OT: 9/11 Anniversary: Watch 9/11 Mysteries - How the World Trade Centre was demolished by the Neocons for an excuse to go back into Iraq
.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871
Ignore those who would go to great effort and expend much of heir time
in poo-pooing this post. See for yourself what really happened in the
3 demolished buildings in the weeks before 9/11. Since 9-11 the
American public has shown a "remarkable indifference to being
deceived" (George Soros). But this is changing. As Hugo Chavez put it:
"The world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are
standing up." Millions around the world are realizing that they are
being lied to - not in a small, lazy way, but in a big way. It's time
to ask hard questions, many of which 911 Mysteries helps to answer. 90
minutes of evidence and analysis, filled with eyewitness testimonials.
Point-by-point review of the official story set alongside clear
science. The question is not one of politics or nationalism or
loyalty, but one of strict and simple physics. Does steel melt in open
air fires? What caused the core to vanish in seconds? No agenda. No
finger-pointing. Just the facts and the questions.
A story of people: Willie Rodriguez's strange recollection of noises
on the 34th floor. Who was up there, bumping around? Scott Forbes'
similar story, weeks before the towers fell. Here's how shaped charges
slice through steel beams to control the way they fall.
For greater clarity, download the movie over bittorrent - or buy a DVD
online at www.911weknow.com.
John McWilliams
Mr. K.V.B.L.
> 9/11 Mysterieshttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871
>
<snip>
Shut up.
John McWilliams
William December Starr
"." <swee...@yahoo.com> said:
> Ignore those who would go to great effort and expend much of heir
> time in poo-pooing this post.
How about me? I'm spending almost no effort and maybe 30 seconds to
call you an idiot.
-- wds
Mr. K.V.B.L.
> In article <3ebb89a2-c229-4086-88a9-144acd465...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> "." <sweep1...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > Ignore those who would go to great effort and expend much of heir
> > time in poo-pooing this post.
>
> How about me? I'm spending almost no effort and maybe 30 seconds to
> call you an idiot.
>
> -- wds
About the same for me, except I reported this person's profile to
Google which always gets them banned.
John McWilliams
Will Dockery
Interesting stuff... thanks for posting.
--
Truck Stop Woman by Dockery-Conley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXA4jekz_xk
Juha Nieminen
> Interesting stuff... thanks for posting.
Yes, you surely are not the same person who made the original post, sure.
Will Dockery
No, I'm not.
Al Dykes
. <swee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>9/11 Mysteries
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871
>
>http://www.911weknow.com
>
>Ignore those who would go to great effort and expend much of heir time
>in poo-pooing this post. See for yourself what really happened in the
The audio of the explosions heard in 9/11 Mysteries is fake according
to the film maker who shot video used in the film. The "Truth
Movement" is full of lies.
------------------------------------
Rick Siegel, the person that shot video of the WTC collapse
from Hoboken, 2 miles away, shows his original video and
compares it to the the versions used in two "Truth Movement"
conspiracy videos; "9/11 Eyewitness" by James Brewster and
"9/11 Mysteries" by Sophia Shafquat.
Siegel shows that the "explosions" heard on 9/11 Mysteries and
9/11 Eyewitness are, in fact, not on his the original tape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jir7yWTroN8
Brewster & Shafquat claim the sounds are evidence of man-made
explosives at WTC. Someone manipulated the sound track to make
those noises.
Of the dozens of video tapes we have from WTC on 9/11, there are
no recordings that show explosions that sound like man-made
blasts and are loud enough and timed to be consistent with any
building collapse. The 1993 bombing, equal to 1,000 bounds of TNT
and loud enough to be heard throughout the WTC complex and for
blocks around, was not large enough to do any structural damage to
the WTC tower it was under.
WTC on 9/11 was probably the most-witnessed disaster in history.
For more information about all the imagery we have for it read the
book, "Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images
of 9/11" by David Friend
For more information about fact-based 9/11, go to
http://911mysteriesguide.com/
and
911myths.com
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
Al Dykes
Rodriguez has said many things over the years, He refuses to speak in
front of anyone who hasn't drunk the Kool Aide. He has turned down
many invitations that I am aware of. See this for the various
conflicting things he's said.
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home
His first telling of the story is completely consistent with a gas
vapor explosion and not consistent with man-made demolition. His
claim of timing can be shown to be wrong.
"....The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement
when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I
thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that
moment. A person comes running into the office saying explosion,
explosion, explosion. When I look at this guy; has all his skin
pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like
it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the
elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a
force down the elevator shaft on the 58th . freight elevator, the
biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went
out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I
think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from
the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting
for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized.
William Rodriquez
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public%20Transcript%20021204%20Final1_withlinks.pdf
Transcript of NIST Public Meeting in New York City . February 12, 2004
the messenjah
> In article <63223$48cb8771$4b4c71e9$5...@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> Transcript of NIST Public Meeting in New York City . February 12, 2004
>
> --
> Al Dykes
> News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just urban legend... Unlike my website...
Jason
>
> "....The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement
> when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I
> thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that
> moment. A person comes running into the office saying explosion,
> explosion, explosion. When I look at this guy; has all his skin
> pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like
> it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the
> elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a
> force down the elevator shaft on the 58th . freight elevator, the
> biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went
> out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I
> think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from
> the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting
> for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized.
Wow! Please tell us more.
Jason
Please tell us more Al, you're ON A ROLL!
Archie Leach
>Just urban legend... Unlike my website...
>
>http://www.chuck-lysaght.info
The difference: Urban Legends contain lies, fabrications and
mistruths that are actually somewhat believable.
Danny T
> In article <3ebb89a2-c229-4086-88a9-144acd465...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Remember the guy that brought Led Zeppelin to the US, made The Rose?
Aaron Russo?? He made a documentary called America: Freedom to Fascism
and a guy named Alex Jones did one called Terror Storm. I think
everyone should see these and another called End Game.
There is a lot of stuff you would not know about to even look for
unless you watch the films. Follow the BILLIONS in insurance payout
that went to the master lease holder for the towers.
I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that would love to spin
things in either direction they can, but watch the films. I'd like to
know what other's thought are. Me, it scared the S#^T out of me and I
believe most of it because the proof looks real to me.
You can watch it online for free:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/kpl8r
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/
Before someone flames me, please just watch the films. If you have
opinions, great. I'm as open now as I was when I watched the films.
Danny T
> In article <3ebb89a2-c229-4086-88a9-144acd465...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
Tell me how building #7 was wired for explosives in 19 hours? IT is an
admitted fact that building #7 was a demolition drop. How do you do in
10 hours what it takes many months to do normally and how the hell do
you do it with a mess like they had that day?
You don't - do you. You have the thing pre wired to go...... How many
BILLIONS did the Master Lease holder get for those building when they
came down? Wasn't it 6 BILLION DOLARS? Funny someone could get that
much money for a building that was condemned in a court of law about a
year earlier for asbestos and had a 20 BILLION dollar clean up cost
attached to it.
The best lies are mostly truth and right in front of your nose. Ask
any magician how they get away with it what they do and ......
Al Dykes
Danny T <danny...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 13, 7:35=A0am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> In article <3ebb89a2-c229-4086-88a9-144acd465...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups=>> >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D-8172271955308136871
>>
>> >http://www.911weknow.com
>>
>> >Ignore those who would go to great effort and expend much of heir time
>> >in poo-pooing this post. See for yourself what really happened in the
>>
>> The audio of the explosions heard in 9/11 Mysteries is fake according
>> Movement" is full of lies.
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> from Hoboken, 2 miles away, =A0shows his original =A0video =A0and
>> compares it to the the versions used in two "Truth Movement"
>> "9/11 Mysteries" =A0by =A0 Sophia Shafquat.
>>
>> Siegel shows that the "explosions" heard on 9/11 Mysteries =A0and
>> 9/11 Eyewitness are, in fact, not on his the original tape.
>>
>>
>> Brewster & Shafquat =A0claim the sounds are evidence of man-made
>> explosives at WTC. Someone manipulated the sound track to make
>> those noises.
>>
>> Of the dozens of video tapes we have from WTC on 9/11, there are
>> blasts and are loud enough and timed to be consistent with any
>> building collapse. The 1993 bombing, equal to 1,000 bounds of TNT
>> and loud enough to be heard throughout the WTC complex and for
>> blocks around, was not large enough to do any structural damage to
>> the WTC tower it was under.
>>
>> WTC on 9/11 was probably the most-witnessed disaster in history.
>> For more information about all the imagery we have for it read the
>> of 9/11" by =A0 David Friend
>>
>> For more information about fact-based 9/11, go to
>> and
>> =A0 =A0911myths.com
>>
>> --
>> Al Dykes
>> =A0News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advert=
>ising.
>> =A0 =A0 - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
>
>Remember the guy that brought Led Zeppelin to the US, made The Rose?
>Aaron Russo?? He made a documentary called America: Freedom to Fascism
>and a guy named Alex Jones did one called Terror Storm. I think
>everyone should see these and another called End Game.
>
>There is a lot of stuff you would not know about to even look for
>unless you watch the films. Follow the BILLIONS in insurance payout
>that went to the master lease holder for the towers.
>
>I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that would love to spin
>things in either direction they can, but watch the films. I'd like to
Believe the eyewitnesses. AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death. These 4 people have no relevant expertise, continue
to change their stories and refuse to speak to anybody that wants to
ask polite, relevant questions based on expertise. That includes me.
I was an eyewithess to part of the events of 9/11 at WTC. I know that
the "Truth Movement" claims about what I saw are silly.
I know people in Washington that say the same thing about "Truth
Movement" claims for the Pentagon.
In order to believe the above you have to be ignorant of a whole list
of things. There is a massive amount of hard science and evidence for
the "statndard story".
Ordinary knowledge of any single one of the topics in this list when
applied to the evidence and eyewitness accounts of 9/11 would clue you
into the fact that the claims of the "Truth Movement" are silly.
Deeper and broader investigation into any or all of these subjects
will just show how stupid the claims really are.
