Journalist throws shoes at Bush

[Seth]

In response to your question,
yes? Any worldwide governing body which undermines the rights and freedoms of individuals is a step towards what the Bible teaches as the end of times. I don't know why you care...except to clarify my obvious fanatical/apocalyptic beliefs. Clarity, so there it is. I'm curious as to where you're heading with that.

My point about destroyed evidence being that things aren't necessarily what they seem. The hearings did cover the fact that evidence was destroyed, but it didn't cover the material that was destroyed, so the facts available to the public in that manner aren't all there. I'm basically trying to point out that it doesn't matter how open and public a scandal becomes, if incriminating evidence was destroyed beforehand, then justice has been tampered and the whole story(entirety of recorded facts) will never reach the public.

edit: How does your friend debunk the building 7 allegations? What about all the other eyewitnesses who heard explosions? Please, post up some articles which shakedown the 9/11 conspiracy arguments. I've read some and I wouldn't mind reading more. What did your friends have to say?

[Professor S]

Denis Praeger always says that in leiu of agreement you can have clarity. I simply wanted to clarify your opinions, as you are rarely clear when it comes to making declarative statements. Even you affirmative answer has a question mark after it.

As for building 7, she witnessed how the building was in terrible shape and was listing in parts prior to the collapse. She was in the basement for a time after the attack. Here is a site with related materials:

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

As for explosions, and witnesses to their sounds, I doubt the witnesses have that trained of ears to recognize controlled demo from blowing air pockets and failing structural supports. To say that people heard explosions that day is to state the obvious, and it doesn't prove any sort of theory. Its just more ambiguous correlative observation that has no tie to any form of conspiracy except for the one our active minds wish to invent.

Also, it takes WEEKS of preparation to set up the implosions you claim, including cutting into structural supports, stripping most of the internal facade, etc. Kind of hard to hide work like this, although I'm sure there are many explanations of mysteriously dressed anonymous workers in the building prior who worked quickly and PERFECTLY never raising any questions or alarms. There always are.

Now if there were tremendous explosions below the impact of the planes, I could see it and it could be easier to hide ina large building, but to orchestrate a controlled implosion would be impossible under the circumstances of their environment.

And steel does not melt at the temperature of jet fuel and hot fires... it loses half its structutural integrity which is more than enought to collapse a weakened structure, but I'm sure you've already read all of this and have some kind of answer for it as theorists always scramble to pick up the peices after being debunked. There always is.

This is a remarkable site for 9/11 myths:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/talk...slocation.html

As for the Pentagon...



Question 2: What do you believe the end goal of the New World Order is, if they were ever to achieve their ambitions, and how would they achieve it?

[Seth]

What do you believe the end goal of the New World Order is, if they were ever to achieve their ambitions, and how would they achieve it?

Of course, you know the answer. Reduced population. Genetic refinement. It dates back to the eugenics movement, very popular in the United States prior to the third reich. The Henry Fords and Prescott Bush's of the world are the guys who believe in this shit. You do know Prescott's banking firm was shut down because of the Trading with the Enemy Act? A lot of the Bush fortune was made on financing the Nazi military movement?
Reduced population(especially in third world countries) would free up the better part of humanity to take care of this planet, creating a better, more sustainable future for the generations to come. How would they impose this? Well, what would you call economic 'sanctions' imposed by the IMF? Have you found out how IMF policies towards debt relief and adopted policies work in countries...like in subsaharan africa? Do you believe that monsanto crops are safe for consumption? I suppose you believe that perpetuating a medical system whose doctrine only moderately includes preventative measures as opposed to prescribing pharmaceuticals is the way to go? We have Bill C-51 here in Canada which effectively shuts down holistic/alternative medicinal products. The Bush pre-emptive strike doctrine is one tiny example of military ideology being used despite scientific outcries over the repercussions. There's a reason why cancer rates are so high in north america. It's ok to feed kids happy meals on a day to day basis(lots of families can't afford better) yet you'll get a jail sentence for simple possession of weed. There's a lot of ways to achieve tighter control. It's not just population reduction, that's merely one step in 'their' ambitions. An EU style of world government is the most effective way to stifle discent. I'm saying that the reality around us is largely constructed to keep money with the rich and reduce the power of the people to spur actual change. I suppose you believe your dentist when he says fluoride is a must to prevent cavities. You know Toronto's had fluoride for years in the city water yet their cavities/per person is way higher than Vancouver which doesn't add fluoride. Joseph Goebbels had some interesting things to say about adding the chemical to the populations drinking water in order to placate the people and extinguish free thinking. Instead of asking me this, how about you read the power elite playbook series of articles from that website i mentioned. I think there's something like 19 in total now, so there's a bit of reading.

