Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Conspiracies, war and modern IR

64 replies to this topic
SweatyPa1ms
  • SweatyPa1ms

    Flesh vehicle

  • Angels of Death MC
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2009
  • None

#1

Posted 31 August 2011 - 02:24 PM Edited by SweatyPa1ms, 31 August 2011 - 02:49 PM.

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? confused.gif

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 icon14.gif.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#2

Posted 31 August 2011 - 07:25 PM Edited by sivispacem, 31 August 2011 - 07:44 PM.

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? confused.gif


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 Hong 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.

SweatyPa1ms
  • SweatyPa1ms

    Flesh vehicle

  • Angels of Death MC
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2009
  • None

#3

Posted 31 August 2011 - 09:19 PM

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 smile.gif.

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 sigh.gif.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#4

Posted 01 September 2011 - 04:11 AM

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.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#5

Posted 01 September 2011 - 01:27 PM

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.

Icarus
  • Icarus

    Orthonormal

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2002

#6

Posted 01 September 2011 - 02:48 PM

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.

Pat
  • Pat

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2006

#7

Posted 01 September 2011 - 03:03 PM

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.

SweatyPa1ms
  • SweatyPa1ms

    Flesh vehicle

  • Angels of Death MC
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2009
  • None

#8

Posted 01 September 2011 - 03:17 PM Edited by SweatyPa1ms, 01 September 2011 - 03:25 PM.

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...

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#9

Posted 01 September 2011 - 03:48 PM

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.

Warlord.
  • Warlord.

    :O

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2004

#10

Posted 01 September 2011 - 04:46 PM

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?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#11

Posted 01 September 2011 - 05:01 PM

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.

Warlord.
  • Warlord.

    :O

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2004

#12

Posted 01 September 2011 - 06:05 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Sep 1 2011, 22:31)
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.

Yeah I guess I meant operational success.

At the end of the day, that's all that matters right. tounge.gif

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#13

Posted 02 September 2011 - 03:49 AM Edited by Melchior, 02 September 2011 - 03:56 AM.

QUOTE (Pat @ Friday, Sep 2 2011, 01:03)
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.




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.

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003

#14

Posted 02 September 2011 - 05:26 AM

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.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#15

Posted 22 September 2011 - 03:31 PM

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Thursday, Sep 22 2011, 15:30)
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 notify.gif. 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.

SweatyPa1ms
  • SweatyPa1ms

    Flesh vehicle

  • Angels of Death MC
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2009
  • None

#16

Posted 22 September 2011 - 11:16 PM Edited by SweatyPa1ms, 23 September 2011 - 04:58 AM.

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 tounge.gif.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • None

#17

Posted 23 September 2011 - 12:39 AM

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.

SweatyPa1ms
  • SweatyPa1ms

    Flesh vehicle

  • Angels of Death MC
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2009
  • None

#18

Posted 23 September 2011 - 01:29 AM Edited by SweatyPa1ms, 23 September 2011 - 04:55 AM.

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!!! rah.gif

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 monocle.gif.

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 sign-clinton.gif.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • None

#19

Posted 23 September 2011 - 02:39 AM

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 180,000F. 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.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#20

Posted 23 September 2011 - 09:29 AM Edited by sivispacem, 23 September 2011 - 09:39 AM.

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.

SweatyPa1ms
  • SweatyPa1ms

    Flesh vehicle

  • Angels of Death MC
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2009
  • None

#21

Posted 24 September 2011 - 10:19 AM Edited by SweatyPa1ms, 24 September 2011 - 11:35 AM.

QUOTE (sivispacem)
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.


I'm sorry but your obviously lying about seeing the Zeitgeist documentaries just to get your point across because if you had seen them, you'd know these accounts i'm talking about aren't made from some deluded or schizophrenic people who think they are affiliated with the SAS or whichever other service. Also, did you ever think that those people who have been discovered to be frauds which you speak of were actually telling the truth but the agency they worked for just denied ever employing them?


QUOTE (sivispacem)
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?


This is EXACTLY what I mean. Where are your facts from? You aren't a forensics specialist that worked on the 9/11 attacks are you? You can form your own opinions but you cant gather all the evidence yourself to form that opinion, you have to base it off information you have been told by somebody else, just like me.

QUOTE (sivispacem)
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.


You say "misinterpretaions of evidence, out-right lies and unverifiable resources"... isn't that the same with the mainstream media? It too is full of incompetence and sensationalism so you cant really go and question the integrity of a documentary you haven't even given the time of day to watch.

