Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Aren't four hijacked planes being crashed into three icons of world power terror enough?
No, gravity does not neatly cut 3 ft. to 5 ft. wide steel beams into thousands of short pieces and hurl them laterally at 80MPH for hundreds of feet, what you are seeing here:
You are right about explosive residue, but you have to test for them before you find them, and NIST never tested for them. However other people did test many dust samples and found evidence of thermite, You'll still find it today if you go to Fesh Kills landfill and scoop up the dirt.
9-11 Research: Thermite
If 90% of conspiracy theories are false (and over half of them ridiculous), then I am correct 90% of the time if I assume all conspiracy theories are false until proven true.
A skeptic isn't someone who assumes they are being lied to by the authorities unless evidence is provided to show that they are not being lied to. A skeptic is someone who hears a ridiculous story about the faked moon landing and responds with the standard questions.
Why fly multiple planes into multiple buildings when 1 plane would suffice for the purpose of inciting a war? Why spend the time and resources to rig other buildings for detonation? Here is the real 9/11 conspiracy - a group of middle-eastern terrorists conspired to fly planes into buildings, and they did it. The end.
No Jewish bankers, no illuminati, no templars, no bilderbergs, no CIA, no FEMA...just middle-eastern terrorists.
Well, Bin Laden had worked with the CIA in the 90s, the Bin Laden family had close ties with the Bushes, and we now (13 years after the fact) are finding out that there was an FBI agent that had infiltrated Al Qaeda and had direct contact with Bin Laden.
Did FBI Really Place a Mole In Contact With Osama bin Laden Years Before 9/11? - ABC News
FBI Never Revealed It Had Al Qaeda Mole Who Met Bin Laden - NBC News
FBI Hid Existence Of Mole Who Met With Bin Laden From Other Parts Of Government | FDL News Desk
Is this a smoking gun? Absolutely not. Does it further reinforce that we're not being told the entire truth? Absolutely.
It's not the least bit curious that the group of middle eastern terrorists was led by a former CIA asset whose family had ties to the US power structure? I know, i know, just a random coincidence with no meaning. Nothing to see here, move along.
Yea U.S. intelligence should publically disclose just whose organizations we have infiltrated.
DOH!
Yea, US intelligence should co-operate with an investigation regarding an attack on US soil. DOH!
Any explosives expert can determine that explosives were or were not used. The government can only classify information the government creates.
No expert finds evidence he doesn't look for because it doesn't occur to him it could exist.
You are only told what about classification protocols , that your classification allows you to know, and you would only tell us whatever classification protocols that your classification would allow.
What you wear as your badge of credibility is also a red flag.
I said it was possible the moon landing was faked, though don't think it was, and you've latched onto this statement as some sort of "AHA! He IS a Conspiracy Theorist".
The moon landing, faked or not, isn't something i spent significant time researching. My contention was that it was possible that it was faked, not that it was faked.
To be honest, look again at the dates. This was activity that begain in the early 90s.
The Intelligence Community was woefully behind the power curve in terms of network interoperability in those days. Communication between agencies was basically telephone and paper in the early 90s. There was also that Intelligence Oversight Act "wall" that prevented domestic intelligence agencies like the FBI from having a free flow of information with foreign intelligence agencies like the CIA.
It wasn't impossible, but it required someone on one side of the wall to know exactly what information he was looking for, send a request up his chain of command with appropriate justifications and wait for someone in management to toss it over the wall...then wait for something to happen on the other side and a response eventually tossed back over the wall to him.
In 1993, I had just started working for Navy Captain (later Admiral) Lowell Jacoby, out in Pearl Harbor.
In 1993, Jacoby was spewing all this crazy talk: Rip out the copper and replace it with fiber (he kept sayiing "we're going to need the bandwidth," give all the intel analysts 21-inch monitors and a gig of personal disk space, create intelligence chat rooms and newsgroups so analysts across agencies could talk to each other without bureacuratic red tape, connect agency networks so agencies could window each other's databases, create collaborative multi-media living documents jointly between agencies...freaking crazy stuff like that.
Jacoby also had a floppy with a copy of a little application he'd personally brought from Champaign IL...a beta of something called Mosaic. He was excited about that and a brand-new for-nerds-only system called Intelink that Mosaic would run on.
Unfortunately, although he made me and most of the rest of us who worked for him true believers, most of the IC kind of rolled their eyes at him. How could all our empires be maintained if we broke down the walls?
But in 1993, he had us with our 21 inch screens and windows into DIA, CIA, and NSA cutting and pasting into our reports like bandits.
But we were the only people doing that. Everyone else was still operating in their own stovepipes right through the 90s. CIA even tried to keep us out of their system with the silly ploy of trying to copyright their classified analyses...someone had ot tell them that was illegal.
Jacoby himself became Director of DIA in 2000, and I expect he was still preaching his concept of open collaboration...and probably had to say "I told you so" after 9/11. EDIT: I just checked his Wikipedia article. He did have to say "I told you so" after 9/11.
My point is that the 1990s was still the dark ages as far as Intelligence Community interaction was concerned. I'm pretty sure the FBI was still on DOS and Novell until 9/11.
After doing some research, i'm in the camp of "the moon landing was highly unlikely (<1%) to have been faked". I was unaware of how extensive the footage from the Apollo 11 mission actually was. Faking a 5 minute video would have been significantly less involved than faking a 90 minute video.
So tell me, Morningstar, how does that jive with your absurd attempt to pigeonhole me? I thought us "conspiracy theorists" didn't accept additional evidence, and clung to their beliefs regardless of data presented?
