Conspiracy Theories

[Dick Splash]

Here's a recent interview with some people that are making a documentary about the Oklahoma City Bombing. It sounds interesting as they're including a lot of new footage.

DS

[petsfed]

@Petsfed:

First off all thank you, that post was great. the only point im making isn't that this is wrong, or the science is bad .. and natural or similar. But what im seeing and many are large amounts in "sections" of sky of not Cyrus type forms but flat 2d milky sheets that when under a sunset look like a contaminated mess with many lines of flights blatantly criss crossing. For this to be usual flight paths they are far too well structured and happen in bursts or over times at night too. Again clear days then heavy days and can happen on sunny weather. The weather here in UK has been full on sun 29 degrees. Temp changes are not frequents and so far Ive seen a asky full of it, then 2 days blue and standard clouds, then full again ... and all im saying is, I can see a separation from natural and standard flights and "this other area". I'm just reserving the right to understand a difference (my view) is the main thing.

Cirrostratus. That's what those sheets are called. Cirrostratus. Pretty common. Also, you live in the UK, which means you must live under 2000m above sea level. Which places you entirely in the troposphere, where day-to-day weather occurs. Cirrus clouds occur in the stratosphere, where planes fly. The two layers are very distinctly separated (at a place called the tropopause), such that weather in the stratosphere may have little, if anything, to do with weather in the troposphere. Indeed, the relative and absolute humidities of the two atmospheric layers could be wildly different, and you on the ground would never know unless you headed to the top of Snowden or the Ben to find out (and then, only if the tropopause had dropped down to that level locally).

As for lines criss-crossing, I flew into Denver a while back. On the final 40 mile approach to Denver International Airport, the pilot banked and gave us an incredible view of the Diamond face on Longs Peak, which had us leaving the exact flight path for about 10 miles. Pilots are allowed to do that. You do realize that planes can fly over a major city without landing there, right? How else would there be direct flights from Barcelona to Berlin, London to Rome? In any event, how do you know that the contrail patterns that criss-cross are at the same altitude?

[Rocky]

Read what I posted ref the plane I was referring too, prove the plane hit (an actual large jet) you get a cookie. If not then its open debate and if its open debate its not a closed case, etc and so on.

I posted this in June last year, soon after it was released. Someone's recently uploaded a clearer version. Worth watching with and accepting what the military and law enforcement witnesses state they saw.

The Pentagon Attack

DS

I haven't watched it yet, but as far as the official investigation and version of events regarding the pentagon incident, I did see a TV documentary where they interviewed several witnesses including trained observers, and it was plain as the nose on your face the actual flight path of the plane is totally out of sync with the official explanation.

Personally I find it hard to get over the fact that only one security camera caught the crash, kind of. I think my local shopping centre has more security cameras than the Pentagon.

I'll watch that video with interest DS.

[Dick Splash]

I haven't watched it yet, but as far as the official investigation and version of events regarding the pentagon incident, I did see a TV documentary where they interviewed several witnesses including trained observers, and it was plain as the nose on your face the actual flight path of the plane is totally out of sync with the official explanation.

Personally I find it hard to get over the fact that only one security camera caught the crash, kind of. I think my local shopping centre has more security cameras than the Pentagon.

I'll watch that video with interest DS.

Rocky it's the same documentary that you've seen and commented on before, and by all accounts, lots more security cameras captured the incident, but none of them have been released, plus, it was five or six years before the public got to see the security booth shots, and that's after the U.S. Government denied any existence of any video footage!

So deny existence of any video footage, then release some video footage...and never be held accountable for your denial?

NQ?...Para?...please counter the military and law enforcement witnesses that were 'there'.

DS

[calius]

Cirrostratus. That's what those sheets are called. Cirrostratus. Pretty common. Also, you live in the UK, which means you must live under 2000m above sea level. Which places you entirely in the troposphere, where day-to-day weather occurs. Cirrus clouds occur in the stratosphere, where planes fly. The two layers are very distinctly separated (at a place called the tropopause), such that weather in the stratosphere may have little, if anything, to do with weather in the troposphere. Indeed, the relative and absolute humidities of the two atmospheric layers could be wildly different, and you on the ground would never know unless you headed to the top of Snowden or the Ben to find out (and then, only if the tropopause had dropped down to that level locally).

