9/11 Very interesting ! [Archive]

schitz011

12-04-2006, 10:01 AM

naah, cool music. :) Liked the wake turbulence section...

Been convinced for years that the whole 9/11 thing is a conspiracy.. Spent a lot of time in the US in October 2001 and also when Gulf was invaded. After talking to a lot of people about, you become more and more convinced the government is behind it all to gain international sympathy for their expansion plans in the mid east.

World Trade center - gets world support as major international companies involved, as opposed to say blowing up the statue of liberty
Pentagon - 'look they attacked our military, we can now seek retribution with our military'
Plane crashes enroute to white house - 'plucky American citizens save the day by sacrificing their lives' story of hope to get ordinary citizens behind the impending 'crusade'

J_S

12-04-2006, 10:12 AM

Wow very interesting

pupa

12-04-2006, 10:20 AM

Some more conspiracy BS!

lucifir

12-04-2006, 10:22 AM

FxpForce

12-04-2006, 11:55 AM

Very...very interesting.

Telkomisaloser

12-04-2006, 12:13 PM

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.htm think some people would like to download the flash animation

pupa

12-04-2006, 12:24 PM

very interesting .... but I think everyone with half a brain realises that the US government had something to do with 9/11 ..... which is really sad ..... killing their own citizens just to get more black goey stuff to run their tanks and planes for more invasions ..... I don't think there is a single government in the world that really exists for "the people" ....

Its everybody with a half a brain that can think out BS like this. Is this attached court case still an ongoing conspiracy? Even after the effect? With Bush approval ratings down? Give it to them they know how to conspire a conspiracy for many years after the effect. Utter bull!. Also why hit their own economy hub if a hit on the Pentagon would have been enough? Was it that the GVT plan happened the same time as the Al Qaeda events or is AL Qaeda a fiction of the American conspirators minds? Maybe they are a special unit compiled by Bush with US marines, SAS, RAF, IRA and other soldiers or may part of the special scorpions units or even SPCA , they have to little to do in ZAR.

Plain utter BS!

http://www.mweb.co.za/news/?p=top_articles&i=122174

tibby.dude

12-04-2006, 12:26 PM

The Lone Gunman will be along shortly ;)

Rkootknir

12-04-2006, 12:44 PM

very interesting .... but I think everyone with half a brain realises that the US government had something to do with 9/11 ..... which is really sad ..... killing their own citizens just to get more black goey stuff to run their tanks and planes for more invasions ..... I don't think there is a single government in the world that really exists for "the people" ....Speak for yourself. I haven't seen one bit of credible scientific evidence that the US government had anything to do with the attacks carried out on 11/09/2001.

There's a lot of hoo-hah on the internet about conspiracy theories, but not one of these "studies" has ever undergone any serious attempts to replicate results or propose mechanisms such as those in the official report.

Now if the CTs can just start proving (using the scientific method) their claims, I'm sure a lot more people will actually believe them. At the moment all they're doing is hand-waving without any kind of hard evidence to back it up.

kilo39

12-04-2006, 01:58 PM

Speak for yourself. I haven't seen one bit of credible scientific evidence that the US government had anything to do with the attacks carried out on 11/09/2001. Science isn't everything. How about the evidence plain before your eyes and ears. None so blind (as those who will not see, none so deaf...) If you cannot recognise an implosion when you see one... if you can't hear the charges going off - and see them - then any amount of evidence will make no odds. And - how many science studies do you want? LG has posted many - by respected scientists in their fields.

Actually interesting with the Moussawi trial... when the first building collapses - you can see the remains of the jet explode as it collapses into that floor (would think this is whatever fuel was left.)

fergus

12-04-2006, 02:10 PM

Speak for yourself. I haven't seen one bit of credible scientific evidence that the US government had anything to do with the attacks carried out on 11/09/2001.

There's a lot of hoo-hah on the internet about conspiracy theories, but not one of these "studies" has ever undergone any serious attempts to replicate results or propose mechanisms such as those in the official report.

Now if the CTs can just start proving (using the scientific method) their claims, I'm sure a lot more people will actually believe them. At the moment all they're doing is hand-waving without any kind of hard evidence to back it up.
Sorry, but you're totally wrong. All the scientific evidence backs up the 'conspiracy' version, not the official story.

