that everything they have is pretty much all based on belief. Their pretend money is already experiencing a critical loss of confidence. Everything they own, even all the land which they could never use in 10 lifetimes, all based on belief. Our belief. All this could change in a single day if the world says enough. So the only real thing of value that they have is the tacit consent of people who have no idea what they're up to. This is why information by itself is a large part of the solution. True financial reform would turn this planet into a utopia compared to what it is now.

How much would it cost to feed the starving for a year? How much was spent propping up "too big to fail" banks against the consequences of their own actions?

Could we have a timeframe on this prediction?

No.

These things always take longer than I think they will. Really we're well into it, and have long since passed the point of no return.

You didn't hear about the post brexit crash which made 2008 look like 1987? It's not enough that the "tin foil hatters of finance" have been predicting this for years when you were gobbling up obama's green shoots? You want more? It'll be too late when CNN is allowed to tell the truth.

So apparently central banks are buying assets like crazy to make the markets look alive, but they can only do that for so long. If you kept an eye on the volume of trades as well as the trading you'd know that the markets have basically been propped up since 2008. These are life support measures and they are now failing.

Well Jack, if there truly is an Illuminati (or equivilent), than I'm sure there's nothing to worry about.
The hidden organization that secretly controls the world, will ensure all of those bad things don't happen.

They have a starving tiger by the tail.

[Snarky]

Oh dammit, I wasn't paying attention, and thought I was talking to monkey. If I had realized, I wouldn't have bothered.

I'll just point out that "at some unspecified point in the future there will be another economic crisis and/or war and it will TOTALLY confirm that I'm right about everything" is about as meaningful a prediction as a psychic's message from the spirit world that "someone in your family (or someone you used to know, or someone you met once, or someone you were a big fan of) is dead".

[Danvzare]

So what do you do? How do you stand against the will of the people with all the resources? Well, one day you realise that everything they have is pretty much all based on belief. Their pretend money is already experiencing a critical loss of confidence. Everything they own, even all the land which they could never use in 10 lifetimes, all based on belief. Our belief. All this could change in a single day if the world says enough. So the only real thing of value that they have is the tacit consent of people who have no idea what they're up to. This is why information by itself is a large part of the solution. True financial reform would turn this planet into a utopia compared to what it is now.

You do realize that everyone has always known that if we did that, then we'd be living in a Utopia. But that no one has ever been willing to do that, hence why we created all of these belief systems to get us to this stage to begin with?
We're humans! We're lucky to even have what we currently do! What you're suggesting is nothing more than an idea of what we want, but ultimately can never have due to our basic nature. It's like Star Trek fans getting along with Star Wars fans. It's purely hypothetical!
If it wasn't for all of this economical bullshit, we wouldn't even have this! This being everything you see around you, including the internet!

I'll just point out that "at some unspecified point in the future there will be another economic crisis and/or war and it will TOTALLY confirm that I'm right about everything" is about as meaningful a prediction as a psychic's message from the spirit world that "someone in your family (or someone you used to know, or someone you met once, or someone you were a big fan of) is dead".

I'm pretty sure you could have stopped at "someone in your family is dead", because everyone has a family member who is dead. You know, unless you willed yourself into existence or something.

[Mandle]

How much would it cost to feed the starving for a year?

It costs about a dollar a day donation from first world people...

BUT:

How much does it cost to actually deploy the food that was bought with said money into the regions that need it the most?

WELL, first you have to have a bunch of workers already in the region that need support, and on top of that you have to pay the shippage...

THEN...You need people at the port the food arrives at every single day just to make sure that the food isn't stolen...

THEN...You need people overseeing the people who are supposed to be at the port when the food arrives...Just to make sure they showed up for work...

THEN...You need a group of trustworthy people in a stable position of government in the starving country to oversee the entire operation and not skim the donated money for their own gains...

SO after all that...

Yeah....I want to ask as well...

How much would it cost to feed the starving for a year?

[Danvzare]

Why feed them?
Why not give them the money directly?
It would be cheaper and more effective.
But now we're getting off topic.

[Jack]

It's not another crisis. It's the same crisis, it didn't go anywhere, it didn't get any better. It got worse.

We're humans! We're lucky to even have what we currently do! What you're suggesting is nothing more than an idea of what we want, but ultimately can never have due to our basic nature. It's like Star Trek fans getting along with Star Wars fans. It's purely hypothetical!
If it wasn't for all of this economical bullshit, we wouldn't even have this! This being everything you see around you, including the internet!

I'm sorry but this is divisive BS. This is not about attempting to reach some ideal of perfect harmony with all peoples, this is about conducting world finance in a way that is not blatantly criminal and severely detrimental to its host. It's not even about fixing it that much. At this point it's more about preventing it from getting worse. All we have now is a testament of what we could have if world finance were not constantly being depleted of its capital.