Im having a good eye ball at the images of these cloud types, very similar yet not exactly what im seeing (although I do see those) when im referring to seeing a "trail" (lets loose the "chem" bit so not to go direct). I have seen these that "are" the ending result sheets IE its those exact trails that are then spreading/lowering and becoming wide spread sheets, but keeping its line form at a distance.

As for lines criss-crossing, I flew into Denver a while back. On the final 40 mile approach to Denver International Airport, the pilot banked and gave us an incredible view of the Diamond face on Longs Peak, which had us leaving the exact flight path for about 10 miles. Pilots are allowed to do that. You do realize that planes can fly over a major city without landing there, right? How else would there be direct flights from Barcelona to Berlin, London to Rome? In any event, how do you know that the contrail patterns that criss-cross are at the same altitude?

Yes im aware of flight plans/flight and general flight patterns. What im referring too is a very specific section in one part of the sky, yet to the right you have standard cloud formations and normal blue sky's. Contrails showing and then large areas of "trails". Ive seen jets (eye-site view) parallel covering the entire sky with a trail that doesn't dissipate as far as the eye can see and then flights where they are very short, also making turns. they are not flight patterns as ive observed flight patterns over my area and they are direct over. As I say when ive seen trails form mid sky, stop (end), a turn, then start again for miles the distance I see them "start stop" unless that plain suddenly free fallen or sharply rose out of its flight dynamic then I cant see how that can be happening naturally. The area I use all plains are a very specific height (size in the sky) 2 trailing along for miles 2 or two small contrails, ive not seen contrails stop start in this way .. ive seen contrails have gaps but its different, I also notice contrails have a thinner line per engine side (so the gap in the center is less) the "chems" ones are much thicker and denser.

For me its a case of looking and checking if whats being seen is the natural form, granted I dont assume every one I see to be "it". Its just some days you can get such a messy soup with mass criss crossing its hard not to notice. I did find this link very interesting : http://chemtrailcentral.com/report.shtml .. one of many of course. Then there are the tests with water vapor and barium counts etc which are strange also.

Either way Petsfed thanks for posts, I find it all fascinating subject (no just chems area) anyway so I will keep balancing my observations

Personally I find it hard to get over the fact that only one security camera caught the crash, kind of. I think my local shopping centre has more security cameras than the Pentagon.

The one million dollar question is, that only crappy video that we have been given ... shows ....... A large jet liner smashing into the building? An orange is an apple and all that. Lets face it if a large jet smashed into that building we would have the CCTV clear as day shown on loop like the towers days and days after that and piled up high on youtube from every media outlet known to man, yet we get something that's not even of the size from what can be described as a 15 year olds mobile phone, and that's proof becuase authority says it is ... !? Would that stand in court as evidence ... me thinks not. People say extra ordinary claims need the exact same proof, yet we have a vey simple thinng of a large jet smashing into the building, we actually get a small hole ... and a kiddy video, wouldn't it be easier just to show clear CCTV from multiple angles of one of the most guarded buildings in the US video of the claim?

I would imagine a CGI one being knocked up for later release YEARS after

Im not trying to counter anyone (it hold up on its own) but when this is so obvious a point, and nothing has been released to show the "claim" (lets face it its still a claim) that a large jet smashed into it the end result doesn't stack up. And that being the case the story does not tally, and as the domino effect goes IE that's a jet a group of alcieda hijacked to hit it .. if a jet didn't hit it ... was one hijacked? Half the time its more stretched of imagination to explain how else it would happen than actually acknowledging a large jet never hit it, so by just assuming it did it fits and that's easier, yet we have no "proof" it did. Yet people speak of proof for everything else to believe anything other than that and there is not for the current one, Ironic no doubt. Theres about as much theory explaining FULLY the official line too, its a wacky situation.

These are the things I have said numerous times about "FULLY" explaining and not "explaining away" and the thing "Surrounding" the events, all the anomalies, official lines do not sort these out, but fix to collapse theory and that kind of answers it all, its but part of it.