another example, what gave the US the right to use chemical warfare in Cambodia and Vietnam? The idea was to destroy the ability to grow food. and I mention the US because they dropped the most agent orange(supplied by monsanto) than any other country. A majority of food in your local supermarkets is GMO. Churchill was still all for using chemical weapons even after WW1. Do you think it's beyond 'them' to use chemical warfare as a means to reduce populations? blah, yeah I believe that there is little regard for human life within the inner workings of governments throughout the world, either enemy life or that of the nation's peoples. They condembed Japan for it's brutality and disregard for the Geneva Code, yet the west can act with a double standard. better stop here.

[Bond]

Why are we limiting ourselves to American conspiracy theories? What about Russia? China? India? Pakistan? Great Britain? Canada?

Edit: And on the Bible front, it can't be forgotten that the Bible was a text written for its time, and written for one (transforming into two) people. Its moral lessons can be extrapolated to today, but its historical implications cannot.

[Seth]

Bond, what's been mentioned in this thread is only a slice of the big picture. It has nothing to do with America 'solely'. It's a world conspiracy and you should read up on it more, if only to familiarize yourself with what's being 'exposed'.

Bond, I don't think you're all that acquainted with the Bible. The Tora(old testament) was written for the nation of Israel, but it holds relevance today. The Tora is needed to understand the New Testament. Both of which have very much to do with world events, happening on a chronologically through history. I don't want to come off as flippant, I'm only pointing out that the Bible is mainly concerned in awareness of the past, present, and future. If you begin to read the New Testament you'll find that it wasn't written for 'one people' but for the whole world. "jews and gentiles alike" Once you get past the discrediting theories(they've been thoroughly refuted) which suggest Jesus is merely a collaboration of combined cultural folklore, or the theories that suggest he didn't exist at all, you'll find that it fits perfectly within a historical context of world events. In actuality, the Bible is the biggest conspiracy theory out there. Even with all the world religions(and conflicting beliefs within 'christendom') it still makes complete and utter sense. Most people know about religion through popular culture, or even through sunday sermons, which more often than not distorts the truth and only serves as a discredit to the validity of what is actually found within the Bible. I picked a Bible up about a year ago(for the first time in a long long time) and it changed my life completely. I've never been in this state of continual joy until I found the answers I was looking for in the Bible. It's all a highly sensitive subject so, well, I don't want to offend anyone. If you want to know why the early followers of Christ were persecuted in the Colloseum and then why Constantine created a church state, well it's all predicted within the Bible, and it continues to explain the world we're living in now.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Seth

Bond, I don't think you're all that acquainted with the Bible. The Tora(old testament) was written for the nation of Israel, but it holds relevance today. The Tora is needed to understand the New Testament. Both of which have very much to do with world events, happening on a chronologically through history. I don't want to come off as flippant, I'm only pointing out that the Bible is mainly concerned in awareness of the past, present, and future. If you begin to read the New Testament you'll find that it wasn't written for 'one people' but for the whole world. "jews and gentiles alike" Once you get past the discrediting theories(they've been thoroughly refuted) which suggest Jesus is merely a collaboration of combined cultural folklore, or the theories that suggest he didn't exist at all, you'll find that it fits perfectly within a historical context of world events. In actuality, the Bible is the biggest conspiracy theory out there. Even with all the world religions(and conflicting beliefs within 'christendom') it still makes complete and utter sense. Most people know about religion through popular culture, or even through sunday sermons, which more often than not distorts the truth and only serves as a discredit to the validity of what is actually found within the Bible. I picked a Bible up about a year ago(for the first time in a long long time) and it changed my life completely. I've never been in this state of continual joy until I found the answers I was looking for in the Bible. It's all a highly sensitive subject so, well, I don't want to offend anyone. If you want to know why the early followers of Christ were persecuted in the Colloseum and then why Constantine created a church state, well it's all predicted within the Bible, and it continues to explain the world we're living in now.

