|
And then you patiently explain that the only difference between thermite and nanothermite is that one is a fine powder and the other is a very fine powder. There is literally no other difference. But the "nano" makes it magical or something.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
Haven't you guys watched Voyager? Nano particles!  SG1 had fun with this - in a later season Ba'al had a skyscraper built that could explode abd destroy the Earth. They safely beam it away but the mysterious disappearance of a building becomes a recurring plot point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
I do find it amusing that the truthers have pretty much settles on controlled demolition as the way it happened, and that all other theories are bunk. I heard that the orbital laser people are now being accused of being illuminati plants to make the movement look insane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
Yeah two enormous passenger aircraft that were fully topped with jet fuel crashed into some buildings. They were brought down... by thermite, which must have been planted in the same area where the planes crashed, since any idiot can look at the video and clearly see the collapse begin at the impact sites.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
Sergg posted:Yeah two enormous passenger aircraft that were fully topped with jet fuel crashed into some buildings. They were brought down... by thermite, which must have been planted in the same area where the planes crashed, since any idiot can look at the video and clearly see the collapse begin at the impact sites. I suppose the terrorists must have counted windows as they approached, to be sure they would hit the correct floor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:I suppose the terrorists must have counted windows as they approached, to be sure they would hit the correct floor. Simple: The whole building was wired, they only set off the explosions at the impact site.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
http://www.mindetox.com/mother_executed_for_wrong_turn.html If anyone was looking for a new conspiracy for this week, here's a good one. quote:DC MOTHER EXECUTED FOR TAKING THE WRONG TURN I'm not sure who this Rafael Zambrana dude is, but he sends out some amazing emails (and also really seems to like Dees  )
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
Elman posted:My dad is convinced that the 2004 Madrid bombings weren't caused by islamist terrorists, but by ETA terrorists working in conjunction with a political party, in an attempt to remove the governing party from power in the general elections that happened 3 days after the attack. Both administrations in Madrid and Washington were very quick to blame ETA for the Madrid bombing despite being completely at odds with 30+ years of history of ETA's terrorisms. The administration in Madrid had been supporting Bush in Iraq and the lies didn't sit well with the voters of Spain who voted the bums out a couple days later. The new administration in Madrid withdrew their troops from Iraq and in the US, Fox and others claimed the bombing was a victory for Al Qeda. If they hadn't been so quick to blame ETA and just said "we don't have all the evidence yet" then it was very likely that they would have stayed in office as they were way ahead in the polls. And in a very perverse situation, we're training Al Qeda in Syria (even more paranoid interpretation). I guess folks in DC have totally forgotten the blowback from training and supplying the Taliban in their fight against the Soviet Union. We got 911 and the war in Afghanistan out of that one. I predict that if we keep funding Al Qeda in Syria, then we'll see another 911 inside the US in less than a decade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 18:20
|
|
v
|
Huttan posted:Both administrations in Madrid and Washington were very quick to blame ETA for the Madrid bombing despite being completely at odds with 30+ years of history of ETA's terrorisms. The administration in Madrid had been supporting Bush in Iraq and the lies didn't sit well with the voters of Spain who voted the bums out a couple days later. The new administration in Madrid withdrew their troops from Iraq and in the US, Fox and others claimed the bombing was a victory for Al Qeda. If they hadn't been so quick to blame ETA and just said "we don't have all the evidence yet" then it was very likely that they would have stayed in office as they were way ahead in the polls. And in a very perverse situation, we're training Al Qeda in Syria (even more paranoid interpretation). I guess folks in DC have totally forgotten the blowback from training and supplying the Taliban in their fight against the Soviet Union. We got 911 and the war in Afghanistan out of that one. I predict that if we keep funding Al Qeda in Syria, then we'll see another 911 inside the US in less than a decade. We aren't training Al-Qaeda in Syria, we are specifically training a moderate counter-weight of FSA brigades that will eventually be fighting Al-Qaeda. Also we never supported the Taliban. The Taliban didn't even exist when the Afghan mujahadeen were fighting the Soviets. You got your facts all mixed up amigo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Sergg posted:Also we never supported the Taliban. The Taliban didn't even exist when the Afghan mujahadeen were fighting the Soviets. You got your facts all mixed up amigo. Operation Cyclone, also known as Charlie Wilson's War, supported what were then called the mujahadeen. The mujahadeen became the Taliban. quote:Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
