Sun Worshipper Group: Members
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
I am actually a bit of a "conspiracy" nut. Simply because the "facts" that I have been presented by the mainstream media are full of holes.
If you wanna know my views on religion, war and society in general, just watch the Zeitgeist documentaries. I cant be arsed writing an essay like yourself (which I did read btw) and I would be doing you a diservice as the documentaries will be able to explain these views far better than I ever could.
I never came here to argue with you, nor entertain you. Just came on this section to express my opinions on a few subjects, to see if anyone else shared the same views and would like to converse about them.
"New World Order" as I see it, is infact how you described it. When the balance of power changes. Spot on.
Afghanistan - Seems a bit odd that they'd go after Bin Laden, I wasn't aware there was any evidence that he had been involved in 9/11? To my knowledge it was funded by Pakistan and orchestrated by Saudi's, dont know where Bin Laden comes into it?
QUOTE (sivispacem)
Personally, as a huge advocate of clandestine operations, my response would have been a medium-scale infiltration operation using special operations forces designed to topple the warlord-clan structure of Afghan society and promote in-fighting, squabbling and perhaps even civil war. Then a small-scale concentrated military operation, taking advantage of the chaos to destroy targets of opportunity and interdict the personnel and supply lines on which such organisations are dependent, essentially allowing their internal structure to implode.
Funny you should say that actually because thats EXACTLY what happened in Iraq.
-----
Anyway, however we perceive the truth, I agree with you that its all about self-interest and power. The question is, why?
-Topic split from here to maintain original thread-
Thanks mod .
This post has been edited by SweatyPa1ms on Wednesday, Aug 31 2011, 14:49
Wilderness of Mirrors Group: The Connection
Joined: Feb 14, 2011
QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Wednesday, Aug 31 2011, 15:24)
I am actually a bit of a "conspiracy" nut. Simply because the "facts" that I have been presented by the mainstream media are full of holes.
Are they really? Are the arguments portrayed by the media any less spurious than the ones portrayed by the "truthers"? And exactly what kinds of inconsistency are we talking about here? Minor, niggling ones? Yeah, sure, I can see those but they exist in the account of every event in history. Larger inconsistencies that require a pause for thought? Sure, there have been some, but many have been cleared up, disproved or debunked. Huge revelations that render the official account null and void? People always talk of them, but I've yet to see one.
We've had a number of 9/11 debate threads on the forum, and they invariably get locked, sometimes in minutes, sometimes in weeks. I'm perfectly happy to allow some discussion of the issue in this thread, but I don't want the entire thing turning into "9/11 was an inside job" take #2.
QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Wednesday, Aug 31 2011, 15:24)
If you wanna know my views on religion, war and society in general, just watch the Zeitgeist documentaries. I cant be arsed writing an essay like yourself (which I did read btw) and I would be doing you a diservice as the documentaries will be able to explain these views far better than I ever could.
So basically, are you saying that your ideas are formed entirely of the opinions of others, rather from any personal understanding of the subject matter? Or is Zeitgeist just a handy expression of your personal views? Personally, I can't speak for it as I've not seen it, but I have seen many similar films that discuss so-called "conspiracy theories" and other issues- particularly with relation to 9/11- and I can say wholeheartedly, and as a person with experience working in the defence and security sector and many of the interlocking, that much of the "proof" and "evidence" they provide is either misrepresented or entirely fictitious.
QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Wednesday, Aug 31 2011, 15:24)
I never came here to argue with you, nor entertain you. Just came on this section to express my opinions on a few subjects, to see if anyone else shared the same views and would like to converse about them.
I am not by any stretch of the imagination suggesting that you are some kind of forum-based dancing monkey. I am genuinely interested in your views; why you hold them, what evidence you feel supports them, and how willing you are to defend your ideas. Why only converse and express opinions with those who share the same views as yourself? You learn far more, in my experience, conversing with those whose opinions are polar opposites of your own. Hell, there are members on here- people like Grandmaster Smith- who I've had endless altercations with regarding conspiracy theories and other such topics, but I don't resent these debates as they've caused me to explore issues that have interested me further.
QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Wednesday, Aug 31 2011, 15:24)
Afghanistan - Seems a bit odd that they'd go after Bin Laden, I wasn't aware there was any evidence that he had been involved in 9/11? To my knowledge it was funded by Pakistan and orchestrated by Saudi's, dont know where Bin Laden comes into it?
Are you saying that Osama Bin Laden was in no way involved in 9/11? That's a slippery slope with many, many dangerous precipices. Care to elaborate on this further? For the record, he was related to the Saudi royal family but was expelled with a death warrant placed on his head due to his views- just to clear that up. Also, funding is a difficult question but various people from a variety of nations directly or indirectly funded it- Somalia, Jordan, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Palestinian Territories- even, by indirect associate, the EU and US. Amongst that included direct funding from the Afghan Taliban (training camps, provisions, logistical support) and the Bin Laden family.
QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Wednesday, Aug 31 2011, 15:24)
QUOTE (sivispacem)
Personally, as a huge advocate of clandestine operations, my response would have been a medium-scale infiltration operation using special operations forces designed to topple the warlord-clan structure of Afghan society and promote in-fighting, squabbling and perhaps even civil war. Then a small-scale concentrated military operation, taking advantage of the chaos to destroy targets of opportunity and interdict the personnel and supply lines on which such organisations are dependent, essentially allowing their internal structure to implode.
Funny you should say that actually because thats EXACTLY what happened in Iraq.
It's basically what happened in Iraq, no question. However, that was not what was intended to happen in Iraq, and it occurred in such a way that significant numbers of coalition troops were directly affected by it. My preference would be something more akin to the various CIA clandestine operations in Central and Latin America during the 1960s through 1980s, or perhaps even closer to British clandestine operations against the Mau-Mau insurgency in Kenya, or the South-Vietnamese run aspect of the Chiến dịch Phụng Hoàng operations- minimal risk to my own personnel, but otherwise guaranteed to bring down a regime and accomplish what the operation set out to do.
QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Wednesday, Aug 31 2011, 15:24)
Anyway, however we perceive the truth, I agree with you that its all about self-interest and power. The question is, why?
There is no reason other than "brutal self-interest"- no need for a "why". If it is in the interest of a nation to perform an action, they will usually do it. If does well, conflict can create new trading routes, new partners, test military hardware, gain closer links with allies and even gain the favour of once-enemies. That's not to say that any of these are guaranteed even in the best of operations- let alone the worst- but no nation will ever act unless it feels the benefits of doing so outweigh the consequences. With 20/20 hindsight it is often the incorrect assumption to make, but you must view these issues from the eyes of the decision make, not a critic a decade down the line.
This post has been edited by sivispacem on Wednesday, Aug 31 2011, 19:44
Sun Worshipper Group: Members
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
Cool post bro, I actually really enjoyed reading it and agree with you on most of the subject matters. I was starting to think you were a bit of a dick but I can see where your coming from now .
Anyway, i'm really tired and i've gotta meet some peeps on LIVE, i'll reply fully to your post tomorrow morning. I've got some typing to do .
Huge revelations that render the official account null and void? People always talk of them, but I've yet to see one.
That's because there are none. I love how proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories make the supposed holes in the official explanation sound blaring obvious. "It's impossible for jet fuel to melt steel", they don't stop to think the millions of people who are versed in thermodynamics would have some idea of what's possible? There is apparently "no evidence" that it was Bin Laden who was responsible for 9/11, and none of the millions of journalists, rival politicians and commentators stopped to ask why we were looking for him? Ridiculous.
Wilderness of Mirrors Group: The Connection
Joined: Feb 14, 2011
QUOTE (Melchior @ Thursday, Sep 1 2011, 05:11)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Sep 1 2011, 05:25)
Huge revelations that render the official account null and void? People always talk of them, but I've yet to see one.
That's because there are none. I love how proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories make the supposed holes in the official explanation sound blaring obvious. "It's impossible for jet fuel to melt steel", they don't stop to think the millions of people who are versed in thermodynamics would have some idea of what's possible? There is apparently "no evidence" that it was Bin Laden who was responsible for 9/11, and none of the millions of journalists, rival politicians and commentators stopped to ask why we were looking for him? Ridiculous.
Indeed.
One thing that has always bothered me is the "truthers" claims that there are so many holes in the official story- holes they attempt to plug with theories that are considerably less feasible than the original ones they are "bettering". They seem to have this unshakable, mythical belief in the omnipotence and omnipresence of the US intelligence agencies, for instance, whilst anyone reasonably versed on intelligence studies knows that the US intelligence community is an under-funded, squabbling, chaotic mess of institutions actively obstructing each other's work and generally doing their job quite poorly. They barely have the power to organise a piss-up in a brewery, let alone a fully-fledged false flag terrorist attack on three buildings crammed full of not only US nationals, but foreign nationals and even foreign intelligence assets. Utterly infeasible in reality.
Orthonormal Group: The Connection
Joined: Sep 1, 2002
Since the 10 year anniversary for 9/11 is coming up soon, the truthers will likely be out in full force spreading their nonsense. Besides all the scientific reasons to keep the truthers at bay (although they'll claim they have the science saying it was an explosion), there was one thing that someone said, on a YouTube video, to the truthers and while it's not very scientific, I thought it was a good point. He said that in order to take down the WTC in a controlled demolition, you would need a lot of explosives and of course, you would need to get them into the building and plant them all over in order for the demolition to be controlled. Now he said given the amount of explosives you would need, it would be hard to get all that into the buildings without raising a red flag with someone. Granted, I'm sure one of those truther people would say, "Well when it's the government doing it, having a red flag against them doesn't matter" or something else. Either way, I thought it was an interesting point the guy brought up, especially on a YouTube video as it seems that's where stupidity breeds.
