Printable View
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
I use a dial up connection. So I cant view the video.
Is it the conspiracy theory that humans havent landed on moon ?
Nope. Mostly 9/11 stuff. The URLs pretty much tell you what is on them.
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.
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.
Thanks for the replies! :goodjob2:
Tsen wrote:
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.”Quote:
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]
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.
How do you figure?Quote:
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.
I assume that's a rethorical question. :)Quote:
Originally posted by ataraxis
How do you figure?
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.Quote:
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..
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.Quote:
Originally posted by ataraxis
No, I want to know why you would think the video of the moon landing was false.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Tsen
Well then, what of the launches? Were they just lighting off enormous roman candles?
OR
The studio footage would be a back-up.
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.
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.:Quote:
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]
http://www.dc8p.com/html/moonhoax.html
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 :?
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Oneironaut
* 15 reasons why the moonlanding in 1969 might have been fake * l
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. :)
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
Here is a very nice JFK video.
http://www.theeffectivecitizen.com/video/jfk2bb.wmv
Great vid. Very interesting :)Quote:
Originally posted by KAP677
Here is a very nice JFK video.
http://www.theeffectivecitizen.com/video/jfk2bb.wmv
Great JFK video. :cooler:
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
Oneironaut when he had hair.
http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/4141/cast035oa.jpg
C'mon...you knew it was coming. :P
Lol. Nah, just an unreasonable facsimile....
.....I'm still young and good-lookin. :coolspot:
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.
Proves nothing.
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.
Yes. That's why they put so much effort in making it succeed.
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.
Again, that's why they made that huge effort.
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!"
I've actually seen an interview with Buzz Aldrin on the subject.
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
To stop all conspiracy theories maybe. I've never heard of this, don't know the truth behind this. I do know they claim the C was dust/hair/anything on the film. It would make sense that they tried to perfect the photos. Besides, the government is not stupid. They won't erase that C if it really was anything and thereby focus the attention on it.
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."
There's no air to stop the flag. Once it starts waving because astronauts move it, it takes a long time for the Moon's gravity to make it stop again. That's the waving. You also can see quite clearly that there is no air; when astronauts move by the flag, the flag remains perfectly still, but if there was wind, the changed aerodynamics should make the flag respond.
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!)
There's definite scorchmarks on the ground in the photos. Also, the enige was not on full thrust as it landed, it slowed down before it touched the ground.
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.
Wrong. Sloping of the ground can make shadow seem to converge or diverge. You can test this yourself.
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."
The Van Allen belt has enough radiation to kill you... if you remain there for about a year. It's a non-barrier.
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.
Professionals design spacecraft to be functional. Not to be understood by amateurs.
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.
I don't know whether this is Celcius or Fahrenheit... But light can be reflected. That's why astronaut suits are white, to reflect the light of the sun. Heat shielding is not that big of a deal, since you only have to reflect incoming light; there's no air around that heats you up.
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.
I've already commented on the designs. And I'll say two more things, maneuvering thrusters, and fuel. The fuel for the engine can drastically lower the center of gravity, and is not included in the designs. Maneuvering thrusters would have had much more impact then on Earth, due to lack of atmosphere and a lower gravity.
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?
How can Collins not awnser the question about seeing stars? He would have heard from his fellow astronauts, would he not? I'd be inquisitive how the moon looks like if I was stuck in a command module all the time.
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.
As this article points out, there was immense pressure on the US. It's not unfair to assume they had near-limitless funding, and a lot can happen in two years. Certainly fixing a single problem.
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!
I've got some unedited, secret footage of this guy swimming around in money and calling the people who buy his documentary suckers. It proves he's a total sham.
Furthermore, I'd like to make another comment. The Russians were on top of the US's every move. They were bitter rivals. They had the resources of an entire country. They saw everything we saw. If they would have had ANY doubts whatsoever that the moonlanding was fake, they would have let the whole world know. But they remained silent. What does that tell you?
One piece of equipment left behind on the Apollo missions is still in operation. A mirror. Laser pulses are being sent to it still, and data is being collected. How did it get on the moon? By magic?
That mirror could be placed on later missions.
And you have to admit the american government could and would have done it any time. There is no doubt about that. Look at the 9/11 / iraq stuff.
I'm assuming these were rhetorical questions? Otherwise I'm not sure who they were directed toward. :huh2:
Hopefully not me, because this isn't My conspiracy theory.
[Edit: Ok, n/m. Neuro answered. Just making sure.]
Proving we did go to the moon at least once. Still, there is data from that mirror as far back as 1969, and that data could have been falsified, yes. But that meant NASA had to make an entire research team fake it, that's not something they would have risked. If we did place that mirror on the moon in a later mission, why did they just not claim so and save themselves a lot of trouble and risk.Quote:
Originally posted by Neruo
That mirror could be placed on later missions.
I also disagree with you on the subject of that the government would be able to pull it off. With the whole world watching... To cover up a lie of such magnitude is unprecedented, and I feel it would have been far easier to just go to the moon then trying to deceive all of humanity.
Ok, here are some 9/11 vids from the same page as the JFK thing, not bad, check em out:
http://theeffectivecitizen.com/video/loose...ange_part_1.wmv
http://theeffectivecitizen.com/video/loose...ange_part_2.wmv
Hahahaha! :DQuote:
Originally posted by Jalexxi+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jalexxi)</div>Well the mirror thing is +693 points for 'they went to the moon in 1969' but it doesn't make it sure.Quote:
Proving we did go to the moon at least once. Still, there is data from that mirror as far back as 1969, and that data could have been falsified, yes. But that meant NASA had to make an entire research team fake it, that's not something they would have risked. If we did place that mirror on the moon in a later mission, why did they just not claim so and save themselves a lot of trouble and risk.
[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-Jalexxi
I also disagree with you on the subject of that the government would be able to pull it off. With the whole world watching... To cover up a lie of such magnitude is unprecedented, and I feel it would have been far easier to just go to the moon then trying to deceive all of humanity
Usa government = kind of lies. The entire world IS fooled allready by the shit they pulled off to start the iraq wars. Lies, lies, spam, lies on a plate served with crispy LIES.
And everyone is buying it. No one says anything about it. No one.