Physics, Aviation, aviation crash scene forensics, DNA analysis, the
characteristics and capabilities of Radio and Radar, the
organization of our military forces and the capabilities of the
aircraft as of 2001, structural engineering, metallurgy, demolition,
how the insurance industry works, NY Fire department training,
materials science, the history and expertise of NIST, Computer Data
Center operations, Security and construction practices in large 24x7
Manhattan buildings, Flaws in the radio systems at WTC all the
physical evidence and all the eyewitnesses statements, the massive
archive of video and same-day reporting that is in the archives of
all the media at Shanksville, Washington and NYC, and the history of
the Mid-east for the last 100 years.
I missed one; the meaning and use of metaphor and simile
in impromptu speech.
There are specific topics in that list that I would love to discuss
face-to-face with one of the self-described eyewitnesses that speaks
at Twoofer events and makes claims that don't make sense to me based
on my 30 years doing what he says he did immediatly prior to 9/11.
For each of those topics, 99.9999% of the knowledgeable people in the
world say the k00ks are wrong and the handful of people that claim
"Truth Movement" claims refuse to speak in public and answer polite,
relevant questions.
Why should I believe them?
Al Dykes
Danny T <danny...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 13, 7:35=A0am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> In article <3ebb89a2-c229-4086-88a9-144acd465...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups=>> >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D-8172271955308136871
>>
>> >http://www.911weknow.com
>>
>> >Ignore those who would go to great effort and expend much of heir time
>> >in poo-pooing this post. See for yourself what really happened in the
>>
>> The audio of the explosions heard in 9/11 Mysteries is fake according
>> Movement" is full of lies.
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> from Hoboken, 2 miles away, =A0shows his original =A0video =A0and
>>
>> Siegel shows that the "explosions" heard on 9/11 Mysteries =A0and
>> 9/11 Eyewitness are, in fact, not on his the original tape.
>>
>>
>> Brewster & Shafquat =A0claim the sounds are evidence of man-made
>> explosives at WTC. Someone manipulated the sound track to make
>> those noises.
>>
>> Of the dozens of video tapes we have from WTC on 9/11, there are
>> blasts and are loud enough and timed to be consistent with any
>> building collapse. The 1993 bombing, equal to 1,000 bounds of TNT
>> and loud enough to be heard throughout the WTC complex and for
>> blocks around, was not large enough to do any structural damage to
>> the WTC tower it was under.
>>
>> WTC on 9/11 was probably the most-witnessed disaster in history.
>> For more information about all the imagery we have for it read the
>> of 9/11" by =A0 David Friend
>>
>> For more information about fact-based 9/11, go to
>ising.
>> =A0 =A0 - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
>
>Tell me how building #7 was wired for explosives in 19 hours? IT is an
>admitted fact that building #7 was a demolition drop. How do you do in
>10 hours what it takes many months to do normally and how the hell do
>you do it with a mess like they had that day?
You've been lied to by the "Half Truth Movement".
There was no man-made demolition. None. Nada. There is no evidence
consistant with man-made demolition.
Nobody that claims to be an eyewithess makes any stat5ement that is
consistant in loudness and/or timing with any collaps.
I've read the full text of all the First responders.
You haven't.
They heard lots of loud noises, most of the cherry-picked quotes from
the "half Truth movement" are from firemen in the North tower when the
south tower fell. Of course they used metaphor and simile to explain
what they heard.
"like a bomb" and "like a freight train".
When the transcripts are read in full, none of them concluded,
afterwards that they had been part of a man-made demolition.
Danny T
> In article <0eb4be36-9ee0-4623-94af-795494025...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Rather then post under both of your posts, I'll just do it here. I'd
like more then ANYTHING to believe you and the standard theory but
until I find someone that can show me slowed down footage of the
planes hitting that do NOT show when they showed in the movie (drone
planes) I have to be very skeptical. I don't really believe it is our
government as much as a few extremely rick and arrogant self
proclaimed elitists that think they have a claim on the world.
I don't doubt there were terrorists involved but like with most other
things, there is a lot that doesn't add up. I don't doubt that when
there is money involved there are people willing to do anything.
Anyway, I lost friends and family in those buildings on 9/11 and I
want whomever did it to go down. On that I know we both agree. As for
the how it happened, you may know more then me but then again, you may
have been duped too. Either way, I don't think we oppose each other on
anything other then which trail to follow first - to get to the bottom
of it...
Juha Nieminen
> I'd like more then ANYTHING to believe you and the standard theory
You are either sarcastic or a liar.
Al Dykes
Danny T <danny...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 15, 10:07=A0am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> In article <0eb4be36-9ee0-4623-94af-795494025...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Danny T =A0<dannytad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 13, 7:35=3DA0am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> >> In article <3ebb89a2-c229-4086-88a9-144acd465...@i76g2000hsf.googlegro=
>ups=3D>> >> >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D3D-8172271955308136871
>>
>> >> >http://www.911weknow.com
>>
>> >> >Ignore those who would go to great effort and expend much of heir tim=
>e
>> >> >in poo-pooing this post. See for yourself what really happened in the
>>
>> >> The audio of the explosions heard in 9/11 Mysteries is fake according
>> >> Movement" is full of lies.
>>
>> >> ------------------------------------
>>
>> >> from Hoboken, 2 miles away, =3DA0shows his original =3DA0video =3DA0an=
>d
>> >> compares it to the the versions used in two "Truth Movement"
> and
>> >> "9/11 Mysteries" =3DA0by =3DA0 Sophia Shafquat.
>>
>> >> Siegel shows that the "explosions" heard on 9/11 Mysteries =3DA0and
>> >> 9/11 Eyewitness are, in fact, not on his the original tape.
>>
>>
>> >> Brewster & Shafquat =3DA0claim the sounds are evidence of man-made
>> >> explosives at WTC. Someone manipulated the sound track to make
>> >> those noises.
>>
>> >> Of the dozens of video tapes we have from WTC on 9/11, there are
>> >> blasts and are loud enough and timed to be consistent with any
>> >> building collapse. The 1993 bombing, equal to 1,000 bounds of TNT
>> >> and loud enough to be heard throughout the WTC complex and for
>> >> blocks around, was not large enough to do any structural damage to
>> >> the WTC tower it was under.
>>
>> >> WTC on 9/11 was probably the most-witnessed disaster in history.
>> >> For more information about all the imagery we have for it read the
>> >> of 9/11" by =3DA0 David Friend
>>
>> >> For more information about fact-based 9/11, go to
>> >> and
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0911myths.com
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Al Dykes
>> >> =3DA0News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is a=
>dvert=3D
>> >ising.
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
>>
>> >Tell me how building #7 was wired for explosives in 19 hours? IT is an
>> >admitted fact that building #7 was a demolition drop. How do you do in
>> >10 hours what it takes many months to do normally and how the hell do
>> >you do it with a mess like they had that day?
>>
>> You've been lied to by the "Half Truth Movement".
>>
>> There was no man-made demolition. None. Nada. There is no evidence
>> consistant with man-made demolition.
>>
>> Nobody that claims to be an eyewithess makes any stat5ement that is
>> consistant in loudness and/or timing with any collaps.
>>
>>
>> You haven't.
>>
>> They heard lots of loud noises, most of the cherry-picked quotes from
>> the "half Truth movement" are from firemen in the North tower when the
>> south tower fell. Of course they used metaphor and simile to explain
>> what they heard.
>>
>>
>> When the transcripts are read in full, none of them concluded,
>> afterwards that they had been part of a man-made demolition.
>>
>> --
>> Al Dykes
>ising.
>> =A0 =A0 - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
>
>like more then ANYTHING to believe you and the standard theory but
Then first learn exactly how much information there is that supports
the standard story. A short bibliography is at the bottom of this
post. It's massive.
Remember that the claims you base your skepticism on were made-up by a
tiny number or people who sell DVDs and books to the ignorant. They
hide behind web pages and YouTube and refuse to address polite,
relevant questions from knowledgeable people. (Specific names on
request.)
Remember that there is no "eyewitnesses for truth" or anything like
it. Nobody that saw the events of 9/11 believes the claims you base
your skepticism on
Remember that the documents from the "Truth Movement" contains lies
made up to hide facts that show the "Truth Movement" wrong. Look for
ellipses ("...") in any quote from a NY fireman provided by the "Truth
Movement". When you find the full text, you will find that someone
that uses the word, "truth" much to much, left out words that show
that the fireman didn't man what the "Half Truth Movement" wanted you
to believe.
The "truth Movement" has confused "asking questions" with making
unsubstantiated assertions based on false information phrased as
questions, and not listening to the polite responses and shouting
"Inside Job!" over a bullhorn, and selling books and DVDs to children.
For a list of books and DVDs
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/
Book: _Touching History_ by Lynn Spencer ...
Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded
in the Skies Over America on 9/11, Spencer, Lynn Spencer,
Hardcover, Book, ISBN: 1416559256, ...
Book: _Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11_
150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses
BOOK: _Bomb Squad - A Year Inside the Nation's Most Exclusive Police Unit_
by Richard Esposito and Ted Gerstein
Book: _AFTERMATH: World Trade Center Archive_
By Joel Meyerowitz
http://www.joelmeyerowitz.com/photography/book_aftermath.asp
(images on web site)
FDNY Film
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet
description of video.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?
res=F40613F935590C758CDDAB0894DA404482
Marks's collapse video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2083421624495848233&hl=en
AIA summary of NIST WTC study
http://nistreview.org/aiawtcresponse.pdf
Beitel & iwankiw
SFPE fire prevention engineering 2005
historical survey of multistory builing collapses during fire
http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153
The Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive
Book: _Nine Months at Ground Zero_
By Stout, Vitchers, & Gray
Book: _A nation challenged : a visual history of 9/11 and its aftermath_
By Callaway
Book: _Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11
By David Friend
Book: _102 Minutes_ by Dwyer & Flynn
p.67. Steel spans buckled in 1975 fire.
(probably from NIST Interim Report May 2003, P.20)
Video Archive:
http://www.cameraplanet.com/
...images, captured largely by amateurs, are moments from more
than 500 hours of videos and films, the largest collection of raw
visual data from what historians say is the best-documented
catastrophe in history. About 1,700 clips from the collection have
attracted more than a million hits in the three months since they
were put on Google Video.