Actually, I am. In fact, I've studied religion since my freshman year in high school, and continue to in college.

It's interesting that you've accused myself and Professor of not being "acquainted" with the Bible, but we have never accused you of this.

I'm not even going to touch this discussion with a ten foot pole.

[Seth]

Why I threw that at Prof was because of his Obama/antichrist thing.
And I said the same about you because you said it's historical implications can't be applied to today. How much time have you spent actually reading the Bible?
You're right though, that was rude of me and based solely on one post of yours.
If you'll explain to me what you mean when you say the Bible doesn't have historical implications then I promise to be less accusatory and ignorant with my comments.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Seth

Why I threw that at Prof was because of his Obama/antichrist thing.

Its called sarcasm, or are sarcastic responses a part of the conspiracy?

Once again you quote series of questionable statements and "facts" that even if true have not been proven to be related to one another. MORE CORRELATION, ZERO PROOF OF CONSPIRACY.

And Seth, I think you apply far reaching clandestine operations to situations that are more a result of needing to pander to get re-elected or simply profiteering.

You statements about healthcare are an excellent example: There is no profit it preventative medicine, at least not as much profit as in pharmacy. Add to that incredible overhead for preventative medicine caused by malpractice law (more profiterring and political pandering to the lawyers) and you have a shortage of doctors in many western states, much less thrid world nations.

Also, people don't like going to the doctor, and they like drugs and quick fixes. Healthy diets and excercise would solve most of the problems, and there is plenty of pushing for these within the government, but people would rather take a pill.

Also, its far CHEAPER and HEALTHIER to cook meals for your family than to buy fast food. Its not about cost, its about time and knowledge. You could make an argument that the weakening of the traditional family and gender roles after the Great Depression had a role in this, but instead its a vast conspiracy, right?

Please explain flouride's effect on the populace. You made a statement about drugging a populace, how does flouride drug us? Specifically, what are its effects? Also, when water began to be flouridated, were those who made the decision aware of these ill effects? We used to use DDT, too. Are there any historical studies that prove the harmful nature of flouride?

Couldn't all of these statements helping to back your theory be better explained through simpler means based on human nature and not some convoluted and unlikely cabal of world elites?

[b]Question 3: Who makes up the global elite that are heading up this vast conspiracy? Please be specific. How do they orchestrate this massive conspiracy so quietly and speedily?

[Seth]

I just assumed you were using sarcasm in replace of any biblical knowledge pertaining to the subject.