They could. Oh yes they could fake the moonlanding and let eveyone believe it. I don't know or they did still :)
Don't think so. There's a lot of people in Russia. A lot of smart people, even. If there were any doubts, it'd be a major scandal. They wouldn't risk it, but I don't think they can pull it off with the whole world watching their back.Quote:
Originally posted by Neruo
They could. Oh yes they could fake the moonlanding and let eveyone believe it. I don't know or they did still :)
Russia can intercept all radio traffic between the moon lander and mission control. And a nifty little thing called the doppler effect enables them to figure out the speed and direction of the transmissions. Wouldn't that be conclusive evidence?
SMART PEOPLE IN RUSSIA? Rambo is the smartest person to ever set foot in russia! :0 *lol rambo movies brainwashed me*Quote:
Originally posted by Jalexxi
You're not going to get certainty unless you go back in time and go to the moon in 1969. :DQuote:
Well the mirror thing is +693 points for 'they went to the moon in 1969' but it doesn't make it sure.
Don't think so. There's a lot of people in Russia. A lot of smart people, even. If there were any doubts, it'd be a major scandal. They wouldn't risk it, but I don't think they can pull it off with the whole world watching their back.
Russia can intercept all radio traffic between the moon lander and mission control. And a nifty little thing called the doppler effect enables them to figure out the speed and direction of the transmissions. Wouldn't that be conclusive evidence?[/b]
Hmmm good point you have there. Why don't all the real geeks thinks about that. You know the people that wear alluminium hats against the radiation from aliens. :D
So how about Skull and Bones? Both bush and Kerry admitted to be part of it. :)
Even though I don't know what Skull and Bones is, I do not claim America is a bastion of righteousness and truth. Far from it, actually, how they get away with certain stuff is beyond me. All I know is it's extremely likely the moon landings were real.
Ah, just quickly googled Skull and Bones, a secret organization of powerful people? That makes sense. I'd be more shocked if such an organization did not exist. What goes on in there is probably very secret and scandalous, yet it is also probably just a power-orgy. There's secrets in this world, that much is sure, and things happen that shouldn't. Skull and Bones is just another example of that.
The illuminati are funny blokes too. However of them is hardly any proof. Skull and bones is reasonably 'well known'. They even made 3 movies about it :)
I think in more cases then people think 'crazy conspiracy-everywhere-people' have it right alot more times then people think.
---
Lets talk about crop-circles. Aliens? Pranksters? The american government? CHUCK NORRIS? :D
If I apply my standard mantra 'the truth is in the middle' to crop circles, then I'd say maybe the first one was due to aliens or some phenomenon, then it took off and pranksters started doing it, America got into it, and that bastard Chuck Norris of course. I think it would be wrong to try and only look for a singular explanation of them. Of course people make their own crop circles... but where did they get the idea?
Possibilities abound!
I'unno squat about crop circles, but here is a good place to discuss UFO's, if one was so inclined to do so. :cooler:
http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic....3201&highlight=
Well, there are those "crop" circles related to the mysterious "Church of Scientology," which I heard about on CNN a little while ago. Can't find the actual video I saw, but here is some random article on the "CoS"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5112601065.html
And yeah, the Skull and Bones thing has weirded me out ever since I heard they were both apart of it and how "Secretive" they both admit to it being. To them its "Ha ha ha It's secret and we can't tell you." To the American people its "whoa whoa...what the fuck is all THIS about?!"
Family Ties:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031017...10534-8149r.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1227...1312540,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html
Couple the information in those articles with this view of Denver’s “New World Order Airport”
http://fpidocument.blogspot.com/2006/01/ne...er-airport.html
Disturbing? :|
Bush = nazi ^____^
The nazi-symbols... hmmm you can see them everywhere.
Reading what you said about the moon landings being fake... made me very unhappy. THANK GOD FOR JALEXXI! He said everything I would have regarding the 15 points; except the 'no stars on the moon' point. Indeed, the astronaughts could not see any stars from the moon, but that was simply because of the design of the eye. If the eye is exposed to bright light, the pupils contract. When in a dark room, they expand. The 'naughts on the moon were exposed with bright light that was being reflected off the moon's surface. Their pupils automatically contracted, which meant their eyes could not pick up the tiny amounts of light given off by the stars.
They DID land on the moon, and everyone who doesn't think so needs to research the science behind the landings.
Most conspiracies are just the overactive imagination of ignorant minds.
But saying that, quite a few don't have explanations... yet.
It might be stupid to go looking for Goverment scandals and Aliens in every weird little thing. But the opposite, accepting everything the media and governments tell you is allso stupid.Quote:
Originally posted by Pensive Patrick
Reading what you said about the moon landings being fake... made me very unhappy. THANK GOD FOR JALEXXI! He said everything I would have regarding the 15 points; except the 'no stars on the moon' point. Indeed, the astronaughts could not see any stars from the moon, but that was simply because of the design of the eye. If the eye is exposed to bright light, the pupils contract. When in a dark room, they expand. The 'naughts on the moon were exposed with bright light that was being reflected off the moon's surface. Their pupils automatically contracted, which meant their eyes could not pick up the tiny amounts of light given off by the stars. *
They DID land on the moon, and everyone who doesn't think so needs to research the science behind the landings.
Most conspiracies are just the overactive imagination of ignorant minds.
But saying that, quite a few don't have explanations... yet.
Ok the moonlanding Probably wasn't fake. But bush DID mess around and exaggerate and lie to start the Iraq war. If he didn't some others controlled him. Or bush is just dumb.
The point is: There is allways a chance of a conspiracy theory (or something like it) being true. Maybe not as big most of the time, but it's important that you don't just accept everything people tell you.
Becouse of the discussion in this topic, I now know some arguments why the moonlanding very perhaps is fake, and I know the argument that point to it being real. I now personally think it was not fake.
Thinking = good ^___^ And really without knowing the facts like that mirror on the moon people can indeed think that the moonlanding was a fake.
---------------------------
Why did it make you unhappy anyway? You arn't even a "Proud American" that thinks his country is so cool becouse they stole all the nice lands of the indians and used gay-ass capitalism to make it the country with the most nukes to fuck up the world and start wars for no reason, exept for oil to fuel their war-machines and their McDonalds-cars >: (
lol I sound like a poster ^_____________________^
Thank you jalexxi for doing that for me... I didn't want to say that that was bullshit then have to write everything out (if someone asked me to back it up). Please people, the moon landing was not faked. Some people are like 'omgz there are no stars in the background of the moon landing pictures." Well, you go outside at night with a MODERN digital camera and take a picture of the stars. Then look at the developed picture. All black? Yeah...