I will reiterate, that i never was convinced they were faked, only that it was a possibility, that i hadn't researched it extensively, nor had i ever argued anywhere in support of the premise that it was a hoax. It was a subject that i had seen some claims about, and didn't think it merited enough importance to investigate, as the consequences of it being faked at this point don't amount to very much.
All this being said, it was obvious when the Bush administration talked about 9/11 as well as Iraq & WMDs that they were being dishonest. It was the chorus of questionable and outright false claims that had me examining 9/11 in the first place. Frankly, from 9/11/2001 through 2005 i spent much more time arguing against the administrations trumped up case for war than anything regarding 9/11.
To this day, the best apologists for the official story have done is say "coincidence" or "incompetence" to my arguments, and it's as clear as ever to me that there was a cover up regarding 9/11. Here's the thing - even if it was a cover up for incompetence, people should still be upset, as people lost their lives, and those whose incompetence has been covered up haven't had any price to pay (with the possible exception of it weighing on their conscience, although with the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld, i don't get the impression it weighs on their conscience at all).
Actually, that does jive with what I've been saying. Is a 99%> not enough confidence for you to say "The moon landing wasn't faked"? Do you really need to qualify the statement with "highly unlikely"?
Do you really want to hold on to that >1% chance that the government may be lying to us about it? Rather than looking at the evidence and saying "That wasn't faked", you've decided "It probably wasn't faked...but there is still a fraction of a percent chance that it could have been, so I won't reach a conclusion."
Who benefits from continuing to deceive the American public about a fake moon landing? Richard Nixon is dead, and no one in power has any reason to care about making sure everyone thinks we went to the Moon while he was president.
Why didn't Neil Armstrong expose the conspiracy before his death? Why didn't Michael Collins or Buzz Aldrin expose the conspiracy?
There is one simple answer to all these questions - there is no conspiracy.
Nvidia debunks moon landing conspiracies with new GTX 900-series 'Maxwell' GPUs | PCWorld
Mythbusters Moon Landing photo hoax 1 - YouTube
EDIT: And if you apply the same standards to 9/11, you go from "There might have been a cover up and it might have been an inside job" to "There was no cover up and it wasn't an inside job."
You're just flat out wrong. Understanding the limitations of your own knowledge is what leads one to make qualified statements such as "i think it's highly likely/unlikely" and leaves us with room for error in our assessments. You seem to have no qualms claiming absolute certainty in events in which you have second hand knowledge or, as in the case of 9/11 - extremely incomplete knowledge. We are actually in agreement over the moon landing other than your statement shows a self arrogance and mine understands our own limitations. Keep trying to make this about the moon landings rather than addressing anything i've said regarding 9/11.
After doing some research, i'm in the camp of "the moon landing was highly unlikely (<1%) to have been faked". I was unaware of how extensive the footage from the Apollo 11 mission actually was. Faking a 5 minute video would have been significantly less involved than faking a 90 minute video.
To this day, the best apologists for the official story have done is say "coincidence" or "incompetence" to my arguments, and it's as clear as ever to me that there was a cover up regarding 9/11. Here's the thing - even if it was a cover up for incompetence, people should still be upset, as people lost their lives, and those whose incompetence has been covered up haven't had any price to pay (with the possible exception of it weighing on their conscience, although with the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld, i don't get the impression it weighs on their conscience at all).
Sorry to but in if it's off topic, but I've wondered about this a lot...
If I would have had doubts about the Apollo 11 mission, why not ask a local astronomist (or even a foreign one, if you don't trust the US) to zero in on the landing site and interpret the pictures?
...
I think at least part of his point is that to the extent we can be confident of anything--including events we have personally eyewitnessed-- 99% confidence may as well be discussed as 100% confidence.
I can tell you this regarding stockpiles of WMD in Iraq: The Intelligence Community had nearly zero confidence that there were such stockpiles. You heard such phrases as "It's impossible to prove a negative, but we have no reliable evidence." CIA's infamous caveat was "...but the possibility of the converse cannot be discounted."
Sorry to but in if it's off topic, but I've wondered about this a lot...
If I would have had doubts about the Apollo 11 mission, why not ask a local astronomist (or even a foreign one, if you don't trust the US) to zero in on the landing site and interpret the pictures?
I mean, I could think of very few places that are easier to look at than the moon.
I think it's hard for us to gauge the jobs of someone in the higher ups of a political administration. As I said previously, I doubt that the 9/11-warnings were the only warnings ever received - and as far as I know from some documentaries, security briefings are conducted weekly.
Furthermore, the question is what could have been done in order to prevent the attacks, even if there was foreknowledge.
I don't believe in holding grievances for honest mistakes. The consequences of mistakes grow proportionately with the burden of responsibility:
If someone in an advertising agency makes a mistake, then the consequence may be a spelling error or something.
If a doctor or soldier makes a mistake, then the consequence can be life or death.
If a bus driver makes a mistake, then the consequence can be life or death of many individuals.
Similar things go for people in power.
Especially the bus driver gets me thinking - how little respect they are shown because they don't have high salaries or a high education, combined with the fact that it's not always easy to operate such vehicles and the fact that they are responsible for the lives of everyone on board. :/
Regarding the entire WMD argument put forth by the administration, the administration routinely said "we know X" when the truth (and it was a known truth by any who had access to the intelligence which included administration officials) was "it's possible that X".
I disagree that 100% confidence and 99% confidence are interchangeable. Perhaps in casual conversation, but not in debate, nor when directly questioned.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?