Conspiracy theories...

[dustiestrat]

most interesting thing mentioned so far was about the pyramids that was realling interesting going to have to read up on that myself. i've always liked the philidelphia experiment theory.

Operation Ghost was an alleged naval military experiment at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, sometime around October 28, 1943, in which the U.S. destroyer escort USS Eldridge was to be rendered invisible to human observers for a brief period of time. It is also referred to as Project Rainbow. The story is widely regarded as a hoax.[1][2][3] The U.S. Navy maintains that no such experiment occurred, and furthermore, details of the story contradict facts about the Eldridge.[4] It has nonetheless caused ripples in conspiracy theory circles, and elements of the Philadelphia Experiment are featured in other government conspiracy theories.

i dont believe it happened just find it a good read.

 

[magick]

She wasn't "right in front of the building"; you can see from the photo that she's actually in another building, several blocks away:

Oh come on. Are you seriously telling me that Tower Seven can't easily be seen from that window by all the people in that room? She even turns round during the interview to look out the window.

 

[magick]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI&feature=related

They even tell you, 20 minutes in advance, the 'official' reason adopted by the government, 911 commission and everyone else in denial for why the building collapsed.

 

[Sankari]

Where has anything i've said been irrational or even debunked as impossible?

Sorry, I was thinking of Teki187 and his little rant about the Federal Reserve.

But you get a few points for trying to argue that the WTC and Tower 7 were destroyed by controlled explosions, and not by the two gigantic aeroplanes which collided with the Twin Towers.

All you can say is that we don't know for a fact what their agenda is but these groups certainly exist and trends in the western world plus the state of the system seems to go along with some of the theories, and those logical flaws you claim, when someone has posted what they thought i expanded on what could be going on, then i thought it was time i showed a few clips for you all to find questionable yourself, even magick then followed up with some decent info on the group.

The clips were useless because they didn't actually prove anything. For "logical flaws", see Teki's bizarre comments about the Federal Reserve; firstly, his claims about the Fed weren't even true, and secondly, his hypothetical scenario was utterly illogical.

I certainly don't share a belief in most of the rubbish on the subject but when faced with some real questionable stuff i can't totally deny it and walk away, if theres anything in it then i will be open while trying to keep some reason and scepticism, perhaps i do play devils advocate a bit to get my point across and make others question whats going on as well but i only do it because most wouldn't look let alone think outside the box otherwise.

Anyway here is what I wanted everyone to see, now tell me if you think this a good thing, honestly? no conflict of interests let alone being downright bizarre, especially considering a guy like bush actually won a second time even with suspicious voting issues but that's another thing...

The Skull & Bones thing is pointless and irrelevant. If the S&B club is so influential, why isn't Kerry the president already?

The Bush interview thing simply shows a tired and typically inarticulate man struggling for a suitable response to an unexpected question. It doesn't mean anything.

 

[Sankari]

Oh come on. Are you seriously telling me that Tower Seven can't easily be seen from that window by all the people in that room? She even turns round during the interview to look out the window.

No, I am not telling you that Tower 7 can't be seen from that window by all the people in that room. This isn't even what I said.

You claimed that she was "standing right in front of the building". I am simply pointing out that she wasn't standing right in front of the building, but was in fact several blocks away.

Yes, the tower was visible from her standpoint; yes, she mistakenly reported that it had collapsed (or was in the process of collapsing) when in fact it was only on fire at that stage.

None of which proves a conspiracy.

 

[Sankari]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI&feature=related

They even tell you, 20 minutes in advance, the 'official' reason adopted by the government, 911 commission and everyone else in denial for why the building collapsed.

It has been proved that Tower 7 fell because it was weakened by fire and debris from the Twin Towers. Tower 7 itself later caught fire and began to disintegrate. Photographs taken at the time show that it suffered significant damage before its collapse.

See my post here.

 

[magick]

None of which proves a conspiracy.

I really do feel sorry for you evangelion.

how can you mistakenly report a building collapsing that's still standing and clearly visible that it' still standing?

 

[yak.h'cir]

Oh come on. Are you seriously telling me that Tower Seven can't easily be seen from that window by all the people in that room? She even turns round during the interview to look out the window.

Have you ever considered that maybe since she's on live tv covering one of the largest news stories of all time that she's concentrating on what to say/awe struck by what's going on that when she looks out the window she wasn't really taking the view in accurately? Hell maybe she had no idea what WTC7 looked like and just reading out the reports people were saying.

I really do feel sorry for you evangelion.

how can you mistakenly report a building collapsing that's still standing and clearly visible that it' still standing?