Hey, Neruo, I didn't say anything about all conspiracies being untrue. There are quite a few of them out there that I'm very suspicious about... and I definitely do NOT believe everything the media pumps out. I definitely don't trust the government... there's not much doubt they have the power to control our lives secretly...
Anyway Neruo, I was unhappy about all the speculation of the moonlandings being fake because I hate it when people are missinformed and make decisions without knowing all the evidence. It's like sending someone to jail because a couple of people say 'Yeah he murdered that guy...'
P.S. You share my views of patriotic Americans completely...
Hmmm ok I see your point. The 'Moonlanding is fake' idea is one of the most common conspiracy theories, and indeed it rather seems like a load of made-up nonsence :)Quote:
Originally posted by Pensive Patrick
Hey, Neruo, I didn't say anything about all conspiracies being untrue. There are quite a few of them out there that I'm very suspicious about... and I definitely do NOT believe everything the media pumps out. I definitely don't trust the government... there's not much doubt they have the power to control our lives secretly...
Anyway Neruo, I was unhappy about all the speculation of the moonlandings being fake because I hate it when people are missinformed and make decisions without knowing all the evidence. It's like sending someone to jail because a couple of people say 'Yeah he murdered that guy...'
P.S. You share my views of patriotic Americans completely...
I have to admit that I didn't realy knew all the facts before stating that it was highly possible. Now I know better. It was rather silly of me ^____~____^
In the future there will be so much acces to information that it will be even harder for the goverment to keep nasty stuff secret :) But weirdly enough the information is allready here now. And the minister of my country could allso obtain the information (like about how bush clearly had the wrong reasons for starting the war) yet Mr Minister does not know about it. I bet that if he knew he wouldn't back the war (the idiot he is).
Anyhow, back to the point: funny how people allso blindly follow (like the follow the media) other people that say 'The moonlanding was fake!' with just a few aguments.... That's blind too I guess... However, I am sure I still do not know all the facts, so the truth is it's impossible to really know...
^__^
Nah, we all make mistakes like that.Quote:
I have to admit that I didn't realy knew all the facts before stating that it was highly possible. Now I know better. It was rather silly of me ^____~____^ [/b]
Yes, that's true... either that, or the Government will increase its hold on us and we will live in a Big Brother style world where we are helplessely watched and controlled, but that's another topic.Quote:
In the future there will be so much acces to information that it will be even harder for the goverment to keep nasty stuff secret[/b]
You know, I was kind of taken by the emphasis Bush was putting on America's mission to "lead the world," and the "democratic future of all middle eastern nations," and hinting at the "Democratic future of Iran," specifically, during the address, last night. Now I've heard about the topic of this next video before, and read the declassified text on the quote he mentions at the end, and I think it offers definite Evidence of a motive behind the US's (Theoretical) involvment in 9-11.
The fact remains that, even if the Bush admin were not A) anticipating the 9-11 catastrophe or B) guilty of making the catastrophe bigger by pulling the buildings that, more than likely, wouldn't have fallen in the first place, the course of events that are unfolding keeps many of us questioning just how much of this stuff was and wasn't planned out, and quite logically so.
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/01/pro...an-century.html
Any thoughts?
Wow, if that is true... and it might be... lol america's government really is crazy :D They planned 9/11 lol cool ^_____________________^Quote:
Originally posted by Oneironaut
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/01/pro...an-century.html
Any thoughts?
I dont know whether you also got this mail. Just sharing since it is interesting.
[b]Coincidence = 11
1) New York City has 11 letters.
2) Afghanistan has 11 letters.
3) Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.
4) George W Bush has 11 letters.
This could be a mere coincidence, but this gets more interesting:
1) New York is the 11th state.
2) The first plane crashing against the Twin Towers was flight number 11.
3) Flight 11 was carrying 92 passengers. 9 + 2 = 11
4) Flight 77 which also hit Twin Towers, was carrying 65 passengers. 6+5 = 11
5) The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11 as it is now known. 9 + 1+ 1 = 11
6) The date is equal to the US emergency services telephone number 911. 9 + 1 + 1 = 11.
Sheer coincidence..?! Read on and make up your own mind:
7) The total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planes was 254. 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
8) September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year. Again 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
9) The Madrid bombing took place on 3/11/2004. 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 11.
10) The tragedy of Madrid happened 911 days after the Twin Towers incident.
Now this is where things get totally eerie:
11) The most recognised symbol for the US, after the
Stars & Stripes, is the Eagle. The following verse is taken from the Quran, the Islamic
holy book:
"For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle.
The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo,
while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced: for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and there was peace."
That verse is number 9.11 of the Quran.
Still uncovinced about all of this..?! Try this and see how you feel
afterwards, it made my hair stand on end: Please try this in atleast Wordpad, if you dont know what is going to happen. Its worth the work.
Open Microsoft Word and do the following:
1. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight
number of the first
plane to hit one of the Twin Towers.
2. Highlight the Q33 NY.
3. Change the font size to 48.
4. Change the actual font to the WINGDINGS
What do you think now?!!
Yeah, I'd seen it. It's vaguely interesting, until you realise that you can do that with almost any subject. Somewhere Kim did one using Nirvana or Jay Dawg's names...I'll go dig it up. I think it's in one of the 2012 threads.
The History Channel Presents:
"Microwaves, Weather Mods, Space Guns, Oh Shi0t!" :eek:
Hehe.
Nah, seriously. Good Stuff.
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/02/inv...romagnetic.html
Question:
If the treaty confines the weather modification ranges to the boundaries of your own country....where is the US supposed to target practice? :?
Heh, sorry, I'd forgotten that I was supposed to be digging that one up for you guys. Oh well, at least I got around to it eventually. . .Quote:
Originally posted by Kim
I CAN PROVE JAY DAWG IS THE ANTICHRIST!!! GET HIM!!!!!
j is 6A in hex/ascii. It's the first letter so remove the "A" - you get "6"
a is 61 in dec/ascii. It's the first letter in the alphabet, so remove the 1 = you get "6"
y is 121 in oct/ascii. It's the third letter in, so divide by 2 and subtract 1 = "6" "0" The zero represents the space.
d is the fourth letter and is 64 in dec/ascii. "6" remove the four.
a again is 61 and is the first letter in the alphabet - remove the 1.
w is 167 and is one letter that is in the seventh place in the character string, so you take off the 1 and the 7 and you get "6"
So your get 666 666 and it ends with 67. Take away the "7th" character and replace it with a SIX!
