Former Pilot Says 'Jet Blast' Dismissal Doesn't Fly

P

Project9

Guest
it would be a strange coincident if all the other nations spy satellites malfunctioned on that day, especially since most countries would have more than just one satellite over any given area.
It also would be a very strange coincidence if the satellites from China, Russia and France where all locked on the pentagon (and the sorrounding area) at the exact momment of the attack. It would be a stranger coincidence that the U.S. would allow various satellites (from different nations) to orbit over the pentagon in the last few days, specially if the government was conspiring to fly and ufo into one of the walls of the pentagon.

And although they had some compromising photos about the Pentagon, we do not know what kind of compromising intelligence the Americans had which could work as a counter bargaining chip against their 'adversaries'.
Seems like the intelligence the U.S. has/had is not so important since, according to Laura, these countries would release these images in the case that the U.S. made a hollywood version of the event.

Your assumptions are too custom-made for the support of the hypothesis, first you assume that the spy satellites from three different nations were locked on the pentagon at almost the same time without detection from the U.S. . Then you assume that all three of these countries (with different agendas) would just hold on to the photos because (you assume) the U.S. has compromising intelligence that could harm all three of them.
 
P

Project9

Guest
Ark: repeating that my analysis is naive won't make the affirmation any validity, specially after you follow it with vague statements and wordplay.

Credibility is subjective. Something is not credible for you - fine. Find another source that you find credible. CNN, Fox News, President's Bush Secretary - these are my suggestions.
Please, let's leave such cliches out of the debate.
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Project9 said:
Ark: repeating that my analysis is naive won't make the affirmation any validity, specially after you follow it with vague statements and wordplay.
What I wrote was not in order to add validity to the hypothesis. It was to point out that YOUR arguments are invalid. Which probably you knew anyway.

Project9 said:
Credibility is subjective. Something is not credible for you - fine. Find another source that you find credible. CNN, Fox News, President's Bush Secretary - these are my suggestions.
Please, let's leave such cliches out of the debate.
This is not a cliche. I am stating the fact that "credibility" is subjective. For some people (I do not know about you, but I consider it a possibility) CNN, Fox News, President's Bush Secretary are credible sources.
 
P

Project9

Guest
Laura: seems like you derailed a bit from the photographs hypothesis ... could it be that you realized how implausible that is and jumped from one hypothesis to another (more far fetched) hypothesis? Just take a look at how you jumped from the photos to the hypothesis about the zionist controlling the world, then you jumped to the plans France and the U.S. had in common ... and then a few paragraphs later you just say that they allowed the war just to weaken the U.S., how could the U.S. be any weaker controlling the opium in Afghanistan and the second biggest oil reserve in the world? ... then to wrap up the hypothesis frenzy you reach the conclusion that i work for a certain government ... i mean, it is just impossible that an individual doesn't agree with your hypothesis ... that individual has to be a government spy. I've seen people debating like that, their intentions are to make as many claims as possible in a single intervention, that way they'll maintain the initiative while trying to get the other side of the debate as tired as possible since each claim takes its time to be analyzed and replied to.

So, after you have spent some time in the presence of actual TOP level government ministers and/or intell agents, have had the opportunity to listen to them talk, to observe how they act, and to put those pieces together to form a picture of what kind of people they are in general, and how they think and play the game, come back and talk to me. I've done it and you can believe it or not.
The old "i've been there, i have the connections" cliche ... if that same stament hadn't been repeated so much by people in a similar position, i would believe you.
 
P

Project9

Guest
What I wrote was not in order to add validity to the hypothesis. It was to point out that YOUR arguments are invalid. Which probably you knew anyway.
So you're trying to point out that my aguments are invalid with vague statements and wordplay? Hmmm, you might consider a new approach, like saying why they are invalid.
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Project9 said:
So you're trying to point out that my aguments are invalid with vague statements and wordplay? Hmmm, you might consider a new approach, like saying why they are invalid.
They are invalid because you are not taking into account how politics works. I have already explained it. Which probably you knew about anyway.
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Project9 said:
Laura: seems like you derailed a bit from the photographs hypothesis ...
Nothing is simple, therefore presenting other relevant issues helps.

Project9 said:
could it be that you realized how implausible that is and jumped from one hypothesis to another (more far fetched) hypothesis?
Hypotheses are based on the totality of available data and on their analysis. It is necessary to to bring several things together. Not one thing.

Project9 said:
Just take a look at how you jumped from the photos to the hypothesis about the zionist controlling the world, then you jumped to the plans France and the U.S. had in common ...
They are all connected. Don't you know it? I am sure you know.