Maybe the government should start unveiling this so called evidence then, I might have something else to go off then. The footage of the "aircraft" (missile) that went into the Pentagon hasn't been released... why? Why not reveal to the world you have nothing to hide instead of making bogus reports like the "9/11 commission" which the public weren't even aloud to see notify.gif. Its just a complete travesty. Nobody else has presented anything stonewall so how am I meant to trust it? If you can present to me that it wasn't an inside job beyond reasonable doubt then I will agree with you but until then i'm just gonna hold my ground.

QUOTE (=sivispacem)
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.


You misinterpreted my message. I meant the actual events themselves, not sectors of work. I respect you are probably quite knowledgable in your respective fields but that doesn't mean they automatically have any relevance with the events were talking about. No offense but i'm sure what were talking about here is way above your pay grade and everyone elses for that matter. I also have to add that the Zeitgeist documentaries are purely non profit and never advertise any kind of product. They do however have a vision of a better world "The Venus Project" and you can make donations on their website I think. By no means are they out to make "a quick buck" anyway. Afterall, they are trying to abolish the monetary system. It would be slightly ironic to say the least.

QUOTE (sivispacem)
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.


I dunno what to think about the thermite, it doesn't sound too absurd to me though. They could have engineered it themselves for achieving this exact effect. I've seen bigger breakthroughs in science and technology so it doesn't seem that unplausable. It has been used in demolitions before and if it was used to destroy those buildings, they probably tested it beforehand. Its not really that farfetched to be honest. By the way, it was 3 sky-scrapers not 2, you forgot building 7, probably the most important of them all. It wasn't even hit by an aircraft for crying out loud. No steel structure in history has ever collapsed due to fires. On 9/11, it happened 3 times apparently. Too coincidental if you ask me.

QUOTE (=sivispacem)
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.


I appreciate you want to keep on topic but you cant just come in here, tell it how you think it is, then undermime everyone elses opinions and tell them to move on. Its not cool. Aren't you a ledby on this section, set a good example icon14.gif. You do realise this is a debate/discussion section dont you? Its not the sivispacem dictatorship, I certainly hope not anyway wink.gif.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#22

Posted 24 September 2011 - 03:52 PM

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)
I'm sorry but your obviously lying about seeing the Zeitgeist documentaries just to get your point across because if you had seen them, you'd know these accounts i'm talking about aren't made from some deluded or schizophrenic people who think they are affiliated with the SAS or whichever other service.  Also, did you ever think that those people who have been discovered to be frauds which you speak of were actually telling the truth but the agency they worked for just denied ever employing them?

...How do you come to that conclusion? Because you feel that the roles of intelligence personnel in those films have been accurately represented. How can you make that judgement? Do you have any history of working alongside or in partnership with the intelligence community? Have you studied the operations, legislation and actions of the intelligence services, either in the US or in the UK? No? Then what are you basing your perceptions of the accuracy of individual's testimony on? Your own interpretations of what you feel an intelligence officer or analyst should look like, behave like and know? Well, there's your answer. I put it to you that your interpretation of the actions of intelligence agencies and the individuals that they employ is entirely based on what you have experienced in Hollywood blockbusters, the mass media and conspiratorial articles. That's not a fair or accurate representation of the actual work of intelligence and security organisations nor is it an effective indicator of the kinds of individuals who work for them. I'm not saying that no agent will come in from the cold and try and sell their story as best as they can within the confines of the legislative framework, but I am saying that the public perception of the intelligence services- a perception that you seem to take as verbatim, is on-the-whole incredibly inaccurate. Intelligence work is compartmentalised; few people know the entire back-story or detailed external information of the projects on which they are working. For the most part, much of it is extremely mundane- something else that isn't accurately represented. I put it to you that your entire argument is based on a misconception of the role, reach and mentality of intelligence agencies, and that this is the primary reason that your argument is fundamentally flawed. Intelligence agencies, for the most part, maintain plausible deniability. They don't actively discuss their employees in either a positive or negative light, they just refuse to comment.

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)
This is EXACTLY what I mean.  Where are your facts from?  You aren't a forensics specialist that worked on the 9/11 attacks are you?  You can form your own opinions but you cant gather all the evidence yourself to form that opinion, you have to base it off information you have been told by somebody else, just like me.