He thought he could hide it from us, but we decoded it!!!!
9 + 11 = 20. Hah.Quote:
Originally posted by korothism
[b]I dont know whether you also got this mail. Just sharing since it is interesting.
Coincidence = 11
*
1) New York City has 11 letters.
2) Afghanistan has 11 letters.
3) Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.
4) George W Bush has 11 letters.
This could be a mere coincidence, but this gets more interesting:
1) New York is the 11th state.
2) The first plane crashing against the Twin Towers was flight number 11.
3) Flight 11 was carrying 92 passengers. 9 + 2 = 11
4) Flight 77 which also hit Twin Towers, was carrying 65 passengers. 6+5 = 11
5) The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11 as it is now known. 9 + 1+ 1 = 11
6) The date is equal to the US emergency services telephone number 911. 9 + 1 + 1 = 11.
Sheer coincidence..?! Read on and make up your own mind:
7) The total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planes was 254. 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
8) September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year. Again 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
9) The Madrid bombing took place on 3/11/2004. 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 11.
10) The tragedy of Madrid happened 911 days after the Twin Towers incident.
lol indeed.Quote:
Originally posted by Jalexxi
9 + 11 = 20. Hah.
You can find cool numbers in just about anything. If you look hard enough. like the 666 in gates's name :)
Bad example... That IS true! :0 :D
http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/911truthCNN.mov
And on the one below, stop all the lower videos and watch the very top one, under:
"Update: World Trade Center 7 Imploded by Silverstein, FDNY and Others"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
More on Operation Northwoods:
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/03/ope...northwoods.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/cove...fair-video.html
http://freepressinternational.com/virus-sp...ead-nyc-sf.html
Accusation on HAARP:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/haar...rp-florida.html
The problem with conspiracy theorires is that they greatly overestimate the foresight and planning abilities of the conspirators.
Don't take this the wrong way, but the problem with statements like that is that they usually have even less evidence to back them up than the conspiracy theory they're questioning.Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker
The problem with conspiracy theorires is that they greatly overestimate the foresight and planning abilities of the conspirators.
Are you implying that the people that run this country (and in some aspects a major portion of the planet) can be more reasonably underestimated in their capabilities?
What in the history of our nation gives you the impression that, were these conspiracy theories to be taken more seriously, the American government could not be capable of orchestrating something like this, especially in the light of not only the very valid points that are being brought up right in front of you, but also the type of meticulous planning that has been the foundation of "national defense" since before you and I were even born?
I don't ask anyone to fall blindly in line with any conspiratory paranoia just because it seems esoteric and intriguing. Weigh the facts from all sides. Weigh what you hear from officials, what you hear from the media, what you hear from the theorists. After having done so, the rhetoric of "what's wrong with a Conspiracy theory" as if no conspiracy theories have bases and they can All be grouped under a "ficticious" label, doesn't quite stand up, ya know?
Implying that some conspiracy theories turn out to be false is so obvious it goes completely without saying, but implying that all conspiracy theories should be dismissed without investigation because they are most likely false is misleading and, some would say, a flat out lie.
9/11 – Bush, First Plane:
http://www.zippyvideos.com/789390596252748...6/bush1stplane/
Yeah. He saw the first plane hit. ....On TV...which was "Obviously On at the Time."
Give me a break.
9/11 – The Great Conspiracy:
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/03/gre...conspiracy.html
9/11 – David Ray Griffin: 9/11 commission omissions and distortions:
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/03/dav...commission.html
Secret Evil of 9-11:
http://videonewz.blogspot.com/2005/12/secr...vil-of-911.html
9/11 – Second Tower is about to collapse: (Who knew? Obviously someone did.)
http://www.freepressinternational.com/coll...8g10044691.html
9/11 – German tv “Bush behind attacks”
http://media.putfile.com/911bushadminbehin...germantv050610m
9/11 – The Road to Tyranny:
Road to Tyranny Vid
9/11 – Loose Change:
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/12/911...ose-change.html
9/11- Code name able danger:
http://media.putfile.com/911codenameableda...angeratta050810
Another Great speach with Hilarious jokes by Mr Bush. Man how DID that man get re-elected?Quote:
Originally posted by Oneironaut
9/11 – Bush, First Plane:
http://www.zippyvideos.com/789390596252748...6/bush1stplane/
Yeah. He saw the first plane hit. ....On TV...which was "Obviously On at the Time."
Give me a break.
But yeah, bush knew about 9-11 somehow. Being at a childrenschool seems like a nice cover-up and at the same time, it looks like bush is at schools all the time, while he actually went to like 5 schools in his carreer (probably).
And then I am counting his own highschool too :)
More Illuminati stuff:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/illu...nati-video.html
Subversive Use of Sacred Symbolism in the Media:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/subv...edia-video.html
I dont think theres any question that the PNAC folks (Bush's entire administration) were behind 9.11. Like you said, the buildings were obviously rigged with explosives and came down with no resistance. They weren’t going to mess it up this time, like in 93’. Have you seen that video talking about the 93’ bombing and how the man behind the attacks recorded the head of the FBI ordering him to carry out the attacks?Quote:
Originally posted by Oneironaut
You know, I was kind of taken by the emphasis Bush was putting on America's mission to "lead the world," and the "democratic future of all middle eastern nations," and hinting at the "Democratic future of Iran," specifically, during the address, last night. Now I've heard about the topic of this next video before, and read the declassified text on the quote he mentions at the end, and I think it offers definite Evidence of a motive behind the US's (Theoretical) involvment in 9-11.
The fact remains that, even if the Bush admin were not A) anticipating the 9-11 catastrophe or B) guilty of making the catastrophe bigger by pulling the buildings that, more than likely, wouldn't have fallen in the first place, the course of events that are unfolding keeps many of us questioning just how much of this stuff was and wasn't planned out, and quite logically so.
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/01/pro...an-century.html
Any thoughts?