Prometheus

12-04-2006, 02:59 PM

The interesting part is that the attack showed up in government reports before it took place, how's that for evidence. And don't think the government gives a crap about it's people. The fact that the death penalty is still in place even though 75% of people wants it abolished can attest to that. If it was orchestrated by the government then it wasn't for oil or anything, but in order to take away all civil liberties, which was the first thing on the agenda after the 'attacks'.

And anyone who says that all these theories is ridiculous, does the term "weather balloon" ring any bells.

Moederloos

12-04-2006, 03:46 PM

There is a growing trend to make people laugh at CTs as foolish people. The more this takes hold, the more difficult it is for conspiracies to be uncovered.

I for one want to know why video evidence has not been released. We all "know" which plane crashed into the Pentagon, and at what time etc. What is there to keep secret?

Rkootknir

12-04-2006, 03:53 PM

Science isn't everything. How about the evidence plain before your eyes and ears. None so blind (as those who will not see, none so deaf...) If you cannot recognise an implosion when you see one... if you can't hear the charges going off - and see them - then any amount of evidence will make no odds. And - how many science studies do you want? LG has posted many - by respected scientists in their fields.

Actually interesting with the Moussawi trial... when the first building collapses - you can see the remains of the jet explode as it collapses into that floor (would think this is whatever fuel was left.)Dear me, immediately alert the the scientific community and tell them that all research and studies will henceforth be carried out by me (because I can see it with my own eyes) and so my opinion is more relevant than theirs.

I am unfortunately unqualified to speak on the mechanics of implosions, but if you look at the official report the collapse of the buildings is examined in detail (by of all people: engineers, architects and construction workers). We should immediately reverse this, as it is obvious to all that the opinions of a physics professor and a bunch of realtors are more relevant than those of the experts.

I have yet to see ONE scienctific study that supports the conspiracy theorists. If you think differently please enlighten me. BTW, scientific studies are usually published and the results are then peer-reviewed by other experts.
Sorry, but you're totally wrong. All the scientific evidence backs up the 'conspiracy' version, not the official story.Where can I find this "evidence". Most (I haven't looked at all them yet) the studies I see on Arxiv and Google Scholar support the non-conspiracy view.

fergus

12-04-2006, 04:06 PM

Where can I find this "evidence".
> Improbable Collapse Trailer (http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/improbable_collapse_preview.wmv)

> Loose Change Second Edition (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7772696530684663669&q=loose+change&pl=true)

> David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 Commission (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-398081814159578985&q=david+ray+griffin&pl=true) (author of two (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566565847/sr=8-1/qid=1144851182/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9642982-3034559?%5Fencoding=UTF8) books (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566565529/sr=8-2/qid=1144851182/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-9642982-3034559?%5Fencoding=UTF8) on 9/11)

> Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/)

For once I would like one of the doubters to actually watch one of these and then come back and say 'They said abc but that doesn't make sense because of xyz' instead of just making hot air. If you're so sure you're right then you have nothing to lose by informing yourself of the opposing view.

Rkootknir

12-04-2006, 04:29 PM

> Improbable Collapse Trailer (http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/improbable_collapse_preview.wmv)

> Loose Change Second Edition (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7772696530684663669&q=loose+change&pl=true)

> David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 Commission (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-398081814159578985&q=david+ray+griffin&pl=true) (author of two (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566565847/sr=8-1/qid=1144851182/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9642982-3034559?%5Fencoding=UTF8) books (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566565529/sr=8-2/qid=1144851182/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-9642982-3034559?%5Fencoding=UTF8) on 9/11)

> Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/)

For once I would like one of the doubters to actually watch one of these and then come back and say 'They said abc but that doesn't make sense because of xyz' instead of just making hot air. If you're so sure you're right then you have nothing to lose by informing yourself of the opposing view.Can't view the videos ATM, sorry.

Those books were written by David R Griffin a professor of the philosophy of religion and theology, I don't see how his opinion is relevant (Unless you think God and the Church brought down the towers?)

