Lee Rigby conspiracy theory


While having lunch with two of my colleagues today I asked what had been in the news recently. I haven’t looked for several days and so I was interested to know what I had missed.

Apparently people in Turkey are rioting after their government got a bit heavy-handed when putting down a protest about a park.

My colleague asked if I had heard about the “beheading” of Lee Rigby a week or two earlier. With two fingers from each hand he placed inverted commas around the word “beheading” to show that in his opinion it shouldn’t be taken literally.

My female colleague asked why he had felt the need to introduce an element of doubt into the issue. Surely it was a plain beheading, no inverted commas needed.

‘There are just one or two things that don’t seem to fit’, said our colleague. He made it clear that it wasn’t necessarily he that disbelieved the official story. It was just that some people did and he was simply informing us of these people’s doubts. He seemed to believe that because some people doubted the incident this automatically made it doubtful. That there might be people who are either completely nuts or have something to gain by spreading doubt, in this case Muslims wanting to distance their ‘Religion of Peace’ from the murder, didn’t seem to have occurred to him. After all, just because some maniac believes the world is flat doesn’t mean that the round-earth theory is in doubt.

Anyway, he made it clear that he was just the messenger and we shouldn’t shoot him. Even so, it was fairly clear to me, and I think to my female colleague, that he did have doubts about the authenticity of the official story.

I remarked that surely there couldn’t be any doubt about the murder since the perpetrators had stayed on the scene of the crime, talked to passers-by about what they had done and even insisted on being filmed so they could tell the world why they had murdered this soldier. What was there to doubt?

Well, said my colleague, it was just that one or two things didn’t fit, like the passer-by who passed very close to one of the men who was still holding a meat cleaver. Which person in their right minds would do that? And in two pictures there was something different about one of the knives. Maybe it didn’t have blood on it while in another picture it did, I now can’t recall. My mind was still reeling from so much creativity.

I have had similar arguments with religious people. They bog you down with details of the Doctrine of the Trinity and all sorts of arcane stuff when all anyone really needs to know is that there is no evidence at all for the existence of God. Once you have established that, then all the nonsense about Trinities and such is just another example of adults making stuff up, either to look clever or because they are scared, in this case of dying. Such discussions are like arguments over whether Santa’s sleigh is aerodynamic enough to fly, when every normal person knows that Santa doesn’t exist.

So why was my colleague nit-picking over details of people’s behaviour and puzzling over photos when the fact that Lee Rigby was killed by two black Muslim men is not doubted by anyone, least of all the two accused? Why would a white liberal want two black Muslims to be innocent of a murder they had confessed to and actually bragged about? Who did my colleague want to be guilty of the crime of either killing Lee Rigby or framing two black Muslims? Could the Jews be behind this, or maybe bankers, or some right-wing organisation?

The fact that my colleague is a white liberal probably goes a long way towards explaining why he thinks it impossible that someone could be both black and a murderer. There are an awful lot of liberals out there who blame whites for every crime, even those committed by black people. In their rather condescending way, these liberals see black people as being so childlike and having such poor impulse control that even when they murder someone it’s not really their fault.

I asked my colleague if he also thought that 9/11 had been perpetrated by Jews and the CIA. He said that there were things that didn’t fit there either. There was, for instance, the man who owned a nearby building who had taken out a new insurance policy just days before the planes hit the Towers. This was surely a fishy coincidence.

Of course, for the building owner to know that his building would soon be destroyed meant he had to be in on the plans of the ‘Glorious 19’, the Muslim hijackers who brought down the Towers. Whether my colleague believes that only the building owner was in on the attack, or whether he represented just the tip of the iceberg of white capitalists and politicians manipulating 19 angry but gullible Muslims, I can’t say.

There are of course various problems with the insurance scam theory. One is that coincidences happen every day. Most insurance comes up for renewal once a year so it’s unsurprising that one of the affected buildings had recently been insured. Also, tens of thousands of people were affected, directly or indirectly by 9/11, and you would expect one or two coincidences to happen. For all coincidences to have been suspended for the day would in itself be peculiar. And simply because someone benefits from a tragedy does not mean he had a hand in it. When my parents die I will inherit their money but this doesn’t suggest I killed them.

Of course, it could be the case that the ‘Glorious 19’ first phoned George Bush at the White House, who then passed on the message to his buddy the building owner who then quickly took out a new insurance policy, this time one that included ‘damage by hijacked aircraft’.