Where are my facts from? Well, it depends on which aspect to which you are trying to question my credibility. My understanding of al-Qaeda? Years of quite intensive and in-depth study into their hierarchy and structure (or lack thereof), the mentality and backgrounds of individuals who have been members or operated in close connection with the organisation, their aims, aspirations, goals and history. The technical aspect? Structural engineers, risk assessors and other personnel who do physical modelling, risk mitigation and engineering examinations for the insurance industry, including Marsh McLennan, who were the brokerage and risk assessment firm who operated from WTC1 and provided risk mitigation services for the building, more specifically Bowring who I've had the privilege of working alongside previously. The idea that a domestic intelligence agency couldn't have conducted the attacks? Well, I'm doing an MPhil in security studies, I've got a good knowledge of the operations and legislation of intelligence agencies, and also have a pretty good grasp of general strategic theory and international relations, which provide the framework in which these organisations operate. I feel I'm well qualified enough to speak on these issues, holding a greater understanding and credibility than many of the so-called "investigative journalists" who have disputed the official accounts of these incidents.

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)
You say "misinterpretaions of evidence, out-right lies and unverifiable resources"... isn't that the same with the mainstream media?  It too is full of incompetence and sensationalism so you cant really go and question the integrity of a documentary you haven't even given the time of day to watch.

Who says I'm gaining information from the mainstream media? You will scarcely find a critic more pessimistic about the representations of events portrayed in the partisan media than myself. Don't think for a moment that I treat them as a reliable source of information; that said, they're far more reliable than sensationalist bloggers and anti-establishment film-makers who can actively benefit from the spinning of falsehoods and yarns- far more so than the mass media who are subject to scrutiny and oversight possibly can.

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)
Maybe the government should start unveiling this so called evidence then, I might have something else to go off then.  The footage of the "aircraft" (missile) that went into the Pentagon hasn't been released... why?  Why not reveal to the world you have nothing to hide instead of making bogus reports like the "9/11 commission" which the public weren't even aloud to see  notify.gif.  Its just a complete travesty.  Nobody else has presented anything stonewall so how am I meant to trust it?  If you can present to me that it wasn't an inside job beyond reasonable doubt then I will agree with you but until then i'm just gonna hold my ground.

The evidence is there- hundreds of thousands of pages of documentation, scores of videos and audio recordings. It's not even as if they're particularly difficult for a layman to get their hands on. Footage of the aircraft hitting the Pentagon has in fact been released, but of course the "truthers" claim that this is doctored. The 9/11 commission wasn't held behind closed doors, it's information, sources and final report have been subject to dozens of freedom of information requests and are easily available on the internet, as are the reports and discussions of hundreds of other people- from aircraft engineers to architectural surveyors to military personnel- that worked actively on the case and whose reports are also relatively easy to obtain. Why should the onus be on myself or anyone else who supports the official discussion of the events to prove that our story is right? We're not the ones doing the questioning; the weight of proof should lie on the shoulders of the "truthers", who have not only failed in their attempts to discredit the original story (through factual and technical inaccuracies, media manipulation and complete falsehoods- see, for instance, earlier discussion on Thermite as a perfectly representative example) but have also failed to provide any convincing evidence to support theories of their own. Hence why there are innumerable theories on the issue- surely if the evidence was there that the official account was incorrect, then the conspiracy theories would at least be capable of unifying around one alternate possibility, rather than everything from aliens to aquaman?

Incidently, if a missile hit the Pentagon, then how do you explain the large pieces of aircraft wreckage that were scattered around the vicinity of it? Lots of photo and films taken in the immediate aftermath of the impact show pieces of aircraft including large, multiple-tonne sections of engine and the entire APU, conveniently sunk into a couple of feet of grass and topsoil. How do you suggest they came to be there when the moment that the building was hit, the cameras started rolling?

You want me to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 9/11 was not an inside job? Well, give me your version of events, and I'll demonstrate to you how it is impossible. Then you can re-assess your argument, make it again and I will do the same, until the only possible result you are left with is the official stance.

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)
You misinterpreted my message.  I meant the actual events themselves, not sectors of work.  I respect you are probably quite knowledgable in your respective fields but that doesn't mean they automatically have any relevance with the events were talking about.  No offense but i'm sure what were talking about here is way above your pay grade and everyone elses for that matter.  I also have to add that the Zeitgeist documentaries are purely non profit and never advertise any kind of product.  They do however have a vision of a better world "The Venus Project" and you can make donations on their website I think.  By no means are they out to make "a quick buck" anyway. Afterall, they are trying to abolish the monetary system.  It would be slightly ironic to say the least.

