Quote: Fred Sunshine @ July 21 2009, 2:08 PM BSTBut that still doesn't answer the question of whether we ever went to the Moon or not.
Where else do you think Osama is hiding?
Attention all moon landing sceptics Page 15
Quote: chipolata @ July 21 2009, 2:14 PM BSTI prefer The Doves.
I believe Bin Laden is a BSG user and I think we all know who he is....
Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 2:13 PM BSTDon't think I said that at all.
It's a common theme throughout the thread. The argument has never been against the idea that they did land, but the possibility that they did or didn't land.
Quote: sootyj @ July 21 2009, 2:18 PM BSTI believe Bin Laden is a BSG user
Then he should come and join in the fun on the BCG. 
Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 2:09 PM BSTHave you actually read the Keane commission report?
I've read much of it. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember it saying that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, the WTC buildings were brought down by hidden demolition charges, the president ordered the attacks, the USAF deliberately allowed the planes to smash into the buildings, etc.
Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 2:06 PM BSTI'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.
When ever I annoy people they chop letters of my name!
I'm watching Small change, interesting stuff. But people break cover incredibly fast. The atomic bomb stayed secret for what 2 years? SDI was shown as being bogus with in months. Money, being the big I am, vanity what ever people always, always talk. Vanunu is the clearest example.
And if they did it. Where was the follow up? The unequivocal evidence of Al Quaeda and Sadam? Where was the proof of WMDs in Iraq?
How did the world's most sophisticated conspiracy switch to the worlds leakiest most incompetent investigation in Iraq instantaneously?
And why bother? You want to carry out a massive terrorist outrage to spark war, why not use a bunch of car bombs or turn a blind eye to suicide bombers?
The elaboratness of the plotting makes it seem unlikely.
Quote: sootyj @ July 21 2009, 2:28 PM BSTAnd if they did it. Where was the follow up? The unequivocal evidence of Al Quaeda and Sadam? Where was the proof of WMDs in Iraq?
How did the world's most sophisticated conspiracy switch to the worlds leakiest most incompetent investigation in Iraq instantaneously?
The elaboratness of the plotting makes it seem unlikely.
Indeed. A single truckload of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons material and a few forged documents would have silenced the outcry against the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. government had months after the invasion to undertake such action, yet it didn't. How does that make any sense if it's willing to kill 3000 of its own citizens and damage its economy and infrastructure to the tune of a trillion dollars or so?
Quote: DaButt @ July 21 2009, 2:28 PM BSTI've read much of it. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember it saying that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, the WTC buildings were brought down by hidden demolition charges, the president ordered the attacks, the USAF deliberately allowed the planes to smash into the buildings, etc.
The ommissions, contradictory evidence and false assertions - especially gross mistakes made about structural mechanics and engineering, are shocking for a "definitive" study. Plus the report has to conclude that it can offer no explanation for why WTC 7 "collapsed" 7 hours later. Why can't it?
As I say, I have no political axe to grind, it's just as someone coming from a scientific background, who knows how to judge scientific evidence, for the official explanation to be true the the laws of physics must have taken a day off on September 11th 2001.
You're a good patriot, mate, so I'm not going to argue any further.
And no Vanunu in the FBI desperate to get laid and stick it to the man? Buggering off with a bunch of files to Iran. The FAA isn't even a particularly secret agency.
Forget the politics, explain the physics to me.
I understand neither it's the people I'm interested in and it's where the conspiracy falls apart.
Quote: sootyj @ July 21 2009, 2:49 PM BSTI understand neither it's the people I'm interested in and it's where the conspiracy falls apart.
Explain the physics to me. The science doesn't have an agenda. Scientists may have an agenda, but the laws of physical science don't; and in their relation to the the collapse of WTC1,2 & 7, they don't support the official cause-and-effect story. Physics doesn't explain the official narrative, that's all.
Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 2:43 PM BSTPlus the report has to conclude that it can offer no explanation for why WTC 7 "collapsed" 7 hours later. Why can't it?
Buildings fall down all the time, even without planes smashing into them.
I'd imagine WTC 7 collapsed as it was next door to two massive buildings that were hit by planes and collapsed.
I'm no architect, city planner or geologist, but I'm going to take a guess that WTC 7 fell over because it was a bit crap.
Well reading up on it the building 7 does sound suspicious.
But it's the why I'm fascinated by.