[Parabellum]

I haven't watched it yet, but as far as the official investigation and version of events regarding the pentagon incident, I did see a TV documentary where they interviewed several witnesses including trained observers, and it was plain as the nose on your face the actual flight path of the plane is totally out of sync with the official explanation.

Personally I find it hard to get over the fact that only one security camera caught the crash, kind of. I think my local shopping centre has more security cameras than the Pentagon.

I'll watch that video with interest DS.

Rocky it's the same documentary that you've seen and commented on before, and by all accounts, lots more security cameras captured the incident, but none of them have been released, plus, it was five or six years before the public got to see the security booth shots, and that's after the U.S. Government denied any existence of any video footage!

So deny existence of any video footage, then release some video footage...and never be held accountable for your denial?

NQ?...Para?...please counter the military and law enforcement witnesses that were 'there'.

DS

Without having watched the video, DS, my honest reply is that during a traumatic event, people will often think they saw things that they didn't see, forget things that they did see, and subconsciously create events to help them rationalize what they've experienced. Several years ago when I was going through law enforcement training, one of the things that we learned was that in court, witness testimony is seldom reliable, and never reliable over actual physical evidence. Later, when I was working in a non-sworn position, I'd take statements from people who'd been involved in violent incidents, and their statements very often conflicted with each other, and with evidence that was collected. Does that mean that they were lying? No. Very often, people don't actually see and hear what they think they did.

Also, I can think of several very important reasons not to release footage of the incident (to use your word) at the Pentagon. Again I'll reference law enforcement, where video footage covering crimes is often not released while investigations are being conducted. Does that mean that there's some conspiracy there, too? Not at all. Withholding information is a safeguard against releasing too much to the wrong people, and it also aids in an investigation. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, mind you. I'm just saying ... it could be what happened.

[Dick Splash]

Without having watched the video, DS, my honest reply is that during a traumatic event, people will often think they saw things that they didn't see, forget things that they did see, and subconsciously create events to help them rationalize what they've experienced.

I'm sure that's the case. Ask ten people that witnessed a street mugging, and the mugger's description will vary. However, the witnesses in the video aren't asked to describe the aircraft, they're asked to describe the direction the aircraft was flying in, from the same spot they were stood in on that day. They all describe an identical flight path, but it doesn't match the flight path of the official account.

I assume this particular nine year old event hasn't been under investigation for years. An airliner's hijacked and is then flown into the Pentagon. Case closed...yes? There's nothing more to investigate, so why not release everything? Of the dozens of CCTV footage that's supposed to have been taken, after denying there was any, the U.S. government releases probably the poorest footage there is.

It would have made more sense to watch the video and then comment by the way.

DS

[Rocky]

Para you need to watch the witness testimonies first. This is not a mismatch of different accounts of the same event, typical of the case you mentioned. This is reliable testimony from different people all describing the exact SAME thing, which contradicts the official version.

[NoQuarter]

NQ?...Para?...please counter the military and law enforcement witnesses that were 'there'.

Fairly easily countered, there is the flight manifest of American Airlines Flight 77, the remains of those unfortunate passengers and government employees & contractors, along with the aircraft debris recovered at the scene.

DS, did any of those military and law enforcement witnesses that were 'there' offer any testimony to witnessing any of the pre-staging of the conspiracy you seem to be suggest and just how do you secret in a goodly amount of a 757 past all of those metal detectors, or human remains and the other various combustibles past the sniffers? ...or did they happen to witness an orbiting 747 fire one of those directed energy weapons that are all the rage these days and that would account for the damage?

Im not trying to counter anyone (it hold up on its own) but when this is so obvious a point, and nothing has been released to show the "claim" (lets face it its still a claim) that a large jet smashed into it the end result doesn't stack up.

Sure it does...you just refuse to accept it. The planes were different, the angle of attacks were different, and the levels of construction of the structures were different.