SO after all that...

Yeah....I want to ask as well...

How much would it cost to feed the starving for a year?

Your plan would not only be wasteful as you have pointed out, but also collapse the local agricultural sector. How about instead we don't speculate on food in the world market so that people living on the bread line are not starved to death by people gambling in the fed's casino? Lives saved at the cost of non-productive profit. Nah. Let's think of the stupidest shit possible so that we don't have to do anything.

I didn't want to get into an argument again but here I am, arguing away. For closing I will say this: The cost and effort required of the most basic preparations is very little. Seed is wealth.

[Crimson Wizard]

So what do you do? How do you stand against the will of the people with all the resources? Well, one day you realise that everything they have is pretty much all based on belief. <...> So the only real thing of value that they have is the tacit consent of people who have no idea what they're up to. This is why information by itself is a large part of the solution.

This is where I honestly disagree. Even if they cannot explain all the problem in detail, I think most people around already know all that, at least at intuitive or emotional level. Ask anyone and they tell you that "bankers are bad", and all. The thing is that they won't know what to do then. I mean, this sincerely baffles me: you are correctly pointing out that "the behaviour of always looking to others for what to do is exactly the problem". But this logically leads to the conclusion that people who can "think for themselves" will find this information without anyones help, and for others it will be completely useless.

This is like with any issue, big or small. If you just go around spreading information, you don't achieve much. The achievement comes only with organizing people for some action. Without that you just make them disturbed for limited period of time. They then go release their energy on endless discussions, protests, outcries in the social networks, etc.
(Seriously, I can even make parallels with AGS project here...)

(E: removed couple of excessive paragraphs.)

Here is also an example of what I mean by my previous remark: you tell that "All this could change in a single day if the world says enough".
This is just another obscure phrase. What do you mean by that exactly? I am not asking for instructions here, but I am being very curious of how do you see this hypothetical event.

So far it looks to me like this "solution" would demand people to change their human nature first.

[Mandle]

How about instead we don't speculate on food in the world market so that people living on the bread line are not starved to death by people gambling in the fed's casino? Lives saved at the cost of non-productive profit.

Ah...sorry for my earlier post. I didn't realize that this is what you were talking about.

As for what you just said in the quoted section: I 100% agree and have been raving on for years to anyone who will listen that anyone who buys food product on the stock market should actually have to take ownership of said food physically before they are allowed to sell it again.

[monkey424]

We debunked [Judy Wood's] pictures and some other stuff...

Judy Wood's material has not been debunked - not by anyone here, or in the wider world. A poor understanding and misrepresentation of the evidence leads to apparent debunking. Deliberate misrepresentation of evidence and subsequent “debunking” is something that professional “debunkers” or spin-doctors do (many involved in the so-called “truth movement” it seems). What happened on 9/11 is beyond most people's comprehension. It's a bit “sci-fi” for lack of a better description, but this is better than believing in cartoon physics. The NIST report did not actually address how those towers came down because they can't explain it in terms of classical or conventional physics. Please read my last post on the topic for clarification, here.

---

I cannot resist making an observation that this thread is becoming monkey424's newsthread, rather than discussion, since apparently he avoids discussing anything himself .

Yes, I'm avoiding discussion somewhat. But I've noticed that the discussions usually avoid the specifics of what I post about and end up going off on a tangent. No one has yet addressed the anomalies I raised in my last 7/7 post.

I've read through the discussions but I don't think I have anything particular to add to the broad range of global issues that people are discussing. I prefer to stay focused on one topic at a time. The topic at the moment is false flag terrorism. I'm not interested in people's beliefs about this, that, or whatever. I intend for this thread to be more scientific. I'm interested in the things that don't add up - which evidently always seem to apply to the “official” version of recent terror events.




Link back to initial 7/7 posting

We've looked at some anomalies regarding train times and CCTV timestamps. Let's now look at some other problems with the official story. Much of the following content is related to the 7/7 Inquest held in 2011 over several months. It should be noted that the Inquest was not held to question the official narrative, however the Inquest did bring greater clarity to the facts of the event as well as new information. The Inquest transcripts are available here.


The four alleged bombers




Evidence of suicide bombers

The evidence of suicide bombers is sketchy. Initial death counts excluded the ‘bombers', with the police adding one to each of the tallies later that day so that the accused would be included in the count. It appears the ‘bombers' were blown to smithereens and body parts were hard to come by. ‘Evidence' turned up a day or two later, including Khan's torso (how did they miss that initially?) and Tanweer's backbone.