Are you honestly trying to imply that these "not-for-profit" organisations don't actually benefit from spinning lies? That's absurd, especially seen as you essentially accuse the mass media of doing exactly the same, and they have far less incentive and motive to do so. Pay-grade doesn't come into this, and nor does clearance. Do you honestly think that some lowly investigative journalist has access to any hard, conclusive, impartial or objective information that isn't available to the likes of anyone without an SC or DV badge? They don't, hence their focus is and always has been on employing human sources whose plausibility and accuracy, though questionable, is difficult to dispute as they're not in a position for their evidence to be critiqued. That's why these documentaries never name their sources- they bury it under layers of mystique and suggestion, but at the end of the day they act like the Tabloid media in the UK, and treat any information that supports their case as both factual and unbiased without ever allowing an outside observer the opportunity to question it's validity.

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)
I dunno what to think about the thermite, it doesn't sound too absurd to me though.  They could have engineered it themselves for achieving this exact effect.  I've seen bigger breakthroughs in science and technology so it doesn't seem that unplausable.  It has been used in demolitions before and if it was used to destroy those buildings, they probably tested it beforehand.  Its not really that farfetched to be honest.  By the way, it was 3 sky-scrapers not 2, you forgot building 7, probably the most important of them all.  It wasn't even hit by an aircraft for crying out loud.  No steel structure in history has ever collapsed due to fires.  On 9/11, it happened 3 times apparently.  Too coincidental if you ask me.

Not to be rude, but feeling that something "doesn't sound too absurd" is no justification for actually supporting it. It wasn't deemed too absurd for a scientist to hold the belief that the universe wasn't heliocentric, but that doesn't make it right. There are only so many advanced that can be made in something that is essentially powdered aluminium and rust, you can't really complicate that much further. And to the best of my knowledge, it's never been actively used in building demolition. Destroying military materiel such as artillery pieces and radar systems? Yep. But it's primary commercial purpose is for welding and cutting iron and steel for use in the transport industry (such as constructing rail tracks), and it's use in demolition has been limited to rendering materiel inoperable in combat scenarios. Use of it in active demolition is far beyond the scale and scope of these uses- and the sheer quantities involved (dozens if not hundreds of tonnes), plus the chaotic nature of the reaction and the difficulty in igniting it as a cutting agent (especially under extreme circumstances) render it a pretty idiotic idea. See here for some detailed scientific discussion of the quantities involved and the implausibility of it as an argument.

No steel structure has ever experienced the same impact forces, the same loss of intitial structural integrity or the same intensity or spread of fire as was experienced during 9/11. Trying to compare it to standard skyscraper fires is an utterly absurd proposition that utterly fails to take into account the considerable number of other important factors- the length of the burn, the chimney or furnace effect, the weakening rather than melting of structural steel, flash-over conditions, and the complete severing of structural support for large portions of the building. Find me another example of a structure surviving the same combination of factors and I'll see that as a rational argument. But as such an event doesn't actually exist, it's not and cannot therefore be seen as one. Now, WTC7 is one example of a flaw in the official story, but that's predominantly because people fail to actually understand the cause of it's destruction. The official report says something to the extent of "failure of structural integrity caused by debris, fire and other factors". Now, there are a number of other buildings in the vicinity of the Twin Towers which were not directly hit by aircraft or their debris, but were effectively levelled when the towers came down. Why? Well, the entire site was built on a single bedded reinforced concrete base over a hard bedrock, both of which transfer vibration and uneven physical forces very effectively and both of which are prone to cracking and failure under extreme conditions. One theory explained to me by an architectural surveyor who I used to work with indicates that the collapse of the two main towers caused sufficient damage to the hard structural surfaces underneath nearby buildings that their standard load-bearing was disrupted, causing partial collapses. In the case of WTC7, he postulates that the failure of the structural integrity of the foundations caused a transfer of mass onto columns and steel girders that had already been weakened by the fire, causing it's collapse. You see, that makes far more sense than the suggestion that it was controlled demolition, and all the fundamental flaws that accompany that theory.

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)
I appreciate you want to keep on topic but you cant just come in here, tell it how you think it is, then undermime everyone elses opinions and tell them to move on.  Its not cool.  Aren't you a ledby on this section, set a good example icon14.gif.  You do realise this is a debate/discussion section dont you?  Its not the sivispacem dictatorship, I certainly hope not anyway  wink.gif.