Transcripts of NYFD responders at WTC on 911
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/
20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/7e62l
What We saw - WTC7 & fire
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903
http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/index.html
Fire - 10:25
11 02
13 17
17 26
"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
"Inside 9/11: War on America"
First 2 hours
http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/3785698/Inside_9_11__War_on_America.3785698.TPB.torrent
Second 2 hours
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=126485
"On the Stress Analysis of Structures Subjected to Aircraft Impact Forces."
by Jorge Riera published in the journal Nuclear Engineering
and Design, Volume 8, (1968).
This would be about the time that the WTC designers were
thinking about essentially the same problem for an office
tower instead of a nuclear reactor.
By the way, Riera's calculations are for a Boeing 720
and a Boeing 707, ..... each travelling at 200 knots....
Danny T
Let me be as polite as I know how in your case. Shut the fuck up you
arrogant little piece of shit. You don't know me or what I think and
if you were here in person I'd rip out your eyes and fuck your sockets
you piss ant chunk of vomit. Don't ever converse with me again
Thank you very much for your worthless opinion of something there is
no opinion of but mine
Danny T
only one thing on the standard side that makes me feel ok and that is
the endless radar track that does show the flight of the planes...
there is one other thing with the downed plane and that was the phone
calls that came first...
I don't think anything was a government plot but I don't doubt that
there were some politicians that let it happen because the outcome was
better for their agenda.
If you remember all of the moon photo controversies, there are two
camps. There is the "we did go to the moon you moron" group and the
"look at the 1000's of fake photos you moron" groups. There is no "I
bet they faked the photos to lead you off the track of what they were
really doing up there" group. That is the group I am with that and
that is similar to where I stand on beliefs here. I think there is a
lot of coverups going on so you don't know who knew what was going to
happen but I don't think it was a government plan to do it.
I do believe that truth usually stands somewhere in the middle of what
the two sides always argue, no matter what the argument is.
I have not gone through all the links you were kind enough to list do
to time (and a little laziness) but I will because it is of interest
to me.
As for the other jackass that posted above you, people like that are
worthless to the world - thanks for not being one of them.
Danny T
little qualms with the beginning of the actions over there and I am
not educated enough in what is going on now to make a valuable
statement of what we should do at this point.
The military I know that have been over there all tell me we are doing
a good thing but my home budget says it wishes we'd get out of
there.......
Chris Malcolm
> If you remember all of the moon photo controversies, there are two
> camps. There is the "we did go to the moon you moron" group and the
> "look at the 1000's of fake photos you moron" groups. There is no "I
> bet they faked the photos to lead you off the track of what they were
> really doing up there" group. That is the group I am with that and
> that is similar to where I stand on beliefs here. I think there is a
> lot of coverups going on so you don't know who knew what was going to
> happen but I don't think it was a government plan to do it.
> I do believe that truth usually stands somewhere in the middle of what
> the two sides always argue, no matter what the argument is.
You mean like they really did go to the moon, but forgot to put film
in their cameras?
--
Chris Malcolm, IPAB, School of Informatics,
Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB
Danny T
Have you seen the photos? There is no way they were not fake photos so
people say we never went. Personally, I watched to apollo flights take
off but I do see how the photos were faked. I'd bet that we were 1)
making sure there were great photos for cold war propaganda garbage or
2) doing something spy related that the general public wasn't suppose
to know about.
Either way, I think we went but I think we don't really know what they
were doing up there.
theget
Yeah man. I know what you mean. Like that whole World War II
controversy thing. Some people say it happened, some people say all
the photos of it were faked because Hirohito had a huge crush on
Neville's wife Anne and the whole thing was set up to make Neville
look bad. He was a cool dude, really.
> Either way, I think we went but I think we don't really know what they
> were doing up there.
Yeah that's like why Uncle Joe never really wanted to fight in the far
east. He knew the whole thing was a fake and he liked Neville. So
like he didn't want to go along with the fake. But like he wanted
Neville to get a treaty that would make him look bad. But by that
time there were too many fake entries being airbrushed. Like this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stalin_jeschow_molotow.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Commissar_Vanishes_2.jpg
And like the airbrushers hated Neville too and they had like all the
power cause they could make anyone at all vanish so they like secretly
took over and airbrushed all of that war and then they wanted to fake
the moon landing too, because they thought Jackie was so cool so they
airbrushed that too. But you never see any pictures of the airbrushers
themselves. Ever notice that? They're too clever to get caught.
Theget
PV
>I don't think anything was a government plot but I don't doubt that
>there were some politicians that let it happen because the outcome was
>better for their agenda.
Based on what? It's a bad idea to believe things with nothing to back them
up. Therein lies madness.
>If you remember all of the moon photo controversies, there are two
>camps. There is the "we did go to the moon you moron" group and the
>"look at the 1000's of fake photos you moron" groups. There is no "I
No, there was a tiny group of nutbars who, lacking any understanding of the
issues they were critiquing or flat out lying out their asses, who claimed,
for the sole purpose of making money, that clamied that the pinnacle
technological achievement of the human race was a lie. And then there's the
other 99.9999% of the population who aren't that stupid.
Sorry man, but moon landing conspiracy nuts are pants-on-head retarded.
>bet they faked the photos to lead you off the track of what they were
>really doing up there" group. That is the group I am with that and
So what, NASA went to the moon to mine green cheese?
>that is similar to where I stand on beliefs here. I think there is a
>lot of coverups going on so you don't know who knew what was going to
>happen but I don't think it was a government plan to do it.
So in other words, you like to make stuff up and pretend it's real.
Gotcha.
>I do believe that truth usually stands somewhere in the middle of what
>the two sides always argue, no matter what the argument is.
What bullshit. Truth is not determined by where the hankerchief tied to the
middle of the tug-of-war rope currently stands. It is quite possible for
one side of an argument to be totally off-their-nut wrong, and in fact this
is true more often than otherwise. The existence of contrary views doesn't
mean that the contrary view makes any sense.
>As for the other jackass that posted above you, people like that are
>worthless to the world - thanks for not being one of them.
Shut up, internet tough guy. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Danny T
> And like the airbrushers hated Neville too and they had like all the
> power cause they could make anyone at all vanish so they like secretly
> took over and airbrushed all of that war and then they wanted to fake
> the moon landing too, because they thought Jackie was so cool so they
> airbrushed that too. But you never see any pictures of the airbrushers
> themselves. Ever notice that? They're too clever to get caught.
>
> Theget
If you have no idea what I'm talking about you should remain silent
instead of making a total fool of yourself
I broke my own rule. I conversed with the idiots that start these
things. I'm going back to rule 1
PV
>Have you seen the photos? There is no way they were not fake photos so
>people say we never went. Personally, I watched to apollo flights take
And on this wonderfully comprehensive argument, a/k/a proof by assertion,
it is time to drop your loony self into the bottom of my killfile. Please
remove yourself from the gene pool as soon as you find convenient. Cuticle
shears and tweezers will be provided if necessary. *
Mike Schilling
>
> Yeah man. I know what you mean. Like that whole World War II
> controversy thing. Some people say it happened, some people say all
> the photos of it were faked because Hirohito had a huge crush on
> Neville's wife Anne and the whole thing was set up to make Neville
> look bad. He was a cool dude, really.
The weird part is that Hirohito had Neville's Anne confused with Anne
Neville, so he was convinced that Chamberlein was both the King of England
and a hunchback.
Bill Snyder
"As polite as you know how" seems to be on the junkyard dog level.
But then what would anybody expect from a paranoid, drooling
wackjob retard? (And my apologies to any junkyard dogs out there
that I may have inadvertently insulted by comparing them to this
flyblown sack of shit.)
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Laurence Payne
<danny...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I do believe that truth usually stands somewhere in the middle of what
>the two sides always argue, no matter what the argument is.
Do you really? Want to think that one through?
PV
Quirk's objection raised. *
Al Dykes
Danny T <danny...@gmail.com> wrote:
>While I know there are is a ton of stuff on both sides there is really
>only one thing on the standard side that makes me feel ok and that is
>the endless radar track that does show the flight of the planes...
>there is one other thing with the downed plane and that was the phone
>calls that came first...
>
>I don't think anything was a government plot but I don't doubt that
>there were some politicians that let it happen because the outcome was
>better for their agenda.
>
>If you remember all of the moon photo controversies, there are two
>camps. There is the "we did go to the moon you moron" group and the
>"look at the 1000's of fake photos you moron" groups. There is no "I
>bet they faked the photos to lead you off the track of what they were
>really doing up there" group. That is the group I am with that and
>that is similar to where I stand on beliefs here. I think there is a
>lot of coverups going on so you don't know who knew what was going to
>happen but I don't think it was a government plan to do it.
>
>I do believe that truth usually stands somewhere in the middle of what
>the two sides always argue, no matter what the argument is.
>
You should know that none of the tiny number of people that invent the
claims that you base your skepticism on will speak in public and
address polite, relevant questions from anyone with relevant
expertise.
There is one alleged eyewitness that I would love to chat with and
learn more about his claims about what he saw at WTC. My line of
inquiry would be based on my 30 years of similar experience. We are
all in NYC, it's strange that he only shows up to speak with people
that have no knowledge about what he says he did at WTC.
I know he's been invited to show up for meetings to clarify and
elaborate on what he says he saw at WTC.
Mike Schilling
>
> I broke my own rule. I conversed with the idiots that start these
> things. I'm going back to rule 1
All of those jerks on rec.arts.sf.written are exactly those kinds of idiots.
It would serve them right if you never talked to them again.
theget
> > And like the airbrushers hated Neville too and they had like all the
> > power cause they could make anyone at all vanish so they like secretly
> > took over and airbrushed all of that war and then they wanted to fake
> > the moon landing too, because they thought Jackie was so cool so they
> > airbrushed that too. But you never see any pictures of the airbrushers
> > themselves. Ever notice that? They're too clever to get caught.
>
> > Theget
>
> If you have no idea what I'm talking about you should remain silent
> instead of making a total fool of yourself
I completely understand what you're talking about.
> I broke my own rule. I conversed with the idiots that start these
> things. I'm going back to rule 1
I expect airbrushers to talk this way. You aren't one are you?
Or maybe you really do think that whole world war really happened.
