4
   

9/11 was a drama by CIA, watch this video

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 11:00 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quehoniaomath wrote:

Al-Qaida is the name of a file from the cia with agents within the cia!



Are you sure Al-Qaida isn't a reagent and you aren't just reacting to it?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 11:28 am
@fresco,
Quote:
BTW You seem to me to be unaware of Q's posting history indicating his fetish for loony theories such as "the moon is an artificial satellite".

I hold Q as so almost thoroughly wrong that he must be mentally deranged. But that's just me, 'cause I consider that there is such a thing as the objective truth. But for you, who think we all create 'truth' through agreement, what wrong with Q? Many people agree to his paranoid ideas.

For you, the idea that 9/11 was an inside job should be just one 'truth' among many, no?
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 11:57 am
Incidentally I'm not anti-conspiracy theories, for example I think there's a 10 per cent probability that Apollo 11 MIGHT possibly have been faked, but the later Apollo missions were 99.99 per cent real.

As regards 9/11, I'd estimate it's 99.99 per cent certain that Al-Qaeda dun it.
fresco
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 12:05 pm
@Olivier5,
The point is that "truth" requires consensus. Once an assertion is taken out of its micro origins it becomes a candidate for functional testing with respect to macro considerations. Both religious and conspiracy theories are so called because their advocates ultimately fall back on a personal faith position regarding functionality involving selective evidence, having failed to establish an agreed consensus to that functionality or evidence status. Indeed their dissenters often classify such theories as socially dysfunctional.
Q is just a collector of scientific controversies so that he has something to witter about. He has zero understanding of the extent to which concepts of "necessity" and "sufficiency" are involved in the inter-linkages between what constitutes mainstream scientific paradigms.
parados
 
  0  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 12:35 pm
@fresco,
Q is basically putting us on. Finding more and more outlandish conspiracies to see how far he can push people.
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 01:13 pm
@parados,
Yeh, it is really hard to think that someone is that dumass. Whats funny are the guys tht agree with him. They aint fuckin around. They are true believers
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 01:59 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Quote:
Incidentally I'm not anti-conspiracy theories, for example I think there's a 10 per cent probability that Apollo 11 MIGHT possibly have been faked, but the later Apollo missions were 99.99 per cent real.


They were ALL faked!
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 02:03 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
The point is that "truth" requires consensus. Once an assertion is taken out of its micro origins it becomes a candidate for functional testing with respect to macro considerations. Both religious and conspiracy theories are so called because their advocates ultimately fall back on a personal faith position regarding functionality involving selective evidence, having failed to establish an agreed consensus to that functionality or evidence status. Indeed their dissenters often classify such theories as socially dysfunctional.
Q is just a collector of scientific controversies so that he has something to witter about. He has zero understanding of the extent to which concepts of "necessity" and "sufficiency" are involved in the inter-linkages between what constitutes mainstream scientific paradigms.


lol, talking about being religious!!
You really have no clue what you are talking about.
First of all, there is no consensus needed, but proof or evidence!
Stange thing, what you wrote,

And, there is much more evidence for conspiracies then there is for the mainstream bollocks!

But you see, as people BELIEVE the mainstream bollocks.......

But is is the same story over and over again:
http://www.quotesvalley.com/images/09/the-highest-form-of-ignorance-is-when-you-reject-something-you-dont-know-anything-about.jpg


farmerman
 
  0  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 02:56 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
there is no consensus needed, but proof or evidence!
How is proof validated you moron? by magic beans?
fresco
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 03:59 pm
@farmerman,
Smile
Maybe Q is an Azande. Their justificatory procedures involved examining the entrails of a ritually slaughtered chicken.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 04:10 pm
Quote:
Romeo said: I think there's a 10 per cent probability that Apollo 11 MIGHT possibly have been faked, but the later Apollo missions were 99.99 per cent real.
Quehon said: They were ALL faked!

Kennedy committed America to putting men on the moon by the end of the 60's, but when 1969 arrived and they still hadn't done it, they probably faked Apollo 11 so that America wouldn't lose face to the rest of the world, especially to Russia.
That faked mission gave them the bit of breathing space they needed to do it for real with the remaining Apollo missions 12 to 17.
farmerman
 
  0  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 04:44 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
So the prismatic signal reflector was subcontracted to aliens and the aliens installed it on the moons surface eh?
NOW IT ALL MAKES SENSE
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 04:49 pm
@farmerman,
Fakery is easy to fake..Smile
When they allegedly faked Apollo 11 they never dreamt that all their films and stuff would one day be on everybody's home computer being scrutinised in the tiniest detail..
farmerman
 
