Donćt be sad now, but......

[blindman]

So far as Hubble story, see for yourself :-(

By the way I am gonna sell thick picture book with lot of cgi pics for a half price by the name Hubble.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ItXCzyUt-A

Cheers all!

[Lognic04]

This doesn't even belong here. whoever you are trying to convince us this bogus you should be on "Conspiracies 101 forum" or something. Icein SPACE for gods sakes. Read this. http://www.24media.info/2016/06/scientists-earth-endangered-new-strain-fact-resistant-humans/

[Lognic04]

P.S. flat earth isnt even possible in our model of physics or understanding of gravity.

[sn1987a]

Nice try fella. Ha!, next you'll be telling me we can't trust our corporate and political institutions, Santa isn't real and chicken nuggets ain't chicken.
I bet you don't even want me to vote Trump for PM in July either!.

:D

[blindman]

Sorry, you missed the point.
It is not about flat Earth, it is about Hubble telescope.

[Nikolas]

This thread is some sort of troll I'm convinced.

[blindman]

No trolling, we just want the Truth, aren't we?

[Stonius]

Why does the 'truth' have to be whatever is contrary to mainstream perceived belief?

A homeless guy who lives under the bridge told me that money is used as a virus vector for mind control experiments. Is that a truth worth investigating?

There will always be people who challenge the norm, but not all challengers are worth listening to. You have question the quality of the source.

[barx1963]

So Hubble doesn't exist? Is that your claim based on this video?
I do wish you would actually state what you are trying to say when you post this stuff instead all this "truth" nonsense.

Malcolm

[multiweb]

There are out there... last week, my daughter's year 12 chemistry teacher, after viewing a documentary with the class about the moon landing and assorted conspiracy theories during an extra curricular activity, said that the argument in favour of an hoax looked "pretty convincing". Just wondering if I'm going to stay civil at the next parent-teacher meeting or have a dig at him and ask him to enlighten me. :lol:

[Nikolas]

Nah it's a troll and best to be ignored, no time for fruitloops

[Octane]

We're totally not judging you by the conspiracy theories you share. You're intelligent and obviously important enough to be privy to highly-classified, top-secret knowledge.

H

[Shano592]

I'd go in with fake fire and brimstone myself.

I'd be pretty sure that the gist would have been along the lines of, "While they have a pretty convincing argument, nothing they say explains why there are lunar module pieces still on the moon, let alone the laser reflectors."

I doubt that the teacher is a convert, but I would try to sweat them out, for a larf!

[graham.hobart]

Some classical psychological experiments of the 60s- 70's-80's looked at how people's beliefs , even when faced with contrary factual evidence, can actually become more entrenched. It becomes more likely also that when faced with the 'disconfirmation,' they are more likely to rally around for new 'followers' who can be converted to the same World view and can share the same opinion/'illusion, thus confirming it. And further entrenching it.

See 'The day the World didn't end " based on research by Prof's. Festinger/Reicken/Schacter, also article -
Dawson, L.L, 1999, " When Prophecy fails and faith persists: A Theoretical Overview. " Nova Religio 3: 60-82.

Bottom line is, for the flat Earther's and Lunar conspiracy theorists- your wasting your breath trying to change their minds.

Disconfirmation and subsequent hardening of beliefs is also, as an aside, thought of and associated with spreading of Religious beliefs.

Graz, -Lunar Cheese Mechanic

[wasyoungonce]

Hmmmm, this thread gonna be good!

[xelasnave]

There is no Hubble Space Telescope.
All images are sourced from Iceinspace members.
Now who does not want to believe that.
Alex

[FlashDrive]

:lol: Good One ... :thumbsup:

[sjastro]

Is this supposed to be a practical demonstration of the Sad but true (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=146795) thread?

[pgc hunter]

herp de derp

/thread

[ZeroID]

I think the original poster has an appropriate name ....

[janoskiss]

@xelasnave might be onto something :thumbsup: :rofl:

[deanm]

"...there are none so blind as those that will not see..."