I'll get off the 9/11 topic now.
The only conspiracy theory I would even remotely buy into (and I hate using the word conspiracy) is that of the JFK assassination, because if you watch the Zapruder film, Kennedy gets struck with the first bullet and you can see him hunched over and then you'll see another bullet that launches his head back (it looks like a part of his skull went flying, so I assume that was the fatal shot). Now basic physics tells me because his head went flying back, the bullet came from the front (conservation of momentum) and not from the back (where Oswald would have been) as that would have pushed his head forward. It certainly arouses my curiousity.
Apparently the reports and all that are supposed to become unsealed in 2017 (if I remember correctly), so maybe we'll get some more information then.
The only conspiracy theory I would even remotely buy into (and I hate using the word conspiracy) is that of the JFK assassination, because if you watch the Zapruder film, Kennedy gets struck with the first bullet and you can see him hunched over and then you'll see another bullet that launches his head back (it looks like a part of his skull went flying, so I assume that was the fatal shot). Now basic physics tells me because his head went flying back, the bullet came from the front (conservation of momentum) and not from the back (where Oswald would have been) as that would have pushed his head forward. It certainly arouses my curiousity.
Don't forget the rifle that Oswald was supposedly using. I'm not entirely convinced either way on the JFK assassination, but I have always been skeptical, and the rifle is the thing that always bugged me: it was notoriously slow and unreliable. I've even seen footage of a US Marine attempting to fire the rifle as fast and accurately as Oswald did. Four attempts, all of which were unsuccessful.
It's about the only conspiracy I lend credibility to, but I sincerely doubt I'll ever be willing to take a side on it.
Sun Worshipper Group: Members
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
QUOTE (GTAvanja)
If such organizations truly existed and they were that smart and organized to control everything, I seriously doubt they'd be evil.
Very interesting you should say that because whilst I believe that our own government is not entirely on our side, I believe they might be doing it for the greater good. What ever that is, remains to be seen but I cant see money and power being the soul reason for them committing all these atrocities...
QUOTE (GTAvanja)
That's just a rationalization to avoid taking responsibility for your own incompetence and lack of will. People want change, but they're too lazy and incompetent to do anything about it. So they create an invisible enemy they can't fight, in order to justify the lack of trying. Some of those conspiracy theorists arguments sound incredibly rational though. Probably because they believe in that sh*t so wholeheartedly.
...Which is why I do have will and faith in humanity. We do need change but we need to band together to make that happen, with all the conflicting ideologies of the human race that isn't going to happen for a long time.
The first step is abolishing the monetary system and use a resource based economy instead.
sivispacem - Dude, I need to spend a good hour replying to your post so bare with me...
This post has been edited by SweatyPa1ms on Thursday, Sep 1 2011, 15:25
Wilderness of Mirrors Group: The Connection
Joined: Feb 14, 2011
QUOTE (Pat @ Thursday, Sep 1 2011, 16:03)
QUOTE (Icarus @ Thursday, Sep 1 2011, 09:48)
The only conspiracy theory I would even remotely buy into (and I hate using the word conspiracy) is that of the JFK assassination, because if you watch the Zapruder film, Kennedy gets struck with the first bullet and you can see him hunched over and then you'll see another bullet that launches his head back (it looks like a part of his skull went flying, so I assume that was the fatal shot). Now basic physics tells me because his head went flying back, the bullet came from the front (conservation of momentum) and not from the back (where Oswald would have been) as that would have pushed his head forward. It certainly arouses my curiousity.
Don't forget the rifle that Oswald was supposedly using. I'm not entirely convinced either way on the JFK assassination, but I have always been skeptical, and the rifle is the thing that always bugged me: it was notoriously slow and unreliable. I've even seen footage of a US Marine attempting to fire the rifle as fast and accurately as Oswald did. Four attempts, all of which were unsuccessful.
It's about the only conspiracy I lend credibility to, but I sincerely doubt I'll ever be willing to take a side on it.
Hang on, there have been a few tests of the Oswald rifle and similar ones- as far as I know, the majority of the tests, using trained shooters and properly zeroed sights, managed to get two or more rounds off with enough accuracy to hit the target at the range that JFK was assassinated at. Remember, Oswald had probably received some training in the use of older, bolt-action type rifles. With the exception of certain snipers, they're basically unused in the modern military.