[Dick Splash]

DS, did any of those military and law enforcement witnesses that were 'there' offer any testimony to witnessing any of the pre-staging of the conspiracy you seem to be suggest and just how do you secret in a goodly amount of a 757 past all of those metal detectors, or human remains and the other various combustibles past the sniffers? ...or did they happen to witness an orbiting 747 fire one of those directed energy weapons that are all the rage these days and that would account for the damage?

Hmmm..nope...no idea what you're on about there NQ! Have you watched the video or, like Para, voiced your opinion about it without actually having seen it?

DS

[Rocky]

DS, did any of those military and law enforcement witnesses that were 'there' offer any testimony to witnessing any of the pre-staging of the conspiracy you seem to be suggest and just how do you secret in a goodly amount of a 757 past all of those metal detectors, or human remains and the other various combustibles past the sniffers? ...or did they happen to witness an orbiting 747 fire one of those directed energy weapons that are all the rage these days and that would account for the damage?

Uhm, none of the witnesses disputes that there was a plane at all, their issue is on a different point altogether.

[NoQuarter]

@DS: No idea...really, I'd have thought that you were following along with this parody, all along. My mistake.

For the record, I was responding to your request of a response and for that following another link from the good folks at TinFoilHats.Com was not required, when the offical record will do.

@Rocky: Oh, really...something new on this that hadn't already been reported on...years ago?

Any chance on getting some crib notes on this new interpretive history?

I'd hate to have my IP history get me caught up in some Predator/Raptor/Carnivore type dragnet, if you know what I mean.

Insert appropriate imoticon here.

[Rocky]

@Rocky: Oh, really...something new on this that hadn't already been reported on...years ago?

Any chance on getting some crib notes on this new interpretive history?

Did anyone say it was new? Maybe it is new to you though, although, that's kind of hard to tell, as you haven't even watched the source.

Last year I posted a little more on this particular topic of the pentagon.

[Dick Splash]

@DS: No idea...really, I'd have thought that you were following along with this parody, all along. My mistake.

For the record, I was responding to your request of a response and for that following another link from the good folks at TinFoilHats.Com was not required, when the offical record will do.

My mention of you and Para only related to that video. Just watch it. I don't know if it's conspiracy material or not, but the flight paths differ greatly, and NQ?...you don't need a tin foil hat for this.

DS

[Parabellum]

@DS: No idea...really, I'd have thought that you were following along with this parody, all along. My mistake.

For the record, I was responding to your request of a response and for that following another link from the good folks at TinFoilHats.Com was not required, when the offical record will do.

My mention of you and Para only related to that video. Just watch it. I don't know if it's conspiracy material or not, but the flight paths differ greatly, and NQ?...you don't need a tin foil hat for this.

DS

I'll watch the video tomorrow probably, DS. I was simply commmenting on the unreliability of human testimony as it regards traumatic events. Once I watch the video, then I'll comment on the actual content.

[calius]

Sure it does...you just refuse to accept it.

Sure it does ... how? I refuse to accept a kids mobile phone video and a small hole as undeniable evidence of a large jet, well ... yes I dont "accept" that to prove it, not at all.

Its really very simple, the case is done, the act has happened official lines made the commission report, nothing to see here, move on people. So, show the old evidence of the attacks and CCTV footage just like the mountains of footage for the towers, its not hard, they have it ... show it, they dont show it .. its not "acceptable". We have footage of the pentagon from the hole in the wall so no security issue showing all that, or any amount of online info about the building so that cant be a valid reason not to show it. You make a claim and present the evidence, same goes with this, they never have. Nothing has shown a large jet hitting that building .. ever. If eye witnesses are unreliable then you have CCTV to back up the claim (the reason they exist), no excuse not to show.

The planes were different, the angle of attacks were different, and the levels of construction of the structures were different.

Thats solved it then, I need to ask no more.

@DS: No idea...really, I'd have thought that you were following along with this parody, all along. My mistake.

For the record, I was responding to your request of a response and for that following another link from the good folks at TinFoilHats.Com was not required, when the offical record will do.

This angle of thought is wearing thin, far to easy to do.

[NoQuarter]

Did anyone say it was new? Maybe it is new to you though, although, that's kind of hard to tell, as you haven't even watched the source.

