Jump to content

Conspiracy Theories


Rocky
 Share

Recommended Posts

One thing about the moon landing is the tech of that era, I mean its the 60's tech is pretty shoddy and yet we were on the moon driving around on buggy's ... it just seems so odd to me. Personally Im not going to say "we did not go to the moon" I will say ... I was told we did and I reserve the right to not take that as gospel given the era/tech what we were able to do up their and also the whole area about space radiation/sun and the type of suits we had at the time, could we actually make it? REALY?

The best we can do now is send satellites and rover buggies, most is the space station, yet the budgets we have had since the 60's and no one has ever returned, no probes or buggies on the moon since (yet we catapult out to the furthest planets) .. yet with some tin foil and flimsy suits a LM macarno set we managed to land run around, take piccies, drive buggy's, go back numerous times and defy the suns radiation with 40 year old tech . As regards the cost, when it comes down to it theirs always enough money to be used when it serves a historic purpose. Pentagon lost track of trillions a few years back, oops.

Well, this part I can discuss civilly. I've been the recipient of NASA funds. I've worked for people who are the recipient of NASA funds. And we hear about 150 million dollar probes to the moon all the time. The thing of it is that the Apollo program sent 12 people to the moon, in total. At a cost of about 170 billion of today's dollars, we sent 12 people to the moon. That's about a tenth of what has been spent as of today on the War on Terror. This is also about 10 times what we spend on NASA annually. The only reason we were able to bend that much money to the project was because it served strategic objectives AND because NASA's other projects, combined, didn't amount to 10% of their yearly budget. Today, we've got the lion's share of the budget going towards an ailing shuttle fleet and an international orbiting money pit. What's left goes towards numerous ongoing probe missions, R&D for future space missions (the next generation of space telescopes, for instance) as well as aeronautical research and a good fraction of the government funded research regarding global climate change. As one of the people begging for a larger NASA budget, its very important for me to know why we could afford the Apollo program in 1968, but can't afford to go back to the moon today.

Also (and this often gets lost in the process), NASA is still reaping the benefits of the stuff that was invented to get Apollo off the ground. Just like the Manhattan Project, entirely new industries had to be invented to lead to the moon missions. Zippers, tang, smaller computers, modern air conditioning, the list goes on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 279
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...

... Seriously? There's not much to say about that video other than that the maker needs medication. So now, not only was the Federal Government involved, but major news corporations and reporters were in on it, too? Some people will stoop to any level to support their beliefs, no matter how obviously fallacious those beliefs may be. As usual, half-baked theories that sound convincing are relied upon. Who is this fellow trying to convince, us or himself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Looks interesting and at the same time shocking and depressing.

PBS Frontline did a report on the NSA not long ago.

What NSA knew prior to 911 would have gone along way towards thwarting the attacks if they had only shared their information with other agencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting, us boys just love driving around trying to find secret installations. The thing is, it's secret for a reason, and you have to wonder if investigative journalism will do more harm than good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting, us boys just love driving around trying to find secret installations. The thing is, it's secret for a reason, and you have to wonder if investigative journalism will do more harm than good.

Bingo. Secret facilities are secret for a reason. If John Q. Public can read about it, then so can people who'd like to do us harm. Same with those fools at Wikileaks that published 90k secret documents. None of those idiots stops to ask if they really should publish potentially dangerous information.

BTW, I've just gotten back from a trip to my mom's house in Colorado. She lives in the shadow of Cheyenne Mountain, and at night, you can see the lights leading up to the entrance of NORAD from her house. Amazingly cool. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm wrong but watching the trailer and interview the main concern is that the US intelligence apparatus has grown hugely in the number of entities since 9/11. It poses the question, is it becoming to cumbersome? How effective and responsive is it?

"The unsuccessful Christmas day underwear bomber - Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - was not interdicted despite warnings passed through State Department channels. And the confessed Times Square car bomber Faisal Shazad failed not because he was caught but because he was incompetent."-Jed Babbin, newsrunner.com

The "shoe bomber" comes to mind also.

After the 9/11 attacks there were governmental attempts to streamline intelligence gathering and to make the various entities share information freely with other agencies in the interest of national defense and to effectively thwart future attacks. If the Washington Post story is of any validity,

it appears these attempts at streamlining are going the wrong way.

Washington Post claims or estimates:

- 17,000 locations

- 1300 government entities

- 3,366 private entities

- one million people to sustain operations

“There’s only one entity in the entire universe that has visibility on all SAPs(special access programs) – that’s God,” -James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

Are there opinions as to why private corporations need to be so heavily engaged in national intelligence?

I think national security should be exactly that...national security. Not some government boondoggle for corporations and government agencies where lines of responsibility are blurred and fraught with turf wars.

Dana Priest 4:35 of the

Secretary of Defense Gates had been briefed about the Post's findings and in an interview said he was interested in what they had to say and would start a review of

his programs to see what didn't need to be there and how to better coordinate.

Congressman Hoekstra's response

Washington Post's Top Secret America page

Dana Priest's bio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this to be totally bazaar… the speakers are John Howard, then PM of Australia, and Stephen Harper, now PM of Canada. As you can see, within 2 days of each other, they give identical speeches to their respective parliaments, both calling for their countries to join the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

It seems the script they are reading is from the same author.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfZCt2fv6i4.swf

Edited by JohnTC02
Embedded Video
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Has the controversy about the 9/11 phone calls been covered here yet? :whistle:

I was just reading about it tonight, there's a lot out there, but here's the long and short of it...