The scholarsfor911truth looks like the only one that contains some actual research. Will take a looksee :p

Nokkie

12-04-2006, 04:38 PM

interresting...

Prometheus

12-04-2006, 05:08 PM

Interesting that we are expected to look at the the evidence and opinions of scholars and professors. But when it enforces the conspiracy theory belief then it is laughed at.

fergus

12-04-2006, 06:43 PM

Those books were written by David R Griffin a professor of the philosophy of religion and theology, I don't see how his opinion is relevant (Unless you think God and the Church brought down the towers?)
So you discount David Ray Griffin's views because of his religion but you have no problem accepting what George W. Bush, a self-confessed born-again Christian, tells you. Somehow I don't quite think you're being fair.

Let me just add that David Ray Griffin's talent is for bringing together the research of many different voices and presenting it in a concise and easy to understand manner. This is what makes him one of the leading voices in the 9/11 truth movement. To have a look at a presentation he gave (video and audio files available) go to this site:

http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html

(This isn't his best talk. The one where he concentrates on the Twin Towers is better in my opinion. I'll see if I can find a link to the video. Meanwhile here's a transcript (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html).)

pupa

12-04-2006, 06:56 PM

Kids, kids, kids! It's a lot of BS! Do not believe everything you see or hear. It is easy to find info against and for it! as easy as it is to take snippets of events and put it together as the only truth! You have to use your brains and some logic at least!
Think all those PPL that lost love ones, are they brainwashed not to take Bush and the other conspirators to court? C'mon man grow up!

Rkootknir

12-04-2006, 07:43 PM

So you discount David Ray Griffin's views because of his religion but you have no problem accepting what George W. Bush, a self-confessed born-again Christian, tells you. Somehow I don't quite think you're being fair. Oh my word, what a massive misunderstanding of what I've been writing. If George Dumb***** Bush (imbecility be his name) wrote the official report I don't think there could be anybody that would accept its findings. Fortunately, he didn't write it.
[edit]
Anyway, I didn't ever imply that DRG was religious, I only wrote that his speciality seems to be the philosophy of religion. For the life of me I cannot see how that field would have been relevant in the 9/11 investigation, whatever its other merits may be.
Let me just add that David Ray Griffin's talent is for bringing together the research of many different voices and presenting it in a concise and easy to understand manner. This is what makes him one of the leading voices in the 9/11 truth movement. To have a look at a presentation he gave (video and audio files available) go to this site:Concise and easy to understand usually means incomplete. I mean, if these people really had evidence of a conspiracy don't you think they would have let the world know by now? I'm sure the rest of the world would show some interest in such a finding. Instead all I find are articles on the internet and "research" by people not qualified in the relevant fields.
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html
(This isn't his best talk. The one where he concentrates on the Twin Towers is better in my opinion. I'll see if I can find a link to the video. Meanwhile here's a transcript (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html).)I've read that article a while back, but if IIRC it was quite thoroughly debunked by Chip Berlet (this is my version of an appeal to authority :p )

Highflyer_GP

12-04-2006, 07:50 PM

3 sides to every story...

ettubrute

12-04-2006, 09:35 PM

...and that's without the truth, which seems to be the fourth side of the story! :p

DigitalSoldier

12-04-2006, 10:00 PM

I didnt read through everything but that flash thing is fake imo. It was shown on National geographic where they inspected every part of the Pentagon and also got people to explain what happened.

Prometheus

12-04-2006, 10:34 PM

Kids, kids, kids! It's a lot of BS! Do not believe everything you see or hear.
I thought that's what we're doing here, questioning the official version I mean!

I didnt read through everything but that flash thing is fake imo. It was shown on National geographic where they inspected every part of the Pentagon and also got people to explain what happened.
Is that the same National Geographic that tells us humans evolved from apes when the overwelming majority of evidence shows that's impossible.

kilo39

12-04-2006, 10:53 PM

Is that the same National Geographic that tells us humans evolved from apes when the overwelming majority of evidence shows that's impossible. :rolleyes: Please tell! :D We didn't evolve from apes?

kilo39

12-04-2006, 11:01 PM

Dear me, immediately alert the the scientific community and tell them that all research and studies will henceforth be carried out by me (because I can see it with my own eyes) and so my opinion is more relevant than theirs. All I'm asking is for a bit of common sense - if it looks like a duck, quacks - I don't need a scientist to tell me it is a duck!