Huttan posted:Operation Cyclone, also known as Charlie Wilson's War, supported what were then called the mujahadeen. The mujahadeen became the Taliban. yes, and? It still doesn't support the nonsense you seem to be spreading about how the US is in bed with Al Qaeda in Syria. oh and congrats for posting a zerohedge blog post unironically in a thread that is all about how that exact kind of brain dead conspiracy thinking is ruining the world. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Huttan posted:Operation Cyclone, also known as Charlie Wilson's War, supported what were then called the mujahadeen. The mujahadeen became the Taliban. The majority of groups and individuals we supported actually went on to oppose the Taliban vociferously, as they formed the Northern Alliance (after fighting with each other substantially), which acted as our ground forces and helped overthrow the Taliban in 2001-2002. EDIT: This is kind of a silly argument in the first place because the US government let Pakistan vet the groups and administer all the funds/weapons. We didn't even choose who to give the weapons and money to, Pakistan did. Sergg fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Oct 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Basically you have a window of several years where the Communist Afghan government had resigned, the Soviet Union had broken up, and the US government largely forgot about the country of Afghanistan, and the Taliban wasn't an organized group yet, starting in 1992. It was basically a nasty civil war between different former mujahadeen commanders, most of whom formed a coalition according to the Peshawar Accords, in order to resist being dominated by Pakistan. Pakistan was attempting to take over the country by using Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who rocketed most of Kabul's civilian population to death but failed to gain much popular support. Even Osama Bin Laden, who was nominally allied with Hekmatyar, advised him he was being a dick. After 2 years of infighting, Pakistan switched its support to the Taliban, who went on to capture much of the South of the country, and also battled both Hekmatyar and Dostum and Ahmed Shah Massoud. Eventually Osama sides with the Taliban around 1995-1996, which is the same time when the Northern Alliance was formed to fight them. Edit: Hekmatyar fled to Iran and remained in exile for years. Eventually he joined sides with the Taliban somewhere around 2006-2008. Massoud was assassinated by Al-Qaeda, and Dostum is still a general or governor or cabinet minister in the Afghan government alongside most of the other Northern Alliance bigwigs. Some of the other Mujahadeen went and switched sides, joining the Taliban, mostly along ethnic lines with the Pashtuns. Haqqani is one of the more infamous ones (wikipedia Haqqani Network). Mullah Omar, the guy who founded the Taliban, fought against the Soviets, was blinded in one eye, and retired to be a preacher in a madrassah in Quetta, Pakistan. There he was tapped by the ISI in 1993/1994 to lead a new force that could gain popularity on the ground that Hekmatyar was unable to do. He started in Kandahar with only 50 armed madrassah students but was quickly reinforced by over 15,000 more armed students from Pakistani madrassahs. Right up until 9/11 Pakistani regulars and officers were training and fighting alongside the Taliban. I mean honestly they still kinda are. It's rumored that Mullah Omar actually lives in Pakistan now with support from the ISI. Sergg fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Oct 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Who are you working for Sergg? lol, actually thankyou I know how difficult it is piecing all the names and dates together.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 13:12
|
|
|
An interesting 'conspiracy' story is how the ISI has been playing everyone since the 80's. I wouldn't be surprised if they coordinate with Russia/China to make the occupation of Afghanistan more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:http://www.mindetox.com/mother_executed_for_wrong_turn.html Really, it's perfectly reasonable right until after "we will probably never know why she did it". Hell, even the rest of that sentence would be pretty sensible if not for the use of words like "brainwashing" and "fantasy", since all it's really saying is "maybe the cops will plant some evidence to justify what would otherwise be a bad shoot" (a thing that does happen). Hell, even the crazy rant the page goes on afterward only seems crazy because the writer is writing like a crazy person does; aside from some fairly basic misunderstandings about the purpose and function of US government debt, it's got a pretty good grip on reality. The only part that really departs from the real world is when he suggests that Lincoln was actually assassinated for creating fiat money
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Nation posted:Who are you working for Sergg? lol, actually thankyou I know how difficult it is piecing all the names and dates together. You're welcome. I get cranky when people think that all Muslim dudes with guns = terrorists. It's just so incredibly more complex than that. The majority of Taliban fighters were usually Pakistanis before and during 2001, and the Afghans who retook the rest of the country with help from US bombers were ruthless towards them. They were basically like "Oh I can tell you've got a Pakistani accent so guess what? We aren't accepting your surrender, foreigner." and they would usually execute them on the spot. That's why you had the "airlift of evil" where Pakistan evacuated over a thousand military personell, Taliban leaders, and Al-Qaeda, after getting permission from Dick Cheney (who believed he was helping President Musharraf save face for the domestic audience).