Dean

[el_draco]

... Like Liberal Party environmental policy... :scared3: :rolleyes:

[el_draco]

As a Chem teacher... I am speechless. Tell the bugger you worked out how to convert lead into gold... :(

[Nikolas]

Lol controversial but funny:rofl:

[blindman]

Guys, forget lamentation, did you actually have patience to see video link up to the end, or just attacking looking the title?

Someone able to explain or you are just fighting against whatever you cannot even consider?

Cheers

[AussieTrooper]

Wasn't he on here a while ago posting this kind of stuff before?

[SkyWatch]

I had nothing to do for a few minutes so I had a look at the link. (Big mistake.)
The bits I saw indicated that the guy who recorded it was very good at misinterpreting what he heard from the other guy on the phone: e.g. at one point he decided that because Sophia is optimised for infra-red and Hubble isn't then Sophia can see much "further" than Hubble...
I ran out of patience after about two minutes (sorry "blindman") so I went to the end of the tape and in the bit I heard he seemed to be claiming that NASA "lost" Hubble during one of the repair missions because they tried to boost it into a higher orbit, and it just kept going, never to return, because he claims "no other forces were acting on it" after the boost.
He seems to have forgotten the Earth's gravity. Problem solved...

Well that was 5 minutes of my life I will never get back! ;)

[Nikolas]

it's a rubbish video that deserves no consideration, Have some more fruit loops

[clive milne]

Here is my response:

@2:49 Hubble, located above the exosphere where it is up to 1500ºF
... I'm not sure what he is trying to imply other than it should be glowing red by that logic.

@7:00 confuses the term instrument with telescope and draws the conclusion that the SOFIA aircraft could be fitted with any telescope NASA has ever launched... rather than just accepting that their definition of 'instrument' means the following:
— cameras, spectrometers, and photometers
As can be found one level down from the SOFIA main page, here: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/SOFIA/overview/index.html

@7:10 is willing to bet that that there are no telescopes in space.
.... doesn't realise that HST is just one of many similar instruments in orbit, the others being spy satellites, fails to acknowledge telescopes fitted to planetary exploration space craft, fails to acknowledge google earth, or even optical weather satellites.

@25:50 claims HST at an altitude of 330+ miles is in geosynchronous orbit... just a little bit off.

@26:05... after (previously) claiming to understand drag and orbital dynamics of space craft, then claims that HST should be losing altitude at the rate of 1 to 2 miles per orbit (bit of an error budget there)... giving it a lifespan of 2 weeks or so.
Also, geosynchronous orbit takes 95 minutes... implicitly.

@27:25.. does the maths: HST is at 330 miles, ISS is at 240 miles altitude, therefore the physical distance between the two is 100 miles, give or take.

@27:55.. based on the orbitable decay <--- that's not a typo,
states that the most conservative interpretation of mathematics leads one to conclude that HST and ISS should be within 10 miles of each other, line of sight..... what is sad is that for some people the absurdity of satellites flying in a neat column formation might warrant further explanation.

In the central body of this talk... forgive me if I didn't record the time stamps, I was transfixed ... the narrator reveals that he was the author of a special algorithm used by JPL which was of a sophistication beyond anyone's comprehension (I don't doubt doubt their incredulity would be setting a precedent)
fwiw) his name is Robert Michael Bassano and his email address is; rmbassano@gmail.com
He claims he is with the artificial intelligence department at Stanford University.
I took the time to see if could find him at Stanford.
http://ai.stanford.edu/
nope... and all you will get from a search of his email address is the odd reference to flat earth videos.

I have mixed feelings about spending the time I did with this.
The guy is a master of gish gallop non sequiturs. He reminds me of full time, professional, hasbara charlatans like David Icke & Alex Jones, and most likely is just that. A profiteer from disinformation.

I can imagine that Nicholas Veronico (Sofia) must have had special training to have stayed on the line for 35 minutes whilst maintaining his composure.


best,
~c

PS: If you want a laff, start at the 20 minute mark and listen for a couple of minutes.
He has the Chewbacca defence in full swing by 21:00

Johnny Cochran, eat your heart out!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE&list=RDclKi92j6eLE#t=1

[Ric]

A quick thought :question:, if the Earth is flat.

