Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc
Yep, 'chemtrails' are just another conspiracy theory, popularised by the ability of any uninformed person being able to publish any old crackpot idea on the Internet. Don't be fooled by it! Put it in a box beside moon landing conspiracies, climate denial, 9-11 troofers, HAARP, Obamas birth certificate, and various other unsupported conspiracy theories.
|
That is an interesting bag of conspiracy theories. I respectfully suggest that you might be in error in putting them all in the same basket of legitimacy.
My take on them is as follows:
Moon Landing conspiracy: bogus (I think)
Climate Denial: bogus
Haarp: Perhaps not what it is made out to be but there is evidence which is cause for concern....
The DOD has openly admitted that the purpose of HAARP was manipulation of the ionosphere (as distinct from research)
http://www.adn.com/article/20140514/.../99/100/&ihp=1
It is also worth noting the contents of Resolution 31/72 of the United Nations General Assembly which specifically addresses the use of weather manipulation for strategic ends:
http://www.un-documents.net/a31r72.htm
Smoke without fire?
Obamas birth certificate: Most likely bogus... Interesting though that the PDF had something like 23 layers when a simple photocopy would suffice, so probably bait to discredit the gullible, a distraction or both.
9-11 troofers: (Ad-Hominen duly noted)
I contend that it is a mistake to actually label the call for truth with respect to this conspiracy, a conspiracy theory in itself. By that I mean; the official narrative is a conspiracy theory which is proven to be an inadequate explanation of the events of that day. The best piece of evidence for that is the fact that 9 of the alleged hijackers were alive to protest their innocence the day after 9-11. There is also the statements of the people involved in the 9-11 comission, for example, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation” they also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements.
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”
Former 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”
The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, 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.”
In light of this, I contend that (without pre-supposing who dunit) it is entirely reasonable to ask for an explanation that is consistent with the evidence at hand (starting with wtc7) and satisfies the requests for information of the original members of the 9-11 commission.