The problem with this is that to take out such a specific new insurance policy just days before an “accident” would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. It would be like the man who takes out a life insurance policy on his wife just hours before he cuts her brake cables. Both the insurance company and the police are going to be very interested in such a man. Surely the building owner wouldn’t be that stupid?

Still, while we’re in fantasy land we may as well spread our wings a little. What if the New York Police Department was in the pay of George Bush? He could have ordered them not to investigate the building owner. Bush could also have paid off the insurance company who then kept schtumm about the whole thing. Any of the hundreds of people who were in on this conspiracy and showed signs of wanting to blow the whistle could be quietly executed by the CIA without any fuss. Or maybe the whole thing was staged by 20th Century Fox and there were no plane crashes and the Twin Towers never existed. After all, I have never been to New York so how would I know?

For all I know, such speculation wouldn’t seem at all far-fetched to my colleague. Even so, the problem with such radical doubt is that it gets you nowhere. Your mind becomes so open that your brain is in danger of falling out. Believing that nothing is as it seems is more stupid than believing that everything is as it seems. You soon start believing that your mum could be a shape-shifting alien who has poisoned your scrambled egg, or that at your next step the ground in front of you could open up and swallow you whole, leaving you to free fall down a hole until you land on a dozen filthy mattresses at the bottom from where you are dragged away by half a dozen men clothed in aluminium foil and put to work in a James Bond-style underground factory. This factory is run by the Knights Templar or the Free Masons who are planning to take over the world – with the help of George Bush, of course, and Margaret Thatcher, who faked her own death a couple of months earlier and has her scientists working on the creating of the elixir of youth.

Of course, in theory everything really is possible. It is possible that the laws of physics were suspended 2,000 years ago and Jesus really did walk on water, turn water into wine and rise from the dead. All we can ever say is that such things are extremely unlikely and when faced with two interpretations of an incident you should choose the more likely one. There is nothing clever about choosing the unlikely one, though some people seem to believe otherwise, reasoning that anyone who accepts the more probable-sounding story must be an unimaginative oaf, a gullible fool and a dupe of the grey-suited men who, from  behind the scenes, secretly control all we do.

Choosing the unlikely explanation will make you feel like an original thinker. While you have an instinct for the truth and can think outside the box, others are poor plodding sheeple who believe everything they are told. It’s you, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Alex Jones against the rest of the world.

Another reason you might choose the wacky but sexy version of events is that you want that version to be true. For my colleague it would be much nicer to believe that two innocent black Muslims had been set up by Mossad or a cabal of greedy bankers than to have to admit that sometimes Muslims – and black Muslims! – do indeed commit crimes.

One thing I should have asked my colleague but didn’t is this: If he thinks the sight of people passing close by a man holding a blood-covered knife is so suspicious, why did the movie makers include these people in the scene in the first place? After all, if it was all a set-up the director could just as easily have left them out, or even shown people passing at a greater distance, or people scared out of their wits.

Back at the lunch table, my colleague had clearly had enough of the topic and was suddenly in a hurry to take his tray back to the hatch and leave. Perhaps he genuinely did have to go. His parting shot on leaving was, ‘I just think it is good to doubt.’ I suspect he believes that there is no downside to doubting. I disagree. There is already enough uncertainty in the world without extending it to areas where a high level of certainty exists. Doing so just gives succour to genuinely guilty criminals and throws unnecessary suspicion onto others. Only criminals and apologists for criminals have something to gain by muddying waters that are, in this particular case, crystal clear. I also find it disrespectful to Lee Rigby and his family.

If you are going to doubt that Muslims were behind 9/11, despite the video messages they left behind and all the evidence that it was indeed 19 Muslims that crashed planes into the Twin Towers; and if you are going to doubt the guilt of two Muslims who drove a car into a defenceless man and then proceeded to execute him with butcher’s knives and meat cleavers and then stood around bragging about what they had done, then there is probably no evidence in the world that would convince you that a Muslim might be guilty of anything. Then you have become the kind of person a criminal would want on his jury; a bleeding-heart liberal, someone whose ideology has blinded him to the bleeding obvious.

Once you have reached this stage then it should be clear that something has gone seriously wrong with your thinking. Perhaps you should even consider driving down to your old alma mater and asking your old cultural Marxist lecturers to undo the indoctrination you underwent while under their care. And to return your tuition fees.

