Zeitgeist, 9/11, and Other Conspiracies

[Tower]

In the absence of my being there in New York City to stand with the 9/11 families, first responders and survivors, I offer the following statement in support of your goal of a new investigation into the attacks of September 11th and the NYC CAN campaign to place it on the ballot for November. <rest removed>" - rest removed from a feeware article. Harly infringing on copywrite law and a danger to this site... Punished non the less. I posted the site where it came from as proof it's free to share and infraction still remains.

Respectfully you don't know your a$$ from a hole in the ground. (Not to me but the topic at hand) Respectfully not really included.

Both Mikey and Tower have insinuated that they believe HIV/AIDS to be the product of American government labs. So... they are insane. - As a matter of fact it was an interview of the doctor who made them who claimed this... I just posted the vid and commented n it. But you call names anyway."

"My name is Mike Towerr, and I live at 1901b 14th Ave SE (basement suite round the back). If you're going to send assassins, please do it during the day when my mom works, as she gets mad when I have people over.

PS - I don't have a phone, I got it taken away after I kept texting this girl I met at my old job at the cellphone store."

Now you're just screwing with us right? You can't be this crazy. Can you?

Nope, the Freeman is the guy who shows up 5 minutes into the game. Picks up the puck, punches the goalie in the face, throws the puck into the net, and then argues, that not only should he not get a penalty, but that the goal should stand, because he never consented to the rules of the game. - assuming when you do not get it and insulting the many men and women who fight and believe in themselves is NOT productive.

Pretty much all of page 42 is insulting

Par for the course. You knowingly post lies, and lack the courage to defend them.

You're still bat-shiat crazy though.. Just in case people were wondering if I didn't think that.

Again..anyone who believes this crap is a total idiot..

Just examples from this thread... If you wish to discuss - I take offense to this type of behavior. I will discuss but if you make fun of me, post this nonsense that does not aid discussion I will not reply. Nor do I feel I have to. MODS if you feel I have not been treaed fairly or I have it is not for you to dicide as I say I am not being treated fairly and MODs should be PEACE OFFICERS of this foum and not policy/bully posters as I feel they have been.

If you wish to discuss remove/edit your recent posts BBS and I will continue. Don't and we stop. Whatever, as my life and yours goes on.

ANYONE else wish to discuss you must agree to my terms. I will no longer accept the comments that are not constructive.

[Tower]

From previously in this thread

PPSA
Conflicts with Legislation in General
73 Subject to section 74, if there is a conflict between this act and any other Act, this act prevails unless the other act contains an express provision that it, or a provision of it, applies despite the Personal Property Security Act.

This tells you plainly that this act has more power then just about anything.

Remember the post about the "PERSON" you are not a person but you have a person. Your Person is the security intrest. Your Person has A LOT of money in a bond. The taxes you pay go to this Bond. This Bond pays for everything in Canada as long as the Government believes it is good for you and good for society. Shady business.

Section Scope of Act: Security Intrests
2(1) Subject to section 4, this Act applies
(a) to every transaction that in substance creates a security interest, without reguard to its form and without reguard to the person who has title to the collateral, and
(b) without limiting paragraph (a), to a chattel mortgage, a conditional sale, a floating charge, a pledge, a trust indenture, a trust recipt, an assignment, a consignment, a lease, a trust, and a transfer of chattel paper if they secure payment or performance of an obligation.

What is a Security Interest? ( you may need definitions for this)

(a) an intrest in goods, chattel paper, a security, a document of title, an insturment, money or an intangible that secures payment of performance of an obligation, but does not include the interest of a seller who has shipped goods to a buyer under a negotiable bill of lading or its equivalent to the order of the seller or to the order of an agent of the seller, unless the parties have otherwise evidenced an intention to create or provide for a security interest in the goods, and
(b) the interest of
(i) a transferee arising from the transfer of an account or a transfer of chattle paper,
(ii) a person who delivers goods to another person under a commercial consignment, and
(iii) a lessor under a lease for a term of more than one year, whether or not the interest secures payment of performance of an obligation;

what does "intangible" mean? (remember Law Society change the definitions of english words to decieve/trick/complicate)
intangible means
(a) personal property, but does not include goods, chattle paper, a document of title, an insturment, money or a security, and
(b) a licence;

"insturment" means
(a) a bill of exchange, note or cheque within the meaning of Bills of Exchange Act (Canada),
(b) any other writing that evidences a right to paymet of money and is of a type that in the ordinary course of business is transferred by delivery with any necessary endorsement or assignment, or
(c) a letter of credit or an advice ofcredit if the letter of credit or advice of credit states on it that it must be surrendered on claiming payment under it,
but does not include
(d) chattel paper, a document of title or security, or
(e) a bond, debenture or similar document evidenced an obigation secured, in whole or in part, by a mortgage of an interest in land unless the interest being mortgaged is itself, a mortgage of land;

You will also find this:

"value" means any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract, and includes an antecedent debt or liability.