Well, actually, I believe DS did in fact state that the graphic presentation was improved. My real question was to whether in addition to that if additional changes were made... as in if a more brooding, sinister soundtrack was dubbed in, if additional witnesses have come foward to shed more light on the subject -perhaps someone of Pierre Salingers' status -before that whole Flight 800 conspiracy misadventure that is, or if some of the good-old counter-factuals were further revised ...or embellished.

The subject matter was not/is not new to me as I actually participated in that Zeitgeist topic to which you reference... and had seen enough of the particular source material prior to that topics OP.

____

This angle of thought is wearing thin, far to easy to do.

To each his own.

As stated in this topics OP some of this sites members derive enjoyment out of conspiracy theories, as evidenced by some of the posts contained within...although for some of us the entertainment value is generated specifically from some of those posts.

[Dick Splash]

Well, actually, I believe DS did in fact state that the graphic presentation was improved. My real question was to whether in addition to that if additional changes were made... as in if a more brooding, sinister soundtrack was dubbed in, if additional witnesses have come foward to shed more light on the subject -perhaps someone of Pierre Salingers' status -before that whole Flight 800 conspiracy misadventure that is, or if some of the good-old counter-factuals were further revised ...or embellished.

Errrr...well if you actually watched the video...you'd know! Three days have passed and you've still not seen the video.

DS

[NoQuarter]

^

To para-phrase...

Following another link from the good folks at TinFoilHats.Com is not required when the first was sufficient, and where crib notes would suffice to fill in any blanks. How 'bout it DS? I'm giving you the opportunity to cherrypick the very best, the juicy stuff.

Errr?

____EDIT:

Heard a good one a while back. It involved ELF eco-terrorists under the direction of the DNC aboard a DPRK diesel sub and Deepwater Horizon...anybody have any utube video links?

Edited July 12, 2010 by NoQuarter

[Dick Splash]

Following another link from the good folks at TinFoilHats.Com is not required when the first was sufficient, and where crib notes would suffice to fill in any blanks. How 'bout it DS? I'm giving you the opportunity to cherrypick the very best, the juicy stuff.

Errr?

NQ...you've commented on this video four times now and you've not even watched it. Would you have aired your opinions about GRFS without actually watching the gameplay?

Watch the video and comment on it like I suggested, because there's no point in you mentioning it otherwise is there?

NQ, as for "TinFoilHats.Com" please refrain from the name calling and use actual member names when you refer to them!

DS

[NoQuarter]

NQ, as for "TinFoilHats.Com" please refrain from the name calling and use actual member names when you refer to them!

DS, "TinFoilHats.Com" is a blanket term for the origins of these looney tunes, i.e., 911truth, loosechange, chemtrailcentral, prisonplanet, etc. Was that really so very hard to figure out?

Believe me, -although it should have been fairly apparent by now- that if/when the need to call out a fellow member by name arises, I'll/I jump.

Weak dodge if you ask me, DS. Really weak.

[Dick Splash]

DS, "TinFoilHats.Com" is a blanket term for the origins of these looney tunes... Was that really so very hard to figure out?

My mistake, I thought you were calling members [except me] names.

Believe me, -although it should have been fairly apparent by now- that if/when the need to call out a fellow member by name arises, I'll/I jump.

Weak dodge if you ask me, DS. Really weak.

Weak dodge?...errr...you've lost me there NQ, but if there is any dodging going on, it's you dodging the Pentagon Attack video.

DO NOT comment on this video unless you've watched it. In fact, don't comment on any links unless you've read or watched them. Perhaps it saves time eh?

DS

[NoQuarter]

In fact, don't comment on any links unless you've read or watched them. Perhaps it saves time eh?

Perhaps, no, it will save time if you actually read what I have posted regarding this.

Reading comprehension is fundamental, eh.

[Dick Splash]

Reading comprehension is fundamental, eh.

And so's grammar, eh?

Drop it.

DS

[JohnTC02]

This thread seems to be degrading into a slanging match.

If you all can't keep it civil and get back on topic then it will be time for lock down.