One thing that has always bothered me is the "truthers" claims that there are so many holes in the official story- holes they attempt to plug with theories that are considerably less feasible than the original ones they are "bettering". They seem to have this unshakable, mythical belief in the omnipotence and omnipresence of the US intelligence agencies, for instance, whilst anyone reasonably versed on intelligence studies knows that the US intelligence community is an under-funded, squabbling, chaotic mess of institutions actively obstructing each other's work and generally doing their job quite poorly. They barely have the power to organise a piss-up in a brewery, let alone a fully-fledged false flag terrorist attack on three buildings crammed full of not only US nationals, but foreign nationals and even foreign intelligence assets. Utterly infeasible in reality.
What country has the best intelligence agency in the world?
Wilderness of Mirrors Group: The Connection
Joined: Feb 14, 2011
QUOTE (Warlord. @ Thursday, Sep 1 2011, 17:46)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Sep 1 2011, 18:57)
One thing that has always bothered me is the "truthers" claims that there are so many holes in the official story- holes they attempt to plug with theories that are considerably less feasible than the original ones they are "bettering". They seem to have this unshakable, mythical belief in the omnipotence and omnipresence of the US intelligence agencies, for instance, whilst anyone reasonably versed on intelligence studies knows that the US intelligence community is an under-funded, squabbling, chaotic mess of institutions actively obstructing each other's work and generally doing their job quite poorly. They barely have the power to organise a piss-up in a brewery, let alone a fully-fledged false flag terrorist attack on three buildings crammed full of not only US nationals, but foreign nationals and even foreign intelligence assets. Utterly infeasible in reality.
What country has the best intelligence agency in the world?
Best by what measure? Most effective in history? East German Stasi I would say. Best intelligence model? Probably the UK, out intelligence model is fantastic but we don't work to our own advised framework sometimes. Best in terms of operational success? Probably Mossad.
One thing that has always bothered me is the "truthers" claims that there are so many holes in the official story- holes they attempt to plug with theories that are considerably less feasible than the original ones they are "bettering". They seem to have this unshakable, mythical belief in the omnipotence and omnipresence of the US intelligence agencies, for instance, whilst anyone reasonably versed on intelligence studies knows that the US intelligence community is an under-funded, squabbling, chaotic mess of institutions actively obstructing each other's work and generally doing their job quite poorly. They barely have the power to organise a piss-up in a brewery, let alone a fully-fledged false flag terrorist attack on three buildings crammed full of not only US nationals, but foreign nationals and even foreign intelligence assets. Utterly infeasible in reality.
What country has the best intelligence agency in the world?
Best by what measure? Most effective in history? East German Stasi I would say. Best intelligence model? Probably the UK, out intelligence model is fantastic but we don't work to our own advised framework sometimes. Best in terms of operational success? Probably Mossad.
Yeah I guess I meant operational success.
At the end of the day, that's all that matters right.
The only conspiracy theory I would even remotely buy into (and I hate using the word conspiracy) is that of the JFK assassination, because if you watch the Zapruder film, Kennedy gets struck with the first bullet and you can see him hunched over and then you'll see another bullet that launches his head back (it looks like a part of his skull went flying, so I assume that was the fatal shot). Now basic physics tells me because his head went flying back, the bullet came from the front (conservation of momentum) and not from the back (where Oswald would have been) as that would have pushed his head forward. It certainly arouses my curiousity.
Don't forget the rifle that Oswald was supposedly using. I'm not entirely convinced either way on the JFK assassination, but I have always been skeptical, and the rifle is the thing that always bugged me: it was notoriously slow and unreliable. I've even seen footage of a US Marine attempting to fire the rifle as fast and accurately as Oswald did. Four attempts, all of which were unsuccessful.
It's about the only conspiracy I lend credibility to, but I sincerely doubt I'll ever be willing to take a side on it.
About 6 minutes in. If you can't watch it I'll tell you about it: the bullet is small, meaning despite it's velocity, it wouldn't send his head flying forward. Rather, it makes a small hole in the back of the head, but forces a great deal of gunk out the front of his head. It was the force of his own brains that sent his head flying back. That's the gruesome truth. At any rate, assuming the conspiracy theory is correct, the holes in the official explanation are so suspicious they were better off just shooting him from the grassy knoll and running off, nobody would have caught them and they could easily blame it on the mafia, or the communists, or racists. He had a lot of enemies.
QUOTE (Icarus @ Friday, Sep 2 2011, 00:48)
Since the 10 year anniversary for 9/11 is coming up soon, the truthers will likely be out in full force spreading their nonsense. Besides all the scientific reasons to keep the truthers at bay (although they'll claim they have the science saying it was an explosion), there was one thing that someone said, on a YouTube video, to the truthers and while it's not very scientific, I thought it was a good point. He said that in order to take down the WTC in a controlled demolition, you would need a lot of explosives and of course, you would need to get them into the building and plant them all over in order for the demolition to be controlled. Now he said given the amount of explosives you would need, it would be hard to get all that into the buildings without raising a red flag with someone. Granted, I'm sure one of those truther people would say, "Well when it's the government doing it, having a red flag against them doesn't matter" or something else. Either way, I thought it was an interesting point the guy brought up, especially on a YouTube video as it seems that's where stupidity breeds.