In response to your pharmaceutical statements, of course it's profit driven, my point being, if they'll pass legislation on cocaine, marijuana, etc, but still push amphetamines over the counter, where's the concern for general health. People will always self destruct through diet and shitty lifestyle. I'm saying that doctors give out drugs that kill people more than car accidents. ... profiteering runs a lot of the show, hands down yes. I just don't believe it ends in the balance books. As far as cooking food being cheaper, well a lot of single moms work two/three jobs and don't have the time/education. If it's store bought food being cooked then chances are it's been processed, effectively killing the beneficial enzymes and nutrients which help keep the body's pH at a proper level. If it's fresh veggies, well organic is expensive...and many families just can't afford it. The alternative to fresh organic produce? You're right, it is time and awareness. It's GMO(the most heavily sprayed food) so most think they're giving their kids healthy carrots and cucumbers but really it isn't.The more research about what is actually healthy, you'll find that unless one is growing their own food or has the resources to buy organic, it doesn't matter how many saunas and exercise sessions one does, the body will deteriorate badly. I know you said yeah, shaking down of traditional family unit...of course it's a conspiracy instead of...well Richard Rockefeller said it himself that one of the goals after feminism was to get kids into preschools at an earlier age. Give them a good shot of hitler youth experience. Sounds severe but institutionalization of children's upbringing is one and the same. I think we agree for the most part that a lot of the negative things in society, like malnutrition, poor education, breakup of the traditional family, is all rooted in profit and greed. I just believe that these are allowed to continue by the politicians that 'we' elect into power. 20 years ago the conservative government in Canada promised that they would eliminate child poverty. During that conservative lead parliament childhood poverty actually increased and it turns out they didn't do a thing as far as investment goes to fulfill their election promise. In fact, Mulroney was best known for consolidating more money with big corp. Canadians went liberal for a long time after. It goes farther then financial payouts to politicians. It's safety for them and the people they care about. Not just money.
How about you look up on fluoride, the scientific studies which draw a correlation between the chemical and nervous system damage. I did a quick search on google 'research that correlates fluoride with nervous system damage'. Here's the first link to pop up. It looks like it's sourcing studies.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/
You're right about DDT, asbestos, etc. Unfortunately, fluoride was being used in Nazi Germany, where the detrimental effects were first found...THEN it became popular in America to have it in the water supply.
\another similar quick search on google regarding a link between autism and vaccines,, http://www.autismwebsite.com/ARI/vac...references.htm
It hurts to think that it's even a possibility but more evidence is suggesting that the ever increasing rate of autism has an origin in the ever increasing use of vaccines...especially as vaccines are becoming required by law in certain states.

Question 3 Who makes up the global elite that are heading up this vast conspiracy? Please be specific. How do they orchestrate this massive conspiracy so quietly and speedily?

my short short, somewhat specific answer: Refer to the stock market crash that followed immediately after Waterloo. Rothschilds bought out the market for hardly a thing and it rebounded after basically giving that family control of Britain. The reason the market crashed is because a Rothschild agent got the news to britain that Napoleon had won, when in fact the French got their asses handed to them. Central bank family's like the Rockefellers. Like i mentioned a long time ago, the federal reserve has only existed since 1913. Private banking firms owning, creating, manipulating the money which supposedly belongs to the tax payers. People with ties to monetary gain, to the point where their corporate holdings 'require' them to keep a majority of the third world in poverty. I've directed you to reading those articles and I'd prefer that, and have you bring up rebuttals cuz that's where the answers are to a lot of this.

to add, about it being a massive conspiracy happening quietly and speedily...well it's something that's been happening for a long long time. Up until now conditions haven't been in place for the dissolvement of national sovereignty, coupled with the level of technology only now available to this central power. But seriously, read those Power Elite Playbook articles, then do the socratic dialogue with me.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

[Bond]

Perhaps the scope of this discussion should be limited... it's gotten a little out-of-hand.

[mickydaniels]

I just wish there were paragraphs in Seth's replies. And the posting of more conspiracies, particularly the biblical ones.

[Dylflon]

Thanks for the link, Prof.


Though it doesn't seem to settle my concerns about the occupation. If I understand correctly, the US has "legal" right to force because Iraq didn't hold to a cease fire agreement set in 1991.

What concerns me however it the pretext under which US Forces went into the country. If I remember correctly there were a series of different excuses that changed as the conflict went on. I can't remember if it started with Iraqi ties to Al Quaeda or with the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Though both of these claims were used as the main excuse for invasion at different times. After both of them were proven to be baseless, the reason then became liberation of Iraqi people. I'm not saying that this was not an intention all along, more that it wasn't the main reason for occupation covered in the media. And even then the irony is that it's hard to feel liberated as a people when you have foreign occupants in your country.

Since it was not directly attacked by Iraq the United States did not have an obvious right to self-defense. The administration, though, argued that it had a right to defend itself preemptively against a future possible attack. In his speech to the United Nations on September 12, 2002, President Bush described Saddam Hussein's regime as "a grave and gathering danger," detailed that regime's persistent efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and spoke of an "outlaw regime" providing such weapons to terrorists.

If we're working under the idea of self defense then the argument is really in the vein of a "It's coming right for us" shoot first, ask later mentality. Because potentially you could label any country as a potential future threat but this should not be grounds for occupation.