It seems the scarcity of body parts was made up for by an abundance of ID discovered at each site. Sometimes, the ID of an individual was found at more than one site - for example, Khan's ID was apparently found at all four sites! ID typically included passports, driver's licence, mobile phones, and even mobile phone insurance. Some bottles of hydrogen peroxide were also ‘found' on the Piccadilly Line (which is of course the calling-card of your modern terrorist).

There was also a substantial lack of credible witnesses to the accused being present at the explosion sites.


Lack of CCTV

This CCTV image below appears to be the last of the four together at King's Cross station. We do not see any CCTV of Khan, Tanweer or Lindsay after this; most importantly, we do not see them on or around the trains that blew up. And apart from some CCTV of Hussain lingering around King's Cross, we do not see CCTV of him on or around the bus that blew up. An article on this here.




DNA testing

The official report states that “DNA has identified the four at the four separate bombsites”. Someone's DNA being found at a scene does not prove they were there at the specific time doing the specific thing you accuse them of doing (it would be nice to corroborate with say CCTV and witnesses). That argument aside, however, I want to focus on a particular case â€" that of DNA identification for Khan. In the Inquest, forensic scientist Timothy Clayton said he received copies of DNA from a muscle sample (allegedly from Khan) as well as Khan's parents, Tika Khan and Mamida Begum. An individual's DNA can be matched to that of their biological parents. The test results indicated a positive match, however, as Clayton was just given ‘copies' of the DNA profiles, there was no independent method to confirm their origin. Such confirmation would be handy since it turns out that Mamida Begum was probably not Khan's biological mother, but rather his step-mother who happened to have the same name (Khan's real mother had died a few years earlier). An article on this here.


Type of explosives

We know that three trains and one bus blew up, however, the explosive material responsible remains unclear and was subject to a forever changing story. Initial forensic experts reported traces of a military grade explosive known as C4 found at the crime scenes along with evidence of timed detonators. This would negate the idea of suicide bombers, as this type of explosive is too advanced. The alleged explosive material quickly morphed into TATP, a highly volatile and unstable compound. The TATP story persisted for a couple of years and was then replaced in 2007 by the even more outrageous one involving some vague mixture of hydrogen peroxide and black pepper. Forensic experts at the Inquest were apparently baffled by this mysterious hitherto unheard-of mix, described as “unique” by Clifford Todd and “a novel, improvised material previously unseen by this laboratory” by Kim Simpson. It appears the peroxide + pepper mix was not exactly endorsed by the experts, and no forensic chemist to date has been able to identify the primary explosive mix.

A good read on the subject by Dr Nick Kollerstrom is here.


Reconstructing the scene

Initial reports indicating that military grade explosives were involved are more consistent with the evidence. The Tube explosions were powerful enough to rip large holes through the respective carriages, with witness testimony suggesting that the explosions came from beneath the floor. This idea is supported by the fact that many casualties lost legs and feet in the explosions.

Schematic diagrams provided by the Metropolitan Police were shown at the Inquest illustrating the position of passengers and alleged bombers at each site based on witness testimony. Consider one such diagram for Edgware Road, shown below.



Khan, the alleged suicide bomber for this site, is absent from any CCTV images or witness statements, with the exception of Daniel Biddle whose testimony places Khan in the row of seats as shown. We can only guess why no photographic evidence of the train wreckage is available. Nevertheless, the hole locations (yes, more than one hole) can be ascertained from witness statements (see annotations in the diagram). We have a rather strange scene. It seems there were probably three separate holes in the carriage (with a person falling into each one) and none of them compatible with the alleged position of Khan.

This and more detail in regards to the Edgware Road site, compiled by Dr Nick Kollerstrom, is contained in articles here, and here.

Similar detail for the others site is below:

• Aldgate
• Piccadilly Line
• Tavistock Square

Electrical experiences

A considerable number of witnesses, many from inside the carriages where bombs were meant to have gone off, reported feelings of electrocution and other phenomena suggestive of electrical activity. Statements from witnesses best describe the scene. Selected statements are below:




No post-mortems

No post-mortems were performed on the dead. Why? Isn't it customary or obligatory to perform post-mortems? Or would the examinations have revealed something that contradicts the official narrative?

Furthermore, it seems that a special room had been set up to receive the dead of the 7/7 bombings in a temporary morgue built on army land, the contract for which arrived on the contractor's desk on 6/7/2005, the day before the massacres.

[Jack]

Never thought I would be posting again so soon, but have a look at this:

You've heard about pokemon go by now, I'm sure. I barely hear about the worst terror attacks, but I sure got an earful of this game. The interesting part about it is that it requires people to go to locations on a real world map of their surroundings and take pictures of the pokemon there.