I think my colleague needs to ask himself the following question: If it had been two members of the British National Party who had run down an unarmed black Muslim, disembowelled and then beheaded him in front of witnesses, then stood around having their photos taken and being filmed, would he still be so cautious about rushing to judgement? Would he be spending his time reading about alleged discrepancies in the story? Would he still think it is good to doubt? Somehow I doubt it, and unlike his doubt, mine is probably justified.


21 thoughts on “Lee Rigby conspiracy theory”

  1. I do not believe you have even begun to consider the anomalies surrounding the official 9/11 story. Quite likely, you never will. But perhaps you can start with the freely-available 10 second video of WTC7 collapsing on 9/11 after quite obviously NOT being hit by a plane.

    1. Either you’re suggesting that the Bush Administration worked hand in glove with the terrorists, or a weird coincidence happened on the morning of 9/11, namely, that both the Bush Admin and Muslim terrorists quite by chance decided to attack New York on the same day.

      If I can understand you rightly (you didn’t give any details of your beliefs or even link to a video) you probably think that Bush knew in advance the precise day that the terrorists were going to attack the WTC and so had a team of expert demolition men go in a couple of weeks beforehand to set everything up in readiness for the attack. Is that right?

      Did anyone report any unusual work being done in building 7 prior to the attack? Were mysterious and secretive workmen observed doing something sneaky weeks before the attack? After all, according to one pro-conspiracy theory video I watched it takes about 2 weeks to set up such a demolition. What did Bush have against building 7 specifically? Why didn’t he just demolish all the buildings and blame that on Muslims? Isn’t there a danger in such a strategy that one of the demolition men will blow the whistle and Bush will have to stand trial for attacking his own country? How many people were in on this plan? It must have involved literally hundreds of people, not to mention the wives of demolition men and politicians who find it hard to keep a secret from their wives.

      If you want to believe that the above scenario is more likely than the official version that’s fine with me. Even so, you will have to do better than just accusing me of narrow-mindedness if you are going to convince me that you are right. What you posted above does not constitute an argument.

  2. “If you want to believe that the above scenario is more likely than the official version that’s fine with me.”

    It’s not a question of ‘believing’ anything. Facts are Facts my friend. Building 7 DID collapse at freefall speed – which can ONLY happen in a controlled demolition. why the did the official 911 investigation say that it fell due to fires. This is just 1 tiny lie of many others. You prefer to make fun of people who have actually done research which you clearly have not done.

    Watch Architects and Engineers for 911 truth then post a response to that.

  3. First of all, despite what you claim, it is a case of ‘believing’ since facts don’t talk for themselves. Also what is a fact for you is a lie to me, perpetrated by people like Alex Jones, who clearly have a very loose grip on reality. Anyway, you can’t upgrade your beliefs to ‘facts’ simply because it is you rather than me that believes them.

    I wasn’t making fun of anyone. I was doing what is called ‘putting forward my side of the argument’. However, if you are so sensitive to counter-arguments perhaps you shouldn’t be on the internet at all, my delicate little flower.

    Anyway, here are my facts. Enjoy reading them: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

  4. I don’t recall the last time I read such utter unresearched rubbish. You sound more like mainstream media than mainstream media. Did someone pay you to muddy the waters. Do you consider yourself a journalist or a sheep/zombie or are you so in awe of authority you that you lost the ability to ask questions? …….or are you just scared to?. The Twin Towers were brought down by use of Neo-Thermate which is military grade material the evidence is beyond question. All 3 buildings fell “in” on themselves at freefall speed. This is fact not fiction. Explosives were found in the dust particles.
    If we can accept the Towers was an inside job and the US helped murder 3000 of its own citizens then why can’t we/you accept the British government and MI5 could kill just one?
    One fact should set alarm bells ringing. The Armed Response Team have a shoot to kill policy, no questions asked, clear shot means kill. Since 1995 they shot 53 members of the public and killed all 53, that’s 100% shot ratio! 3 officers shoot a man from 3 yards 6 times and fail to kill him????…….and his friend! Not only that but he makes a miraculous recovery and walks out of hospital after just 7 days………oh, and his friend. Amazing.
    Oh by the way, our blonde Samaritan also has connections to MI5, what an amazing coincidence.
    If you want more “FACTS”, let me know.

    1. Hi Lee,

      Thanks for the polite and informative comments. I now know not to believe all I am told in the mainstream media. Instead I shall believe all I’m told in the non-mainstream media.