Anyway, here’s some more vids
This one has eyewitness testimony and then scientific analysis, its not really a conspiracy vid, but a good one for skeptics of teh 911 inside job theory
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=19...610169657809939
And this one is similar. Its Dr. David Griffin giving a lecture on all the coincidences of 911 that spell doom for the "official story."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=68...001821567284154
Oh yeah, and did you hear about the recent Zogby poll? Apparently 45% of Americans believe 911 was at least partially an inside job. Hopefully this leads to a new impartial investigation
I hadn't heard about the Zogby poll, but I'm glad to see that not as many people are as willing to lay down and take the "official" accounts of what happened without some degree of skepticism. Thanks for the vids, I'll check them out soon. :goodjob2:
And now for more things that make you go: "Hmmmmmmm..."
http://www.freepressinternational.com/911-...n-building.html
a) there's nothing in that video that suggests it was filmed on 9/11.Quote:
Originally posted by Oneironaut
And now for more things that make you go: "Hmmmmmmm..."
http://www.freepressinternational.com/911-...n-building.html
B) it's posted on a blog by some dude from Texas.
What makes me go 'Hmmm' is that people take 'information' like that seriously.
A) Of course not. That was the first thing that went through my mind when watching the vid. However, there is nothing to suggest it wasn't filmed on 9/11. Those opposing points are what should intice you to look at the video a little more objectively. Whether you do or don't believe it was filmed on 9/11 requires a leap of faith that I haven't even eluded to, but you've obviously made. :wink:
What should make you say "Hmmmm" is whether or not the video is authentic as being a depiction of something that took place on 9/11, which may or may not deserve a little more scrutiny than "Oh, well that's just bullshit." The burden of proof you suggest must be present in any claim actually works both ways, in the real world.
B) Could you explain to me how a person's location on this planet (let alone strictly in the U.S.) affects whether or not their information is credible, in the age of satellite phones, gps systems, worldwide blogging, mailing lists and text messages?
If I was so quick to pass judgement on every new peice of "information" I ran into, based on a priori assumptions, I'd probably have the same reaction. As understandable as that is, though, you should really try holding off on the verdicts until you get a little more info on the subject, ya know?
http://www.freepressinternational.com/coll...8g10044691.html
(Real or fake? That takes investigation. As it stands, though, it's evidence.)
There's also nothing to suggest that a '57 Chevy isn't orbiting Jupiter.Quote:
However, there is nothing to suggest it wasn't filmed on 9/11.[/b]
You didn't even allude to it? Let's see, it's a video of an FDNY fighter saying there's a bomb in a building posted in a thread full of 9/11 conspiracies and makes you go "Hmmm". I'd call that a little more than alluding.Quote:
Whether you do or don't believe it was filmed on 9/11 requires a leap of faith that I haven't even eluded to[/b]
There's nothing wrong with him living in Texas, it's the credentialess 'some-dude' status that bothers me.Quote:
Could you explain to me how a person's location on this planet (let alone strictly in the U.S.) affects whether or not their information is credible, in the age of satellite phones, gps systems, worldwide blogging, mailing lists and text messages?[/b]
As for the new video, the first building had already fallen, so it's reasonable to assume that the second one might come down as well. Informing bystanders that a disaster is imminent is a great way to get them to clear the scene.
EDIT: The number 1 problem with conspiracy theories is that they greatly overestimate the power and foresight of the conspirators.
I posted the video in the exact same context that I found it. It was in a "9/11 video archive" along with a bunch of other videos that were (a little more obviously) "from 9/11." Unfortuntely for your case, without choosing to stay neutral on the video's authenticity, which is anyone's prerogative, there is more to suggest that the video was taken on 9/11, than that it was not (and we won't even touch back on the '57 Chevy.)Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>No doubt. But, by your logic, a first-person perspective video of a white, vinyl dashboard and fuzzy dice floating through space (whether or not the perspective is facing Jupiter) would be an immediate fake with absolutely no room for a defense. (Just humoring that one. I'm not even going to get into the chasm of factors that explain why it is much more possible for this video to be authentic than for a '57 Chevy to be orbiting Jupiter. For you to even throw the two into the same context shows a detachment from even trying to have a serious conversation on the matter.)Quote:
There's also nothing to suggest that a '57 Chevy isn't orbiting Jupiter.[/b]
Or, as wikipedia would say:
<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
You didn't even allude to it? Let's see, it's a video of an FDNY fighter saying there's a bomb in a building posted in a thread full of 9/11 conspiracies and makes you go "Hmmm". I'd call that a little more than alluding.
So, exactly how far up the celebrity status ladder does someone have to be before you give them so much as the benefit of doubt?Quote:
There's nothing wrong with him living in Texas, it's the credentialess 'some-dude' status that bothers me.[/b]
[Edit: Nevermind the fact that many of the stories posted by "some guy from Texas" I've been able to verify through other sources after looking them up. The Divine Strake weapon test being the most recent.]
True enough.Quote:
As for the new video, the first building had already fallen, so it's reasonable to assume that the second one might come down as well. Informing bystanders that a disaster is imminent is a great way to get them to clear the scene.[/b]
Your having used this twice makes me wonder if I'm the only one missing it's significance.Quote:
EDIT: The number 1 problem with conspiracy theories is that they greatly overestimate the power and foresight of the conspirators.[/b]
Please expand on this by either educating me on the limits of the power and foresight of the international community, or backing-up (with visual aid, hopefully) the implication that no known conspiracy theory has ever been proven to be true over the course of time; a modest enough request for me not to dismiss that statement as rhetoric, no?
[Edit 2: Aaaaannnnnnnnnnd then there's this:
Fourth Amendment: Fourth and Wrong:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/nsa-...-amendment.html ]
I was simply pointing out how ridiculous it is to use the "you can't prove it isn't" argument in this situation. Especially when the issue at hand involves such intense accusations (i.e. the US bombed three structures and killed thousands of innocent people to further their own agenda). Was my analogy obscure? Yes. Does it still get the point across? Yes.Quote:
Originally posted by Oneironaut
No doubt. But, by your logic, a first-person perspective video of a white, vinyl dashboard and fuzzy dice floating through space (whether or not the perspective is facing Jupiter) would be an immediate fake with absolutely no room for a defense. (Just humoring that one. I'm not even going to get into the chasm of factors that explain why it is much more possible for this video to be authentic than for a '57 Chevy to be orbiting Jupiter. For you to even throw the two into the same context shows a detachment from even trying to have a serious conversation on the matter.)
