Conspiracy Theory Vids and Docs

[Oneironaut Zero]

Any thoughts on these? http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/12/cnn...1-cover-up.html http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/12/unu...11-footage.html http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/12/fox...-at-flight.html http://thewebfairy.com/911/93/mayor.htm http://media.putfile.com/bush-lies

[Oneironaut Zero]

Hmm. Nothing, eh? Interesting. How about these, then? http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/12/cbs...er-control.html http://fpidocument.blogspot.com/2005/12/call-911.html http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/12/911...ons-part-4.html http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/12/911...ons-part-3.html http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/12/911...ons-part-2.html

[Krrish]

I use a dial up connection. So I cant view the video. Is it the conspiracy theory that humans havent landed on moon ?

[Oneironaut Zero]

Nope. Mostly 9/11 stuff. The URLs pretty much tell you what is on them.

[Neruo]

I actually do believe that the moonlanding in 1969 was fake. And if it is not fake, the USA would have a back-up. Being some fake recordings from a studio to show to world. I am sure the american government would have lied. Maybe they did.

[Tsen]

First video: Yes, they did know about the terrorists before they struck on 9/11. But they also knew about a few other terrorists worldwide, and couldn't act on those specific ones, because they didn't know that those terrorists were planning anything worse than any other terrorists. The classified information ban given to the colonel is pretty standard. Once he's revealed information of a classified nature to a person, regardless of what the classified information was, he cannot be trusted further. It's not a morality question, it's just a logistics question. Somebody who's told something in the past for whatever reason, likely isn't as prone to keeping things quiet in the future with other sensitive information. Now, about the documents they mailed him: That was a classic screwup, and very embarrassing for his agency. Can't really defend them there. Second and third video aren't working for me, could you find a new link? Fourth video was rather interesting, but had the unmistakeable stench of the average 'conspiracy theory' videos. The sort that give just enough information on an odd case to make it seem incredibly out there, far more bizarre than it actually is. I definitely get the feeling that the conspiracy theorists are leaving out some bits of information to make the video seem more incriminating and bizarre than it actually is. Fifth video: Al-Quaeda and Iraq did have links, just not in the 2000-2001 time period. They'd worked together in the past, but they weren't working together on the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration is pretty inept, at leat in it's handling of the 9/11 issue. We can all agree to that. Now, did Iraq work with Al Quaeda on 9/11? Probably not. But was Iraq a terrorrist sponsor? Hell yes. Same with Iran, but Iran's trying to clean up it's act now to look better for the UN. Do I advocate the war in Iraq? No, at least, not for the reasons Bush supposedly started it. But I think our role there is crucial in restoring peace to a war-torn area. There's no doubt Saddam is evil. He had thousands of his people gassed and executed, then buried in mass graves. We're still uncovering those graves today, but they've been relegated to the third and fourth page of the newspapers, pushing more anti-Bush stories to the front page. And let's not forget that we FIRST went to war in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Afghanistan was were Osama Bin Laden was located, and that's who initiated the attacks on the USA. AFTER Afghanistan, we moved to Iraq. Yeah, the president fucked up his reasoning there. But there's no doubt that Iraq harbored terrorists in the past, and would continue to do so in the future. They had chemical weapons, we know because they USED them on their own citizens a few years ago. Nukes, I don't think they had. They were most certainly TRYING to get them, but they weren't getting far. Sixth Video: Weather control is a thoroughly debunked idea. Remember this thread? Weather Control And the guy's polymer idea wouldn't work that well. Those polymers have been known about for years, but they won't do what he wants them to. They're actually used in diapers, too. But they won't work there, either. At least not as well as they should. The problem is that such a polymer works well with pure water, but the ocean, and baby piss, aren't pure water. The ocean is salt water, and salt happens to almost perfectly inhibit the reaction. He could pour all he wanted, it just wouldn't work. As for the jet engines: Like they said, yeah, it could likely change the course of a hurricane, but we don't know in which direction. It could cause a lot of problems if it hit another city, and we'd intended to make it miss the coast entirely. That's why they aren't using it to stop hurricanes. And if they wanted to steer hurricanes towards the US, they likely wouldn't use it either. Do you remember any sightings of huge barges carrying huge packs of jet engines? I don't. If they existed, the users couldn't have predicted were it would've ended up. In fact, no matter how hard they tried they couldn't figure out where it would end up. Even if they had amazing future technology. Read up on Chaos Theory. I just posted somewhere else about it, coincidentally. Basically, there's more variables than anybody can keep track of, so you'll never know where it will strike. Seventh video and all after that aren't working either.