  0  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 04:54 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
so which aliens did the deed? Somebody put that damned thing up there in 1969
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 05:01 pm
@farmerman,
You think Apollo 11 put a reflector on the moon? Prove it..Wink
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 05:48 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Quote:
On July 21, about an hour before the end of their final moonwalk, Armstrong and Aldrin left an experiment on the lunar surface which, after 35 years, continues to work as well as it did the day it got there. Called the lunar laser ranging experiment, it studies the Earth-Moon system and returns data to scientific centers around the world, including NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

"An accurate knowledge of the Moon's orbit and orientation is needed for future robotic and manned missions to our satellite," said Dr. James G. Williams, one of four JPL scientists who analyze the data from the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment. "Scientists have been able to use the data they received through lunar laser ranging to study the Earth, the Moon and the character of gravity."

Scientists from various institutions who analyze the data from the lunar laser ranging experiment have observed, among other things, that the Moon is moving away from the Earth and has a fluid core, and that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is accurate.

The experiment consists of an instrument called the lunar laser ranging reflector, designed to reflect pulses of laser light fired from the Earth. The idea was to determine the round-trip travel time of a laser pulse from the Earth to the Moon and back again, thereby calculating the distance between the two bodies to unprecedented accuracy. Unlike the other scientific experiments left on the Moon, this reflector requires no power and is still functioning perfectly after 35 years.
If you have a powerful enough EDM laser and a way to record the responses via (c) pulses , you too can "bounce" a signal from your location to the moon and back. You can also have the data from USGS if you just wish to graph the moons retreat and frequency. Many Universities throughout the world are "in on the conspiracy" to keep the fraud going.


0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 06:05 pm
@fresco,
Ok so Q is not wrong, he is just dysfunctional in his inability to agree with the rest of us on what constitutes "evidence"....?

Naaah... When is the last time you agreed on what constitutes good evidence with anyone here?

Q is operating under a different but clear logic, where the mainstream is always bad/wrong. And in a way,that makes him the perfect counter-example to your theories about agreement producing truth: for him, the truth is ALWAYS hidden, and thus any widespread agreement can only be a lie. Of course in his niche, he will find company, although I doubt you could find a more systematic doubter of anything scientific or consensual anywhere on the planet... He is the conspiracy theorist par excellence. He doubts everything: god, education, evolution, time, global warming of course, 9/11, etc etc, by the dozen...

I call such a high degree of mistrust for mankind, for the wisdom of his fellow men, I call it pathological, you call it dysfunctional. I can live with that.
JTT
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 07:11 pm
The 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail"


fresco
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 11:21 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Months after the commission had officially issued its report and ceased its functions, Chairman Kean and other commissioners toured the country to draw attention to the recommendations of the commission for reducing the terror risk, claiming that some of their recommendations were being ignored. Co-chairs Kean and Hamilton wrote a book about the constraints they faced as commissioners titled Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.
The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission. In the book, Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission wasMonths after the commission had officially issued its report and ceased its functions, Chairman Kean and other commissioners toured the country to draw attention to the recommendations of the commission for reducing the terror risk, claiming that some of their recommendations were being ignored. Co-chairs Kean and Hamilton wrote a book about the constraints they faced as commissioners titled Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.
The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission. In the book, Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials.[19]and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials.


Your selective evidence gathering has cited the phrase "set up to fail" as meaning "failure to expose your conspiracy claim", when the context clearly implies the failure was to sufficiently establish blame to protective agencies for their lack of vigilance due to self preservation tactics on the part of those agencies. Those alleged deflection tactics was the only tangible candidate worthy of a title "conspiracy".

0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Wed 16 Jul, 2014 04:46 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Ok so Q is not wrong, he is just dysfunctional in his inability to agree with the rest of us on what constitutes "evidence"....?

Naaah... When is the last time you agreed on what constitutes good evidence with anyone here?

Q is operating under a different but clear logic, where the mainstream is always bad/wrong. And in a way,that makes him the perfect counter-example to your theories about agreement producing truth: for him, the truth is ALWAYS hidden, and thus any widespread agreement can only be a lie. Of course in his niche, he will find company, although I doubt you could find a more systematic doubter of anything scientific or consensual anywhere on the planet... He is the conspiracy theorist par excellence. He doubts everything: god, education, evolution, time, global warming of course, 9/11, etc etc, by the dozen...

I call such a high degree of mistrust for mankind, for the wisdom of his fellow men, I call it pathological, you call it dysfunctional. I can live with tha


You clearly failed to understand any sentence I have written!
And you are jumping to conclusions all over the place.

what else is new?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/16/2024 at 05:19:09