Ted Olson was the United States Solicitor General until 2004. He's had a lot of face to face with some of the worlds most important people. His wife died on flight 77, and Ted says she phone him twice from the jet before it went down.

There are only two possible means for this call to have been placed, by mobile cell or by seat phone. Ted was unsure which and reportedly made inconsistent statements on that point.

It wasn't until 3 years later that the 911 truth movement actually discovered that flight 77 had no seat phones, that jet simply did not have that feature.

So that left the cell phone.

The problem with that is the FBI's own investigation in 2006 states that Ted's wife's cell phone only made one call during the flight, and unconnected call to the Department of Justice. The reason it never connected being that cell phone technology in 2001 was not sufficient to permit high altitude calls.

So the United States Solicitor General says he received two cell phone calls from his wife on flight 77 and the FBI's official investigation says he did not.

Who's got it wrong?

Source

Anyone seen this argument debunked?

On a related subject, while reading about these phone calls, I came across the mystery of the passenger list of flight 77, made up of a surprising number of military/defence type passengers. One quote I saw said " There are more top secret security clearances here than in most medium-sized cities in America" although that's probably a bit sensationalist. long source.

Browsing that page though it's not the mystery that is striking, looking at all those photos, it's the reminder that so many innocent people lost their lives that day. Lest we forget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has the controversy about the 9/11 phone calls been covered here yet?
I've come across this several times, and Ted Olson's story differs. It could be easily cleared up if it was officially pursued.

As for passenger lists, I've heard stories of none of the hijackers being on any of the flight manifests. I did look into it and it was the case, but it just could have been a prank list. That would be a huge issue if each airline confirmed that no alleged hijackers names were on their lists.

During the anniversary there were plenty of documentaries on and some I'd not see before. As you said, it's when you the photos and the videos and how the twin towers actually were, that it brings home the real crime of it all. A new account I'd come across was a man that had just stepped into a lift and the doors closed. At that same moment there was a huge explosion and fire and he just managed to squeeze open the lift doors and get out to where was stood seconds before. One of the first things he saw was a decapitated body, then an oriental woman appeared out of carnage and he helped her out of the building. There's a photo of her being carried by a fireman outside later on.

DS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

Jesse Ventura's latest 'Conspiracy Theory' series ended with the Pentagon attack;

Conspiracy Theory

DS

Thanks for the link, I watched it all, so, some observations...

dispute the commissions' official version of events...

Nothing wrong with that *cough* Warren Commision *cough*

Charles Lewis (LA buildings safety) NORAD stood down.

A missile has hit the pentagon

Charles Lewis over heard this conversation, could easily be explained by knee jerk assumption by anyone hearing about an explosion at the Pentagon. No value in this really.

Duanne Deets NASA Engineer

You would notice two engine holes.... damage nonsensical"

Rob Balsamo Airforce Pilot

Talking about the legitimacy of a plane being flown into a low building target. Facts and data say - impossible.

speeds too great

This is something that has puzzled me, what kind of skill does it take to fly a jet into a reletively small target - to me it seems an amazing achievement, it's more likely to overshoot, or hit the lawn - but I'm no pilot. Rob Balsamo is though, and he thinks virtually impossible especially for inexperienced pilot like hijacker Hani Hanjore.

Rusty Aimer, Pilot

Jet exceeds it safe operational limits by up to 110 Knots.

Tim Roemer, 911 Commission

TV Interview

Pryed open by a missile

Amazing faux pa!

No evidence of any Flight 77 passenger bodies recovered from Pentagon, only staff?

There was no evidence given for this, there clearly should have been, and the lack of make it a suspicious statement, very controversial though. More reading required on this one.

April Gallop US Army.

I've heard this lady before, she says that from inside the Pentagon, it sounded like a bomb. So what? A plane hitting a building probably does sound like a bomb, there's nothng of value in her statement I can think of, infact she's a strange person; says she is scared about threats from the military to stay quiet, and yet appears on numerious TV shows with her "it sounded like a bomb" story. I'm calling BS on this particular account.

Ted Olson, Solicitor General.

Phone call conspiracy, you could read all week on this particular topic, unconnected call, seat phones, altitudes etc etc.

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

2.3 Trillion dollars of transactions unaccounted for by the US Government. True statement, absolutely remarkable admission and unbelievable failure, but a motive for faking a Pentagon attack? Hmmm not so sure.

Janice Kephart 911 Commission Counsel

"Protecting the Institution"

In conclusion then, short of questioning the amazing flying skills of the hijackers and the ability of the plane to operate above it's safe limits, there's nothing much of substance in the documentary, IMO. Also, at the start they mentioned something about an alternative crash site but then they never talked about it again - typically overloading the viewer with theories then not backing them up at all.

At least I've saved you 43 minutes of your time watching it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In conclusion then, short of questioning the amazing flying skills of the hijackers and the ability of the plane to operate above it's safe limits, there's nothing much of substance in the documentary...
Perhaps, but Donnie Boy's still not got to the bottom of the missing money ;) Maybe the two invasions allowed him to be unfocused.

I'll tell you what though...assuming that black box is accurate, if airline pilots are saying that manoeuvre is nigh impossible, what are the chances of the alleged Johnny hijacker being able to pull it off?

DS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll tell you what though...assuming that black box is accurate, if airline pilots are saying that manoeuvre is nigh impossible, what are the chances of the alleged Johnny hijacker being able to pull it off?

Extremely slim, but not impossible. Flukes happen all the time, in nature, in sport, in disasters. While it's a highly improbable manouvre, I find the alternative theories less pluasable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...