Why? Because you've seen the pictures? They're not real. They're the
result of the airbrushers careful work. You should take a close look
at the links I posted above and you'll see how the airbrushers are
faking it all and making us look like suckers for going along with
them.
Theget
Jason
But a thought for all, especially those who know the TRUTH about 9/11!
and especially for inquiring minds.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are
trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for
Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no
matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they
have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you
listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say
"no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have
no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their
determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty
poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that
they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui
bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of
having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have
eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be
the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts
to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard
evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the
official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild
allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the
government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the
principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small
inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the
enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any
alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have
no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the
respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by
anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that
the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a
matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course,
they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for
apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy
theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without
foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the
evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3.
above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by
"swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to
the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to
declare the "official" account totally discredited without having
remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on
the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the
account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in
timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind
are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and
definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not
necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or
that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This
argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station
bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate
that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because
it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the
conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and
complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make
comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen
does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the
body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are
producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which
need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most
important thing about these people is that they are people entirely
lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad
one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot
tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come
up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again
is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at
very least, a bore.
Copied from: http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
Jason
ct airbrushers to talk this way. You aren't one are you?
>
> Or maybe you really do think that whole world war really happened.
> Why? Because you've seen the pictures? They're not real. They're the
> result of the airbrushers careful work. You should take a close look
> at the links I posted above and you'll see how the airbrushers are
> faking it all and making us look like suckers for going along with
> them.
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
theget
wrote:
It's not true. It's not true. The Emperor was never confused about
that. He loved Anne Chamberlein and was devoted to her and the study
of little fishes.
One day we will be able to put all the pixels back where they belong
and the truth will be known even to airbrushers.
Theget
Wolfspawn
Yeah, what's the middle ground between 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 ?
No, the truth isn't 2+2=4.5
Danny T
wrote:
I've never been to rec.arts.sf.written
red floyd
Oh really? Look at the newsgroups you've posted this drivel to.
Followups set to alt.flame.
Danny T
You're a pretty major fool of you can look at photos on the moon with
the flag blowing in the wind and think something isn't funny. Take a
look at the something like 6000 photos that are proven to be touched
up or fake. I don't think we didn't go, I think the photos are fake.
Take a look at the photos and if you don't know much about
photography, I'm sure you will still be able to see they are fake if
you spend a few seconds looking at the lighting and such.
I never said we didn't go to the moon and if you think I did, go back
and read it again. I clearly stated I think we did but I said we were
for some reason faking the photos.
Don't go spitting out stupid statements when you can not even read a
simple statement and comprehend what was clearly written.
If you want to thin the gene pool, take yourself out. People that
would fight over stuff like this with a secondary source are
absolutely worthless to society. If someone believes that the moon is
made of cheese, that is what they believe and you are not about to
change anything by calling names. You WILL make the world a less
better place. If you have a problem with how someone thinks, go to the
source from which that person gets their information and try to
correct the problem.
Since you obviously lack the sophistication it takes to figure out
such simple thoughts, please feel free to remove YOURSELF from any
list that requires thinking.
Mike Schilling
Check your headers.
Danny T
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:00:01 -0700 (PDT), Danny T
>
> >I do believe that truth usually stands somewhere in the middle of what
> >the two sides always argue, no matter what the argument is.
>
> Do you really? Want to think that one through?
Thought it through..... Yep, pretty much think most arguments have
some valor on both sides.
Danny T
Go back to school. That is not an argument. It's math. Look up the
word argument. Think it though...... it won't really hurt that much!
Juha Nieminen
> On Sep 16, 8:48 am, Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>> Danny T wrote:
>> You are either sarcastic or a liar.
>
> Let me be as polite as I know how in your case. Shut the fuck up you
> arrogant little piece of shit. You don't know me or what I think and
> if you were here in person I'd rip out your eyes and fuck your sockets
> you piss ant chunk of vomit. Don't ever converse with me again
Given your obvious intelligence level, as shown in your response, it's
no wonder you fall for all those ridiculous and childish conspiracy
theories.
You should really grow up a bit and stop believing in fairy stories.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> You're a pretty major fool of you can look at photos on the moon with
> the flag blowing in the wind and think something isn't funny.
Oh my god. One of the Real Conspiracy believers. And I thought the
species was almost extinct!
You do know that the flag isn't blowing in the wind, but a rigidly
suspended flag? Because NASA knew perfectly well that there was no wind
on the Moon, and thus selected a flag design which would stay up as
though blown in the wind even in vacuum, so that it wouldn't just sag
limp and lifeless on the pole, which would look stupid?
> Take a
> look at the something like 6000 photos that are proven to be touched
> up or fake.
If you can point to one of these -- not 6,000, just ONE -- you'd have a
point.
Of course, you can't. You can point to some photos that some nutbars
have CLAIMED is fake, but as it turns out, they're not fake.
I don't think we didn't go, I think the photos are fake.
> Take a look at the photos and if you don't know much about
> photography, I'm sure you will still be able to see they are fake if
> you spend a few seconds looking at the lighting and such.
>
> I never said we didn't go to the moon and if you think I did, go back
> and read it again. I clearly stated I think we did but I said we were
> for some reason faking the photos.
And what reason would that be, which wouldn't be so ludicrous as to
surpass any sane person's belief?
(Hint: if you don't know, and can't think of a decent reason, and no
one's come forward with the evidence, YOU'RE WRONG.)
The Manhattan Project was, by comparison, a very short-lived, small,
easily controlled group of people, and there were STILL leaks. Shortly
after WWII, major facts that they'd tried to hide about the Project were
revealed or stolen.
You want us to believe that thousands of photographs of the moon
landings -- possibly the single most studied scientific achievement in
the history of the world -- were faked. At a time when faking so many
photos in a manner that would pass any reasonable examination would have
been an undertaking involving hundreds of people and with literally
THOUSANDS of people who knew about it, and that not ONE credible member
of this Secret Group has come forward to spill the beans?
As Ben Franklin once put it, "Three can keep a secret... if two of them
are dead." This is a secret that would have to have been kept DEAD quiet
for 40 years, aside from nutbars who will claim anything is faked.
IT CANNOT BE DONE. Thousands of people CAN'T keep secrets that well.
Someone talks. Someone decides that the secret isn't worth keeping, or
worse, that keeping it is the wrong idea. Someone makes a mistake and
releases the wrong info.
Try it. Really, do. Get yourself a thousand people and tell them a
secret, one important enough that it matters that it's kept. Do you
seriously think you could expect that secret to remain secret? Without
the Mighty Power of the Government behind you, I wouldn't give you three
months before the secret was out. Even WITH the armed fist of the US
Government and secret agents, I wouldn't give you more than a few years.
40? Not a chance.
The same thing is true of the World Trade Center business. Only FAR
worse, because one COULD speculate that whatever the supposed fakery
involved in the moon landings, it has some terribly important purpose
that no one would question.
Killing thousands of people in the WTC under the circumstances we
know... no. If I assume you find the largest collection of amoral
bastards on the planet, you'll STILL end up with someone who decides
what you're doing is wrong, and blows the whistle. Loudly. With
convincing and incontrovertible evidence, not with handwavy "someone
heard explosions" and badly-reasoned arguments about steel components
that they clearly don't understand.
The world isn't full of diabolical and shadowy conspiracies. Idiots and
incompetence, yes, but the conspiracies that exist are small, pathetic,
and usually found out within months, not decades.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Edward A. Falk
Mike Walter rebuts "cruise missile" claims (video):
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dd_1177892305
Remember the famous "it was like a cruise missile with wings" quote that the
truthers like to pull out? Well Mike Walter is the guy you're quoting. He
was an eye witness and in this video, he calls out the truthers for the liars
they are.
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
Auntie Establishment
Why?
You don't know what you're talking about and you don't remain silent.
>
> I broke my own rule. I conversed with the idiots that start these
> things. I'm going back to rule 1
Bye...
Auntie
theget
> On Sep 16, 3:34 pm, pv+use...@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
>
> > Danny T <dannytad...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >Have you seen the photos? There is no way they were not fake photos so
> > >people say we never went. Personally, I watched to apollo flights take
>
> > And on this wonderfully comprehensive argument, a/k/a proof by assertion,
> > it is time to drop your loony self into the bottom of my killfile. Please
> > remove yourself from the gene pool as soon as you find convenient. Cuticle
> > shears and tweezers will be provided if necessary. *
> > --
> > * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
> > like corkscrews.
>
> You're a pretty major fool of you can look at photos on the moon with
> the flag blowing in the wind and think something isn't funny.
You are so right. I am very glad to see you agreeing with me. I
thought you might be an airbrusher because of what you posted before.
I'm glad to see that you know the truth. The airbrushers don't stop at
still pictures they are very good with motion pictures too. They are
making the breeze obvious. It's a signal that only people like you and
me can understand. Don't expect many other people to understand or to
be able to see the message that the airbrushers put in the photos. You
have to look very carefully to see it.
> Take a
> look at the something like 6000 photos that are proven to be touched
> up or fake. I don't think we didn't go, I think the photos are fake.
No, they're not fake. The airbrushers start with real photos and then
change them but they obviously weren't taken on the moon you can tell
because of the breeze.
> Take a look at the photos and if you don't know much about
> photography, I'm sure you will still be able to see they are fake if
> you spend a few seconds looking at the lighting and such.
Yes, yes, yes. I think you are seeing the message.
> I never said we didn't go to the moon and if you think I did, go back
> and read it again. I clearly stated I think we did but I said we were
> for some reason faking the photos.
Doh! Well, that's obvious. The airbrushers are at work again.
The whole thing is really an outgrowth of the airbrushers world war
fakery. They had to make up lies about so called rocket scientists
and the fake moon landings were the result. Plus they liked Jackie and
didn't want her to see the "promise" of going to the moon not kept.
Theget
Danny T
> And don't forget my favorite:
>
> Mike Walter rebuts "cruise missile" claims (video):
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dd_1177892305
>
> Remember the famous "it was like a cruise missile with wings" quote that the
> truthers like to pull out? Well Mike Walter is the guy you're quoting. He
> was an eye witness and in this video, he calls out the truthers for the liars
> they are.