Project9 said:
and then a few paragraphs later you just say that they allowed the war just to weaken the U.S., how could the U.S. be any weaker controlling the opium in Afghanistan and the second biggest oil reserve in the world?
They ARE weaker. That is the objective fact. Read the news.

Project9 said:
... then to wrap up the hypothesis frenzy you reach the conclusion that i work for a certain government ...
This is also possible, taking into account your "reasoning".

Project9 said:
i mean, it is just impossible that an individual doesn't agree with your hypothesis ...
Of course it is possible. We take this possibility also into account.

Project9 said:
that individual has to be a government spy.
There are quite a number of them. There is a whole science and technology behind that.

Project9 said:
I've seen people debating like that, their intentions are to make as many claims as possible in a single intervention, that way they'll maintain the initiative while trying to get the other side of the debate as tired as possible since each claim takes its time to be analyzed and replied to.
Exactly. That is also one of the tactics of the "agencies" and "media": to create as much noise as possible. You see the point is that your arguments were very shallow, so shallow that is hard to believe that you were not realising how shallow they are. But it may be that you were simply naive. We all are. Once in a while ....

Project9 said:
So, after you have spent some time in the presence of actual TOP level government ministers and/or intell agents, have had the opportunity to listen to them talk, to observe how they act, and to put those pieces together to form a picture of what kind of people they are in general, and how they think and play the game, come back and talk to me. I've done it and you can believe it or not.
The old "i've been there, i have the connections" cliche ... if that same stament hadn't been repeated so much by people in a similar position, i would believe you.
2+2=4 is also repeated by so many people. Nevertheless, under some circumstances, it happens to be a true statement. The devil is always in the details.
 
A

Anders

Guest
Project9 said:
it would be a strange coincident if all the other nations spy satellites malfunctioned on that day, especially since most countries would have more than just one satellite over any given area.
It also would be a very strange coincidence if the satellites from China, Russia and France where all locked on the pentagon (and the sorrounding area) at the exact momment of the attack. It would be a stranger coincidence that the U.S. would allow various satellites (from different nations) to orbit over the pentagon in the last few days, specially if the government was conspiring to fly and ufo into one of the walls of the pentagon.
Your view of how cameras work is slightly different than mine. Your view gives the idea of cameras sitting on satellites going zoom click, zoom click etc. My view is more to the effect that the surface of the earth is continually scanned and with the aid of infinite zoom technology (mentioned some time back on SOTT) areas of interest can be viewed after the satellites has passed. Areas of military importance are always monitored. Maybe somebody on the Forum has worked in the area of satellite imaging and can provide details.
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Anders said:
Your view of how cameras work is slightly different than mine. Your view gives the idea of cameras sitting on satellites going zoom click, zoom click etc. My view is more to the effect that the surface of the earth is continually scanned and with the aid of infinite zoom technology (mentioned some time back on SOTT) areas of interest can be viewed after the satellites has passed. Areas of military importance are always monitored. Maybe somebody on the Forum has worked in the area of satellite imaging and can provide details.
Moreover, to let other countries to TAKE these photos may have been part of the plan. After all, G. W. Bush is likely a marionette and, perhaps, at some point, there will be a necessity to get rid of him. The gamesmanship is on many levels, and the complexity of planning must not be underestimated. On the other hand there are always surprises, and new elements come into the game that were not taken into account by the gamers.

It should be also remebered that there are other ways of taking photos of interesting objects at interesting times than via satellites. See for instance project Aurora and its highly classified "improvements" that different countries are working on since many years.
 
P

Project9

Guest
They are invalid because you are not taking into account how politics works. I have already explained it. Which probably you knew about anyway.
No ark, what i am not taking into account is how you think international politics work. And so far you haven't explained much, you see to give an accurate explanation of something you can't rely as much as you do on vague statements and wordplay because your exposition will turn out to be very subjective and ambiguous.

Nothing is simple, therefore bringing other releavnt issues helps.
The fact is, that none of the "relevant issues" brought in that last post were relevant at all in this particular discussion.

They are all connected. Don't you know it? I am sure you know.
You can connect a far fetched hypothesis with another equally far fetched one through a third unbased hypothesis and at the end you'll be right where you were at first: coming up with a hypothesis to try to prove the first one, thus complicating your hypothesis about your conspiracy to a point that the holes are impossible for you to patch.

They ARE weaker. That is the objective fact. Read the news.
Ok, i'll read the news ... but wait, isn't the media controlled by the zionist conspirators? If you're going to say that the U.S. is weaker, the least you could do is present objective data that can corroborate your statement.

Exactly. That is also one of the tactics of the "agencies" and "media": to create as much noise as possible.
So you counter this by doing the exact same thing?