Who said anything about celebrity status? I just want credentials of some sort (i.e. association with a respected news agency, oh wait, they're all in on it too right?).Quote:
Originally posted by Oneironaut+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oneironaut)</div>I must've missed that part. It's faaar more likely that the video was taken in '93 when there actually was a bomb in the WTC.Quote:
there is more to suggest that the video was taken on 9/11[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-Oneironaut
So, exactly how far up the celebrity status ladder does someone have to be before you give them so much as the benefit of doubt?
For all you know that video was posted by a terrorist trying to trick you into distrusting the government. As for your verification through other sources, how about you post those instead? Hopefully they're more trustworthy than some blogger who, come to think of it, may or may not live in Texas.
How can someone who is so critical of authority blindly believe whatever he happens to see when he types 'conspiracy theory' into Google?
At least you have Charlie Sheen on your side.
http://www.wwtdd.com/index.php?type=one&i=756
i agree that such accusations require a reasonable basis...but really, it isn't too absurd to suggest the US goverment killed thousands of innocent people to further their own agenda..fits right in with many of their actions since 1492 (and yes, i know there wasn't technically an american government yet)...Quote:
Especially when the issue at hand involves such intense accusations (i.e. the US bombed three structures and killed thousands of innocent people to further their own agenda). [/b]
well, i doubt they're "in on it", but money seems to be the only thing that buys power and/or respect nowadays. the respected news agencies are "respected" because they are backed/owned by the richest portion of earth's individuals. those who give the people what they want.Quote:
Who said anything about celebrity status? I just want credentials of some sort (i.e. association with a respected news agency, oh wait, they're all in on it too right?). [/b]
fox news is an obvious example of how a widely respected news agent can spew biased, misleading, even downright false "news".
most people wouldn't consider the possibility 9-11 was orchestrated by the US, and so the major news networks aren't going to suggest or pursue that possibility. there is no money without viewers.
most people can only digest the communal cud fed to the rest of the cattle...others eat anything besides the communal cud...often complete bullshit.
as always, it seems balance is the key to finding the truth. neither eating cud nor shit, but processing the various angles on every story, and coming to a logical conclusion.
personally, the american government's explanation for the events of 9-11 does not seem any more believable than many of the various conspiracy theories.
1492?Quote:
i agree that such accusations require a reasonable basis...but really, it isn't too absurd to suggest the US goverment killed thousands of innocent people to further their own agenda..fits right in with many of their actions since 1492 (and yes, i know there wasn't technically an american government yet)... [/b]
There wasn't even an American SETTLEMENT by then, let alone a government, technical or no. Jamestown wasn't until the 1600's, and even that was only a single town. The colonies didn't officially unite until the late 1700's, and then, up until about 1800, the colonies were so disorganized and apathetic in their views towards eachother that they were only a unified government in name only. They couldn't perform any dastardly deeds to further their own agenda, because they didn't HAVE an agenda. Or rather, they had too many agendas, most of which were conflicting.
It would be FAR more accurate to change that date to at LEAST the mid-1800's, with the large-scale abuse and removal of the Native Americans. In fact, the first truly controversial use of US power that could be construed as being to further the American government's own agenda would be the Spanish American war in 1898.
I'm not talking about Fox or CNN. I'm talking about AP and Reuters. Heck, even an independent study by an educational institution would be nice. They don't censor content before a paper is published--as long as the research is properly referenced.Quote:
Originally posted by wombing
well, i doubt they're "in on it", but money seems to be the only thing that buys power and/or respect nowadays. the respected news agencies are "respected" because they are backed/owned by the richest portion of earth's individuals. those who give the people what they want.
fox news is an obvious example of how a widely respected news agent can spew biased, misleading, even downright false "news".
1492, isn't that when Columbus 'discovered' North America?
Every bit as ridiculous as suggesting that my not being able to "prove" something with present information is indictation that even the suspicion of it, and looking into evidence for it, is practically idiotic; Just as arguing that "Psi Doesn't Exist, you moron" is every bit as debatable as "Psi Does Exist, you moron."Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>If you have any conviction into your point of view, you can state your case without insulting my intelligence by accusing me of being That ignorant, as any confident adult should be able to do. Thanks.Quote:
How can someone who is so critical of authority blindly believe whatever he happens to see when he types 'conspiracy theory' into Google?
[/b]
And another straw man goes up to replace the last one.Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker@
oh wait, they're all in on it too right?
<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
I was simply pointing out how ridiculous it is to use the "you can't prove it isn't" argument in this situation.
Alrighty.Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>Point taken. By the way, I love how you carefully pick and choose which items and points to and not to respond to. Very Covert. :roll:Quote:
I must've missed that part. It's faaar more likely that the video was taken in '93 when there actually was a bomb in the WTC. [/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
As for your verification through other sources, how about you post those instead? Hopefully they're more trustworthy than some blogger who, come to think of it, may or may not live in Texas.
All linked through, to, or first read about by myself on freepressinternational, referencing more mainstream media:
(Again, despite your accusations: I've never claimed everything I read to be true. I put them up for debate and discussion, and would like to get a little more opposition than "the government wouldn't do that so it must be fake" Or as "Zen and the Art of Debunkery" would satirically state from your position: )
Quote:
• <> Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots. Suggest that in order to investigate the existence of something one must first believe in it absolutely. Then demand that all such "true believers" know all the answers to their most puzzling questions in complete detail ahead of time. Convince people of your own sincerity by reassuring them that you yourself would "love to believe in these fantastic phenomena." Carefully sidestep the fact that science is not about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out. [/b]
Vids:
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/12/bil...government.html
http://fpidocument.blogspot.com/2005/12/co...oncentrate.html
http://win20ca.audiovideoweb.com/ca20win15...untdown_56k.wmv
http://www.freepressinternational.com/unma...speed-boat.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/brai...e-detector.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/stil...-navy-ship.html
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/01/fox...es-founder.html
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2004/11/cbs...-and-bones.html
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/01/ins...-and-bones.html
Divine Strake: (Just an introductory vid. The test was postponed, but if you want to read more about it, look it up.)