Why haven't we ever been to the edge? surely with our technology being planes, boats, helicopters etc. We would be able to go there and have a look.:)

What a cheap way to launch spacecraft and satellites, just take them to the edge and throw them off :thumbsup: Presto they are in space.

Having watched some of that video, I think my logic is quite sound.:poke:

Cheers ;) ;) ;)

[AussieTrooper]

Many people have, but they fell off, so that's why you don't hear from them.
Helicopters and planes fly towards it expecting to be able to land where their map says, but by the time they see the edge it's too late and they run out of fuel.
My private island is there with Elvis singing Christmas carols every year, and the Loch Ness monster lives in my pool. I don't want any of you finding it, so anyone that gets near is sent by UFO to a secret moon base.

[el_draco]

Sorry Ben, secrets out, I bagged Nessie on a 50kg line and Elvis and I barbecued the salty ol' fart on the Webber. I managed a steak out of it, but Elvis just left me in the dust once the bbq sauce came out... Nessie burgers, Nessi'sols, Nessie roast, Nessie ribs... Man, that bloke can eat. :screwy:

[Ric]

"AH HA", as Odd Job said to Goldfinger. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Now I get it. :D

[blindman]

Thanks,
finally some points instead of attacking without even looking.
Still he had (student) some points.
Cheers all

[Nikolas]

Cheers for what exactly?????

[AussieTrooper]

We are taking the mickey, not attacking you. There's a difference.

Conspiracy nutters can never be rationally discussed with. Any who try, soon find that out.

One of them is a mate of mine. Good bloke, but craps on about the 9/11 being fake, the moon landing faked, holocaust denial, earth isn't curved, you name it, he will crap on about it.

Doesn't make him a bad person, it's just far more entertaining to watch someone try and debate this stuff with him than to be a part of the discussion.

[blindman]

Ben, your mate is a smart man.
You should listen and check instead of blindly believing media, etc

[deanm]

"..instead of blindly believing.."

That's from someone tagged 'Blindman'?!

Total troll...

Dean

[clive milne]

The idea that anyone who questions the narrative of the establishment is a nutter strikes me as a bit polemic (and evidence of being not particularly well informed)

As for 911 being fake.... is he really suggesting that it never happened, or just not accepting of the officially syndicated Sky news 'conspiracy theory'

Being that 6 of the 19 alleged perpetrators were protesting their innocence AFTER 9/11, it's only rational to accept that the story fed to us by the Murdoch press isn't a completely factual account.

And let's take a look at what the 9/11 (report) commissioners had to say about it:

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue.

The 9/11 Commission chair said the Commission was “set up to fail”

The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”. When asked in 2009 if he thought there should be another 9/11 commission, Cleland responded: “There should be about fifteen 9/11 commissions”

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

No wonder the Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham – and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “PERMANENT 9/11 commission” or a new 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it.


And some comments from government officials...


Senator Max Cleland – Former member of the 9/11 Commssion, resigned December 2003. U.S. Senator from Georgia 1996-2002.
Boston Globe Article 11/13/03: "If this decision stands [to limit 9/11 Commission access to White House documents], I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."
http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/13/911_panel_to_get_access_to_withheld _data/


Senator Mike Gravel – U.S. Senator from Alaska 1969 - 1980. He is most well known for entering over 4,000 pages of the Pentagon Papers into the U.S. Senate record, thus making public the secret official study that revealed the lies and manipulations of successive U.S. administrations that misled the country into the Vietnam War.
National Press Club speech 9/9/10: "The [9/11 Commission's] investigation was not what we call an investigation. It was to develop a storyline of what happened to be fed to the American people and to receive their acquiescence. Victims' family members ... have said that only a fourth of their well researched questions were answered."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQNzvb7r2f0

Louis Freeh – Director of FBI, 1993-2001. Former U.S. District Court Judge for Southern District of New York, appointed by President George H.W. Bush. Former Deputy United States Attorney in New York. Former FBI agent. Former officer in United States Army.