And related to an earlier post... latest footage and Moussawi trial - building collapses from the top down - and impacts the floor where the plane went in - surely was supposed to have collapsed down from the plane impact floor - and not the floors above collapsing first?

Witness to 9/11 was a good video - watch the basement blasts - feel the shockwave!

Prometheus

12-04-2006, 11:43 PM

:rolleyes: Please tell! :D We didn't evolve from apes?
Off course not, and the majority of scientists will say so. The scientists who belief that we evolved from apes are actually only a hand full. But because the majority can't give an explanation of how we came into being no one wants to give them the time of day.

The stories and "evidence" from the few who beliefs the evolution myth are so full of holes that they are continuously being proven wrong. Why haven't they found the missing link yet? Very often they find a creature who they say is the missing link only for it to be proven later as part human with mixed parts from actual apes.

They found every other link between different species, even though those remains are millions of years older. Yet they can't find the 'missing link', which is suppose to be a lot more recent. Why? Because it doesn't exist and has never existed.

I've gone somewhat off topic here, but this shows you that the widely accepted idea isn't always the right one.

kilo39

13-04-2006, 12:12 AM

Mmm. Interesting. Last I heard chimp dna and ours was 98.6% the same... and movement to categorise chimps as human - no missing link required! Less than 2% is very little difference -. Me find it very difficult to believe we came from spacewoman! - or Eden!

Prometheus

13-04-2006, 12:22 AM

Me and kilo39 dna 99.9% the same, less than 0.1% is very "little difference". Have I proven my point...
:)

-toady-

13-04-2006, 06:13 AM

Indeed u have Prometheus... and

*There is a growing trend to make people laugh at CTs as foolish people. The more this takes hold, the more difficult it is for conspiracies to be uncovered.*

This too hits the nail on the head :D

ToadTheFool
_____________
Downright Dangerously Dim-witted

*it is better to die standing up than to live on your knees

Rkootknir

13-04-2006, 08:33 AM

Off course not, and the majority of scientists will say so.You must be kidding.
The scientists who belief that we evolved from apes are actually only a hand full.Really? I know that the amount of biologist who don't accept the TOE are vanishingly small.
But because the majority can't give an explanation of how we came into being no one wants to give them the time of day.The TOE is a framework that follows all five steps of the scientific method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe
2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis
4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions.

Thus it can be used as a scientific theory. As soon as the detractors of the TOE construct their alternative theory, the world's biologists may be interested in listening.

The stories and "evidence" from the few who beliefs the evolution myth are so full of holes that they are continuously being proven wrong. Why haven't they found the missing link yet? Very often they find a creature who they say is the missing link only for it to be proven later as part human with mixed parts from actual apes.Really? Please provide evidence of said holes. Why, I think it was just yesterday that the discovery of another "missing link" (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/latest_fossil_f.html) was announced. The whole "missing link" is a fallacious argument used by the Creationists, and to a lesser extent, the IDers, you surely don't fall into one of those groups?
They found every other link between different species, even though those remains are millions of years older. Yet they can't find the 'missing link', which is suppose to be a lot more recent. Why? Because it doesn't exist and has never existed.Really? I refer you to Talk Origins. (http://www.talkorigins.org/)

I've gone somewhat off topic here, but this shows you that the widely accepted idea isn't always the right one.Really? Please refer me to where you showed any such thing.

kilo39

13-04-2006, 02:41 PM

Moederloos

13-04-2006, 02:46 PM

I didn't reply to the creationist thing because it is so far off topic (my bad) - in terms of this: Me and kilo39 dna 99.9% the same, less than 0.1% is very "little difference". Have I proven my point... Erm, no. You are saying the difference is spirit??

There is no doubt we evolved from apes - not to deny there may be other forces in the universe - but apes it is.

:rolleyes:

rather let it be. No amount of scientific evidence can ever persuade a creationist that creationism is nothing more than a fairy tale.