Of course the biggest whole in this ridicules theory is this; assume the whole thing is true for a second, there is an element of the government that has set in motion an elaborate plan that will result in the deaths of many innocent people. It's been months in planning and they know that if their plan was ever discovered by the public that would be the end of them and everything they'd planned for. So knowing all this, why exactly would they tell the news agencies in advance which buildings would fall down? WHY? They wouldn't, they'd just leave it to the news to report things how they happened as usual. Unfortunately in this case in the confusion/chinese whispers style a mistake was made. It's hardly a big deal and the fact all the people who believe the theory keep sighting this point only shows how stupid/desperate they really are.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I really do feel sorry for you evangelion.

how can you mistakenly report a building collapsing that's still standing and clearly visible that it' still standing?

Perhaps when it's a totally unprecedented event and the world's media is in panic and all manner of stuff is being shouted in your earpiece?

 

[yak.h'cir]

"A phone call to BBC's Jane Standley who reported the collapse of The Salomon Brothers Building (7WTC) a full 45 minutes prior to the collapse raising massive questions as to the BBC's use of clairvoyants and sooth sayers. With this power, many critics are asking why the BBC were not able to predict the entire event. Complacency or a conspiracy?!"

As soon as he asks about 9/11 she goes cold and claims shes busy.

Another desperate point! Do you really think she's going to waste time talking to some random on the phone about something that's obviously caused her great embarrassment. She would have have to have been a complete idiot to give a comment on it then and there.

Do you have any real sources that the BBC were using clairvoyants/sooth sayers? Because if they were that is something the BBC should be shot over. I highly doubt there were. Either that or it's just a bunch of crazies trying to cash in and calling the BBC to tell them how they saw the whole thing before it happened.

 

[Sankari]

I really do feel sorry for you evangelion.

No need! It's a sunny day, and I feel fine.

how can you mistakenly report a building collapsing that's still standing and clearly visible that it' still standing?

Very easily.

The reporter probably didn't even know what Tower 7 looked like. And why should she? She's a Brit, not a Yank. Hell, it's been 7 years since the whole thing came down, and I still have no idea what Tower 7 looked like. You could show me a photo and I'd completely fail to identify it.

Notice that the reporter never physically identifies Tower 7 at any point in her report. She never turns to it, she never gestures towards it, she never points to it; it seems clear to me that she has no ****** clue which one it is, and wouldn't know from a glance at the skyline if it was still standing or not.

Notice also that in the clip, Tower 7 is identified by our helpful conspiracy theorist, with a nice clear arrow. Why do this in the first place, if everyone knows what the tower looks like? Seems to me that if you have to point it out with an arrow before people can be sure, then it's easy to mistake it for another building entirely.

My guess is that the reporter really didn't know what Tower 7 looked like (nor did anyone else in the studio) and simply relied on the reports she had already received from emergency crews on the ground (who had said that the building was on fire and in a state of imminent collapse).

There's no conspiracy here; just a simple mistake by an ignorant reporter at a time of widespread confusion and mixed reports.

Here's a video of T7 before it fell. You can clearly see that the building is on fire, with a massive hole in its side and smoke pouring out all over the place. As the video progresses, so does the fire.

Oh, and here's a link to the CNN report, in which they clearly state that T7 has already collapsed (or is collapsing) before it actually went down. Notice the lack of certainty in the reporter's voice; with all the smoke in the footage, he's not sure if T7 has fallen or not. He can't even identify it in his own footage. Perhaps he didn't know what it looked like either.

 

[Radiation]

Sorry, I was thinking of Teki187 and his little rant about the Federal Reserve.

But you get a few points for trying to argue that the WTC and Tower 7 were destroyed by controlled explosions, and not by the two gigantic aeroplanes which collided with the Twin Towers.

That's ok though where in this thread have i said about the WTC and building 7? in fact the only 911 thing i touched upon was the second bush clip, that was only for his odd response and if it could really be because of prior knowledge.

The clips were useless because they didn't actually prove anything. For "logical flaws", see Teki's bizarre comments about the Federal Reserve; firstly, his claims about the Fed weren't even true, and secondly, his hypothetical scenario was utterly illogical.

Again thats another posters ct, im trying to point to things that can be shown as real questionable and i use that word lightly with some of this stuff.

The Skull & Bones thing is pointless and irrelevant. If the S&B club is so influential, why isn't Kerry the president already?

Come on "pointless and irrelevant"? It kind of sounds like denial or you trying to make it seem acceptable, when its clearly would not be to most people.

Maybe because they have two not one but two guys from their 'club' running for president, would it really matter who wins if they were up to no good, are people seriously ok with this, especially considering how bush is and how things have been handled since?