Um, yes I can. Your right, it's not the sivispacem dictatorship, as entertaining as that would be, but as the area mod I have every right to split, merge, move and close topics which step outside the regulations for this part of the forum. I will happily let a bit of off-topic discussion take place, but when that derails and entire thread, it's gotta go somewhere else. Hence my moving it into the already existing (and clearly labelled) conspiracy theory thread.

SweatyPa1ms
  • SweatyPa1ms

    Flesh vehicle

  • Angels of Death MC
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2009
  • None

#23

Posted 24 September 2011 - 09:27 PM

I haven't had any sleep and i'm not replying to that now! wow.gif

Please just give the Zeitgeist documentaries a chance. I know you haven't seen them yet. They hardly even focus on conspiracy theory, thats 1/3 of just one of the documentaries. I just want you to see them so you have a better perspective of where i'm coming from.

Zeitgeist: The Movie - Religion, War, Corruption

Zeitgeist: Addendum - Economics, Politics, The Venus Project

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward - Behaviorial psychology, The Venus Project, Revolution

I'd recommend you watch them all...

I'll post a response to your message tomorrow... if I have to... I suppose suicidal.gif.

AlexGTAGamer
  • AlexGTAGamer

    If you can't laugh, you might as well cry.

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2010

#24

Posted 24 September 2011 - 10:48 PM

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)
You do realise this is a debate/discussion section dont you? Its not the sivispacem dictatorship, I certainly hope not anyway wink.gif.

"The sivispacem dictatorship"? That's a bit harsh don't you think? confused.gif

Anyway I've got something that I'm sure all conspiracy theorists just drool over, and that is this "HAARP" thingamabob, what do you lot think about it? Personally I think it's a whole bunch of pith, if people are able to control the weather and other natural phenomenons how come they still can't get the weather forecasts right?

SweatyPa1ms
  • SweatyPa1ms

    Flesh vehicle

  • Angels of Death MC
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2009
  • None

#25

Posted 24 September 2011 - 11:20 PM Edited by SweatyPa1ms, 24 September 2011 - 11:27 PM.

QUOTE (AlexGTAGamer @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 22:48)
QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)
You do realise this is a debate/discussion section dont you? Its not the sivispacem dictatorship, I certainly hope not anyway wink.gif.

"The sivispacem dictatorship"? That's a bit harsh don't you think? confused.gif

Anyway I've got something that I'm sure all conspiracy theorists just drool over, and that is this "HAARP" thingamabob, what do you lot think about it? Personally I think it's a whole bunch of pith, if people are able to control the weather and other natural phenomenons how come they still can't get the weather forecasts right?

Sorry if it was harsh but I feel he's very condescending and narrow minded at times.

I dont know much about HAARP, I thought it was something to do with sound resignation?

Sorry if I seem insulting toward our british troops and everyone else involved in the consequences of 9/11 by seeing sense in these theories but I do it because I am a humanitarian. I want to know that if we are going to war against all these nations that we get into conflicts with, that its for good reason. I certainly wouldn't want millions of people dying for a small group of corrupt bankers and politians. Who am I to mistrust these people though, its not like any british politians or bankers have done anything bad in their history...oh wait.

We shouldn't even have war, its primitive. If everyone was educated properly in an equal society and a good environment, there would be no need for war. Sadly we dont live in that world. Its a ridiculous monetary system which has always been doomed to fail, thats why 2/3 of the world is in poverty. Were all gonna run out of oil soon anyway, maybe not in our lifetime but the prices are gonna keep going up until no-one can afford it...

...Speaking of which, watch the Collapse documentary, its mainly about how were running out of oil and everything is gonna be localised unless we act very fast.

Btw, I respect and support our brave troops and the 'help for heroes' charity but I just dont feel the war on terrorism is legal or moral. The government are the real terrorists putting us in fear of a false enemy. There isn't a threat, its all bollocks notify.gif.

AlexGTAGamer
  • AlexGTAGamer

    If you can't laugh, you might as well cry.

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2010

#26

Posted 24 September 2011 - 11:29 PM

I feel the same way about politicians and bankers, they're all crooks really.