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Thanks for the replies! Tsen wrote: Fourth video was rather interesting, but had the unmistakeable stench of the average 'conspiracy theory' videos. The sort that give just enough information on an odd case to make it seem incredibly out there, far more bizarre than it actually is. I definitely get the feeling that the conspiracy theorists are leaving out some bits of information to make the video seem more incriminating and bizarre than it actually is.[/b] I agree with that. However, my interest in the fourth video is on the issue of there being no plane debris or corpses at the scene. This fact was broadcast on mainstream media outlets such as CNN as well, and I think that simple fact overshadows much of the natural “that can’t be true” perceptions that we all have. When all is said and done, the fact that an Entire Crashed 757 and all passengers completely disintegrated requires a little more explaining than “we just don’t know how it happened. Lets move on.” About the 5th video, I agree with everything you said. Though, I do think that the Presidents duping the nation into war with Sadam by using a false agenda was completely uncalled for and utterly devastates his credibility. No doubt about Sadam’s tyranny, though. About the weather: Of course I remember that thread, 8) but I hope that you (actually I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt by Believing that you) don’t honestly suppose that a few views on governmental abilities, from someone outside the realm of governmental abilities thoroughly debunks a claim on anything that Might be possible. No discredit to Kim, though. She's still the shit. ^_^ But Chaos Theory, itself, advocates my point, so I’m sure you know where I’m going with that. Personally, I wonder how someone who subscribes to Chaos Theory believes that hypothesis based on Physical law is sufficient to debunk Any claim that is outside of the skeptics ability to experiment on, objectively. Is that not a philosophical paradox? As far as the issue, itself. Are there not synthetic polymers and polymer-mixtures that work just fine with salt water? I don’t know much about polymer, itself, but a google search for ‘polymer “withstands salt water” brought up a few examples. If this is true, what leads us to believe it is impossible for this polymer to be applied to “weather modification?” I don’t think controlling the weather, as of now, would be an exact science, anyway, especially to the measure of steering storms with any degree of precision. But again, this is a Big bowling ball you’d be playing with, if weather control is possible. If you’re a man that plays odds (which all governments do. It’s all about numbers) you stand a Pretty Good chance of causing damage to your intended region. (Not saying our government bombs itself with storms, simply offering the possibility of storm steering.) I wouldn’t begin to think it is a Guaranteed Thing, though. On the thread you mentioned, it was stated that HAARP does not have the power to effect the ionosphere. This video says it does. http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/01/haa...-in-heaven.html Of course I don’t know which to believe, as of yet, but that is all part of playing the game of life and being able to point and counterpoint effectively, no? This is is an article on the Space Preservation Bill of 2001, and a link to the bill at the bottom of the page. http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/12/bil...ress-makes.html Now, a speculative question, but possibly one that illustrates the most crucial point. If weather manipulation is not possible, by all physical standards, why was there a bill introduced that outlaws it? About the videos that don’t work: Sometimes I have to mess with the play button a lil bit. It will buffer once or twice, but they should all play for you, if you have media player. If not, I don’t have any other links to them. Sorry, yo. About 9-11, in general: I don’t necessarily know if I believe the “official truth” to the initial attack, or if it was anticipated. That much I don’t even want to question at the moment… …but from everything I’ve seen, and everything I’ve studied, so far there is Nothing I’ve heard from the “official” side that has countered the fact that I think the twin towers were “pulled,” which is the demolitionists' term for being brought down, purposefully. (Exactly like they did to building 7, when blaming it on ‘fire’ officially.) To even question further, why would the government do something like that? Possibly to use the attack, whether anticipated or not, as incentive to wage the war on terror. A couple of floors of office buildings: Hmm, one has to wonder if that would lead a somewhat peaceful nation to follow their president into a war that may or may not have his own hidden agenda driving it. Bring down some of the tallest landmarks on the planet: You might have yourself a mob. Indeed, it was proven you do, don't you think? If you, or anyone, can give me a sufficient enough explanation of how those buildings came down the way they did, with the precision that they did, then at least I’ll have something to balance they scales… As for now, I know what I’ve seen every single time I’ve watched the towers collapse, and that was a perfect demolition job.

[wasup]

Originally posted by Neruo I actually do believe that the moonlanding in 1969 was fake. And if it is not fake, the USA would have a back-up. Being some fake recordings from a studio to show to world. I am sure the american government would have lied. Maybe they did. How do you figure?

[Neruo]

Originally posted by ataraxis How do you figure? I assume that's a rethorical question. I watched all those vids yesterday. I don't see why no one improtant is asking real question about why a FUCKING ROCKET hit the pentagon..