It's also worth pointing out that when you demolish a building by way of explosives charges you can see and hear them being detonated. There's a sound similar to a machine gun and bright flashes. Observe:
If 9/11 was a controlled demolition, whoever was responsible has access to some great technology that they seemingly aren't sharing with the rest of the world.
This post has been edited by Melchior on Friday, Sep 2 2011, 03:56
Captain tl;dr Group: The Connection
Joined: Jun 21, 2003
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Sep 1 2011, 08:48)
QUOTE (Pat @ Thursday, Sep 1 2011, 16:03)
QUOTE (Icarus @ Thursday, Sep 1 2011, 09:48)
The only conspiracy theory I would even remotely buy into (and I hate using the word conspiracy) is that of the JFK assassination, because if you watch the Zapruder film, Kennedy gets struck with the first bullet and you can see him hunched over and then you'll see another bullet that launches his head back (it looks like a part of his skull went flying, so I assume that was the fatal shot). Now basic physics tells me because his head went flying back, the bullet came from the front (conservation of momentum) and not from the back (where Oswald would have been) as that would have pushed his head forward. It certainly arouses my curiousity.
Don't forget the rifle that Oswald was supposedly using. I'm not entirely convinced either way on the JFK assassination, but I have always been skeptical, and the rifle is the thing that always bugged me: it was notoriously slow and unreliable. I've even seen footage of a US Marine attempting to fire the rifle as fast and accurately as Oswald did. Four attempts, all of which were unsuccessful.
It's about the only conspiracy I lend credibility to, but I sincerely doubt I'll ever be willing to take a side on it.
Hang on, there have been a few tests of the Oswald rifle and similar ones- as far as I know, the majority of the tests, using trained shooters and properly zeroed sights, managed to get two or more rounds off with enough accuracy to hit the target at the range that JFK was assassinated at. Remember, Oswald had probably received some training in the use of older, bolt-action type rifles. With the exception of certain snipers, they're basically unused in the modern military.
Oswald was actually a very proficient marksman, it's mostly a myth that he was some kind of horrible shot. I've also seen the shot in question demonstrated in a few documentaries and the like about the subject. I don't really think scrutinizing the shot or the rifle as being impossible is much of a "smoking gun" (haha pun ) in regard to the whole JFK assassination idea.
I think the harder angle to dispute is that Oswald wasn't hired by the mob and that Jack Ruby wasn't hired to kill him. The official story is basically... Two guys wanted to be icons, legends, famous... Oswald wanted to be the guy that shot the president, and Jack Ruby wanted to be the guy that avenged him. I mean I do believe in keep it simple, but somehow the simpler theory is supposed to be that some nutjob wanted to be famous?
Personally, I think it could go either way in respect to the JFK assassination, but then when his brother got killed too I think it's kind of obvious that if there is a conspiracy it's a mafia-related one.
Wouldn't that money earned be cancelled out though if we didn't go to war? I'm all for helping out other nations but why Afghanistan? The russians already destroyed the place in the 70's, then we go and f*ck it up some more . The war is bollocks, the taliban aren't a threat to us, they live in caves eating rice. The only people they are a threat to is our soldiers in their country. We should just spend more money on defense if our government is so scared of "terrorism". The war was never meant to be won, just sustained so the bankers can get everyone in more and more debt, just like Vietnam. The bankers run the world, not the governments.
Where would the additional stable economic growth come from if we were rid of out defence sector? UK annual GDP is about £1.4 trillion, with the domestic defence market (excluding British centred companies operating abroad) providing £22.6 billion of that- and that's in an economy that's about 70% service based. In fact, the defence industry represents the largest single secondary industry in most parts of the UK. The annual revenue of BAE systems alone in 2010 was about 70% of the entire British defence budget. What's more, defence contractors aren't subject to the same economic lulls as many other industries. The financial crisis did little to impact on global defence spending; on the contrary, many nations without established defence contractors have been encouraging their presence or formation in order to provide a climate-resistant, technologically-centred element of the economy capable of providing growth in even the most hostile climate.
Regardless, I feel you are confusing to entirely distinct issues. The defence industry is to some degree separate from the military, but they do have a certain amount of inter-meshing on issues such as capability studies, operational testing and R&D. It's the demands and requirements of the British government that funds innovation in British defence contractors, and without close links between the private sector and the MoD and it's research departments (Dstl and QinettiQ) the secondary defence economy would slow significantly. The positive repercussions of spending on defence and security issues- keeping large numbers of technically skilled, well-paid workers in the country (and economically active), large (£9.6bn per year) defence export base and a fearsome reputation for technological innovation in the sector which encourages mutually beneficial migration of foreign companies and high-skill employees and promotes economic growth. The total costs of Iraq and Afghanistan above that of the regular defence budget have been estimated around £23 billion. To put that into perspective, that's a little less than 20% of our annual welfare bill or about 40% of our annual IMF loan interest repayments.
