Roger Waters promotes 9/11 conspiracy theories...

[JayUtah]

If I have reservations about something I am not going to pretend I do not.

Your reservations are poorly informed and ill-founded. You persist in them even after having been corrected by a recognized expert.

It's not a reflection on you.

Correct. It's a reflection on you. You are predisposed to accept conspiracy theorists regardless of their expertise, not experts regardless of their opinion. Therefore it is hypocritical of you to admonish others that the right thing to do is the opposite of what you do.

 

[Steve]

After reading Book of the New Sun, and Urth of the New Sun, I have come to recognize what makes for an unreliable narrator.

Now I know the futility of debating one.

Don't fall into the trap of letting Vixen think you agree that she, in any way, debates. on this forum.

 

[Vixen]

Matt Campbell latest:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2109195045186179286

 

[Vixen]

Your reservations are poorly informed and ill-founded. You persist in them even after having been corrected by a recognized expert.


Correct. It's a reflection on you. You are predisposed to accept conspiracy theorists regardless of their expertise, not experts regardless of their opinion. Therefore it is hypocritical of you to admonish others that the right thing to do is the opposite of what you do.

I have never admonished others. You might have noticed that I am the one who bears the brunt of angry 'haters'.

 

[JayUtah]

I have never admonished others.

False.

So before you mock, check their credentials in their subject field against your own ignorance.

You might have noticed that I am the one who bears the brunt of angry 'haters'.

No.

You are the victim only of your own bad behavior.

 

[Vixen]

Something has dragged across a submarine surface, leaving a track, yes. Nobody has claimed that submarine tracks never happen.

What evidence do you have that the track was made by a submarine?

Oh, and do you have a source for that photo and text, or is it too embarrassing for you to post here?

Sweden releases sonar images of submarine violation

Underwater tracks on seabed prove that a small submarine illegally entered Swedish waters last month, says military

www.theguardian.com

Apologies, please for your ill-founded accusations.

 

[Thermal]

In fairness, 'submarine' is not the usual term for such things. The Soviets did use Losharik and Paltus crawlers that did engage the ocean floor, and Sweden did flip out about them. So yeah, they were real, but only those unfamiliar with them called them submarines.

 

[Vixen]

In fairness, 'submarine' is not the usual term for such things. The Soviets did use Losharik and Paltus crawlers that did engage the ocean floor, and Sweden did flip out about them. So yeah, they were real, but only those unfamiliar with them called them submarines.

That is neither here nor there. Greg Bemis stated he saw them. Full stop. Is Greg Bemis a n'er-do-well or ignoramus? I don't think so. His is an expert opinion.

https://www.rmslusitania.info/remembering-gregg-bemis-greggbemis-lusitania-rmslusitania/

 

[Mojo]

Sweden releases sonar images of submarine violation

Underwater tracks on seabed prove that a small submarine illegally entered Swedish waters last month, says military

www.theguardian.com

Apologies, please for your ill-founded accusations.

That's from 2014, and says that the tracks were made "last month". It doesn't seem to support your claim about "submarine tracks" associated with the sinking of the Estonia. A 21 year gap between the events doesn't look like "military precision".

 

[Mojo]

That is neither here nor there. Greg Bemis stated he saw them. Full stop. Is Greg Bemis a n'er-do-well or ignoramus? I don't think so. His is an expert opinion.

https://www.rmslusitania.info/remembering-gregg-bemis-greggbemis-lusitania-rmslusitania/

An expert in what? He appears to have been a venture capitalist.

 

[JayUtah]

His is an expert opinion.
https://www.rmslusitania.info/remembering-gregg-bemis-greggbemis-lusitania-rmslusitania/

The link documents no expertise in submarines.

 

[Thermal]

That is neither here nor there. Greg Bemis stated he saw them. Full stop. Is Greg Bemis a n'er-do-well or ignoramus? I don't think so. His is an expert opinion.

https://www.rmslusitania.info/remembering-gregg-bemis-greggbemis-lusitania-rmslusitania/

As Mojo notes, what's neither here not there is linking to unrelated stories as proof of anything being discussed.

And had you been paying attention, I was supporting your claim, noting only that the terminology was atypical.

Can't a brother try to assist you in giving your claims some credibility without you getting all defensive? Just read, first.