>
> --
> http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
So I ask, what if and why not explore it? Maybe a quick read through
history is in order. There are all kinds of people that have played
one group against another to get what they want. I tend to take the
time to look, I don't just discard things because it is an
uncomfortable thought. Remember watergate? Remember china in the late
60's? Remember Hitler? Stalin? How about that little man who bought up
england with one lie that Napoleon defeated the English army?
Those that just dismiss testimony without putting it to trial are
doing them self an injustice.
Anonymous
Valor?
You want to give them medals?
Go sit in a corner and learn to speak English, then you might be able to
understand what really happened in the various areas that have you confused.
Validity is the word you are fumbling for.
What you don't seem to realise is that this is an international medium, and
there are many people like me who really don't give a damn one way or
another about 9/11. The people killed there have no more meaning to me than
someone killed in a car accident, plane crash or boating disaster,
something I see on the nightly news, something happening in a country that
is foreign to me.
The only real question 9/11 raised is the only one not addressed by the
average American "What the fuck did we do to piss people off to the extent
that they will die to make their point"? The average dumb American has no
idea of how a few decades of brutal and thoughtless foreign policy
destroyed millions of lives and made the US the target of such hatred that
things like 9/11 were inevitable.
It is all working out in the end though, your banks are failing, your major
companies close to collapse, your property values falling, your social
security near bankrupt, your medical support system non functional, your
military losing - as always. You will be like the Soviet Union soon, a
third world country with no hope of recovery. Bush is still as dumb as a
tree stump and without clue one as to how to undo the damage his idiocy has
done to the US. The initial support for Iraq has gone, the other nations
have woken up and stopped supporting the US' moronic determination to fight
without the ability to fight. More than two hundred thousand rounds fired
for every hit on an enemy? What amazingly inept troops! But then the US has
always had a reputation for poorly trained and disciplined troops. They
have never won a war unaided, even the war of independence was only won
with the aid of the French.
America didn't land on the moon, it has never won a war unaided, it is
moments from bankruptcy, and as for 9/11, who cares? They were terrorists
flying the planes, the government did have advance warning, they did need
an excuse to invade an oil rich nation. Work it out. They didn't create it,
they simply didn't stop it. It was politically advantageous to them.
America is a laughing stock, about to be relegated to the status of a third
world country. The US government hasn't the resources to keep bailing out
floundering financial institutions, and without help they will crash. Look
at the last twenty-four hours, stocks falling everywhere.
Stop worrying about things in the past and start worrying about how you're
going to survive the next decade.
Anon
David DeLaney
>theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>> And like the airbrushers hated Neville too and they had like all the
>> power cause they could make anyone at all vanish so they like secretly
>> took over and airbrushed all of that war and then they wanted to fake
>> the moon landing too, because they thought Jackie was so cool so they
>> airbrushed that too. But you never see any pictures of the airbrushers
>> themselves. Ever notice that? They're too clever to get caught.
>
>instead of making a total fool of yourself
Oh, we know _exactly_ what you're talking about. And there's only one total
fool involved in this conversation, who has no idea of the realities involved.
And who's crossposting to hell and back (apologies to the other groups here)
over groups that have nothing to do even slightly with what he THINKS he's
talking about.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
>Laurence Payne <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
>> <dannytad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I do believe that truth usually stands somewhere in the middle of what
>> >the two sides always argue, no matter what the argument is.
>>
>> Do you really? Want to think that one through?
>
>Thought it through..... Yep, pretty much think most arguments have
>some valor on both sides.
By which you show that you aren't capable of actually thinking it through,
and don't know much about history, don't know much psy-cholo-gy, don't know
much about a science book... or about logic.
If you're talking about a comparison of opinions, then sometimes both sides
have something to stand on. But even there, a lot of times one of the sides
is UNINFORMED opinion and falls flat on its face when confronted with actual
data.
So no, most arguments DON'T have some "valor" on both sides. Sorry. You may
want to try next door, it's Abuse, instead?
Dave "setting followups out of here AGAIN" DeLaney
David DeLaney
>f...@green.rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
>> And don't forget my favorite:
>>
>> Mike Walter rebuts "cruise missile" claims (video):
>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dd_1177892305
>>
>> Remember the famous "it was like a cruise missile with wings" quote that the
>> truthers like to pull out? Well Mike Walter is the guy you're quoting. He
>> was an eye witness and in this video, he calls out the truthers for the liars
>> they are.
>
Because once you grow up, you learn to discriminate "things that are worth
checking into" from "things that the children are making up and saying 'Well,
it COULD have happened! Why are you punishing ME for this, when the space
aliens CLEARLY broke that window?". And to discriminate between people who
can check their imaginings against reality, and ones who try to keep reality
as far away from what they're talking about as they can.
Several other people have told you why the TRVTH you think you've found is
flat-out lies, and why the people you've picked it up from are pushing it
anyway. What if, and why not explore THAT? Cuz you aren't exploring that,
you know.
Dave
Al Dykes
Edward A. Falk <fa...@green.rahul.net> wrote:
>And don't forget my favorite:
>
>Mike Walter rebuts "cruise missile" claims (video):
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dd_1177892305
>
>Remember the famous "it was like a cruise missile with wings" quote that the
>truthers like to pull out? Well Mike Walter is the guy you're quoting. He
>was an eye witness and in this video, he calls out the truthers for the liars
>they are.
>
Yup.
Washington Newsman Mike Walters shows how Truthys have twisted his
9/11 reporting;
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dd_1177892305
Al Dykes
Danny T <danny...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 16, 7:22=A0pm, f...@green.rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
>> And don't forget my favorite:
>>
>> Mike Walter rebuts "cruise missile" claims (video):
>>
>> Remember the famous "it was like a cruise missile with wings" quote that =
>the
>> truthers like to pull out? =A0Well Mike Walter is the guy you're quoting.=
> =A0He
>> was an eye witness and in this video, he calls out the truthers for the l=
>iars
>> they are.
>>
>> --
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -Ed Falk, f...@despams.r.us.com
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
>
>So I ask, what if and why not explore it? Maybe a quick read through
>history is in order. There are all kinds of people that have played
>one group against another to get what they want. I tend to take the
>time to look, I don't just discard things because it is an
>uncomfortable thought. Remember watergate? Remember china in the late
>60's? Remember Hitler? Stalin? How about that little man who bought up
>england with one lie that Napoleon defeated the English army?
>
>Those that just dismiss testimony without putting it to trial are
>doing them self an injustice.
What "testimony"?
Sigh
>You're a pretty major fool of you can look at photos on the moon with
>the flag blowing in the wind and think something isn't funny. Take a
>look at the something like 6000 photos that are proven to be touched
>up or fake.
You're pretty much a major fool to believe the conspiracists that make a buck
off of your paranoia and delusions by selling you their books or feeding you
their spam-ridden web-sites.
Unlike you, I followed the moon-landing extensively while it was happening,
YEARS before it ever happened. I collected all news articles and reports
possible on what was going to occur, even built a 1:32 scale model of the LEM to
go along with my fascination of the upcoming event. I still have my three 4"
thick tomes of scrap-books that I saved as well as a commemorative Apollo 11
coin made of brass, given to me by someone that was involved in the project.
Discussions of how the flags would be reinforced with a support to make them
look like they were suspended in moving air was nicely explained months before
they ever lifted-off on the TV shows and in newspaper and magazine articles. Why
would they do that? Intentionally plan to suspend the flags with a horizontal
support? Simple, you fool. Because there is no air on the moon and a flag
wouldn't remain open for the live-TV transmitted back to earth, for the
higher-res photos, and to make a greater visual political-landmark for
generations in the future that might happen to visit the place. They planned
ahead for that dilemma, they weren't as stupid as you are. We even watched them
on TV as they unfurled the flag, upright support, and click the horizontal
supports into place. The flag, in a vacuum, now happily bouncing around (waving)
for a long time because there was no air-resistance to stop its motion.
Over the years I've occasionally stumbled on the "fake lunar landing" web-sites
and browsed them for the laughs they provide. Each and every photo can be very
easily explained by the science background of a 3rd-grader, common sense, and
some basic knowledge of light and photography, not to mention the way things act
in lower gravity and a vacuum. Only people with a kindergartner mentality would
believe the outlandish conspiracy-explanations invented by the "Fake Lunar
Landing" conspiracists. That be people like you. The only thing that you prove
is that P.T. Barnum was right, "A fool is born every minute." He too made his
fortune off of people like you, even after telling them to their face that they
were fools. They would rather buy the outlandish hoax than the truth, so he sold
hoax to them and made a fortune.
Chris Malcolm
> AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
> people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
> claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
> demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
> damage and death.
As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
anon
Don't argue with an idiot. He'll get you to his level, and beat you with
the experience.
Chris H
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>> people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>> claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>> demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>> damage and death.
>
>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
>buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of them were hit
>by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
>
There is a LOT of circumstantial evidence that shows some
characteristics of a controlled demolition.
However I discussed this with a friend of mind who knows a lot about
blowing up things. I don't mean civil demolition.
He pointed out a vast number of problems with rigging two or three
floors of the WTC with demolition charges.
There were a lot of things in a live and running building like the WTC
that would not permit a normal civilian type demolition, apart from the
people that is :-) and they would be difficult to over come in a
military scenario for covert rigging for demolition.
Modern detonators are electrical and can be set off by a simple electric
pulse, things that are (in a covert military situation) good for setting
off explosives are the pulses from a fluorescent light striking (do they
have strip light in the WTC?
Air con compressors are also good for this... lovely spikes that can
fire a detonator. Any air con in the WTC?
Any other electrical equipment with puts out a pulse? CRT's for
example, elevators, static generated by carpets and computers.....
Of course modern explosives are quite stable. But they don't like
getting hot. They get a little unstable. So as long as the place is cold
it is OK.
Then there is all the cabling required. It can take a couple of weeks
to rig a building, and that is with all the contents stripped out in
advance and the cables and explosives very much in view.
You can't run cables down corridors and in to empty lift shafts or down
the stairs.
Apart from rigging and controlling the explosives the logistics would
require a hell of a lot of luck and or movement of a lot of people. It
would require an active operation going back 12+ months to get things
in line.