Now, onto the issue of Afghanistan. I think you completely misunderstand the initial purpose of the intervention. It wasn't humanitarianism, an attempt to "help out" another nation or anything of the sort, it was a direct intervention with the purpose of removing a political regime who had failed in their duty to the international community- all nations and their governments are bound by treaty as responsible for the actions of violent non-state actors on their soil. The Taliban gave very overt assistance to al-Qaeda, in their direct funding of the organisation, the offering of a safe haven from which to operate, the supply of equipment and munitions and the sanctioning of attacks on foreign powers. It's not a grey issue, it's clearly covered under the laws of warfare which all UN member states must abide by. The Taliban aren't a direct threat to the United Kingdom, but the organisations which they funded and permitted to operate on their soil were- and still are. As the government of a state, they bore responsibility for the actions of these groups.
Of course, that begs the question "why are we still there"? Well, the primary reason is to enable the current regime to gain their own security capability, and to be able to fight against any internal threat without outside assistance. Evidently, they have not reached this stage of development yet, but the stability of Afghanistan is in the interests of every nation, not just the West. A stable Afghanistan no longer offers a base of operations for an organisation whose main aim is to spread radical Islamist theocracy through violence. As widely maligned as the intervention has been by many, it's hard to argue that it's failed in this purpose. Tell me, how many successful attacks on the West or on Western interests were either planned, organised or conducted by AQ operating from Afghanistan in the years 1993 to 2001? Two direct attacks on the West (WTC bombing and 9/11) and at least a dozen notable attacks on Western assets abroad (including the USS Cole bombing, embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam et al). In the period from 2002-2011? No successful attacks against the West, and a handful of relatively unsuccessful attacks against Western interests. Of course, this isn't all down to Afghanistan, but a combination of denying AQ the space to operate there, a renewed campaign along the Pakistani border, increased cooperation with Yemeni intelligence and security forces and the AU intervention in Somalia have basically denied AQ all their previous operating bases and the freedom of movement. Hence the lack of capability to attack the West.
The rest of your comment is puzzling and nonsensical. Exactly how does a sustained military conflict with significant losses positively effect bankers? I mean, by it's very nature it's costly and that in turn reduces growth in the nations involved, which is intrinsically bad for anyone joined at the hip to the economy. Are you saying- as you are certainly implying so- that these conflicts are somehow fought for the benefit of the markets? That really does seem like a wild, general and wholly inaccurate statement to me- especially as it fails to take into account the potential short-medium term losses that are experienced during sustained military campaigns in terms of costly materiel, human costs such as the payment of service personnel and the potential economic pitfalls of military intervention. And besides, exactly how do the financial institutions bear any responsibility for these actions? Do you have any proof, a single scrap or shred of evidence, that they do, in fact, "run the world" as you put it? Because as popular as this theory has become, it starts to fall into the realms of implausibility with the slightest examination, and into utter conspiracy-theorist lunacy after detailed exploration.
To me, it sounds like you are trying to tie up two largely unrelated concepts and somehow (very tenuously) link them together as parts of the same grand strategic master plan. All it really serves to do is highlight what a silly argument it is.
Sun Worshipper Group: Members
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
You dont understand the ecomomy, its flawed to fail. Do you even know how our government gets money in the first place? They loan it from the Bank of England at interest. So every pound they borrow has debt tied to it. How do they get money to pay for that debt? Thats right, another loan! Its f*cking ridiculous.
Like i've said before, watch the Zeitgeist documentaries, I know as soon as people roam into "conspiracy theory" territory people dont want to touch it with a barge pole but this isn't some disinformation bullsh*t like loose change. You hear accounts from people that were high up in MI5, FBI, CIA and other very knowledgable intelligent people in their respective fields.
I'm not going to try and explain everything in the documentary because I wouldn't be able to word it as well and wouldn't do it justice. I'm not saying that my opinions are based on other peoples either but the first time I watched it, it opened my eyes and allowed me to look at the world differently. You begin to realise that money has more of a grasp on us humans than you might think. Its quite depressing really but worth watching. If you refuse to watch it then your being ignorant as your basing your opinions on "evidence" and accounts presented by one side. How can you make an accurate distinction? All you can do then is take that as the truth and make assumptions about everything else. I have listened to both sides of the story and then, I could form an opinion.
Your just as much as a conspiracy theorist as me unless you are involved directly with any of the subject matters weve been talking about as all your doing is basing your truth off somebody elses information just like me.
Here's another educated intelligent chap who doesn't believe the bullsh*t:
You'll especially like the end, he debunks the debunkers with SCIENCE. Watch it you bureaucratic biscuit .