And if I was going to talk about Guantanamo I wouldn't so much be concerned about the imprisonment of enemy combatants as I would be about the abduction and incarceration of people within your own country with no trial.




I've found nothing yet to sway me away from the feeling that the whole affair smacks of illegality. And what really concerns me is that as a super power, the US should be the country leading by example, not bending rules and operating wthin grey areas.

[Bond]

I know this post was directed toward Professor, but I would like to jump in here with a few points. At the time of the invasion I was an ardent supporter. Since then, my support has waned, but I still do think a case can be made.

Originally Posted by Dylflon

What concerns me however it the pretext under which US Forces went into the country. If I remember correctly there were a series of different excuses that changed as the conflict went on. I can't remember if it started with Iraqi ties to Al Quaeda or with the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The public reasoning that the Administration put forth during the lead-up to the Iraq war was, in retrospect, mostly inaccurate, yes. However, the intelligence agencies of France, Great Britain, and the United States, all believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. So, did the Administration "lie" to the American people? Perhaps. It is also possible they believed this intelligence (they had no reason not to), and that it was their primary motivation for going to war.

Personally, I don't think the threat of weapons of mass destruction was their primary motivation for war, but it was the easiest to sell to the American people. I find the primary motivations to go to war with Iraq were two-fold: 1) To establish greater long-term stability within the Middle East and 2) To secure oil.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, there were two democracies in the Middle East: Afghanistan and Israel. This kind of situation does not bread stability. The Middle East is a part of the world with a long and storied history of conflict and hatred. It is also a strategically important part of the globe. This is why it becomes America's interest to stabilize the region. Let's look at the map:



It is interesting to note that Iran is now sandwiched between two democracies.

Though both of these claims were used as the main excuse for invasion at different times. After both of them were proven to be baseless, the reason then became liberation of Iraqi people. I'm not saying that this was not an intention all along, more that it wasn't the main reason for occupation covered in the media. And even then the irony is that it's hard to feel liberated as a people when you have foreign occupants in your country.

For the accuracy of claims made pre-war, I would refer you to this document by the Council on Foreign Relations:

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?

Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. The question of Iraq’s link to terrorism grew more urgent with Saddam’s suspected determination to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which Bush administration officials feared he might share with terrorists who could launch devastating attacks against the United States.

Was Saddam involved in the September 11 attacks?

There is no hard evidence linking Saddam to the attacks, and Iraq denies involvement. Many commentators have noted that Baghdad failed to express sympathy for the United States after the attacks.

Does Iraq have ties with al-Qaeda?

The Bush administration insists that hatred of America has driven the two closer together, although many experts say there’s no solid proof of such links and argue that the Islamist al-Qaeda and Saddam’s secular dictatorship would be unlikely allies.

Has Iraq ever used weapons of mass destruction?

Yes. In the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, Iraqi troops repeatedly used poison gas, including mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin, against Iranian soldiers. Iranian officials have also accused Iraq of dropping mustard-gas bombs on Iranian villages. Human Rights Watch reports that Iraq frequently used nerve agents and mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds living in the country’s north. In March 1988, Saddam’s forces reportedly killed thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the town of Halabja with chemical weapons.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations

If we're working under the idea of self defense then the argument is really in the vein of a "It's coming right for us" shoot first, ask later mentality. Because potentially you could label any country as a potential future threat but this should not be grounds for occupation.

Well, the war was certainly not fought for the short-term stability of the United States. Iraq posed no imminent threat to our country, although it may have posed an imminent threat to Israel (another issue). The war was in the interest of long-term stability in the Middle East, and in turn benefiting the long-term stability of the United States.

[Seth]

Minimum wage: Much better than the REAL slave wages of the turn of century tenements, that was well after you claim all of this began. Also, less than two percent of our population work for minimum wage, and most of them are part time. Also, if there is a conspiracy, why is minimum wage being raised over the next few years?