Also I'm going to try and remain calm with all of these conspiracy theories that are being presented as I really blew my top with the last conspiracy theories topic I went on that lead to its imminent lock. "Keep Calm and Carry On", that's my moto and I'll try to live up to it, just to let you know. biggrin.gif

Let it begin. So to say.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#27

Posted 25 September 2011 - 07:15 AM

LOL @ Osama not having to do with 9/11.

Go study the history of Al-Qaeda. The planes plan started with KSM's nephew who gave it to KSM and brought it to Bin Laden.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#28

Posted 25 September 2011 - 11:15 AM

QUOTE (AlexGTAGamer @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 23:48)
Anyway I've got something that I'm sure all conspiracy theorists just drool over, and that is this "HAARP" thingamabob, what do you lot think about it? Personally I think it's a whole bunch of pith, if people are able to control the weather and other natural phenomenons how come they still can't get the weather forecasts right?

HAARP is a very interesting project, designed to enable atmospheric enhancements of radio and electromagnetic signals for the purposes of communication and surveillance. Basically, it's technology designed to experiment with ways of boosting radio transmission range, radar detection and other communication or early warning capabilities over long distances- with the overall intent being to develop a powerful passive early warning system capable of detecting, tracking and monitoring of things like troop movements, missile and aircraft launches and weapons tests. To this extent, it ties in well with the ECHELON project which is the FIVE-EYES signals intelligence centre that allows monitoring, intelligence gathering and detection capability shared between the five-eyes nations (UK, US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand)- whose close relationship and geographical positioning means that they can provide sigint intelligence collection capability across much of the world.

Really engrossing, interesting stuff for anyone with an interest in military intelligence capability, but certainly not a project to build a weather machine. In fact, the majority of the research and development has been conducted by BAE systems here in the UK and at parter sites in the US, and all of the research is unclassified, though I believe some of the specifics have been redacted.

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Sunday, Sep 25 2011, 00:20)
We shouldn't even have war, its primitive.  If everyone was educated properly in an equal society and a good environment, there would be no need for war.  Sadly we dont live in that world.  Its a ridiculous monetary system which has always been doomed to fail, thats why 2/3 of the world is in poverty.  Were all gonna run out of oil soon anyway, maybe not in our lifetime but the prices are gonna keep going up until no-one can afford it...

War is part of the natural order. It's derived from human nature and basic instincts that we share with the animal kingdom- a primal drive to obtain more power and by doing so to cement an individual's place at the head of the "pack". The only real difference is that humans are capable of using tools in warfare, of organising themselves into complex structures and of identifying causes to champion. War could even be deemed to serve a favourable evolutionary purpose- it cleanses area, moderates population and has been the primary driving force behind almost every innovation humankind has ever made. Everything from fire to flight to modern medicine is based almost entirely in what has been learned in warfare.

Incidently, what do you suppose that a monetary system is replaced with? I mean, barter is all well and good but what if you don't need the services that another individual is offering in recompense for your action or trade? Then you need materials to trade with, items of a discernible value that can be used to pay for goods and services. Hey presto! You now have a monetary system, the very thing that you suggest is abolished. It's a noble idea "oh, without a monetary system we won't have greed or corporatism or injustice" but it just simply isn't true- partially because no large society has existed without a monetary system of some kind, and the entire principal is basically unworkable.

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Sunday, Sep 25 2011, 00:20)
Btw, I respect and support our brave troops and the 'help for heroes' charity but I just dont feel the war on terrorism is legal or moral.  The government are the real terrorists putting us in fear of a false enemy.  There isn't a threat, its all bollocks  notify.gif.

A government can't be terrorists. One of the defining features of a terrorist organisation is that they don't have the legitimate mandate for the use of violence or lethal force. Governments do have that legitimate mandate, and therefore cannot be deemed terrorist organisations. Now, state-sponsored terrorism? That's a different kettle of fish, but I've yet to see any realistic accusations of it levelled against the West since the end of the Cold War.

Do you truly believe that radical, violent Salafist Islam isn't a definitive threat, or is less of a threat than our own governments? To me, that merely indicates that you don't particularly understand the intentions and threat posed by these organisations. Now, capability is something they do lack in certain areas- hence the lack of direct attacks on the Western world in the last ten years- but they pose a thread every bit as serious and viable as that of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. More so, in fact, as due to their lack of hierarchical political and military structure and absence of statehood, they can effectively operate outside the boundaries of the Laws of War without facing the same repercussions that a nation state would.

Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • D1RTY12
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars

#29

Posted 26 September 2011 - 11:49 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Sep 25 2011, 12:15)
War is part of the natural order. It's derived from human nature and basic instincts that we share with the animal kingdom- a primal drive to obtain more power and by doing so to cement an individual's place at the head of the "pack". The only real difference is that humans are capable of using tools in warfare, of organising themselves into complex structures and of identifying causes to champion. War could even be deemed to serve a favourable evolutionary purpose- it cleanses area, moderates population and has been the primary driving force behind almost every innovation humankind has ever made. Everything from fire to flight to modern medicine is based almost entirely in what has been learned in warfare.

Sorry to barge in... A bit off topic but I wanted to reply just to the above part. wink.gif

This is a very subjective point of view. I think that is really just your personal opinion and it is highly debatable. War, in my opinion of course, is possibly the main reason why the human race still didn't make a significant and definitive moral progress after all these centuries. In many aspects we are still in the same dark and dumb place we were thousands years ago... Actually when it comes to war we are quite worse now than we used to be centuries ago.

Maybe it's part of our nature, I can see that, but certainly not part of the natural order.
I wouldn't even confuse our nature with the animal kingdom one.
Animals do not fight each other to annihilation within the same species.
They do fight for power and mating privileges but only in very rare occasions the fight ends with the loser's death.

War is right now the primary obstacle to real progress for mankind. It has always been an obstacle more than a driving force. Technological innovations are absolutely not a way to measure progress in a civilization.
Just two make an example. Think about non war related progress we inherited from the ancient western world: philosophy, math, geometry, justice, logic, language, literature, art, architecture, oratory... I could go on for pages...
Some of this knowledge was indeed applied to warfare but war wasn't the primary driving force at all.
The primary driving force has always been human intelligence, curiosity and will to know, learn and discover.

Staten
  • Staten

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2011

#30

Posted 26 September 2011 - 03:46 PM

QUOTE (docrikowski @ Monday, Sep 26 2011, 11:49)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Sep 25 2011, 12:15)
War is part of the natural order. It's derived from human nature and basic instincts that we share with the animal kingdom- a primal drive to obtain more power and by doing so to cement an individual's place at the head of the "pack". The only real difference is that humans are capable of using tools in warfare, of organising themselves into complex structures and of identifying causes to champion. War could even be deemed to serve a favourable evolutionary purpose- it cleanses area, moderates population and has been the primary driving force behind almost every innovation humankind has ever made. Everything from fire to flight to modern medicine is based almost entirely in what has been learned in warfare.

Sorry to barge in... A bit off topic but I wanted to reply just to the above part. wink.gif

This is a very subjective point of view. I think that is really just your personal opinion and it is highly debatable. War, in my opinion of course, is possibly the main reason why the human race still didn't make a significant and definitive moral progress after all these centuries. In many aspects we are still in the same dark and dumb place we were thousands years ago... Actually when it comes to war we are quite worse now than we used to be centuries ago.

Maybe it's part of our nature, I can see that, but certainly not part of the natural order.
I wouldn't even confuse our nature with the animal kingdom one.
Animals do not fight each other to annihilation within the same species.
They do fight for power and mating privileges but only in very rare occasions the fight ends with the loser's death.

War is right now the primary obstacle to real progress for mankind. It has always been an obstacle more than a driving force. Technological innovations are absolutely not a way to measure progress in a civilization.
Just two make an example. Think about non war related progress we inherited from the ancient western world: philosophy, math, geometry, justice, logic, language, literature, art, architecture, oratory... I could go on for pages...
Some of this knowledge was indeed applied to warfare but war wasn't the primary driving force at all.
The primary driving force has always been human intelligence, curiosity and will to know, learn and discover.

I think we've made huge leaps in morality over the past century; while not perfect, a lot of societies are more equal and less oppressive than they were a hundred years ago. There's still a way to go, I admit, but we're getting there.

This century, by the way, has seen more deaths through war than the rest of recorded history combined.

Animals do not fight to annihilation for the same reasons humans did not until very recently. They don't have the tools for the job. And while we have the tools now, we haven't really annihilated anything yet. Humans have brought untold misery and pain onto billions of their fellows, but not total annihilation.

Finally, a comment on the things the ancient world gave us; all that philosophy, math, geometry, justice, logic, language, literature, art, architecture, oratory you speak of found their best expression in Athens during a time when that city was in a constant state of war, trying to create an empire, but ending up weakening the whole of Greece to the extent that Persia and later Macedon (and later still Rome) could conquer it.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users