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
I find it hard to be too harsh on some of the more "down to earth" conspiracy theorists given the history of things like MKULTRA with human experimentation without consent being carried out by government agencies, and as far as I know even when uncovered no one was prosecuted over it and many victims went uncompensated. I don't think that leads to shape changing reptilians, but it does show that elements of a supposedly accountable liberal democracy can behave in monstrous and illegal ways, which can lead you to wondering things like "would the CIA plan a false-flag attack?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:I find it hard to be too harsh on some of the more "down to earth" conspiracy theorists given the history of things like MKULTRA with human experimentation without consent being carried out by government agencies, and as far as I know even when uncovered no one was prosecuted over it and many victims went uncompensated. The reason I don't believe it is it falls under the supposedly Fascist ideal of "believing the enemy (i.e. CIA) is simultaneously incompetent and all powerful".
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
The problem is the CIA does a lot of monstrous stuff. I don't think any one in this thread will deny that, whether they are a truther or not. However, going "well it seems like something they could do" does not in fact, bolster your argument. It makes it look like you're chasing shadows and using an agenda to just blame anything you can on them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't think the correct response is to assume chemtrails or whatever, I think it's probably more to take an extremely sceptical view whenever someone attempts to tell you they need $100M and you can't know what it's for because of national security due to how these things have played out in the past. E: and it would probably help a lot if the US ever submitted itself to some authority other than itself like the ICC but that's sure as gently caress never going to happen. Gough Suppressant fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Oct 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
There's a sliding scale of plausibility with these things. A small number of people in the CIA could conspire to assassinate someone and keep that secret, but thinking that hundreds of people could hijack airplanes, wire skyscrapers with explosives and thermite, and throw a missile into the Pentagon, and not have a single person spill the beans or screw up is completely insane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The reason I don't believe it is it falls under the supposedly Fascist ideal of "believing the enemy (i.e. CIA) is simultaneously incompetent and all powerful". The CIA isn't a single entity, it's a large constantly-changing organization with quite a few members. It's perfectly possible for it to be incompetent and all-powerful at the same time - for example, the CIA leadership and MKULTRA project members managed to keep a lid on the program for decades, but it was ultimately revealed when some fuckup clerk accidentally misfiled some of the super-secret documents and no one noticed when the order-to-shred was given out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The CIA isn't a single entity, it's a large constantly-changing organization with quite a few members. It's perfectly possible for it to be incompetent and all-powerful at the same time - for example, the CIA leadership and MKULTRA project members managed to keep a lid on the program for decades, but it was ultimately revealed when some fuckup clerk accidentally misfiled some of the super-secret documents and no one noticed when the order-to-shred was given out. And the enemies of fascists were also constantly changing organizations with many members. This is also ignoring that supposedly the same people who are doing the super secret things are also doing the incompetent things (see: "CIA doing 9/11" while also being completely stupid about events in Iraq post-invasion).
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The CIA isn't a single entity, it's a large constantly-changing organization with quite a few members. It's perfectly possible for it to be incompetent and all-powerful at the same time - for example, the CIA leadership and MKULTRA project members managed to keep a lid on the program for decades, but it was ultimately revealed when some fuckup clerk accidentally misfiled some of the super-secret documents and no one noticed when the order-to-shred was given out. What makes a big difference is the perception people have of the act being kept secret. For example, you can keep D-Day a secret because everyone involved wants to keep it a secret and think it's right to do so. Even when it leaks those people will keep probably keep it secret. You can't keep a widespread 9/11 conspiracy a secret because it would be considered massively criminal, surprising and wrong and would spread rapidly following any leak. So while you may think some of the CIA examples you cite were completely horrible (and be right for thinking so) during the cold war, or the in the context of the War on Terrorism many other people don't. That's why the lid stays on. This, however isn't true for most of the absurd conspiracy theories.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
It's completely plausible to believe the government is capable of horrible things. It is, and it has done horrible things. However, to attribute specific events to government conspiracy when there is no proof, that's when you get into unhealthy conspiracy thought. I guess one of my biggest gripes with conspiracy thought is that it takes legitimate social problems and concludes "invisible Jewish octopus did it" and thus the true, actual source of the social problem remains untouched. 9/11 was a consequence we paid for bombing Muslims in the Middle East, and for supporting the dictators that murder and oppress them. That's the root cause. That's a legitimate problem that needs to be squarely addressed. Going after the Reptilians from Planet X is only going to obscure the real issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Seen tonight on the subway, from Richard Gage's outfit: Yes I did know because I wasn't pooping diapers or smoking a weed when it happened. HTH.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