2+2=4 is also repeated by so many people. Nevertheless, under some circumstances, it happens to be a true statement. The devil is always in the details.
The only difference is that you can easily demonstrate that 2+2=4 unlike the "i have connections" statement which usually can't be demonstrated because such connections can be pointed due to "security reasons".
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Project9 said:
I've seen people debating like that, their intentions are to make as many claims as possible in a single intervention, that way they'll maintain the initiative while trying to get the other side of the debate as tired as possible since each claim takes its time to be analyzed and replied to.
Exactly. As I mentioned, the articles are on the website, you have the links, go for it. :D If you have articles where you have spent hundreds of hours already researching and writing, provide the links. :)
 
P

Project9

Guest
Your view of how cameras work is slightly different than mine. Your view gives the idea of cameras sitting on satellites going zoom click, zoom click etc. My view is more to the effect that the surface of the earth is continually scanned and with the aid of infinite zoom technology (mentioned some time back on SOTT) areas of interest can be viewed after the satellites has passed. Areas of military importance are always monitored. Maybe somebody on the Forum has worked in the area of satellite imaging and can provide details.
I think it's not correct to base a hypothesis on sci-fi technology that you have to proof of its existence. I don't know how much you've read about how satellite surveilance works, but i think you should base your claims on the current state technology and not on your particular view of that state. It's imposible to get a photo of the object that hit the pentagon from looking at a picture taken in a satellite sweep done hours or days before the event.
 
P

Project9

Guest
Moreover, to let other countries to TAKE these photos may have been part of the plan. After all, G. W. Bush is likely a marionette and, perhaps, at some point, there will be a necessity to get rid of him. The gamesmanship is on many levels, and the complexity of planning must not be underestimated. On the other hand there are always surprises, and new elements come into the game that were not taken into account by the gamers.
If you start adding complements to the hypothesis just to patch the holes, then that's a bad sign of the validity of your claims ... and it's even worse when those complements are based on "maybe" and "perhaps".

It should be also remebered that there are other ways of taking photos of interesting objects at interesting times than via satellites. See for instance project Aurora and its highly classified "improvements" that different countries are working on
If you read back you'll see that the person (Laura) who made the claim about the photos talked about satellites, not prototype projects.
 
P

Project9

Guest
Laura said:
Project9 said:
I've seen people debating like that, their intentions are to make as many claims as possible in a single intervention, that way they'll maintain the initiative while trying to get the other side of the debate as tired as possible since each claim takes its time to be analyzed and replied to.
Exactly. As I mentioned, the articles are on the website, you have the links, go for it. :D If you have articles where you have spent hundreds of hours already researching and writing, provide the links. :)
George W. Bush and Colin Powell pointed to similar sources when defending their WMD's case. Such subjective sources are worst than no sources at all.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Plan9From Outer Space said:
George W. Bush and Colin Powell pointed to similar sources when defending their WMD's case. Such subjective sources are worst than no sources at all.
You didn't read them.

Now, read the rules of the forum:

Okay people! Let's be clear on some things before you join up, now I know you are aching to get in there and comment on...stuff... but before you do you need to agree to some basic rules about politeness, kindness, and not being a total psycho.

One, don't harass people, or flame them, or really make them want to flame you. Don't make blatantly pointed comments - or snide insinuations - about others on the board. If you don't like what they have to say, come out and say it, and more importantly say why.

Two, please don't post messages about your illegal pastimes and habits. Signs of the Times does not wish to appear to condone such practises, for reasons that should be pretty obvious if a little common sense is applied. If you do post such stuff, expect it to be deleted immediately.

Three, don't spam, just don't, it will be deleted almost immediately, so it's a waste of time. Spamming means sending multiple meaningless posts. If you don't have anything beneficial or informative to say, don't just join in for nothin'. Posts deemed by the moderators (who have experience with this, by the way) to be "noise" will be deleted.

Four, We have ZERO tolerance for profanity. If you aren't intelligent enough to say what you think without using language that is objectionable to most civilized people, you're on the wrong board. If you think you can be clever and circumvent the board's auto-censor, go ahead and try it. When we catch you, you'll be gone.

Five,we the moderators reserve the right to do anything and everything we see fit to ensure a friendly comfortable environment for our guests; that includes deleting you and all of your posts if you break any of these rules or act like a psychological deviant at any time past present or future. Oh yeah people, I said future, Tom Cruise has nothin' on us.

So if you are cool with this and agree, then come on in.
Re-read number five.

You are already acting like a psychological deviant, i.e. psychopath. Read our articles on psychopathy, also available on the same sitelinks page. Read the threads on the subject here on the forum. I'll give you a week to catch up and then we'll talk. You are on moderation until then since you don't seem to be able to control yourself.
 
Top Bottom