If you look at the industrial revolution, and how it restructured society, I think you'll find that the dawn of the 'middle class' is something unique to only a few decades as well as only a select few western countries. The more recent growth of the middle class in countries such as India and China can't be compared to that of the western world because the rise of the middle class in said countries has only been made possible by the further impoverishment of the majority of citizens. Broaden this outlook and you'll find that the middle class in America, Canada, Japan and Europe has been made possible by the increasing rate of poverty in most of the world. I'm saying that a ridiculously small percentage of the world's population has been able to live within the standards of the middle class while most have been kept in poverty. Minimum wage is being raised because of normal inflation rates. And, to say that minimum wage is increasing doesn't reflect what is occurring elsewhere. It wasn't too long ago that in BC they introduced a 6$/hour starting wage. Increased costs of living have required a basic minimum wage raise, but with the illegal immigrant influx into your country, minimum wage for non-citizens won't increase because they have no political 'merit'. They're illegal immigrants, taking the shitjobs which deliver an obscenely low wage.....and at the same time it's a rich wage if you compare it to the country just south of yours. And if you include the population that works for slightly higher than minimum wage, full time, you'd find that it includes a rather substantial percentage of workers in America. When you combine income tax(which in the united states fuels the war efforts more than anything else) to the already low wages available it helps establish an environment that isn't 'slavery' but it's pretty darn close. Over 500 000 jobs were lost this last November in America. Think about where this is heading in terms of quality of life, overall wage decreases, etc. Economic analysts are predicting upwards of a million lost jobs/month in this new year......

World population and quality of life: Ok, Africa is a mess... what about the rest of the world? Why do you ignore anything that discredits your argument? You still haven't done anything to disprove the OBVIOUS statements I've made.

I shouldn't have to hold your hand and lead you along the train of thought which leads to...the rest of the world outside of Africa. MEXICO, which is right below you, is in a huge mess. There's no work. The money that could be made in agriculture isn't being distributed to local workers because most of the main crop production is now owned by big agri corporations. I just listened to an hour long special on CBC yesterday about how the quality of life continues to decline since the 1994 recession and the onslaught of 'free trade' legislation. Mexico does have a 'decent' middle class, but it's nowhere near the levels of a first world country such as Canada. If we were to travel farther south, you'd find that all the other Latin American countries are experiencing the same phenomenon only worse in most cases. Should we look at Asia? I shouldn't have to point out that just because life expectency is higher in the other continents, quality of life in general is nowhere near the levels that you seem to assume.

If I'm "oblivious" to the truth, then why have you not been able to explain how this conspiracy has failed in terms of population and standard of living? You claim that wealth is not evening out, but thats information from the past decade... what about comparatively over the last 100 to 200 years? You claim this conspiracy is old, and I hold you to that. Once again, this conspiracy fails miserably. If anything, this New World Order would have better met their goals if they kept with the Old World Order.

Again, I think you're ignoring the reality which resides outside your American border. Comparitively, the last 100-200 years has been an era of empires and colonialization which has only brought 'relative wealth' to a select few. We could take a look at the systematic destruction of native culture in every corner of the globe, but that wouldn't have anything to do with the topic of 'conspiracy theories' could it? or could it? and don't try to blame it solely on religious institutions. Religious groups(catholic and protestant alike) were allowed to abuse the native population here in Canada, with government knowledge. I'm not saying the hundreds, thousands of cases of abuse towards natives was completely known to elected officials, but the idealogy of reformed culture was what drove this movement...and this was going on less than 50 years ago! one small example of the new environment being handed out. This falls into the greater conspiracy which involves the religious powers of this world, which I'll elaborate on.

Vaccines: I never said that the vaccines would develop bacteria, I said they would spoil, and they likely would. There are all kinds of chances for them to be contaminated. As for the preservative, its been removed from children's vaccines because thats the only group where there is EVIDENCE that there MIGHT be a detrimental effect. Persoanlly, I think there is a bad effect, but its yet to be PROVEN. As for vaccines no saving lives, thats absurd. I'll agree that hepatitis vaccines are not necessary for much of the DEVEOPED world, but in places like Africa and Mexico Hep A is a definitve threat and Hep B is 100+ times more communicable than AIDS.