http://www.freepressinternational.com/neva...une-2-2006.html
Northwoods: (Familiarize yourself with this one, and then get back to me about how all conspiracy theories are, unequivocally, such-and-such)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/03/ope...northwoods.html
The Fourth Amendment:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/nsa-...-amendment.html
9/11
http://www.freepressinternational.com/911-...-911-tapes.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/fbi-...negligence.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/bush...addam-9-11.html
N.W.O.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...world_disorder/
B. Grove:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/bohe...ohn-conner.html
War Memo:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/bush...r-war-memo.html
Stun Belt:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/zaca...ourt-msnbc.html
Martial Law:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/mart...ed-america.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/warr...l-searches.html
War on Terror:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/tds-...iran-video.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/lega...ader-james.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/hele...mptive-war.html
Weather:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/owni...ther-video.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/nbc-...er-control.html
Docs:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/25/...ain676613.shtml
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4535661.stm
Reuters - Divine Strake
http://www.livescience.com/scienceoffictio...rfid_chips.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...L&type=politics
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12952860/
http://news.com.com/Terrorism+invoked+in+I...?tag=nefd.pulse
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107...07:H.R.2977.IH:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst122004.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/index.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/1...k.devilworship/
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/0.../01/pope.ny.ap/
http://www.army.mil/fcs/index.html
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/03/sci...type-metal.html
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGM393GPK1.DTL
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/...ain576332.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12591414/
http://www.weather.com/newscenter/atmosphe...e.html#military
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/art...ther_change_it/
SourceWatch:
Down in External Links :
“Peter Starck, Secretive Bilderberg group to meet in Sweeden – Source: Free Press International (Reuters)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bilderberg
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/01/3...30/ronson.them/
Let me know when you’re done, and I’ll dig up some more for you.
Or then, you could try looking into a few of the subjects yourself? Just a thought. It could help (or hinder) the faith-based defense of government you seem to relish enough not to deny having. Might want to start with Operation Northwoods.
[Edit:
I'm still waiting for your evidence that suspicion of government and its agenda is unfounded. I'm waiting for evidence behind your implications that all conspiracy theories can be labled as unfounded, or...basically evidence for any portion of your argument that isn't either propagated by the government in question or simply a faith-based opinion. I'm sure it shouldn't be hard to gather, so maybe you could share some of it with us to convince anyone other than yourself that yours is the most logical position, without simply relying on self-sustaining rhetoric.]
i readily concede:
1. my post was sloppy, flawed, and hasty.
2. i was on my last glass of 1.5 liters of wine when i wrote it :shakehead2:
in the future i will try to restrict semi-drunken posts to senseless banter :wink:
---
just for the record, my (rather foggy) train of thought while writing my last post was that columbus represents (for myself) the beginning of the "american spirit".
many americans recognize this every columbus day by moreorless identifying with columbus as an honorary "founding father".
if i had clearly and (correctly) placed the start of the american government's killing of innocents later than columbus, my point would still be valid. the american governemnent's track record justifies suspicion of killing of innocents.
----
understood.Quote:
I'm talking about AP and Reuters. Heck, even an independent study by an educational institution would be nice. They don't censor content before a paper is published--as long as the research is properly referenced. [/b]
I try my best to respond to all revelant portions of every post. If you'd like me to respond to something specifically I'd be happy to.Quote:
Originally posted by Oneironaut+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oneironaut)</div>Alright, I take that comment back and apologize. Just got carried away when making my point.Quote:
If you have any conviction into your point of view, you can state your case without insulting my intelligence by accusing me of being That ignorant, as any confident adult should be able to do. Thanks.[/b]
My point in more friendly language:
If you are going to count ambiguous videos on random internet blogs as possible evidence for a conspiriacy theory, you can't count official government reports (ie. evidence against the theory) as complete fabrications since it's obviously the more reliable of the two sources.
A question, which is more probable:
1) the US government (in cooperation with countless other individuals and agencies) devised and successfully excuted plans to destroy 3 structures, kill thousands of innocent civilians and make it all look like Islamic terrorists.
2) the video on the blog was actually taken in '93 when there was a bomb in the WTC (or at any other time in recents years when a bomb was in an NYC building).
Sure it's possible that its #1, but this is where the '57 Chevy analogy comes in.
Haha, I was kidding. But really, they'd almost have to be.Quote:
Originally posted by Oneironaut@
And another straw man goes up to replace the last one.
<!--QuoteBegin-Oneironaut
By the way, I love how you carefully pick and choose which items and points to and not to respond to. Very Covert.
As for your immense load of linkage, I read through a good amount of it. The situation in Cuba in the '60s was of particular interest, obviously.
The key difference, it's muuuch easier to 'attack' a target in the middle of the ocean than in Manhattan. But interesting nonetheless.
You appear to be sidelining the argument. Why you choose to attack that one video is interesting. There have academic papers published, many scientists and professors, and engineers who are supporting this particular "conspiracy:" theory regarding 911.Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker
A question, which is more probable:
1) the US government (in cooperation with countless other individuals and agencies) devised and successfully excuted plans to destroy 3 structures, kill thousands of innocent civilians and make it all look like Islamic terrorists.
2) the video on the blog was actually taken in '93 when there was a bomb in the WTC (or at any other time in recents years when a bomb was in an NYC building).
Such as MIT engineer and research scientist Jeff King
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...904938803031452
Or Steven Jones, physics professor at BYU
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=96...034652002408586
Or the dozens of eyewtiness accounts available only because some families of the victims of 911 sued the City of New York to have them released to the public...
the truth about 911 is far from a conspiracy, which traditionally hinges on coincidences only, not hard scientific evidence and eyewiteness testimony. so you could only be justified in calling what happened on 911 a conspiracy if the only evidence people cited was the stock trades on the two airlines used in the attack just prior to 911, or the fact that the owner of the WTC just bought and took out a record insurance policy on the buildings, etc...
Yeah, I thought the whole insurance policy thing was pretty interesting too. How about all of the tapes from security cameras from the hotels surrounding the pentagon area? The ones that May Actually Show a plane smashing into the Pentagon, as opposed to the obscure, unidentifiable, two-frame shot of the "nose" of the plane just before impact, actually taken at the Pentagon that they put on the news? Where are they?
to Brady:
“Random Internet Blogs” is another assumption implying that I’m just going from blog to blog, blindly, looking for anything that has to do with “9/11 Conspiracy.” Once again, that’s not true and does nothing for your case. You asked for links giving at least some credibility to the stories posted on FPI, I gave you enough that you actually remarked on them as an “Immense load.” Again, the point of that was not to prove anything but that there are enough factual stories on FPI to at least consider Some of it’s information as credible, which is a far cry from the worthless drivel you’ve been trying to label them as. Aside from that, I think they go well into dispelling your comical implication that “at least having Charlie Sheen on my side” is the extent of the culture that question Washington’s agenda. The information on Northwoods, alone, renders your rhetoric of conspiracy theories being collectively fallible completely false.