Wall Street Journal 11/17/05: "Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of [lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed] Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it 'was not historically significant.' This astounding conclusion—in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings—raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself. No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by these revelations and called for a 'new' commission."
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911/9-11_summary_articles/051117_wsj_freeh_able_danger


Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. Air Force fighter pilot, over 100 combat missions. PhD in Aeronautics, Nuclear Engineering.

A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story ... of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It's impossible. … There's a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don't want us to know what happened. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? I think the case is pretty clear that it's highly placed individuals in the administration
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674


Raymond L. McGovern – Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA. Responsible for President's Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.

I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke. The question is: What's being covered up? Is it gross malfeasance, gross negligence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwu0bNaUcOU


Francesco Cossiga – President of Italy, 1985-1992. Also served as Former Prime Minister, Undersecretary for Defense, and President of the Italian Senate.

all of the democratic areas of America and of Europe, with the Italian center-left in the forefront, now know full well that the disastrous attack was planned and executed by the American CIA and Mossad ... to falsely incriminate Arabic countries and to persuade the Western Powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_novembre...


Paul Craig Roberts, PhD – Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan. "Father of Reaganomics." Former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at theIndependent Institute.

"We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to 'pancake' at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14566.htm

"There are not many editors eager for writers to explore the glaring defects of the 9/11 Commission Report. One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations."http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02062006....


Michael Meacher – Former Under Secretary for Industry, Under Secretary for Health and Social Security, Minister of Environment, and Member of the House of Commons (UK).

Regarding the 9/11 Commission Report: "It was a 580-page avoidance of any serious explanation. The official investigative report says the US has never been able to find the sources of financing for 9/11. And then they say, 'That after all is a matter of no great importance.' I find that astonishing. It is a matter of absolutely central importance. It seems to me extraordinary that the United States with its stupendous military capabilities and the most technologically advanced country in the world completely and totally failed to follow up on these leads."


Melvin A. Goodman – Senior Analyst, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, State Department, 1974-1976. Former Division Chief and Senior Analyst, Office of Soviet Affairs, CIA,1976 - 1986. Professor of International Security, National War College 1986-2004. Currently Senior Fellow, Center for International Policy and Adjunct Professor of International Relations, Johns Hopkins University. Author or co-author of five books on international relations.

Congressional testimony: "I want to talk about the [9/11] Commission itself, about the flawed process of the Commission and finally about the conflict of interest within the Commission that is extremely important to understand the failure of the Commission."


Roy H. Andes, MA, JD – Former Assistant Attorney General, State of Montana.

Statement in support of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition:
"As an attorney who is meticulously attentive to issues of evidence and proof, and one very-little inclined to conspiracy theories, I was profoundly skeptical when a friend asked me to view Richard Gage's "Blueprint for Truth" with him. Over the course of that two-hour viewing, however, I became convinced that there is substance to Mr. Gage's conclusions, and that they deserve serious attention from appropriate authorities. That this may have happened, causes me grave concern for our country. Under the circumstances, I am not sure to what authorities we can entrust this matter and its attendant consequences."


Terrell E. Arnold, MA – Former Deputy Director, Office of Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Planning, U.S. State Department. Former Chairman, Department of International Studies, National War College. U.S. Navy veteran.

Essay: It is Vital to Move Beyond 911, 7/3/07:

"More than five years after the fact, Washington leadership keeps the American people fixated on the events of 9/11. They have brought us no closer than we were on September 12, 2001 to resolving how it was executed and by what enemy. They tell us repeatedly that it was the work of al Qaida, but they have yet to show us the proofs. They told us the official version of what happened that day, but their story is laced with contradictions, and the facts visible on the ground at the time belie much of the official account. Every American must look carefully at the pattern of decay that began with 9/11.

"As an alleged post 9/11 defense, the War on Terrorism is a gigantic fraud. ... We cannot let a single criminal act, the facts and perpetrators of which are still obscure, destroy our society. With all respect due to those who lost family and friends in the attacks of 9/11, there is no evident search for justice, truth or our future safety in the US government actions outlined in this paper. Instead we are watching the most brutal power games of our times that benefit the few at the expense of the rest of us."



There are many more... a couple of thousand more in fact (I can link you to them if you like?)