To quote JFK "The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings." i wonder if he just might have known something?

The Bush interview thing simply shows a tired and typically inarticulate man struggling for a suitable response to an unexpected question. It doesn't mean anything.

Perhaps and perhaps not but its unusual even for him, still i only thought it was interesting to show.

Also to add I think a few conspiracies and posters are getting mixed up here, we're not all arguing exactly the same stuff, as is the trouble with conspiracy theories like I've said, however it doesn't mean when your presented with something like this you should instantly consider it rubbish without looking even though most of it is, that wouldn't be very reasoned would it?

 

[Radiation]

You claimed that she was "standing right in front of the building". I am simply pointing out that she wasn't standing right in front of the building, but was in fact several blocks away.

So how's that even relevant or matter?

It's a non issue you've argued here, you knew what he meant but decided to argue about the way he said it and his meaning, why bother, why do some on the forum like to argue around everything but the core issue, its a weak form of discussion and this forum is well known for it.

Btw im not arguing about wtc7 here just this from of pointless side discussion on meaning, people have brains that are pretty damn good at interpreting things, so this sort of thing is unnecessary and sidetracking.

All ill say is its yet another questionable thing, odd but not proof of a media conspiracy, though i can see how it looks that way.

 

[yak.h'cir]

Doesn't every university have it's 'secret' societies/groups??? I'm sure they're even more common place in the US with all the frat house style set ups they have.

If it's true that all the US Presidents keep coming from this group what does it really matter? Technically anyone could stand in the election so why not them? With the way the election campaigns are run in the US the President will always be the one who can make the most money. You need many millions in donations just to run in the primaries so the people running will always be those loved by big business.

 

[yak.h'cir]

So how's that even relevant or matter?

It's relevant because the post made it sound as if the reporter was stood next to the actual building saying that it had collapsed. This completely changes the story of what happened! It's a common occurrence that small lies/exaggerations/vital info is omitted in order to make the conspiracy seem more real. They all build on each other and next you'll be hearing that the reporter was reporting from the secret command centre in WTC7 at the time which was proof she was in on the whole thing!

It's a non issue you've argued here, you knew what he meant but decided to argue about the way he said it and his meaning, why bother, why do some on the forum like to argue around everything but the core issue, its a weak form of discussion and this forum is well known for it.

He just corrected a mistake and has also discussed all the other points raised by the conspirators. From your above comment the person posting that I can see matches your description is magick.

 

[Viper²]

The plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11 was shot down.

 

[dannyjo22]

Although I'm not obsessed with conspiracy theories the one on TWA flight 800 is fairly interesting and one I keep meaning to get a book on for a more thorough read.

 

[Snakedoctor]

Everyone is out to get me.

 

[Radiation]

It's relevant because the post made it sound as if the reporter was stood next to the actual building saying that it had collapsed. This completely changes the story of what happened! It's a common occurrence that small lies/exaggerations/vital info is omitted in order to make the conspiracy seem more real. They all build on each other and next you'll be hearing that the reporter was reporting from the secret command centre in WTC7 at the time which was proof she was in on the whole thing!

He just corrected a mistake and has also discussed all the other points raised by the conspirators. From your above comment the person posting that I can see matches your description is magick.

While what you say is reasonable so are my points, i all too often see people on these forums going on and on about trivial little details as if they're arguing against the real issue, we still knew what the guy meant and by the picture it was obvious.

Anyway you have to wonder where they got their information because the conspiracy if there is one almost certainly lies there, remember most people are generally decent people doing their jobs but things can get done and mistakes made like this one.

 

[Sankari]

Come on "pointless and irrelevant"? It kind of sounds like denial or you trying to make it seem acceptable, when its clearly would not be to most people.

Maybe because they have two not one but two guys from their 'club' running for president, would it really matter who wins if they were up to no good, are people seriously ok with this, especially considering how bush is and how things have been handled since?

To quote JFK "The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings." i wonder if he just might have known something?

You can claim that I'm in denial when you've proved that there's something to deny.

Perhaps and perhaps not but its unusual even for him, still i only thought it was interesting to show.

Also to add I think a few conspiracies and posters are getting mixed up here, we're not all arguing exactly the same stuff, as is the trouble with conspiracy theories like I've said, however it doesn't mean when your presented with something like this you should instantly consider it rubbish without looking even though most of it is, that wouldn't be very reasoned would it?

I don't instantly consider it rubbish unless it's blatantly illogical and/or irrational. I do investigate the claims being made, and I dismiss them as rubbish once i have proved to my own satisfaction that they are not true.