Were you ignorant about [relatively obscure fact]? What else has the media been lying to you about? This is a great way to tap into people's feelings of insecurity, especially when it's nigh impossible to be informed about everything that matters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The reason I don't believe it is it falls under the supposedly Fascist ideal of "believing the enemy (i.e. CIA) is simultaneously incompetent and all powerful". computer parts posted:And the enemies of fascists were also constantly changing organizations with many members. This is also ignoring that supposedly the same people who are doing the super secret things are also doing the incompetent things (see: "CIA doing 9/11" while also being completely stupid about events in Iraq post-invasion). Umberto Eco is a brilliant guy, but I think you're reading his 'Ur-Fascism' piece in a boneheadedly literal way. Having an 'enemy' that's both dumb and clever -- dumb and clever in different parts, or on different subjects, or in different situations -- is hardly a knock-down case that 'such-and-such is fascist therefore bad!' Eco writes in the introduction that Umberto Eco posted:"In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between various historical forms of fascism, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it." Eco says that one feature is enough to 'allow fascism to coagulate around it,' but the idea is that these are features found in various sorts of organisation -- and even then not all of them -- both around fascism and 'other kinds of despotism or fanaticism'. The 14 points he makes are indications of fascism, but to go 'that's it!' every time you think you see one pinged is not the right way to take his work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 10:10
|
|
|
Kieselguhr Kid posted:Umberto Eco is a brilliant guy, but I think you're reading his 'Ur-Fascism' piece in a boneheadedly literal way. Having an 'enemy' that's both dumb and clever -- dumb and clever in different parts, or on different subjects, or in different situations -- is hardly a knock-down case that 'such-and-such is fascist therefore bad!' Oh I'm well aware of that (literally every organization vaguely relevant that I've seen has had this comparison done to them), it's just more poking fun at people who say "Those people I don't like = fascist *appeals to authority*".
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 14:17
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:Seen tonight on the subway, from Richard Gage's outfit: Wait wait wait, the NYC subway? Seriously? Holy poo poo the MTA is morally (and literally) bankrupt if they let that go up. I doubt most New Yorkers would stand for it, though. I predict righteous vandalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:Wait wait wait, the NYC subway? Seriously? Holy poo poo the MTA is morally (and literally) bankrupt if they let that go up. I doubt most New Yorkers would stand for it, though. I predict righteous vandalism. Gazpacho fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Oct 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:NYC is, contrary to their belief, not the only city that has things. Anyway, there have been truther demonstrations in NYC continually since I guess 2005? I'm sure there are demonstrations for the fair treatment of balloon animals on a yearly basis as well. When you stack over 8 million people on top of each other it isn't so hard to find a few nuts to yell about something a Saturday or so a year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:I'm sure there are demonstrations for the fair treatment of balloon animals on a yearly basis as well. When you stack over 8 million people on top of each other it isn't so hard to find a few nuts to yell about something a Saturday or so a year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
I always wonder in these skeptic communities or gatherings if there is some sort of hierarchy. For example truthers are held in higher/lower esteem than chemtrails people who are more respected than moon landing conspiracy people. I mean does the Ancient Aliens guy roll his eyes at anything?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:I mean does the Ancient Aliens guy roll his eyes at anything? Reasonable interpretations of history, academic research into ancient cultures, and reality in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:I always wonder in these skeptic communities or gatherings if there is some sort of hierarchy. The skeptic community is the anti-conspiracy side of these debates, I think you mean the conspiracy community. But yeah, there's something I think the Ancient Aliens guy would roll his eyes at. There's a video about his show called Ancient Aliens Debunked. It's three whole hours long and methodically pulls apart pretty much every claim made on ancient aliens, explaining how things were done in real life, what the mundane explanations for these things are and so on. Every single claim is shown to be exaggerated, incorrect, or just outright fabricated, and a much more straightforward explanation is provided. But there's a twist, and honestly I'm going to put this in spoilers because it's actually well worth watching all three hours of that film if you want to see lovely lies get torn to pieces and giving away the ending would ruin it: In the very final segment about nephalem, the angels who came down to earth to breed with man which Ancient Aliens argues are alien astronauts, the mundane explanation is everything in the bible is true and the nephalem were really fallen angels. This comes basically out of nowhere beyond some faint foreshadowing in the two segments immediately prior. I think Ancient Aliens guy would roll his eyes at that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:
 .....what. Was this film commissioned by Ken Hamm?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:
I think it's just a very clear example of sensible and otherwise very logical people not being able to see their own blindspots. I do want to re-emphasise my recommendation of the video in general, the twist was bewildering to say the least but does nothing to diminish the informational value of the entire rest of the film. If this very last segment of the very last section was cut out nothing would seem amiss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
Yeah, I read a book that was about debunking various conspiracy theories throughout the ages and then when he got to 9/11 it was basically "well they kind of have good points about Bush being responsible."
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 03:36
|
|