This post has been edited by SweatyPa1ms on Friday, Sep 23 2011, 04:58
Vidi Vici Veni Group: Zaibatsu
Joined: Apr 14, 2004
Do bankers manipulate politics to make ridiculous amounts of money? Of course they do. Is there a conspiracy? Not at all. This is what bankers do, and anybody who studied economics seriously enough is well aware of how it works.
The 9/11 report is full of holes. But the "truthers" are their own worst enemies. Nanothermite evidence consists of nano-scale particles of iron, iron oxide, and aluminum oxide. When a an aluminum frame of an aircraft impacts a high-rise building, lights a kerosene powered furnace, and uses heat updrafts generated in the building to drive combustion temperatures far above normal combustion temperatures of kerosene, guess what you are going to find a few hundred yards away from such a fire. Yup. Nanoparticles of iron, iron oxide, and aluminum oxide.
The only serious inconsistency with physics is the Pentagon impact. That one just doesn't fit. But it's mostly all about the things left out of the report. Somebody was covering their own ass with that thing. But to try and guess why is absolutely useless at this point. A lot of these things could have come out of incompetence just as easily as out of malice, and would make people want to cover it up just as much.
Sun Worshipper Group: Members
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
QUOTE (K^2)
Do bankers manipulate politics to make ridiculous amounts of money? Of course they do. Is there a conspiracy? Not at all. This is what bankers do, and anybody who studied economics seriously enough is well aware of how it works.
Its not common knowledge though which is why it hasn't been stopped. WE NEED TO ABOLISH THE MONETARY SYSTEM!!!
QUOTE (K^2)
The 9/11 report is full of holes. But the "truthers" are their own worst enemies. Nanothermite evidence consists of nano-scale particles of iron, iron oxide, and aluminum oxide. When a an aluminum frame of an aircraft impacts a high-rise building, lights a kerosene powered furnace, and uses heat updrafts generated in the building to drive combustion temperatures far above normal combustion temperatures of kerosene, guess what you are going to find a few hundred yards away from such a fire. Yup. Nanoparticles of iron, iron oxide, and aluminum oxide.
But what about the molten steel? Surely that is enough evidence. Nano-particles of those elements required to make thermite could form from the reaction of an aircraft hitting a building like you said but why was there molten steel found at ground zero? I like how alienscientist informs you that these pieces of evidence aren't really what we should be looking at, but the people involved with cover-up and why they would do this. Its good logic .
QUOTE (K^2)
The only serious inconsistency with physics is the Pentagon impact. That one just doesn't fit. But it's mostly all about the things left out of the report. Somebody was covering their own ass with that thing. But to try and guess why is absolutely useless at this point. A lot of these things could have come out of incompetence just as easily as out of malice, and would make people want to cover it up just as much.
I completely agree about people wanting to cover their asses but you wouldn't think mistakes like this would happen at the top. We live in a crazy world though... George W Bush was aloud to run a country for 8 years!? I know it was mainly his advisors and aids doing the work but you have to recognise there is something seriously wrong with the system if someone like that is aloud to be put in a role of such importance .
This post has been edited by SweatyPa1ms on Friday, Sep 23 2011, 04:55
Vidi Vici Veni Group: Zaibatsu
Joined: Apr 14, 2004
I don't see what's so crazy about molten steel. The "truthers" simply grab the combustion temperature of kerosene and say, "Oooo, that can't melt steel. Must be thermite." But in a furnace, the temperature can go up pretty much as high as you want. The fire on lower floors pre-heats rising air, so a floor above burns hotter than floor bellow. A few floors up, it can easily be hot enough to melt steel. The absolute limiting factor is enthalpy of formation of CO2. That's ~400kJ/mol, and that has to be equal to (1/2)RT before you can't get any more heat out of the combustion. This happens at nearly 100,000K or about 180,000°F. Naturally, you never get anywhere near these temperatures because everything around starts to melt and evaporate long before that.
But the point is, it's absolutely not unlikely that in some points of the structure, the steel beams would actually begin to melt. The structure was ideal to work as a furnace. It slowed down the air flow enough to allow the fire to burn on each floor, yet allowed enough of it to rise from floor to floor to make flames burn hotter and hotter.
Wilderness of Mirrors Group: The Connection
Joined: Feb 14, 2011
QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Friday, Sep 23 2011, 00:16)
Like i've said before, watch the Zeitgeist documentaries, I know as soon as people roam into "conspiracy theory" territory people dont want to touch it with a barge pole but this isn't some disinformation bullsh*t like loose change. You hear accounts from people that were high up in MI5, FBI, CIA and other very knowledgable intelligent people in their respective fields.