And I didn't quite mean that you couldn't defend with anything relevent and factual from the government. I just meant some blanket peice of cover like their declaring the piss-poor images of the "plane" hitting the pentagon as a means to "dispell the conspiracy theories." That was my miscommunication..
Your “which is more probable” question gives the false impression of the two choices being opposites. I’ve already admitted that you made the point of the vid more probably being from ’93. I agree on that, but to state your question as you did implies that, if the video was made in ’93, that somehow makes option #1 any less probable, which it doesn’t. In turn, my stating how that makes #1 no less probable makes the official story of the attack having no US influence or co-operation no less probable either. Cases with this amount of circumstantial evidence for either side aren’t always as black and white as you seem to be trying to reduce them to.
That video was a weak addition to my side of the argument, but its omission makes the argument itself no less valid. I have another vid somewhere that states there were reports of “secondary devices” going off inside the building.(which I thought the last vid was referring to, until you opposed it) I’ll see if I can find it.
The “---like Pearl Harbor” thing may or may not be evidence toward US involvement in 9/11. So much remains to be seen. However it is important to note the awareness of the ideologies that go into war pretext when speculating how such and such “overestimates the foresight of the conspirators.” When all else fails, how hard is it to classify something and have it locked away for twenty years, as a fail-safe?Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>Two points on this one:Quote:
The key difference, it's muuuch easier to 'attack' a target in the middle of the ocean than in Manhattan. But interesting nonetheless.[/b]
1) How is the simplicity of something the “Key” difference? We are talking about conjuring up a pretext for war here, not the “simplest way to get a quick scare out of the population.” You honestly deduce that, if these allegations were true, the US Military would compromise the concept of Simplicity over Believability? That they would choose Convenience over Horrific Realism? I’d say that’s a pretty remarkable claim, myself.
<!--QuoteBegin-wikipedia
A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts” (page 50). The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor." Some have used this quote as evidence for their belief the US government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. See the article 9/11 conspiracy theories for further information on this topic. Many critics also claim the PNAC believed this "new Pearl Harbor" would justify war on Iraq.
2) What is “more probable” is more subjective than you seem to acknowledge. What is “more probable” to you, as a means to an end, is probably a bit different from what’s “more probable” to a four-star general. What’s “more probable” to you; some guy from Canada (to use your same characterization) is probably a little more different than those at the head of an entire branch of government who, likely, think more in terms of Macro- than Micro- when it comes to pros, cons and human life. Such a scope of measurement is so far beyond your and my subjective experience that to try to speculate on what is more probable in a situation like this, without knowing who stands to gain what, and where all possible interests are, (not to mention the ends and outs of how the government really works) is foolish. It is awareness of that uncertainty that justifies investigation of a conspiracy theory such as this. Using faith-based assumptions like “Well the government wouldn’t do that,” just doesn’t hold up. It is because of this principle that scandals at Abu Graib (sp) and Haditha weren’t simply left as allegations and have led to full-fledged investigations. Blind belief is just as illogical as blind opposition.
Call 9/11 (most of the "evidence" rolled up into one)
http://fpidocument.blogspot.com/2005/12/call-911.html
Found this interesting:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/06/nazi.crim...imes/index.html
These too:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/06/07...tion/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/06/inv...i.ap/index.html
Wow. :shock:
The case for voting fraud:
http://oldamericancentury.org/ConyersOhioH...aring_chunk.wmv
And an email to Michael Brown about FEMA's Katrina response:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/09/kat...mail/index.html
Wow, Thats very convincing, I have never seen any of this before and its all very eye opening. Too bad there no real Jack Bauer to save the day. Though you think with almost unlimited resources they could do a better job if its all true that is. Then again (it this is true) it all worked, the mass majority of people do belive what they wanted them to. The few that dont are not taken seriously and can do nothing about it. So the bad guys win.
I agree, landsquid. But whether or not all of this stuff is true, I'm happy to see that there at least a large number of people out there who are conscious enough to try to find truth, for themselves, instead of being spoonfed whatever the powers-that-be tell them is truth.
Even "good" parents often tell "little white lies" to their children.
9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony
Commissioners considered criminal probe of false statements
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/9-1...agon/index.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
This bump is to point out that Sibel Edmonds won the PEN Newman Award for her testimony regarding 911, which btw has not yet been allowed into the courtroom. Her article : The Hijacking of a Nation has some good info, as well as this little video
Sibel Edmonds
Soooo... what's this I hear about George H. Bush being involved with the JFK assasination?
Thanks for the links... Blimey! Working through them...
The thing that really made me go 'Hmm..?' was the Pentagon photos. Before the wall collapsed - there was just a tiny hole a few broken windows, some cracks and a few bits of debris. Surely a big plane would have done more damage - or if the wall was really that tough then the plane would be on the lawn?
It does seem terrible to think a Government would kill its own people - but wait, they do that all the time - Vietnam, Iraq etc. Actually a few thousand people would probably be considered a cheap and effective way of gaining carte blanche to secure oil supplies. 'They' would even think they are acting in America's best interests, as oil is it's lifeblood, and it is running out. The effects of Peak Oil will be far worse than 9/11.
Agreed. Though how anyone is still fooled by this obvious lie is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
I found this image
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...3Dr15%26sa%3DX
From the looks of this it looks like the fire took up entire floors and had most of the building weight on it - and it burned for 3.5 hours, and did it fall? Though it can be argued there was no Boeing 7x7 jet fuel in the building.
Really compelling video on the lunar landing conspiracy theory: (Thanks, O'nus.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xUGRngAhBI
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaos
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
Someone already tried it.......Look what happened. lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefinger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIIwwCi2zwk
Hahaha... a physics book with murderous intent... okay, let me rephrase my earlier statementQuote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
"please please please, pick up a decent physics book..."
Better? :lol:
I want to make a conspiracy mockumentary about the evils of the jews combining reputable and credible experts and historians having their quotes taken out of context with interviews with people like the westboro baptist church guy, out-of-context information and videos meant to provoke emotional response and seemingly logical fallacy a la Ancient Aliens just to see if I can restart the holocaust.