With hind sight some things do appear to be in place but some of these
were just coincidence and could not have been predicted or engineered,
not without a vast amount of planning and a large team. We are now
looking at a lead time of a couple of years and a lot of people.
That is a long time to plan an operation and has a lot of people
involved to murder a large number of one's own citizens in the middle of
one of one's own cities. Quite apart from the aircraft involvement.
There are far to many variables and far to many people for anyone other
than Tom Cruise or Bruce Willies to put it off with out it leaking
before or most certainly afterwards.
Any plan that could do this is open to many places where chance could
wreck it. Many places where you can't predict the future to be sure that
in 6 months time the window/person/system etc will or will not be where
you need it when you need it.
In short whilst there are some characteristics that look like a
controlled demolition there are other places where similar
characteristics have been seen and it was not a controlled explosion.
The other minor point to consider is that no one has seen a building of
this size and type come down like this before. Also no one has actually
tested anything this size before . All it needs is the concrete mix to
be a little out in that area (hot day, running short of sand/cement etc
something contaminated the water when it was mixed) and you have a
weakness that only appears when you bake it with aircraft fuel for 20
minutes.
There are as many more plausible scenarios than controlled demolition
which is just not practical.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Don Pearce
Not to mention the tiny problem that the entire demolition set-up would
have been torn apart by a plane flying into the building just where the
charges were laid... Or is the idea that a demolition crew dashed up
into the towers after the planes hit, and rigged the whole thing in 20
minutes?
The mind boggles.
d
Chris H
<Ja...@net.net> writes
>theget wrote:
>ct airbrushers to talk this way. You aren't one are you?
>> Or maybe you really do think that whole world war really happened.
>> Why? Because you've seen the pictures? They're not real. They're the
>> result of the airbrushers careful work. You should take a close look
>> at the links I posted above and you'll see how the airbrushers are
>> faking it all and making us look like suckers for going along with
>> them.
>
>10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
>A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
>
>1. Arrogance.
We know the truth, It's as simple as that.
>discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs
>Bush and Blair etc.
You neocon you!
>2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no
>matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they
>have is simply discredited.
THEY always discredit it.... that's how you know it is a conspiracy.
>3. Inability to answer questions.
I did answer it! It was you who change the subject...... You did not
PROVE that the cost of coffee hadn't gone up 1cent in the restaurant
thereby signalling to the Moslems the attack was on.....
>4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui
>bono?"
Precisely My Dear Watson.
>5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor.
What has Occam got to do with this... HE wasn't there.
>Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice
>that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are
>dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence
>in any alternative account.
No be fair people don't remember everything and get things wrong. Even
TV cameramen... (video is not 100% good at recording facts besides the
Jews in the Media can photoshop it afterwards)
>6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.
Not at all. MY evidence is Good Your Evidence is Bad.
>7. Inability to withdraw.
Not everyone is a good Catholic...
>8. Leaping to conclusions
You just don't have any imagination... Now don't go quoting Newton at
me... He got it wrong.
>9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
THEY covered up Kennedy AND keep Elvis locked up.
>10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it?
Yepp I knew we would win you around...
Got to go the nurse is here with the tablets... THEY want me to take
them so I forget the voices.... only the voices tell the truth my
Precious....
What has it got in its pocketses....
I am going hide with Julius Caesar so the Nurse can't find me....
Damn..... she got me
Hmmmpf...
Hi My Bush..... George Bush.....
Chris H
<nos...@nospam.com> writes
>Not to mention the tiny problem that the entire demolition set-up would
>have been torn apart by a plane flying into the building just where the
>charges were laid...
You are a complete arse-hole!!!
Just because you have the laws of physics, reality and time on your site
you think you are so clever!!! It's a conspiracy... That's how they did
it. The Muslims were trained by the Jews and CIA to hit the floor above
the charges.
>Or is the idea that a demolition crew dashed up into the towers after
>the planes hit, and rigged the whole thing in 20 minutes?
My demolition's experts (T.Cruise, B Willis and S Stalone) can rig an
entire 200 floor skyscraper in 15 minutes (screen time) and blow the
building with 0.0001 seconds to spare.
So shove it.
:-)
Juha Nieminen
> 1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are
> trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for
> Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
>
> matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they
> listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say
> "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have
> no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
It's surprising how much in common there is in conspiracy theories and
religion. In both areas there are extreme fanatics which will ramble on
and on about their theory/religion, annoy people with their constant
preaching, will never listen to reason, and fabricate evidence to
support their views.
Without taking any stance of whether Intelligent Design has any truth
in it or not, just compare ID fanatics with 911/Moon/whatever conspiracy
theory fanatics. There are surprisingly many similarities in their
behavior and tactics. Both will claim to use scientific facts to support
their claims, while in reality they only use very selected pieces of it,
pulling them out of context and twisting their meaning. Likewise both
will use quotes from famous people or eyewitnesses, which seem to
support their claims, but usually these quotes are badly cut and pulled
out of their context, or the person who has said those things is either
an ID/conspiracy fanatic himself or in no way an expert on the field in
question. Both will dismiss any statements by actual scientists or
experts in the field if these statements contradict their views.
Conspiracy theorists also show deep religious conviction, completely
in par with the most religious people. Nothing you could ever say will
convince them otherwise, no matter how well-founded it might be. There
just is no convincing them, no matter what you say or do. They have seen
the light and they will not be turned off the "right" path, no matter
what. Unlike religious people, conspiracy theorists are, however, in a
worse position: Nothing they claim can be simply attributed to something
supernatural or something which is a matter of opinion. Instead,
everything they claim is something which should be real, can be proved
and should be verifiable. However, like true religious fanatics, it
doesn't matter. Even if they cannot prove anything, they will still keep
their religious conviction.
> 7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy
> theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without
> foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the
> evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3.
> above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by
> "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to
> the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
The reason why conspiracy theorists cannot concede even on one single
point is that they need all of their arguments for their conspiracy
theory to be effective.
The main weapon of conspiracy theories is the so-called shotgun
argumentation: They present lots and lots and lots of little pieces of
"evidence". Not because there indeed *is* that much believable evidence
of a conspiracy, but because there must a lot of it for the shotgun
argumentation to work.
Shotgun argumentation works by two means:
1) The sheer amount of "evidence" might be enough to convince people
that something strange is going on. Basically the idea is: "There's
*this* much evidence that something is not right. Something *has* to be
wrong. There just cannot be this much evidence without something really
being wrong in this situation." Presenting just a half dozen pieces of
evidence might not be enough to convince anyone. However, present a
hundred pieces of evidence, and the likelihood of someone believing your
theory is much higher.
2) More closely related to the metaphor: A shotgun fires hundreds of
small pellets, while a rifle fires only one bullet. It's much easier to
kill a rabbit with a shotgun than with a rifle because the likelihood
that at least one of the pellets will hit the rabbit is much higher than
the likelihood for the single bullet to do so.
That's where the large amount of "evidence" works: The more pieces of
"evidence" there are, the larger the probability that at least one of
them will convince someone that there is a conspiracy. Even if the vast
majority of the presented "evidence" is not convincing, it may take but
just one which is convincing enough to make someone believe the
conspiracy theory.
For this reason conspiracy theorists cannot drop any of the arguments
they have been carefully designing for years. Dropping them would lessen
the likelihood of convincing people.
And this is, once again, another parallel with religion: This is the
mission of conspiracy theorists: To convince others of their own faith.
They will use whatever tools necessary to convince them. If evidence
must be fabricated to achieve the goal, they will do that. If twisting
what other have said is necessary to achieve that goal, they will do that.
> 8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to
> declare the "official" account totally discredited without having
> remotely enough cause so to do.
Moreover, conspiracy theorists go so far as to create a mentality
where terms like "the official explanation" is a complete synonym with
"a coverup", "a lie". Just the term "official" will have a big negative
connotation to them. Anything which is "official" is immediately
something to be highly mistrusted, most probably a big coverup and a
lie, and something you should avoid at all costs.
Another term with a negative connotation (to them) is "expert".
Whenever there's a statement by "an expert" which is against the
conspiracy theory, it's automatically dubious and must not be trusted.
Conspiracy theorists have effectively reversed the meaning of the word
"expert" to the point where, to them, it means someone who is *not*
competent on the subject or, at the very least, is someone "official"
and thus part of the conspiracy. To the conspiracy theorists, all
"experts" which do not agree with the conspiracy theory are either
employed by the government, or completely incompetent.
It's not even rare to see a conspiracy theorist write something along
the lines of 'are you going to believe some "expert"?' as if the word
"expert" all in itself was a sign of someone who is not competent, has
no practical experience on the subject or is in the conspiracy.
Quite inconsistently, if there is some "expert" which actually
supports the conspiracy theory, the theorists will immediately exalt his
achievements and expertise, and go to great lengths about convincing
people why *this* expert is to be trusted (while the ones which disagree
with the conspiracy theory should not).
Don Pearce
> In message <APKdncA7wemGaE3V...@posted.plusnet>, Don Pearce
> <nos...@nospam.com> writes
>> Not to mention the tiny problem that the entire demolition set-up
>> would have been torn apart by a plane flying into the building just
>> where the charges were laid...
>
> You are a complete arse-hole!!!
> Just because you have the laws of physics, reality and time on your site
> you think you are so clever!!! It's a conspiracy... That's how they did
> it. The Muslims were trained by the Jews and CIA to hit the floor above
> the charges.
>
>> Or is the idea that a demolition crew dashed up into the towers after
>> the planes hit, and rigged the whole thing in 20 minutes?
>
> My demolition's experts (T.Cruise, B Willis and S Stalone) can rig an
> entire 200 floor skyscraper in 15 minutes (screen time) and blow the
> building with 0.0001 seconds to spare.
>
> So shove it.
>
> :-)
>
Damn! You saw through me far too easily ;-)
d
tony cooper
wrote:
>In message <APKdncA7wemGaE3V...@posted.plusnet>, Don Pearce
><nos...@nospam.com> writes
>>Not to mention the tiny problem that the entire demolition set-up would
>>have been torn apart by a plane flying into the building just where the
>>charges were laid...