I have watched some of the Zeitgeist documentaries. They're full of hyperbole, inaccurate information, bogus claims and downright lies. You'd honestly have to be a complete mug to buy more than a few words from them. Firstly, we'll come on to intelligence service personnel. In the UK, intelligence officers aren't permitted to reveal the extent of their affiliation with the organisation unless placed in a public position such as the directorate. Ergo, anyone claiming to have worked for the intelligence services should have their claims taken with a pinch of salt. There's no way of independently verifying these claims for anyone without DV-level security clearance, so they can be essentially discounted as reliable sources of information. Most spooks are incredibly unreceptive and unwilling to discuss their role- partially because they're bound by the Official Secrets Act and could face prison for discussing operational matters, and partially because the personalities who tend to be recruited into the services are typically introvert. For the most part, those who "claim" to have worked for the intelligence services are, like many of those who claim to be in the SAS, pure fantasists. And though I'm not hugely familiar with the regulations imposed on employees of the US intelligence services, I believe that similar maxims apply with regards to what they are permitted to actively discuss in public. There have been dozens of cases in living memory where individuals claiming an affiliation with the intelligence services have leaked "information" to the press, and then been discovered as frauds.
QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Friday, Sep 23 2011, 00:16)
If you refuse to watch it then your being ignorant as your basing your opinions on "evidence" and accounts presented by one side. How can you make an accurate distinction? All you can do then is take that as the truth and make assumptions about everything else. I have listened to both sides of the story and then, I could form an opinion.
This puzzles me. How does shunning sensationalist media to focus entirely on available factual information make one ignorant? I'm perfectly capable of forming my own theories without a tin-foil-hat lunatic telling me what I should or shouldn't believe. Surely if the extent of your opinion is to side completely with one possibility or another, that demonstrates ignorance, as it indicates that you do not possess enough knowledge on a subject matter to form your own opinions, only that you are capable of parroting the ideas of other people?
The problem with many of these films is that they don't actually present evidence. They immediately shun the traditionally accepted theories- often based on misinterpretations of evidence, out-right lies and shady and unverifiable human sources, and then proceed to replace these ideas with theories of their own. Rather than supporting these theories with actual evidence, they tend to summarise how the theory could be true. Now, that doesn't represent evidence to me. I could say "God exists, because the world is complex and has natural order", but that's still a theory without supporting evidence. In the case of the conspiracy theorists and the sensationalist documentaries, they succeed only because a large proportion of the common man is incapable of identifying between the continuation and expansion of a theory and actual evidence.
QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Friday, Sep 23 2011, 00:16)
Your just as much as a conspiracy theorist as me unless you are involved directly with any of the subject matters weve been talking about as all your doing is basing your truth off somebody elses information just like me.
I am personally involved in many of the subject matters we have been discussing- I've worked in the defence and security sector since finishing my undergraduate degree, in areas like policy analysis and capability studies, intelligence analysis, risk assessment, crisis response, security consultancy and policy advice. The versions of "truth" that I am discussing are based on available empirical evidence rather than hearsay and speculation. Not to blow my own trumpet, but in the case of most of the issues that have been discussed here, I possess considerably more knowledge, experience, a better understanding and a far better reputation than most "truthers". After all, I work in the sector, they just want to make a quick buck from it.
As an aside, have you ever seen thermite in action? It's incredibly. dazzlingly bright. How do you suppose that such a large quantity was placed in a building and ignited without lighting up the entire New York skyline like a massive spot-lamp? How about activation? Thermite requires an incredibly high temperature to start it's reaction- much higher than the sympathetic detonation temperatures of most commercial or military explosives. It can't be ignited using standard chemical or electrical detonators, it requires a temperature around double that of burning Kerosene, so how do you suppose it was ignited? When used commercially, it tends to be ignited using Magnesium Ribbon or a blow-torch. However, for quantities large enough to demolish two super-skyscrapers, the number of individuals you would need in order to ensure a large enough proportion of the thermite was involved in reactions would be massive. Not to mention it's quite unreliable, even at the best of times. Thermite is affected by gravity. In order to sever the vertical supporting columns, it would have to burn horizontally. Now, I'm personally not quite sure how this would work. Sure, thermite has been used to cut horizontally before, but not on 20-foot-wide structural steel beams. It would be somewhere between physically impossible and utterly ridiculous to claim that, in this example, thermite was capable of demolishing two buildings under incredibly risky circumstances, using a technique that has never been used in demolition before or since, and acting against the known laws of physics. Sorry, but to me that just seems utterly absurd.
Anyway. I will NOT have this turn into another conspiracy theory thread. There's one of those just a few topics down. By all means take it to there, but this is veering wildly off-topic now.
This post has been edited by sivispacem on Friday, Sep 23 2011, 09:39
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
. 
.
. 
. The war is bollocks, the taliban aren't a threat to us, they live in caves eating rice. The only people they are a threat to is our soldiers in their country. We should just spend more money on defense if our government is so scared of "terrorism". The war was never meant to be won, just sustained so the bankers can get everyone in more and more debt, just like Vietnam. The bankers run the world, not the governments. 
.
. 