See,... a comprehensively substantiated and logically consistent argument with no ad hominem necessary!

[deanm]

Fascinating, Clive...fascinating.
Dean

[PCH]

Ditto Clive - thanks for sharing. I wish I knew more about what really happened.

[drylander]

or as mrs brown says....'that's nice' :lol:
Pete

[julianh72]

As a practicing professional Structural Engineer, I refuse to debate 9/11 conspiracies with anyone who hasn't read the official Structural Engineering report on what happened to the WTC:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/index.cfm

You don't have to read the whole report if you don't want to, just read the abstracts and summaries, but DON'T rely on the excerpts that the conspiracy sites link to.

Seriously folks - there's nothing to see here (as far as how and why the twin towers collapsed) - move on.

[bojan]

I am always amazed how come the "official" scince has to defend it's position from attacs by uneducated people who know nothing about what they are talking about.
Just reading the comments on such links makes me wonder what our future will be... ("Idiocracy " comes to mind.. )

I don't think everybody should have right to express their opinion.. however stupid they are.

[Nikolas]

Opinions are like bottom sphincters, everyone has one but that doesn't mean we have to be exposed to them. (had to clean that up somehow :) )

[clive milne]

With all due respect,
It is not factually correct to imply that the NIST report is the only thing wrong with the 'conspiracy theory' promulgated by Rupert Murdoch and his ilk. Nor is it logical to suggest that if one part of an alibi is true, then it all must be true, so we can all stop looking... case closed.

I say the opposite, if it can be established that a premise is false, then all arguments that follow from it are invalid so the conclusion might also be false.
Furthermore, if someone deliberately lies in a criminal investigation then they should not be trusted as a credible source of information or opinion.


Be that as it may, it just so happens that I have read the (NIST NCSTAR 1A) document, and not just the abstracts and summary.

It's not a conspiracy theory on my part to say that there are serious errors in it, not to mention several egregious misrepresentations of factual evidence. In short, NIST lied.
Not only that, but they continue to withhold evidence in as much as (despite several FOI requests) they refuse to release the following information:

1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

Without that data, I don't know how it can be claimed that the analysis of that data (referenced in the report) supports the narrative given to us by the main stream media.

Sorry, but Rupert's conspiracy theory is one that simply doesn't withstand scrutiny.

The truth therefore, must be something else... Cui Bono?
And no, I don't believe the U.S. did this to themselves,
well... no more so than what happened with the USS Liberty back in 1967... ponder that bit of history for a moment, and what the non-accountability of the bad actors implies. (5th column in the corridors of power)
Here's an excellent BBC documentary for historical context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjOH1XMAwZA

fwiw) Here are 25 examples of egregious scientific fraud (by NIST)
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2014/11/twenty-five-points-10-19-14-3.pdf

[Stonius]

In keeping an open mind, I'm willing to consider the evidence you present, Clive, but who has the time? There is so much stuff there that it would take days to sort through and assess the quality of the sources, the relevance, the context, whether it's cherry picked information. That's a pretty big ask for an internet thread.

It's not unprecedented for countries to stage an attack on themselves that they then wrongly attribute to an enemy and use as grounds to invade (the Nazis did it). But the sheer number of people required to co-operate in such a huge conspiracy boggles the mind, and if true, I'm sure it will all come out eventually as the chances of a secret being kept decreases with the number of people who know it and time. The chances of some hundreds of people keeping it a secret for 15 years is minuscule and is decreasing all the time.

As yet do we have anyone credible primary sources who can say 'I was involved in that conspiracy and here's proof'?



You know, I don't think there is. When everyone gangs up on someone to make jokes about them, I think that's pretty much the definition of bullying. It's possible to respectfully disagree without mocking. The man should be treated with respect whether or not you respect his views.

Markus

[clive milne]

Well... if there is one thing I have learned studying history over the last 10 years it is that even the portion of the public record that is factually correct is mostly, contextually dubious.

The alternate sources of media are even worse.