>
>You are a complete arse-hole!!!
>Just because you have the laws of physics, reality and time on your site
>you think you are so clever!!! It's a conspiracy... That's how they did
>it. The Muslims were trained by the Jews and CIA to hit the floor above
>the charges.
>
>>Or is the idea that a demolition crew dashed up into the towers after
>>the planes hit, and rigged the whole thing in 20 minutes?
>
>My demolition's experts (T.Cruise, B Willis and S Stalone) can rig an
>entire 200 floor skyscraper in 15 minutes (screen time) and blow the
>building with 0.0001 seconds to spare.
>
And they were taught the art by the "Mission Impossible" crew.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter J Ross
<d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
> (apologies to the other groups here)
Don't apologise to us in rec.arts.poems. Danny's delusions are
entertaining to read about.
Where are you reading this?
--
PJR :-)
trag
> 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
> A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
> 2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no
> matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they
> have is simply discredited.
> 3. Inability to answer questions.
> 4. Fondness for certain stock phrases.
> 6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have
> no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the
> respectability of sources.
> 7. Inability to withdraw.
> 9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
> A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again
> is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at
> very least, a bore.
>
> Copied from:http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
Sounds like a pretty accurate of Bush and his claim of WMD in Iraq...
theget
> In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
> > people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
> > claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
> > demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
> > damage and death.
>
> As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
> buildings collapsed in the same manner,
Please define "same".
> but only two of them were hit
> by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.
FTFY.
Theget
PV
>Danny T wrote:
>>
>> I broke my own rule. I conversed with the idiots that start these
>> things. I'm going back to rule 1
>
>It would serve them right if you never talked to them again.
Yes, we all suck, and should only be ignored. *
PV
>> All of those jerks on rec.arts.sf.written are exactly those kinds of idiots.
>> It would serve them right if you never talked to them again.
>
<madge> You're soaking in it. </madge> *
PV
>10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
>A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
{nice list removed}
11. Tapdancing. When questioned on the specifics of what they're talking
about, inevitably they will switch over to something else, in an attempt
to avoid exploring any one thing in enough detail to expose the farce it's
built upon.
This one thing is what makes interviewing conspiracy nuts in the media a
complete waste of time. Any thread they start could easily be chased down
to nonsense, but instead you get a big sloppy tangled skein that you end up
holding and looking like a fool. It's like that guy who used to spin plates
on the bozo show - there's so much going on that you don't realize it's not
all that interesting. *
PV
>You're a pretty major fool of you can look at photos on the moon with
>the flag blowing in the wind and think something isn't funny. Take a
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *
PV
> And what reason would that be, which wouldn't be so ludicrous as to
>surpass any sane person's belief?
I have to admit, this particular piece of moon denial nuttyness is new to
me. Someone who thinks we went, but faked the photos. That's just WEIRD.
> The Manhattan Project was, by comparison, a very short-lived, small,
>easily controlled group of people, and there were STILL leaks. Shortly
The manhattan project didn't have leaks, it had streams, mighty rivers,
nay, rampaging whitewater rapids of breaches. Practically from day one. *
PV
>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
>buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of them were hit
>by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
Good lord, how do people actually manage to say crap like this? You should
be freaking ashamed of yourself. *
Al Dykes
And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????
(Watching YouTube videos doesn't count.)
Scott Dorsey
>
>This one thing is what makes interviewing conspiracy nuts in the media a
>complete waste of time. Any thread they start could easily be chased down
>to nonsense, but instead you get a big sloppy tangled skein that you end up
>holding and looking like a fool. It's like that guy who used to spin plates
>on the bozo show - there's so much going on that you don't realize it's not
>all that interesting. *
Yeah, but what if 9-11 really WAS a plot by the international communist
conspiracy in collusion with the Vatican?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
David DeLaney
>In rec.arts.poems on Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:39:46 -0400, David DeLaney
><d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
>> (apologies to the other groups here)
>
>Don't apologise to us in rec.arts.poems. Danny's delusions are
>entertaining to read about.
>
>Where are you reading this?
Rec.arts.sf.written ... where it qualifies as a bad enough version of
fantasy to not actually be on-topic there.
Dave "one can only theorize on how comp.lang.c++ got added to the conspiracy"
DeLaney
Gianluca
> Yeah, but what if 9-11 really WAS a plot by the international communist
> conspiracy in collusion with the Vatican?
... and the Reptilians.
But seriously, it's time to wake up:
Juha Nieminen
> Have you seen the photos? There is no way they were not fake photos
It's always rather hilarious to read conspiracy theories about the
photographs taken on the Moon.
The problem with people who believe the conspiracy theory is that they
are told "this thing you see in this photo is a clear sign of the photo
being fake", and when they can't think of any explanation in 10 seconds,
they believe the claim, believe that the photograph is fake, never even
consider that there just might be a rational physical explanation, and
then get completely convinced by the conspiracy theory and will never be
convinced otherwise. Then you hear them say things like "the is NO WAY
this is a real photo taken on the Moon".
The thing is, all the "problems" the conspiracy theorists claim in the
photos are completely normal and to be expected, but when presented to a
layman who doesn't have all the information, it can sound pretty convincing.
Example: "There are no stars visible on the photos, thus the photos
were clearly not taken on the Moon." This might sound pretty convincing
to a layman who doesn't do his research. Heck, it can even sound
convincing to a person who has some experience with photography, if he
doesn't bother to think about it a bit or perform a bit of research on
the subject.
The answer, of course, has to do with the camera shutter aperture and
exposition time. Any person with the most basic understanding of
photography will understand this. The exposure of the cameras was set to
photograph the brightly-lit lunar surface, and the stars were simply too
dim to be captured on film. The exposure time was simply too short, and
the stars got underexposed.
It's actually the opposite: If there had been stars on the
photographs, *that* would have been suspicious. It would need to be
explained how you can photograph both the lunar surface and the stars at
the same time with the same camera settings, without badly overexposing
the lunar surface.
What else? You shouldn't be able to see things in shadows because of
the vacuum, and everything in shadows should be pitch black? Exactly on
which laws of physics is this claim based on? Can you give me a textbook
reference on this subject?
Let me ask you a question: When the sunlight hits the ground, what
happens to that light after that?
Hint: Why is it that you can *see* the ground in the first place?
Heck, why can you see the Moon from Earth?
Answer: The light reflects from the ground to all directions (not
completely evenly, but almost).
So second question: What happens to the light after it has reflected
from the ground?
Oh, you might have the objection that the lunar surface doesn't
reflect but something like 10% of the light? However, the Sun is
*really* bright, and 10% of *really* bright is still very bright, and
the cameras were tuned to photograph this 10% reflected light clearly.
The cameras were tuned to pick up this 10% of reflected light. Also, the
lunar surface is a HUGE reflector, so there's light reflecting from a
very large area, which sums up. Things like the spacesuits were very
white, and reflected a lot of that 10% of light back. It's to be
completely expected for them to be very visible in the photographs.
Vacuum has nothing to do with this. That's just a myth which the
conspiracy theorists want to spread because it suits their theories.
It's all about light reflecting from surfaces.
In fact, most of the photos corroborate that. Shadows *on the ground*
are pitch black, while eg. astronauts in a shadow are illuminated by
light reflecting from the ground. At the same time, in the same photo.
How can this be possible if atmosphere was the explanation for things
being visible in shadows? Shouldn't the ground in shadow also be
visible? No, because there's nothing reflecting light to the shadowed
parts of the ground. There's only a black sky.
The "shadows in vacuum are always pitch black" is just false physics
which is based on absolutely nothing but hearsay. The main source of
illumination is light reflected from other surfaces.
What else? Shadows which don't look parallel? Every single photo with
apparently non-parallel shadows has been replicated with scale models,
and even single shadow can be perfectly and very simply explained by the
shape of the terrain and perspective. It's not even that hard to see it
from the photos themselves.
What else? A waving flag? How can you see the flag waving in a still
photo? And how do you explain that the wrinkles of the flag are
*identical* in different photos, if the flag was waving in the wind?
And so on. "There's no way they were not fake photos" is pure and
complete bullshit. I have yet to see even one single photo which is not
easily and completely explainable with basic physics.
Moreover, believing what the conspiracy theorists claim about the
photos would require me to forget about what I know about basic laws of
physics and start believing in odd fairytales which are based on nothing
more than the odd ramblings of some lunatics.
But nothing will convince the conspiracy theorists. They cannot
concede even on one single point. They will keep onto every single claim
they make, no matter how ridiculous. The "no visible stars" is the
perfect example: It has an extremely simple explanation which anyone can
corroborate by experimentation, and any person with photographic
experience can corroborate, and it just doesn't have anything to it, but
no, conspiracy theorists just can't let even that one go. They have to
keep it. They have to keep every single tiny bit of "evidence" they have
come up with. They just can't let go. They can't admit they are wrong in
any of the examples. Not a single one.
theget
> In article <e1f57e2a-d117-4ef3-bdf7-fe8dffe72...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> > AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
> >> > people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
> >> > claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
> >> > demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
> >> > damage and death.
>
> >> As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
> >> buildings collapsed in the same manner,
>
> >Please define "same".
>
> >> but only two of them were hit
> >> by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
>
> >Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.
>
> And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????
Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.
I have never heard of a claim of a plane or even part of a plane
directly impacting WTC7, however absent any evidence of such a direct
impact WTC7 collapsed. Please tell me if you disagree with this.
It is possible that part of a plane directly impacted WTC7, but there
is, to my knowledge, no evidence of that, although, I suspect finding
that evidence would be very difficult.
If you have evidence of a plane's, or part of a plane's, direct impact
on WTC7 then I shall be happy to withdraw my statement.
It may perhaps in the larger context of this discussion be worthwhile
considering what might constitute evidence, but I'll leave that point
for whatever specific evidence you might offer.
> (Watching YouTube videos doesn't count.)
Of course it doesn't. YouTube videos are posted by airburshers.
Theget
William December Starr
Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
> My demolition's experts (T.Cruise, B Willis and S Stalone) can rig
> an entire 200 floor skyscraper in 15 minutes (screen time) and
> blow the building with 0.0001 seconds to spare.