Antecedent debt is IMPORTANT - Now the definition of 'intangible'? What is your greatest intangeble asset? Think about it! Important and intangeble.

Your identity or your name? You bet! Your name is an intangible security and you have the utmost interest in it under Natural, Commercial and Common Law. Why is this so important?

Many PPSA's in Canada state something like this (Ontarios);

Except in so far as they are inconsistant with express provisions of this ACT, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant, the law relating to capacity to contract, principle and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake and other validating rules of law, shall supplement this act and shall continue to apply.

Now add this up and you have.

1. Your name is an intangible security interest.
2. The PPSA covers all transactions concerning security intrests.
3. When someone ask for your name, that is a transaction under the PPSA (stating your name in court, You just contracted with the judge)
4. That transaction is invalidated by any raud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake and other validating or invalidating rules of law.
5. You can become the secured creditor against your "person" so any debt they try to collect from that "person" they have to make sure you get paid first.
6. If you create an antecedent debt with the government and when they try to point out that you owe them money, you can point out they owed you first and to apply that debit they are claiming to your credit.
7. Any Insterment creating a duty to act or pay is a security interest. Claims meet this definition.


We may have been sold out by the Law Society and the Governing bodies but we have remedy. This is just a piece of it.

Law is only offers and Contracts. No matter how scary an offer can seem from a lawyer it is still an offer and you can refuse to contract. They may try to trick you but you can always take remedy. Instead of freaking out about what the "powers that be" have done. Use their law they have no choice but to use (they swore an oath), against them.

Debunk it

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Tower

ANYONE else wish to discuss you must agree to my terms. I will no longer accept the comments that are not constructive.

Oh **** off.

"If you won't sit here and listen to me, not argue against me and not get frustrated when I never actually answer any of your questions then I will not answer any of your questions."

Give me a break.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tower

Incorrect, you have not agreed to my offer. We (you and I) are not in contract right now, as per my agreement previously. I offered to discuss. You must agree to continue.

My agreement to discuss is implied by asking you to support your arguments. We are in discussion right now, and more than one person in this thread would like to hear your rebuttal.

So post your evidence or admit that your claims have basis in reality.

Fact is, you continually attempt to deflect the discussion because you simply can't support your claims. You know it, I know it, and every single person who is reading this thread knows it.

Or, if you can prove me wrong, post your evidence.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Tower

From previously in this thread

In response to posts centering around feeling hard done-by the comments people have left:

If you wear a paper hat at McDonalds, you're going to get orders.

[Pastiche]

The Economist throws down on conspiracy nuts:

http://www.economist.com/world/unite...most_commented

Belief in conspiracy theories can be comforting. If everything that goes wrong is the fault of a secret cabal, that relieves you of the tedious necessity of trying to understand how a complex world really works. And you can feel smug that you are smart enough to “see through” the official version of events. But widespread paranoia has drawbacks. For a start, it makes calm, rational debate rather tricky. How can you discuss the trade-offs of health-care reform, for example, with someone who thinks the government is plotting to kill grandma? It does not help, either, that politicians on both sides are willing to fan the flames. Sarah Palin calls Mr Obama’s health-care proposals “evil”. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, calls the protesters who loudly oppose them “evil-mongers”. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, calls them “un-American”.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Tower

Attorney Richard W. Stevens writes in Dial 911 and Die:

"It was the most shocking thing I learned in law school. I was studying Torts in my first year at the University of San Diego School of Law, when I came upon the case of Hartzler v. City of San Jose. In that case I discovered the secret truth: the government owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. Not only did the California courts hold to that rule, the California legislature had enacted a statute to make sure the courts couldn't change the rule."