I didn't say vaccines don't save lives. I'm talking about required flu vaccinations. This is being legislated in your country. And child vaccines do still contain trace amounts of thimerosal.

Approximately 12 out of the 18 vaccine doses the average American child receives before the age of two contain Thimerosal. Cumulatively, that's more than 200 micrograms of mercury, which would fit on the head of a pin.
According to the EPA, dropping that pin-head of mercury into 23 gallons of water would make it unsafe for human consumption.

Dr. Jane Siegel is a professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern in Dallas. For the past five years, Siegel has sat on the government vaccine committee that decides which vaccines are mandatory for children.
"I believe there is no data thus far that's been looked at to prove that there's a connection - that there's a causitive relationship," Siegel said.
But just two years ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did conduct a study, which showed that three-month-old babies exposed to just 63 micrograms of mercury - less than half of the aforementioned pin top - were two-and-a-half times more likely to develop autism.
The study is stamped "Confidential" and "Do Not Copy or Release." Siegel says it was never made public because it was just a draft.

But once again, if there is a conspiracy, how does any of this help achieve it? How does flouride help the NWO control people? How does the vaccine preservative? By creating autism (if true)? How does any of this achieve the goals you've said the NWO has?

I just assumed that you'd make the connection between lowered IQ levels and the ability to manipulate people of reduced intellect. THAT'S HOW FLUORIDE PLAYS A ROLE. THE KNOWN EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE WERE KNOWN TO NAZI PROPAGANDA SCIENTISTS AND HAS BEEN CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AS A USEFUL AGENT IN COMPLACING A SOCIETY. If you damage the developing minds of the people, induced autism for example, then you're ridding the nation of freethinking individuals who have the capacity to stand up against lies and deceit.

And nano-technology? In vaccines? Really?

You should read up on nanotechnology. Also, acquaint yourself with the verichip technology which is already in wide use as of today. It's on all the newly issued credit cards and passports. It can pinpoint the holder's geographic position within meters. Already some corporations in America are requiring implanted chips in their employees. I'm not drawing any correlation between this chip technology and the mark of the beast found within the Bible. I believe it's merely another technology that can be used to control the population. Nanotechnology has the potential to be used in an 'unhelpful' fashion. I believe there is substantial evidence to suggest that it isn't beyond legistlators to impose laws which jeopardize people's safety.

Sun screen was developed by THE MAN??? REALLY???? It couldn't been that in the 40's and 50's our standard of living grew, vacations became more common and with the development of the affordable CAR travel to BEACHES became more popular? It couldn't have been SUN BURN?????? As for Vitamin D, if its part of the conspiracy, WHY DO WE PUT IT IN MILK???? Or is that really nanobots?
For the record, my dad worked out in the sun with no sunscreen all his life, and at age sixty he started going to the dermatologist to have melanoma's removed every 6 months. He's done this every six months for the last 8 years. His skin is do thin in the exposed areas he'll often start bleeding fr no reason when the weather is dry. Please don't make anymore statements like these about sunscreen...