      By the way, it is not possible to be more mainstream than mainstream. Anything that deviates from the mainstream must, by definition, be less mainstream. Logic was not your strong point at school, right?

      Since you call my post ‘unresearched’, I would like to know what research you did. Did you, by any chance, simply read some conspiracy theorist websites and watch some conspiracy theorist videos on Youtube and then repeat what they had said? Repeating what you are told does not constitute research, despite what you may think.

      You may be surprised to know that your viewpoint is possibly more mainstream than mine. In my job I meet a lot of people and the ones that don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories are few and far between. In fact, I would say that most people believe that 9/11 was an inside job. They certainly believe this in the Middle East, where the media is pretty much unrestrained by reality, so you are in good company.

      Anyway, thanks for your comments and now that I know that it is common knowledge that the Twin Towers were brought down by Neo-Thermate and that MI5 were behind the Lee Rigby killing, I will alter my views accordingly. I will also know where to come if I need more facts.

      Thanks again,

      The Unrecorded Man

  5. I agree with ‘Lee’ above. This thread is naive tosh!

    There’s video analysis of the finite number of videos – 26, and they all concur – the ‘plane’, Flight 175 slammed into one of the WTC towers at 933 kph – 580 mph, which is such a Boeing’s maximum cruising speed.

    That’s anomalous!

    Your sarcasm in your response is both irrelevant, and unappreciated.

  6. Hi Manu,

    Are you one of those strange people who, rather than simply switching off his TV, complains to the TV company about a program he doesn’t like? In case you didn’t know, you are not obliged to read what I write. This is my own blog and I express my own opinions. If you disagree or don’t like them, you are entitled to read other blogs which you do like. I thought people already knew this.

    You dislike my sarcasm but how would you like me to respond to people who are rude about my point of view? Grovellingly servile? Apologetic? Polite when I am being insulted? It strikes me that sarcasm is one of the most civilised ways of responding to conspiracy theorists who live in their own delusional world. I would prefer to have them all put in straight jackets to render them harmless to the general public but unfortunately this is not allowed.

    By the way, although sarcasm can be ‘unappreciated’, just as all counter-arguments are unappreciated by people who don’t like other points of view, sarcasm can’t be ‘irrelevant’. You have made what philosophers call a category error. It is like saying that ‘hate’ is fat. The two words don’t belong together.

    I don’t see your point about Flight 175. What does it prove if I concede that it was travelling at its maximum cruising speed of 580mph? That George Bush was responsible? That hijackers can’t make the plane go that fast? I don’t see your point.

  7. wow the unrecorded man sure does have a lot of opinions that are not supported by fact. I would say ignore this man, it is just another brainwashed individual of society that believes whatever he is told.
    I do find it is strange however, that you do not believe in religion but ask questions about it, but you can believe the magical story that a man in a cave orchestrated the biggest security breach of an air vehicle in recorded history.
    A security breach i might add, that gave the west an unlimited pass to hunt down ‘terrorists’ anywhere in the world, killing over a million people in the process.
    who is a terrorist you ask? well thats easy, its whoever the government or their rulers say it is.

    1. Hi The Truth,

      One or two questions:

      1. If it is so obvious that the West was just looking for an excuse to ‘kill a million people’, why didn’t they just kill away and forget the diversion of 9/11? After all, if you and all your friends can see through the deception so easily, it can’t have been much of a deception, can it? And what does the West hope to gain by killing a million people? Steal the money from their bank accounts? Make lampshades from their skin? When you say ‘the West’ killed a million people, who exactly do you mean? The Swiss? The Belgians? You and me? Or just American politicians? Is that all American politicians or just Republicans? Or only Neocons? Please be more specific.

      2. Did Mohammed Atta and the other 18 hijackers actually exist or were they invented by the CIA? If they did exist and actually flew planes into the Twin Towers, were they working hand in glove with George Bush and the CIA? Or were the CIA just sitting around waiting in the hope that some terrorists might soon commit and atrocity? I imagine the CIA couldn’t believe their luck when 19 of them came along all at once, right? And I guess the CIA must have been watching the hijackers’ every move once they knew what they were up to, so there must have been a lot of CIA men involved in the case. How many would you say? A hundred? A thousand? Can they all be trusted never to breathe a word even to their wives, let alone to ‘Hallo’ magazine? How does the evil G.W. Bush stop them from spilling the beans?