[wasup]

Originally posted by Neruo I assume that's a rethorical question. I watched all those vids yesterday. I don't see why no one improtant *is asking real question about why a FUCKING ROCKET hit the pentagon.. No, I want to know why you would think the video of the moon landing was false.

[Neruo]

Originally posted by ataraxis No, I want to know why you would think the video of the moon landing was false. Well for once the flag on the pictures is blowing in the wind. There is no wind on the moon. I though I read somewhere that america admitted they took the photos in a studio somewhere. But really, if it went wrong. Russia that allready was behind america, and those days allso a super power (and at that time not dead economically). If russia would be first on the moon america would be dissed, and russia would be 'cooler' and get way more trade and status in the world. I am sure that if it isn't fake they would have made it fake (if it went wrong). The president promised to put people on the moon. And america's huge fucking ego would explode if the russians owned them.

[Tsen]

Well then, what of the launches? Were they just lighting off enormous roman candles?

[Neruo]

Originally posted by Tsen Well then, what of the launches? Were they just lighting off enormous roman candles? It could have landed 1 hour later in the ocean somewhere. OR The studio footage would be a back-up.

[Oneironaut Zero]

I started looking around for a little more information since Neuro brought up the subject. Here is one man's view on why he believes the moon landing was fake. (From a different forum.) Not that I agree or disagree, but just gathering info. Sunofone wrote: The Top 15 Reasons Why No Man Has Ever Set Foot on the Moon 15. \"Tricky Dick\" Richard Nixon was president at the time. He was the king of cover-up, secret tapes and scandal. Think about all of his potential antics that were not discovered. 14. A successful manned mission to the moon offered a wonderful pride-boosting distraction for the near revolt of the US citizens over 50,000 deaths in the Vietnam War. 13. The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned hours in space. They were first in achieving the following seven important milestones: 1. First manmade satellite in earth orbit… 2. First man in space… 3. First man to orbit the earth… 4. First woman in space… 5. The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft… 6. The first space walk… 7. The first of two orbiting space craft rendezvousing… This put America at a perceived military disadvantage in missile technology during the very height of the Cold War. 12. Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, refuses to give interviews to anyone on the subject. \"Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies.\" Collins also refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone. See streaming video: \"Buzz says, \"Buzz Off!\" 11. Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon? With Prop ID \"C\" After: \"C\" Removed 10. Rediscovered lost footage shows the American flag blowing in the wind. The wind was probably caused by intense air-conditioning used to cool the astronauts in their lightened, uncirculated, space suits. The cooling systems in the backpacks would have been removed to lighten the load not designed for earth's six times heavier gravity, otherwise they might have fallen over. See streaming video: \"Flag blowing in the wind.\" 9. Enlarged photographs underneath the lunar lander's 10,000 lb. thrust engine show the soil completely undisturbed. During ground tests there was grave concern for the vehicle falling into the hole the engine created as it descended. An oversight that they would have to keep consistent for all subsequent moon missions. They attributed it to the effect of no atmosphere (except for the flag blowing in the wind - see # 10!) 8. Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon's surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect. http://www.moonmovie.com/photographic_analysis.ram See our streaming video: \"Photographic Analysis\" for some eye opening examples. 7. The moon is 250,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth's magnetic field traps the solar wind. http://www.moonmovie.com/radiation_belt.ram See streaming video: \"Radiation Belts.\" 6. The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous. 5. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions. 4. Take a look at the lunar module which supposedly flew from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. It is a cylindrical shape with a high center of gravity and one big thrust engine at the bottom. Upon just looking at this design, to think it would not immediately pinwheel and crash, as the lunar module trainer did three weeks prior on Earth, is absurd. 3. After the Apollo 11 mission, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin gave a press conference. When asked whether they remembered seeing any stars from the surface of the moon, Collins, who was supposedly in the command module the whole time, gave a wrong answer to a question he should not have been answering. The relevant portion of this clip is in my documentary; viewing it with an understanding of the circumstances makes it clear they were lying about having traveled to the moon. I'm saying Collins blew it right then and there and I honestly cannot understand why there is even further discussion on the whole topic. Furthermore, if you obtain a written transcript of the press conference you'll see that the comment is erroneously attributed to Aldrin. Honest mistake or cover-up? 2. In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the entire Apollo program was in shambles and it was a miracle no one was killed sooner. All of the problems were supposedly fixed by 1969, just two years later. How could they have made such a large improvement in \"quality control\" in such a short period of time. 1. All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. We uncovered some mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in our documentary, proves they did not leave low-earth orbit. You won't see this anywhere else! http://www.moonmovie.com/ [/b] Also, there is a reference to this site for other information, but I haven't gotten a chance to take a look at it yet.: http://www.dc8p.com/html/moonhoax.html

