RT

The irony is that he's in no way qualified to be a political or media commentator, and yet there he was doing just that.

And that's unusual how? Fox News does it all the time, RT are no strangers to doing that either.

Yes, they always have Nigel Farage on.

I didn't say how usual it was. But holding that company with that practice isn't a good sign.

On one of those rare occasions where Piers Morgan isn't as much of an idiot than RT presenter Afshin Rattansi in an interview with GMB last week.

While I do have an open mind about this, all I'm going to say is that thinking this conspiracy through rationally - Government wants to blame Russia, develops this plan in secret, makes sure all the investigators are in on it - and no-one involved thought "Porton Down is only 10 miles away, it'll look a bit suspicious"

You mean like basically every conspiracy theory ever? The powers-that-be are so good at their jobs that nobody ever speaks, leaks or otherwise presents any verifiable proof, but inept enough that every YouTuber under the sun can spot the mistakes.

It's the same thinking that makes it impossible for the CIA, while working out how to destroy the Twin Towers, to have actually motivated some Arabs who hate the US to actually hijack some planes and crash them. Instead we get all these ideas about mini-nukes, holographic projections and planted evidence at the sites because, somehow, that seems more likely to these people.

I don’t think those that think ( I’m not personally a subscriber to the idea) Porton Down had a connection with the incident think it was a deliberate act by PD, but rather something more like infiltration.

My first thought was that it could be an accidental thing and there's someone at Porton Down who popped out for a pizza at lunchtime the other week who's now feeling rather embarrassed and nervous

Whilst I don't believe 9/11 alternative explanations like mini-nukes and holographic projections, I, along with a significant amount of the population, began to lose trust in mainstream media over incidents like 9/11 because they weren't asking the questions of the officials that I was reading online. Asking a question doesn't kill anyone so why didn't they just ask?

I could very well be wrong - everything about 9/11 could be entirely true and accurate and thorough with no details of consequence left out - just as with the Russian case ongoing at the moment.

PS. I have no intention of turning this into a conspiracy theory thread with this input but why would the Ruskies choose such an elaborate way to kill this particular enemy in the almost certain knowledge it would cause a diplomatic incident but selecta more standard way to kill this one (if indeed it was them at all on both or either).

You mean like Alex Jones in one of the initial press conferences after the Boston Marathon bombing demanding to know why the Government had killed those people? He then went on to use their refusal to answer that question as proof, to his followers, that it was (another) false flag.

There's only so many times you can answer "why did you demolish that building with explosives?" with "we didn't" before you have to move on without pleasing anyone.



Used A Fish Called Wanda as a training manual perhaps?

Whether you like it or not, the perceived lack of transparency from the authorities and the perceived unwillingness for mainstream media organisation to ask the types of questions the likes of Alex Jones wants the authorities to answer (no matter how out there they may appear) exacerbates the scepticism of the public.

You don't have to have believe in conspiracy theories or not to work that out.

The people who do not question or wish to question the official narratives of major events, to me, seem just as strange as those people who believe in holographic mini-nukes.

(edited for clarity)