      3. You say ‘ignore this man’ but then write ‘you don’t believe in religion…’. Who are you actually addressing, me or someone else? The reason I ask is that people who find logic hard also find consistency in writing hard. So are you writing about me or to me? Also you talk about, ‘the biggest security breach of an air vehicle in recorded history’. From this sentence alone you can tell the kind of person you are. What’s wrong with the word ‘plane’? Why ‘recorded history’ and not just ‘history’? And the security breach was hardly sophisticated. A bunch of men who could sort of fly planes got on board four of them with some wire-cutters and a big grudge. This was a clever idea but not rocket science. You seem to be confusing the impact of an action with its complexity. And why couldn’t Osama’s second in command have orchestrated the whole thing?

      4. Who are these ‘million people’ that ‘the West’ has apparently killed? Iraqis? Afghans? Possible terrorists going through passport control? Why hasn’t Amnesty International or some other organisation reported these million people dead? How did you arrive at this figure? Why not ten million, or a hundred million? Do Shi’ites and Sunni who blow each other up in Iraq also go on America’s tab? Do the people who would have been tortured to death in Saddam’s torture chambers if the Americans hadn’t invaded get deducted from this invented number of 1 million? Or do you consider that there would have been zero deaths had Saddam and his sons still been in charge?

      5. Please tell me what you have against caves. If Adolf Hitler had retired to a cave instead of Berchtesgarten, would this have made him harmless? What is so great about houses? That they have Wallpaper? Do you imagine that Bin Laden’s house had wall-to-wall computer banks with flashing red lights like in some 1960s movie?

      If the Americans had managed to Kill Osama bin Laden before 9/11, would this, in your opinion, have rendered Al Qaeda inoperative? If so, then it can’t be much of an operation. And as I recall he wasn’t living in a cave until after 9/11, not before. Are you perhaps getting your timeline mixed up? Do you also believe that Franz Ferdinand was shot in retaliation for Austria-Hungary starting the First World War? (That’s the Archduke by the way, not the band from Glasgow).

      Please read the rest of the comments on this post. You will find that most people agree with you, not me. It is therefore me who is swimming against the general consensus, not you. To believe the official story these days is to put yourself in a minority. Read the internet and you will see that it is awash with people like you, so please don’t imagine that you are ‘thinking outside the box’. At least my brain-washers are official. Yours are cranks who believe that David Icke is onto something and that Alex Jones is trustworthy. If you imagine that you can avoid indoctrination simply by avoiding the official version, you are really rather naive.

  8. I do enjoy his ramblings, they help keep me in touch with reality.
    My reality includes;
    The Sandy Hook white flag
    The Bullshit Boston bombings
    The Lee Rigby hoax
    The LAX shootings
    And of course 9/11 where Tim Osman (AkA Bin Laden) brought down 3 towers…….or was it 2? Oooops.

  9. So the ‘Glorious 19’ did manage to take over the 4 planes armed with just box cutters . and then fly the planes at 500 plus mph (not possible at 1000 feet altitude )with far more skill than any experienced 767 pilot could ever get close to . thanks for clearing this up for me

    1. So Fred, perhaps you could clear something up for me. If the Glorious 19 weren’t flying those planes and to fly planes at high speed at 1,000 feet requires more skill than even experienced pilots possess, then who exactly were flying the planes? Aliens? Or were there no planes and no Twin Towers in the first place?

  10. Get with the program unrecordedman; these underpants-wearing, parents-basement-dwelling, open-minded champions of the downtrodden masses are just trying to warn us all about the Jewish space lizards who are coming to enslave us and steal our Xboxes or something. When we sheeple open our eyes well be erecting statues to these brave men

  11. I get my news from non-msm sources, mainly ex-professional british footballers with a skill for “channelling” extra-dimensional intelligence. If you send him a few pounds he’ll happily explain it all to you too

  12. Basic pyhscology …we get shown one hand whilst the other is in complete contradictory unseen, we are not meant to know the facts hence why this debate is occuring, our system is extremely corrupt but’ they’ are very clever in being so… We recieve mixed messaged blaten signs and subliminal messages so half of us think that we know then the other half of us who doesnt want to know argues against the ones who think that they know!!! Job done because nobody is going to do from ‘thier’ perspective all the whilst our ego’s are enjoying a debate on conspiracy theory’s! Open your mind people!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s