[Chaos]

I actually do believe that the moonlanding in 1969 was fake. And if it is not fake, the USA would have a back-up. Being some fake recordings from a studio to show to world. I am sure the american government would have lied. Maybe they did. Agreed. Though how anyone is still fooled by this obvious lie is beyond me. I started looking around for a little more information since Neuro brought up the subject. Also, the area where they landed looks exactly like a parcel of land in Nevada (or it might be one of the other nearby states). The space ship could have never even made it through space. There is no way that it wouldn't have either burned up in the atmosphere or have been crushed by the pressure of space.

[bluefinger]

Also, the area where they landed looks exactly like a parcel of land in Nevada (or it might be one of the other nearby states). The space ship could have never even made it through space. There is no way that it wouldn't have either burned up in the atmosphere or have been crushed by the pressure of space. Crushed in the pressure of space... umm, did you even pass your physics class? Space is a vacuum, so if anything, you should be saying "or would have popped like a balloon in the vacuum of space". Besides, rocket scientists earn their money's worth by figuring out ways of getting spacecraft back into the atmosphere in a way which doesn't cause the spacecraft to bounce off the atmosphere like a pebble skips over the surface of water, whilst also preventing the people inside from getting crushed by extreme g forces that comes with the deceleration of the spacecraft as it punches it's way through the atmosphere. Please please please pick up a physics textbook or simply get certain facts right before even considering to argue this. EDIT: I really need to check the dates of the post... damn

[Mystic7]

Please please please pick up a physics textbook Someone already tried it.......Look what happened. lol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIIwwCi2zwk

[bluefinger]

Someone already tried it.......Look what happened. lol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIIwwCi2zwk Hahaha... a physics book with murderous intent... okay, let me rephrase my earlier statement "please please please, pick up a decent physics book..." Better?

[Sortilegio]

A little off topic, but don't you think that putting the flag up could mean, conquer, imperialism, the moon is mine? I hate that. And I read somewhere that someone is now selling moon parcels !?!?!?!? WTF, who the hell owns the moon? who are the idiots buying this? if anything the moon is not a place to go and conquer, the moon is there for everyone, if we ever reach the moon, it should not be sold to anyone, or owned by anyone, it should be for everyone to go and do whatever could be done on the moon. And I'm not implying I belive the US landed, I don't believe this, we all have to remember this was a time when the US was compiting with Russia. This also reminds me of another conspiracy, the UFOs, does anyone remember this, the US goverment actually telling their citizens they exist, give dumb people a stupid reason for them to waist their life believing in, and then saying it was all shit and actually covering up for the fact these things where spacecrafts manufactured by the Russian goverment with the help of some of the leftover NAZI scientist, who then turned themselfs over to the US, and the US started manufacturing this spacecrafts, and still they would talk about UFOs, I mean WTF. Is it so important to compete and be more macho

[Neruo]

Originally posted by Oneironaut * 15 reasons why the moonlanding in 1969 might have been fake * l Wow I didn't knew all those things yet.. Especially that no of the original people that went to the moon give interviews is a bit suspected. I really do even more think the moonlanding is fake now. lol @ america allways lieing to the world. They did it with the whole 9/11 - osama - saddam - oilwar thingy too. So full of lies. : ) --- And they Do sell pieces of the moon... well not really. They just sell pieces of paper that retarded folks buy. The moon is no-ones property. All countries once agreed that putting weapons in satalites or on the moon would be forbidden.... But hey, maybe america has some nukes stored in some 'militairy satelites' somewhere up there.

[Oneironaut Zero]

For everyone that says that the US Government has no motive for being involved in the 9/11 disaster: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

[KAP677]

Here is a very nice JFK video. http://www.theeffectivecitizen.com/video/jfk2bb.wmv

[Sortilegio]

Originally posted by KAP677 Here is a very nice JFK video. http://www.theeffectivecitizen.com/video/jfk2bb.wmv Great vid. Very interesting

[Oneironaut Zero]

Great JFK video. Just more random weather stuff.: http://www.weather.com/newscenter/atmosphe...e.html#military http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/pand...dora/haarp.html http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2004/11/200...ne-anomaly.html http://www.weatherwars.info/ http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/plan...ing_000303.html At work so I haven't watched these yet, but here they are:: http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/01/sci...-haarp-may.html http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/01/haa...-haarp-has.html

[InTheMoment]

Oneironaut when he had hair. C'mon...you knew it was coming.