And outrun the ensuing fireball too. In slow motion, even.
-- wds
Al Dykes
theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> In article <e1f57e2a-d117-4ef3-bdf7-fe8dffe72...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>> >On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>> >> > people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>> >> > claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>> >> > demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>> >> > damage and death.
>>
>> >> As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
>> >> buildings collapsed in the same manner,
>>
>> >Please define "same".
>>
>> >> but only two of them were hit
>> >> by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
>>
>> >Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.
>>
>> And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????
>
>Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
>correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.
Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.
The fire and lack of water were caused by the collapse of the North
tower, which was caused by fire which was started by the impact of a
plane with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel.
"direct" is your word and it is irrelevant to the description of
what really happened.
theget
> In article <20f1ccc6-57d0-4e4a-a85f-2235ca03f...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
> >> In article <e1f57e2a-d117-4ef3-bdf7-fe8dffe72...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >> In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
> >> >> > people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
> >> >> > claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
> >> >> > demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
> >> >> > damage and death.
>
> >> >> As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
> >> >> buildings collapsed in the same manner,
>
> >> >Please define "same".
>
> >> >> but only two of them were hit
> >> >> by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
>
> >> >Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.
>
> >> And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????
>
> >Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
> >correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.
>
> Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.
What's your point?
>
> The fire and lack of water were caused by the collapse of the North
> tower, which was caused by fire which was started by the impact of a
> plane with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel.
Resulting in the murder (IMO a war crime) of many of the occupants of
the building and all the passengers aboard the plane.
I repeat, what's your point?
Did you disagree with me?
It is still the case that there was no direct plane impact on WTC7 and
therefore WTC7's collapse was not caused by a direct plane impact.
Please tell me if you disagree with this.
If you have evidence of a direct plane impact on WTC7 resulting in its
collapse please tell me and I'll be happy to withdraw my statement.
> "direct" is your word and it is irrelevant to the description of
> what really happened.
"direct" was my word and was entirely relevant to the description of
what really happened and to the correction I made to a misleading
statement above.
FTFY.
Theget
Don Pearce
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>> And what reason would that be, which wouldn't be so ludicrous as to
>> surpass any sane person's belief?
>
> I have to admit, this particular piece of moon denial nuttyness is new to
> me. Someone who thinks we went, but faked the photos. That's just WEIRD.
>
>> The Manhattan Project was, by comparison, a very short-lived, small,
>> easily controlled group of people, and there were STILL leaks. Shortly
>
> The manhattan project didn't have leaks, it had streams, mighty rivers,
> nay, rampaging whitewater rapids of breaches. Practically from day one. *
But the WWII code breakers at Bletchley Park - thousands of them -
managed to go right through the war and into the fifties without a
single leak, so much so that to this day the USA still claims to have
invented the programmable computer when in fact the Colossus at
Bletchley had them well beaten.
d
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
That's Classified....
See the classified adds in newspaper. They come just after the A-Team
Chris H
<klu...@panix.com> writes
Something that big would have to be sponsored by the Jews (or the Mafia)
unless of course it was the Freemasons with the New World Order.
The problem with the conspiracy is no basic thought
Means, motive and opportunity
Who had the motive to bring down the WTC?
Is this separate to the aircraft hitting it?
Lets face it requiring aircraft as part of the plan makes it a very
risky business. Millions of things could have gone wrong to stop the
aircraft hitting their targets. One "came down " without getting
anywhere near its target anyway
Incidentally 9/11 was the THIRD RETALIATION attack by A-Q that they had
pre announced about 3 months before the first one. The first were the
two US embassies. So there is already a motive from AQ for their air
strike which does not fit in with the conspiracy theory
So *if * you can establish a motive: who has the means?
That is a lot of explosives and wiring required. A lot of planning a
lot of people need to be moved and things like CCTV taken care of. You
basically need to completely infiltrate the front of house and security
staff, the cleaners , maintenance people etc etc over a period of say 12
months so there is no suspicion. Remembering that many of these people
were killed on the day.
Opportunity...
When did someone have the opportunity to *COVERTLY* rig the building for
demolition It wasn't my team (Cruise, Willis and Stalone were busy
liberating Afghanistan) the A-Team were out of town and Mission
Impossible were making MI8.4
So motive is shaky.
Bumping of some one is conceivable but murdering 3k (and potentially 8K)
people is a bit much. Unless the demolition was intended to be part of
a fire at the week end which suggests the planes were not part of the
equation.
Most conspiracy theories don't include taking out the Pentagon or the
Capitol or Camp David etc
Means & opportunity for covertly rigging the WTC is not just can I get
explosives and detonators but a hell of a lot more. It requires a hell
of a lot of long term planning and moving assets into place.. This is
not a 90 minute MI thriller. Bearing in mind that many maintenance,
cleaning and security staff were in place on the day, including those
who had been on duty when much of the building was closed done for
maintenance a few weeks before.
Unless some one is suggesting the maintenance and security staff did not
notice a whole team doing the explosives.
Yes it is possible that it was a controlled demolition but no project
that size has ever been kept secret for that long. Especially as you
are blowing up your own people in your own city.
It is far more possible, especially given the scams and things that go
on in the construction industry that the concrete was not quite up to
spec. (poor mix, bad weather conditions etc), the steel likewise was not
100% many other things that could have caused the towers to collapse.
Conspiracy and a demolition charges are a long way down a list of how it
happened and are at the very unlikely end of the list.
Scott Dorsey
>
>But the WWII code breakers at Bletchley Park - thousands of them -
>managed to go right through the war and into the fifties without a
>single leak, so much so that to this day the USA still claims to have
>invented the programmable computer when in fact the Colossus at
>Bletchley had them well beaten.
Sorry, the Bletchley Park machine was programmable, but it was not a full
von Neumann machine.
In fact, the Harvard Mark I was programmable, and was actually a full
von Neumann machine although it had seperate address and data space,
and predates the Colossus by a few years.
Not that Alan Turing's work didn't have a lot to do with all of the
programmable systems of that era, because it did.
Scott Dorsey
>In message <gas46i$hgk$1...@panix2.panix.com>, Scott Dorsey
><klu...@panix.com> writes
>>PV <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>This one thing is what makes interviewing conspiracy nuts in the media a
>>>complete waste of time. Any thread they start could easily be chased down
>>>to nonsense, but instead you get a big sloppy tangled skein that you end up
>>>holding and looking like a fool. It's like that guy who used to spin plates
>>>on the bozo show - there's so much going on that you don't realize it's not
>>>all that interesting. *
>>
>>Yeah, but what if 9-11 really WAS a plot by the international communist
>>conspiracy in collusion with the Vatican?
>
>unless of course it was the Freemasons with the New World Order.
Sheesh, everybody knows the Jews and the Freemasons control the Vatican
these days. Is it any wonder the new pope is German? It's an attempt at
misdirection.
Don Pearce
The Harvard mk I was delivered on August 7th 1944. Colossus had been
running at Bletchley Park since February of the same year, having been
run and tested in 1943.
The only reason Colossus was slightly limited in application was that it
was conceived and built in a hurry, with an important job to do. They
(Turing and Flowers) could have made it general purpose, but that would
have made it run much more slowly - too slowly for same-day cracking of
Ultra.
d
Lionel B
> Don Pearce <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>But the WWII code breakers at Bletchley Park - thousands of them -
>>managed to go right through the war and into the fifties without a
>>single leak, so much so that to this day the USA still claims to have
>>invented the programmable computer when in fact the Colossus at
>>Bletchley had them well beaten.
>
> Sorry, the Bletchley Park machine was programmable, but it was not a
> full von Neumann machine.
'Course not... it was a Turing machine ;-)
--
Lionel B
philicorda
> The Harvard mk I was delivered on August 7th 1944. Colossus had been
> running at Bletchley Park since February of the same year, having been
> run and tested in 1943.
>
> The only reason Colossus was slightly limited in application was that it
> was conceived and built in a hurry, with an important job to do. They
> (Turing and Flowers) could have made it general purpose, but that would
> have made it run much more slowly - too slowly for same-day cracking of
> Ultra.
>
> d
Both were pre-dated by the Zuse Z3, completed in 1941. It is also the
first example of the Heisenberg/Turing effect, where a machine can be
both a calculator and a computer, depending on the geographical location
of the observer.
Scott Dorsey
>
>The Harvard mk I was delivered on August 7th 1944. Colossus had been
>running at Bletchley Park since February of the same year, having been
>run and tested in 1943.
It's true, the Colossus was actually turned on first, which is one of
the advantages of high pressure war work.
>The only reason Colossus was slightly limited in application was that it
>was conceived and built in a hurry, with an important job to do. They
>(Turing and Flowers) could have made it general purpose, but that would
>have made it run much more slowly - too slowly for same-day cracking of
>Ultra.
We call this "mission creep."
Wolfspawn
> On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
> > In article <e1f57e2a-d117-4ef3-bdf7-fe8dffe72...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > >On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >> In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> > AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
> > >> > people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
> > >> > claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
> > >> > demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
> > >> > damage and death.
> >
> > >> As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
> > >> buildings collapsed in the same manner,
> >
> > >Please define "same".
> >
> > >> but only two of them were hit
> > >> by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
> >
> > >Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.
> >
> > And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????
>
> Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
> correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.
You mean, there is no evidence of a gigantic building that collapsed right
next to WTC7, spewing steel bars and chunks of itself, including flaming
chunks of itself, at the surrounding buildings, and damaging the water
supply for the surrounding neighborhood so that firefighters couldn't put
out the fires in WTC7? Are you claiming that no photos of huge chunks
missing from WTC7 exist? (there were several huge holes in WTC7, on the
south side, which the conspiracy videos never show you). Are you claiming
that WTC7 was not on fire on all floors? (which it was... again, the
conspiracy videos don't show you this, since the smoke was pouring out
the south side, due to the wind). The reason WTC7 collapsed was because,
without water to fight it, the fire got so out of control that the
structure began to fail in ons spot, which then dragged the rest of the
building down with it.
Don Pearce
I also suspect that a million tons of concrete and steel being dropped
1500 ft a few yards from another building might just do a bit of damage.
Occam's razor seems to have been seriously dulled in some hands.
d