SPECIAL NOTE TO LAWYERS AND RESEARCHERS: Dial 911 and Die provides full citations to all statutes and cases for all 54 jurisdictions referenced in the book. There is also a citation list of relevant secondary authorities. All of these legal materials are available on-line and in full-service law libraries everywhere.

Dial 911 and Die is a book that should have been written a long time ago. The enormity of the facts its author, attorney Richard Stevens, reveals is almost too much to take in. The notion that the police have no legal obligation in most instances to protect the life, property, and rights of any given individual -- while at the same time spending unthinkable amounts of time and energy attempting to deprive that individual of the means and legal right to self-defense -- puts the lie to every claim for government that statists have ever made.

L. Neil Smith,
author The Probability Broach, Pallas, and The Mitzvah (with Aaron Zelman)


So what have you been TOLD about your protection.

Stevens cites laws an cases for every state — plus Washington DC, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Canada - which reveal the same thing.

Wow, another great example of taking something completely out of context.
This is a ruling about wheter or not someone has the ability to sue the government as liable because they weren't 100% able to prevent a crime from being comitted. How exactly is that sinister?

I realize I'm not going to get an answer to this, so I'll just file it under "Reasons why Tower's arguments don't make much sense that he'll never try to show any sort of reasoning or logical support for".

You can add it to your post of heinous wrongs that have been commited against you in this thread.

[Phaneuf3]

PLEASE don't close this thread. Everyone on both sides of the 'debate' know what they're getting into when they open it up and its really good for a chuckle every now and then on my lunch break.

Plus, it would be a good idea to keep all the conspiracy stuff in one spot otherwise you'd have people starting new threads every couple weeks to show their 'new' 'evidence' that the moon landing was a hoax and was actually filmed on a sound stage on Mars.

[peter12]

So did Tower get banned?

[Resolute 14]

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by peter12

So did Tower get banned?

Well, damn.

That's the end of this thread, lol.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, damn.

That's the end of this thread, lol.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Damn.

But....but....did he consent to getting banned?
This is an outrage.....common law......common law.....you've created an injury.....you can ban my person, but not my identity....

[mikey_the_redneck]

I still can't figure out where I "have insinuated that they believe HIV/AIDS to be the product of American government labs."

I never made that claim.........

[peter12]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I still can't figure out where I "have insinuated that they believe HIV/AIDS to be the product of American government labs."

I never made that claim.........

If you didn't say it, I'm sorry. Do you believe it though?

[VladtheImpaler]

Well, if Tower is actually banned, we can select some conspiracy (say, JFK getting his head blown off, JFK having Marilyn offed, or Game 6 in 2004), and discuss its merits.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Well, if Tower is actually banned, we can select some conspiracy (say, JFK getting his head blown off, JFK having Marilyn offed, or Game 6 in 2004), and discuss its merits.

I'd be in favour of a new thread called: "Conspiracies I can believe in" . . . . . or "Conspiracies I can prove!!!" . . . . . but then Tower would be back and off we'd go.

Cowperson

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I still can't figure out where I "have insinuated that they believe HIV/AIDS to be the product of American government labs."

I never made that claim.........

Maybe not...but you certainly did say that H1N1 was manufactured/created in some sinister lab, and is no more than propoganda....so its not a huge leap to believe you would feel the same about HIV is it?

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

If you don't believe mainstream media in the U.S. spreads propaganda then you must be blind.........a prime example is swine flu.

They come up with this "deadly swine flu pandemic" that is no worse than the ordinary flu, and is not a random foreign disease like they make it sound. Swine flu was manufactured to create fear in the public, so big drug companies can offer a vaccination program that will make them billions of dollars.

Your words....words that ring so hollow it's scary. As I said then, this strain of influenza has already claimed some 50 million lives in the last 100 years, but you try and sell it as some sort of "made up drug company BS".

Just ridiculous.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Maybe not...but you certainly did say that H1N1 was manufactured/created in some sinister lab, and is no more than propoganda....so its not a huge leap to believe you would feel the same about HIV is it?

Actually Tower brought up the Austrian journalist who filed charges with the FBI over a swine flu conspiracy.......not I.
And, just going by memory here, but I dont even remember HIV being discussed in this thread. Maybe Tower alone brought it up...?

I do believe swine flu is a bunch of bogus hype, ...but that is my opinion. If you want to get in line for your shot go right ahead.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by peter12

If you didn't say it, I'm sorry. Do you believe it though?

Do I believe it? At this point, no.