First of all, I'm sorry to hear that about your dad. However, I don't see it as reason enough to not talk about the detrimental effects of sunscreen. If you read my previous statement you'd find that I'm not saying that prolonged exposure to harmful UV rays is without risk. What I'm saying is that an industry has been created which not only is unhealthy, it is a valid danger to those most vulnerable among us...children. What about prior to the 50's, before the influx of migration towards urban centers, when farmers did there thing day in and day out. Exposure to the sun has been around as long as us humans...duh. Fun days at the beach isn't the answer. Of course sunburns increase the chance of developing melanoma. But, when you directly inhibit the bodies ability to produce vitamin D then you are allowing cancer to spread more easily. IT'S A FACT. It's a fact that Canada has some of the highest cancer rates in the world. Did you know that well over 80% of canadians are vitamin D deficient in the winter months? There's a reason why I take vit D suppliments. And it has nothing to do with conspiracies, putting vit D in milk. The body needs vit D to assimulate calcium. Another example of harmful industries, look at the dairy industry. Over and over we've all seen the "be healthy, drink milk" adds funded by the dairy industry. Dairy milk(unless coming from non-gmo fed, non-hormone injected, organic cattle) then it is harmful and will certainly contribute to the overall inability of the body to fight cancer. I'll get into a health debate with you if you want, but I can pull sources all day that discredit the dairy industry's assertations that milk is actually a healthy source of calcium. All the calcium that anybody needs can be gained from eating a proper amount of green leafy vegetables. This brings me back to my point,,, the body needs certain levels of vitamin D to maintain a strong skeletal system. The body produces vit D naturally when sun exposure occurs. However, sunscreen effectively stops the bodies transfer of sunlight into vit D. This is a fact and I have no idea how you came up with your last sentence in regards to vit D being part of a conspiracy. It's just another example that I put forward to show that a healthy society, living long lives free of pharmaceutical intervention is hardly in the 'MAN's' interests. From what the most recent studies are showing, Vitamin D could be the single most easy way of decreasing the chances of one developing cancer. money money monnnnnay
Should I point out the inflated chemotherapy industry...which I would compare to the oil industry in that there's a purposefully inflated need. Did you know chemo treatments rake in huge profits? also, chemo treatment is becoming more and more expensive. If people went the holistic route of health, in the prevention AND treatment of cancer, then more would see chemotherapy for what it truly is, an industry created to treat an extenuated problem. Maybe if people would wake up to the detrimental affects of sunscreen then there would be a little less cancer in the world. NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD GO BAKE IN THE SUN ALL DAY! Common sense says not to slather on a bunch of harmful chemicals over my permeable skin..common sense also would have me cover up my skin with a light, breathable material as a way to avoid skin damage. And just to say, I have two uncles, two aunties, and a grandfather who developed skin cancer so it's not like I haven't been affected by the issue.

And Aids in Africa? Its a drop is the bucket is terms of causes of death. Water born illnesses have a far larger body count than Aids does, including Hep A that I talked about earlier.

Yep, but there's no money to improve infrastructure to inhibit the spread of water born disease. Why is there no money for infrastructure improvement? You can, justifiably, point your finger at the IMF and it's continued use of debt relief policies which continue to cripple developing country's abilities to move forward in positive progress.

ONCE AGAIN: WHARE IS THE SMOKING GUN? WHERE IS ANYTHING THAT TIES TOGETHER THIS CONSPIRACY YOU CLAIM EXISTS. YOU KEEP RAMBLING ON ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS, SOME VALID, MOST NONSENSICAL, BUT AT NO POINT DO YOU SUPPORT ANY OF YOUR CONSPIRACY CLAIMS.

If you want to keep responding to my questions, you're welcome to, but at some point I'd think you'd like to keep some of these beliefs tightly under wraps...

Are you looking for written evidence which would indict a group, or individual with ties to the NWO? Pretty hard to find documented evidence tying this all together, that's why it's a conspiracy and the majority of people aren't familiar with its claims. There's evidence all around of the power structure which controls political and economic movement in our world. You just have to open your eyes and identify the hypocrisy for what it is. I can't do that for you. I'd just like to add that I don't understand your last sentence. Why should I keep it under wraps?


mickydaniels:

I just wish there were paragraphs in Seth's replies. And the posting of more conspiracies, particularly the biblical ones.

I'll work on the paragraph's.
Daniel and Revelation are the two primary books of the Bible dealing with end time prophecy. Basically, Daniel points out the four major kingdoms that have ruled up til now. Starting with Babylon, then Medo-Persia, Greece, and finally Pagan Rome. It identifies the Papal power and it's role in the end times. In Daniel a 2300 year prophecy is given which scholarly validates the truth of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, as well as tying it into a linear timeline which tells of the future events that will lead up to the return of God to this planet. The Book of Revelation further explains the end times and identifies the antichrist, the remnant of true believers, and what will happen to both. It's the biggest conspiracy you could ever imagine. I'll diverge further, I'll probably make another thread about it if there's enough interest. I guess it would be called a Bible study so if any of you are up for that then I'd love to.

[Fox 6]

Round 2, huh.