After all, rigorous testing and study over many decades cannot hold up to a 5000 year old story created by superstitous peasants.

kilo39

13-04-2006, 02:52 PM

After all, rigorous testing and study over many decades cannot hold up to a 5000 year old story created by superstitous peasants. :D You on a roll Moederloos! Funny man.

Prometheus

13-04-2006, 04:28 PM

They found every other link between different species, even though those remains are millions of years older. Yet they can't find the 'missing link', which is suppose to be a lot more recent. Why? Because it doesn't exist and has never existed.
Really? I refer you to Talk Origins. (http://www.talkorigins.org/)
They've proven that dinosaurs existed. Claiming they existed up to 100's of millions of years ago. They say that birds come from dinosaurs and have "proven" that by giving us the pterodactyl. Again, where is what they have dubbed the missing link? Their theories claim for our brain capacity to have doubled in only a few thousand years, an increase over four times as much as in any other period throughout history. Again where are their explanation. At least we "creationists" have the explanation for that, but they don't want to accept that explanation because it proves their TOE to be incorrect.

I've gone somewhat off topic here, but this shows you that the widely accepted idea isn't always the right one.
Really? Please refer me to where you showed any such thing.
With all the hole in their theories how can you still claim for their theories to be correct. All they have proven to me is that they are constantly changing their mind when they are proven wrong and will continue to do so. At least the "creationist" theory is more or less consistant.

We can continue this here Creation over Evolution (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=492648)

mancombseepgood

13-04-2006, 05:03 PM

so where did all this "stuff" everything evolved from come from? How did any matter exist to start with...

If you claim to be intelligent and scientific, etc. etc. then surely you can agree that it's easier for a hurricane to assemble a 747 in a junk yard than for us to get to the point that we are at today without some help other than an accident.

But unfortunately as they say... for many, seeing is believing... looking at a chimp is sometimes all the proof they need.

mancombseepgood

13-04-2006, 05:19 PM

Science is always contradicting itself to "make sense" of something unfathomable. I remember having to learn about light... first the wave theory - this worked well for many other theories... then the quantum theory... for those theories that just didn't work with the wave theory... Theories come and go. Isn't it strange that Darwin thought his own theories to be foolish when he was on his way out.

Make no mistake... I believe in evolution... to a point... I mean - it stands to reason that my Collie wasn't always a shepherd, and he displays those charactaristics despite the fact that we don't have sheep. BTW... where did apes come from, and why are there still apes... etc.

You gotta admit that there are some pretty compelling arguments to support intelligent design... or creation...
One of the fastest evolving things around are theories behind all these things.
http://www.family.org/cforum/pdfs/fo...heet_4_(2).pdf

nocilah

13-04-2006, 06:57 PM

wtf has all this got to do with 9/11? or are you saying the americans are regressing into apes?

Highflyer_GP

13-04-2006, 06:59 PM

wtf has all this got to do with 9/11? or are you saying the americans are regressing into apes?
they already are there :D cant go any more backwards

mooK

14-04-2006, 01:48 AM

Darwin didn't get religious at the end of his life, this was an urban legend created by religious fanatics for their own ends.

I'll try to explain evolution as I understand it briefly.

Natural selection plays a large role, basically this comes down to small differences in species, for eg. some humans are a lot taller than others, imagine a nation of warrior-types that need to be tall and strong for survival. Slowly the smaller and shorter guys will be phased out, as they're not as likely to survive the conditions. That civilization ends up being mostly tall or whatever.

Same thing happens with intelligence, I've got a few really smart friends and it seems to run in the family, the genetics get passed down through the generations. Also, every now and then 'normal' people have a really smart kinda prodigy kid even when the parents aren't particularly smart.

The same thing could've happened to apes, basically, I mean very basically; imagine a group of apes slightly more intelligent than the norm, I mean, they're just able to understand what would be most beneficial for them in terms of survival, they start using rocks as tools or whatever, while the other apes don't understand. They split off and start their own group and continue their line.

Anyway I don't want to get too involved in this explanation but it makes sense to me. And to all you people thinking that religious 'creationism' explains this, you are truly fooling yourself to such a high degree that I'm actually kinda impressed. Creationism doesn't *prove* anything, it's entire hypothesis is based around saying "Oh, we can't possibly explain such a magically fantastically wondrous thing like this ourselves, we gotta chalk this crap up to that guy up in the clouds, and his little kid, oh yeah - don't forget the ghost."