 

[zooterkin]

This is not the thread to discuss the conspiracy theories related to the sinking of the Estonia. Please take the discussion to the appropriate place.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Mojo]

Matt Campbell latest:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2109195045186179286

"The Attorney General says that if the Supreme Court decides her refusal can be judicially reviewed, my case should nevertheless go no further."

I'd like to see a direct quotation from the AG to that effect.

 

[Oystein]

... In the case of Matt Campbell and 9/11, if he has 'new evidence', let's see it! I am all for transparancy.

He doesn't ,and his posse doesn't claim he does.

Here is what Appellants write in their latest written case, dated October 09, 2026:

https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/Campbell_v_AG_for_England_and_Wales_Appellant_s_written_case_a1790b33c1.pdf

17. The Appellant's hypothesis as to the cause of the collapse of the North Tower is not, and cannot be, an issue on this appeal. What the Appellant seeks is not whether to order a fresh inquest or even authority for a fresh inquest but the opportunity, available to every other litigant affected by the exercise of a statutory discretion, a chance to ask a court whether the AG's decision was lawfully made.

And a bit before that:

B. FACTS [See SFI.]
13. Three matters bear directly upon the issues on this appeal. Firstly, the application relied
not only upon the discovery of new evidence but upon insufficiency of inquiry, contending
that the inquest had not investigated the cause of the collapse of the building and therefore of
the death. Whether that contention was well founded is not a matter for this appeal.

So, they are quite explicit that no evidence, neither new nor otherwise, about what happened on 9/11 in general and, specifically, to the late Mr. Campell, plays any role at all in this current legal case to be heard before the Supreme Court this week.

Now, imagining that the SC rules in favour of Appellants and throws the case back to the District Court (I believe this is the desired outcome), the DC then gets to rule again on whether or not to reverse a decision by the AG to not reopen the inquest into Mr. Campell's death. I don't know if they can at that level throw in Truthy "evidence". If they do, none of it is going to be remotely "new". It's going to be the tired old shtick advanced formerly by AE911Truth (an organization that is now out of money, out of leadership, and essentially dead). All of that is going to be at least 14 years old, all of it will have been debunked for at least 14 years and about a week.

 

[Mojo]

He doesn't ,and his posse doesn't claim he does.

Here is what Appellants write in their latest written case, dated October 09, 2026:

https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/Campbell_v_AG_for_England_and_Wales_Appellant_s_written_case_a1790b33c1.pdf

And a bit before that:

So, they are quite explicit that no evidence, neither new nor otherwise, about what happened on 9/11 in general and, specifically, to the late Mr. Campell, plays any role at all in this current legal case to be heard before the Supreme Court this week.

Vixen is trying a bait-and-switch, using the SC hearing on the justiciability of the AG's decision to imply that there is merit in the claims about the WTC.

Whether the appeal to the SC succeeds is nothing to do with the merits of the application for judicial review, it's just deciding whether the courts can review the decision. Personally, I hope the appeal to the SC succeeds, because I think that we should be able to challenge government action through the courts if necessary, and if a valid case can be made to do so.

Now, imagining that the SC rules in favour of Appellants and throws the case back to the District Court (I believe this is the desired outcome), the DC then gets to rule again on whether or not to reverse a decision by the AG to not reopen the inquest into Mr. Campell's death.

Actually, it's the Administrative Court, a division of the High Court sitting in London. It will be heard by a panel of judges rather than a single judge, which means that it's what is known as a "divisional court", often abbreviated to "DC", but not an actual court.

 

[Vixen]

The guy is seeking justice for his brother. Give the guy closure one way or other, which is his right, as a Brit.

 

[Vixen]

Matt Campbell today:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2109557432502350058

 

[theprestige]

The guy is seeking justice for his brother. Give the guy closure one way or other, which is his right, as a Brit.

What injustice has his brother suffered, that can be redressed, but has not been?

 

[Mojo]

Here's a discussion of another recent Administrative Court judgment about justiciability:

High Court: revoking honours justiciable

“Prerogative powers such as those relating to the making of treaties, the defence of the realm, the prerogative of mercy, the grant of honours, the dissolution of Parliament and the appointment of …

administrativecourtblog.wordpress.com