Attention all moon landing sceptics Page 14

Quote: sootyj @ July 21 2009, 10:45 AM BST

Ultimately the Moon Landing doubters, the 9/11 doubters and the Holocaust deniers fall down on one thing. They have no alternative narrative, just the world is a strange place in which you can trust no one.

View original

To be fair, despite having on the fringes some complete nuts (a small minority), the 9/11 doubters do suggest an alternative narrative. Namely that previous US administration was either complicit or active in the attacks of 9/11.

My own scepticism about the official narrative is firmly based on the physics of the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7. The physics (and also the chemistry) of the collapses does not support the official conclusions as to why those towers and WTC 7 fell.

One could add in all the contradictions and effective impossibilities which surround the official explanation of the Pentagon attack as well. As well as the evidence suggesting that the lack of military response on that day went far beyond what could be reasonably inferred as gross incompetence; to the point of what must have been a complicit or actioned "stand down" of air defences.

There's no point in going on listing stuff, because these events tend to polarise people into unshakeable standpoints. Having a rigidly held view on anything without properly examining credible evidence is, I would suggest, willing ignorance. As regards 9/11, whatever one wishes to believe as regarding what took place, there are hundreds of pieces of evidence (including physical evidence as well as reliable, mulitple eye witness testimony) that were either ignored by the Keane commission, or objectively contradict or disprove its findings.

Keep too much of an "open mind" and the risk is your brain might fall out, but as I have no agenda to follow in this matter (being neither right- or left-wing, nor anti-American, nor indeed anti-capitalism) researching the evidence about these events (and I try to stick with evidence from respected physicists, engineers, retired military, airline pilots etc) the official explanation does not persuade.

Bill Clinton's administration was behind 9/11?

I rather thought the previous administration was George Bush Jr's, soot?

It's not ignoring the evidence, it's questioning the facts. I was very intoxicated last night, obviously. But I still stand by the right to, ultimately question everything. No matter how stupid it is.

"Newton, stop playing with that apple!"

"But Daaad, it's more than an apple"

"Nom, nom, nom. You're right, it was my lunch too. Hahaha"

Oh previous to current.

Ok my problem with the 9/11 alternate is this.

It makes sense that the government would be complicit and fake a massive terrorist attempt. Plenty of countries have done something similar. My issue is what came next?

i No evidence of complicity with Saddam, couldn't they have faked evidence?

ii After the event no one siginificant breaks cover?

At least the Illuminati haven't been mentioned yet.

Quote: Afinkawan @ July 21 2009, 10:01 AM BST

It's good to question things but there comes a point where you aren't actually questioning something, you are just misunderstanding or ignoring all the evidence. going down that route leads to tryng to get creationism taught in science lessons.

View original

Agreed. Lots.

Quote: sootyj @ July 21 2009, 1:48 PM BST

ii After the event no one siginificant breaks cover?

View original

I'm not going to debate this extensively because it becomes a futile exercise, as I am sure you appreciate, soot. All I will say is that it relatively easy with the right organisation to get people to do things, seemingly innocent things, which are part of an alternate agenda. It is easy for people, being human, to be employed, follow orders, get paid well, and not ask too many questions. Ignorance is bliss. If you are all-powerful such as the US military, the CIA/FBI/OSS, or have other means of power (money), then it is possible to construct events where individuals are unaware of their role in producing the overall result. Those with suspicions that they have been used or duped will not necessarily have any evidence with which to make an allegation. Their knowledge is limited to their tiny role. And, quite humanly, they do not wish to be labelled an extremist, a boat-rocker, unpatriotic, or a "nut". They do not wish to expose themselves and their family to potential harm.

Why would no-one of significance "break cover"? How would it serve their interests? Interests which were presumable served well the events that occurred and the official explanation. You presume that morals, guilt and shame would triumph over self-interest. This is rarely the case in everyday life, where the stakes and recriminations are far more benign.

Quote: sootyj @ July 21 2009, 1:39 PM BST

Bill Clinton's administration was behind 9/11?

View original

Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 1:42 PM BST

I rather thought the previous administration was George Bush Jr's, soot?

View original

You might as well add Clinton to the list of conspirators if you're going to claim that the government was behind the September 11th attacks. They took place 7 months after Bush took office and there's no way they could have lugged enough explosives and prepared all the buildings for demolition and put together the massive plan and assembled the thousands of individuals necessary for it to succeed.

But of course the whole conspiracy is nuts to begin with. The evidence does NOT point away from the official explanation and there WASN'T a stand down by the military.

Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 2:06 PM BST

I'm not going to debate this any further because it becomes a futile exercise, as I am sure you appreciate, soot. All I will say is that it relatively easy with the right organisation to get people to do things, seemingly innocent things, which are part of an alternate agenda. It is easy for people, being human, to be employed, follow orders, get paid well, and not ask too many questions. Ignorance is bliss. If you are all-powerful such as the US military, the CIA/FBI/OSS, or have other means of power (money), then it is possible to construct events where individuals are unaware of their role in producing the overall result. Those with suspicions that they have been used or duped will not necessarily have any evidence with which to make an allegation. They knowledge is limited to their tiny role. And, quite humanly, they do not wish to be labelled an extremist, a boat-rocker, unpatriotic, or a "nut". They do not wish to expose themselves and their family to potential harm.

Why would no-one of significance "break cover"? How would it serve their interests? Interests which were presumable served well the events that occurred and the official explanation. You presume that morals, guilt and shame would triumph over self-interest. This is rarely the case in everyday life, where the stakes and recriminations are far more benign.

View original

But that still doesn't answer the question of whether we ever went to the Moon or not.

Quote: DaButt @ July 21 2009, 2:06 PM BST

But of course the whole conspiracy is nuts to begin with. The evidence does NOT point away from the official explanation and there WASN'T a stand down by the military.

View original

Easy to label everyone nuts who disagrees with your polarised opinion, DaButt, isn't it? Have you actually read the Keane commission report?

Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 2:06 PM BST

You presume that morals, guilt and shame would triumph over self-interest.

View original

And you presume that thousands of people find themselves complicit in the murder of 3000 people and would keep their mouths shut for a paycheck.

Quote: DaButt @ July 21 2009, 2:11 PM BST

And you presume that thousands of people find themselves complicit in the murder of 3000 people and would keep their mouths shut for a paycheck.

View original

Don't think I said that at all. What do you base the assertion "thousands of people" on?

Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 2:09 PM BST

Have you actually read the Keane commission report?

View original

I prefer The Doves.

Quote: chipolata @ July 21 2009, 2:14 PM BST

I prefer The Doves.

View original

Boo!