It's a terribly backward way of thinking, the kind of thinking that can take us back to the dark ages. Why don't you want to try to understand why we are the way we are? Why are you so against this idea? Why do you find it so easy to disregard it as something 'incomphrensible to our mortal minds' when we are actually on our way to find out the truth?

ettubrute

14-04-2006, 02:00 AM

Natural selection plays a large role, basically this comes down to small differences in species, for eg. some humans are a lot taller than others, imagine a nation of warrior-types that need to be tall and strong for survival. Slowly the smaller and shorter guys will be phased out, as they're not as likely to survive the conditions. That civilization ends up being mostly tall or whatever.Funny thing is, the Dutch people are getting taller and taller... Must be the limited space they have, with everybody growing to the sun, like trees! :rolleyes:

Creationism doesn't *prove* anything, it's entire hypothesis is based around saying "Oh, we can't possibly explain such a magically fantastically wondrous thing like this ourselves, we gotta chalk this crap up to that guy up in the clouds, and his little kid, oh yeah - don't forget the ghost."Sorry mooK, just lost my respect for you! Even if you don't believe in God, you may respect other people's feelings a bit more!

It's a terribly backward way of thinking, the kind of thinking that can take us back to the dark ages. Why don't you want to try to understand why we are the way we are? Why are you so against this idea? Why do you find it so easy to disregard it as something 'incomphrensible to our mortal minds' when we are actually on our way to find out the truth?Are we? Have they invented a time-machine to go and have a look? :)

mooK

14-04-2006, 02:07 AM

I apologise for being insensitive, I was getting carried away in that post, I admit it.

ettubrute

14-04-2006, 02:12 AM

Syndyre

14-04-2006, 07:00 PM

The interesting part is that the attack showed up in government reports before it took place, how's that for evidence. .

Got references for that? Not necessarily disagreeing, just curious.

kilo39

14-04-2006, 07:18 PM

It is obvious, from my firsthand knowledge of the events and the detailed documentation that exists, that the agents in Minneapolis who were closest to the action and in the best position to gauge the situation locally, did fully appreciate the terrorist risk/danger posed by Moussaoui and his possible co-conspirators even prior to September 11th. Even without knowledge of the Phoenix communication (and any number of other additional intelligence communications that FBIHQ personnel were privy to in their central coordination roles), the Minneapolis agents appreciated the risk. So I think it's very hard for the FBI to offer the "20-20 hindsight" justification for its failure to act! Also intertwined with my reluctance in this case to accept the "20-20 hindsight" rationale is first-hand knowledge that I have of statements made on September 11th, after the first attacks on the World Trade Center had already occurred, made telephonically by the FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who was the one most involved in the Moussaoui matter and who, up to that point, seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts (see number 5). Even after the attacks had begun, the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Misseapolis' prior suspicions about Moussaoui.

Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller
An edited version of the agent's 13-page letter (http://cryptome.org/crowley-memo.htm)

Prometheus

14-04-2006, 09:50 PM

Got references for that? Not necessarily disagreeing, just curious.
Once they release the reports yes. Unfortunately it's classified as always. :rolleyes: What is there to hide? ;)

mooK

14-04-2006, 09:57 PM

If it's classified then how the crap do you know about it?

Jesvs, conspiracy theorists...

Prometheus

14-04-2006, 10:20 PM

If it's classified then how the crap do you know about it?
The point is that there was this rumour, they don't want to disprove it, so it stands to reason they have something to hide. If it's not that then it's something much worse.

mooK

14-04-2006, 10:31 PM

Prometheus

15-04-2006, 01:00 AM

The reason why most western civilized legal systems have 'innocent until proven guilty' as a rule, is because it is infinitely more difficult to disprove something than it is to prove something.

Think about it.
I would still like to know what is in that reports and on those tapes. Until the original copies are not released everyone including me can only wonder what is in them. Naturally all kinds of strories are going to develope. If they don't want this to happen they should release what they have so people can see the truth whichever way it points.