Anyway, it turns out that the company that makes it formerly produced a game where players were awarded for walking certain paths. The company having been part of google, it's obvious to see the uses google would have for such data in google maps (accurate walk time data, most obviously). The game was not very successful, but its spiritual successor is now based on a very successful franchise, and has gone viral to say the least. Already there have been... incidents resulting from people playing this game.

Now, this isn't a warning, or news really. But given the details, is it really such a stretch to consider that this may well be a thinly-veiled way to collect specific geo-tagged photographs for sale to a third party?

Google's Ingress is more than a game, its a potential data exploitation disaster

[Danvzare]

Anyway, it turns out that the company that makes it formerly produced a game where players were awarded for walking certain paths.

I already knew that!
It just goes to show how much a popular license can affect a game. As a matter of fact, from what I've heard, Ingress was a much better game than Pokemon GO.

Now, this isn't a warning, or news really. But given the details, is it really such a stretch to consider that this may well be a thinly-veiled way to collect specific geo-tagged photographs for sale to a third party?

Well I'm sure anyone with half a mind, could just use Facebook and get those photos for free. Because people take pictures of everything nowadays. But I get what you mean.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Pokemon GO has some extra stuff built into it which companies (probably Google) can use for other things.

[Crimson Wizard]

We debunked [Judy Wood's] pictures and some other stuff...

Judy Wood's material has not been debunked - not by anyone here, or in the wider world.

Lol, best course of action is to deny someone ever proved your wrong.

I will speak just for myself here, but there was at least one part of evidence you posted (I do not know whether it was Judy Wood's evidence, or your own though), that I personally addressed and explained not to be an evidence:
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51989.msg636514524#msg636514524
And here is your own reply to that:

My mistake. I wasn't sure that you'd read the right part of the dialog. I see your point now.

I accept what you're saying, i.e. Michael Ober not remembering the sound of the building hitting the ground due to being in a state of shock / confusion

So, not only I showed that certain "evidence" is not an evidence, but you even admitted it. Although you tried to shrug that off immediately as being "not a particularly strong argument on its own, but in the context of more concrete evidence <...> this little piece of information plays more of a supporting roll."

The thing is that, in my strongest opinion, that "evidence" was actually what you call "Deliberate misrepresentation". It is when the supporter of a theory takes someones words, cuts a certain piece out of context, and makes it look like an evidence supporting his/her claims. I basically just showed you that someone was deliberately forging an "evidence"; perhaps not an important one, but the sole fact is already significant. Well, you preferred to ignore that.

[Mandle]

Judy Wood's material has not been debunked - not by anyone here,

How about all those cars that she claims spontaneously burst into flames on FDR Drive but were conclusively shown to have actually been present at Ground Zero and later towed to FDR to clear the way for emergency vehicles?

I remember a bunch of us were quite able to point out these exact cars in several photos...Including a policecar with the exact same ID number...

If that's not the very definition of debunked then my dictionary must be broken...

[Scavenger]

Judy Wood's material has not been debunked - not by anyone here, or in the wider world.

Lol, best course of action is to deny someone ever proved your wrong.

Of course, the pattern is:

• Present a buttload of stuff, just keep posting it, regardless of it's veracity.
• Someone debunks one bit of it.
• Say that the other person is cherry picking arguments and ignoring the important points.
• Deny that any of it has been debunked so that your list of arguments remains big and meaty, and then post even more of them.

It's a classic manuever called Gish Galloping. The only way to beat it is to stop the conspiracy theorist from making 100000000 arguments at once. That's why they love live debates and forums. They can inundate people with walls of text that take way more effort to research and debunk than it does to just post it. Then, when everyone's tired of these walls of text, the conspiracy theorist wins. Of course Monkey424 would say that "this particular piece is more of a supporting bit of evidence" because Judy Wood has no decisive evidence. It's ALL supporting bits of evidence that, if taken out, doesn't matter. And when one bit is taken out, there still isn't decisive evidence supporting the theory. It's just a mass of anecdotes and assumptions. You'd have to go through pretty much all of it bit by bit and explain how it works, and that's just not worth it.

Because Judy Wood never gave decisive evidence that such a weapon she describes exists in the first place.

[Mandle]

Cheers to Scavenger for his Gish Galloping link to RationalWiki...

Which I then followed down their rabbit-hole of other rational debating terms until I found the universal one at the heart of all flawed theories:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bullshit

(And watch the video at the bottom of page that in just a few minutes of viewing time knocks 99% of "Alternative Knowledge" into a cocked hat!)

[Danvzare]

(And watch the video at the bottom of page that in just a few minutes of viewing time knocks 99% of "Alternative Knowledge" into a cocked hat!)

That was actually a very good video. I should recommend that to any religious fanatics I ever see.
Oh, and obviously conspiracy theorists, but I think I'd have a better chance at convincing religious fanatics that their thinking is flawed.