The only reliable way to navigate through the morass of bad information is with a thought process described as follows:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo

Suffice it to say that there is more than a grain of truth to the maxims:
The first casualty of war is the truth.
&
The victors write the history books... including the books that tell you who fought who, how the battle lines were defined, why they fought and who the victors actually were. The corollary to that is:
If you want to know who the (real) victors are.. look for those who define the public narrative.

If you are up for a ripping yarn over a beer... come over some time and I will tell you the tale of the 'black swan's' that have defined history.

best
~c

[FlashDrive]

Best part of the thread ..... :lol::P:lol:

[xelasnave]

I have no idea where the truth can be found.
The reality is we can be conned.
Secrecy is not an issue in my mind.
Consider how we can be fooled by a magician and do their secrets ever get out.

Unfortunately history tells us that all sorts of nonsence goes on at the top related to money but more importantly power.
Us mere mortals know nothing of that world and how the game is played.
Remember the old tv series "mission impossible".
Does that show hint at reality or fiction or somewhere in between.
There are various aspects of the twin towers that are public and seem to point to this or that but I suggest if there was anything fishy going on we will never know what it is.
If the imaginary brokers of power are in control whatever we think or imagine has been put there by them... And that is if they are there..
Who knows what really goes on... I dont but I would like to believe that we are not just little pawns in a game we know nothing about...
My guess is the eve t was probably more or less what we have been told but "little" side issues may corupt evidence such that we do not get the full picture. And those issues if they exist we sure will never know.
Maybe demolishion crews actually dropped the buildings for example in the interest of safety, not saying but if that was done for example it may be that aspect was covered up.
Was the event used to declare a pre planned war.. Who knows.. We wont.
So finally why speculate at all.
It happened we know that.... Mmmmm or did it was it a movie... See what I mean you can make up stuff until the cows come home.. Why bother go with what history will record.
If you find out a hidden truth they will kill you.
And never believe what someone tells you particulary what you tell yourself.
Alex.

[xelasnave]

Duplicate post deleted

[janoskiss]

I disagree with you, when it's in an open forum. Free speech is a good thing. But the way the media sometimes presents what they call a "balanced" view of things is screwed up: giving equal time and weight to both sides when the expert consensus is strongly in favour of one over the other. Maybe that's what you meant.(?)

[bojan]

Actually, yes, exactly that :thumbsup:... you corrected me properly, I should have read what I wrote one more time.
"Balanced" view is not balanced if someone "balances" issues and sides just for the sake of that balance (or for the sake of rating - that approach only confuses un-informed public).

Now, certain aspects about Brexit come to my mind...

[julianh72]

Take a look at the NIST response to these "examples of egregious scientific fraud":
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

As an example of why these conspiracy theory reports are just so much bunkum:
Point 4 of the 25 "examples" talks about how the NIST analysis shows large deformations, which cannot be seen in the video. The image of the computer analysis model shows the deformations amplified by about 100 times - the unmagnified deformations would be just about imperceptible. This is standard practice in computer structural analysis. If you want to know why, do a 4-year Structural Engineering degree, or talk to a Structural Engineer.

[strongmanmike]

I'm sorry but there are an awful lot of people who strongly believe a man was born to a virgin in an immaculate conception about 2000 years ago who later claimed to be the son of essentially an imaginary friend for adults and he is said to have performed amazing miracles including raising someone form the dead, walking on water and feeding thousands with a loaf of bread and a fish and then when this man was later brutally tortured and killed it was proclaimed he was doing it for our sins. Then another man a few hundred years later sleeping in a cave alone had a visit from the same imaginary friend for adults who sat on his chest and told him the (slightly different) truth and the way and how things should be so he could spread the new truth..? Now 2000 or so years later 100's of millions of educated adults around the World still believe all this to this day, some very passionately with sometimes deadly consequences, even though there is absolutely no scientific evidence that any of it is true.

So?....not sure why we would worry about the substance of the original post..it pales into insignificance compared to the above really :)

Mike

[RB]

I think it's time to close this thread off now.
Everyone's had a say and we're straying close to overstepping the TOS.

As Mike Salway's said in the past, there's plenty of other sites that discuss conspiracy theories, religion and so on if people want to discuss these topics further.

RB

:)