Allow me to throw in the Project for a New American Century PDF document readily available online for viewing. Powerful evidence lies within, penned by the very hands of the Bush administration a year prior to the attacks.
The Titanic sinking conspiracy theory
- Thread starter lub0
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
Who says he isn't credible Rik?
Its all well and good you guys saying one thing or another, but where is the evidence? Youtube vids don't work for us, so they don't work for you aswell. What else ya got Rik?
All evidence would be laughably thin were it a cover up/inside job as they would have done their best to hide it wouldn't they. Yet you believe in UFO's, and all such evidence of those UFO's comes from similar places as the 9/11 evidence. Bet you can't post a link to a credible site about it.
So you buy the one idea of UFO's, automatically accepting the fact that the government are lying to people, and hiding the truth, yet wont believe the 9/11 stuff? Because the government are now a credible source? Because they discredit other evidence put forward?
Confused much?
Funny thing Rik, is you believe in UFO's and yet seem not to understand what they are here for. ( if they exist at all)
His peers doubt his credibility, the only credit seems to come from some of those seemingly with a predisposition to conspiracy theories who grasp at straws in the hope of propping up a fragile premise; the guy is a quack. As for UFO's thats a different topic best suited elsewhere, remember, there are various levels of belief; believing a government(s) know of their existence is a long way from 'Area 51' nonsense.
Oooh UFO's. Good topic. Given we're so off topic already - let's go there.
Yes I believe in Unidentified flying objects - objects we can't identify that fly.
I don't however believe that they're space travellers. It's a heck of a long way to travel just to play hide and seek.
Yes I believe in Unidentified flying objects - objects we can't identify that fly.
I don't however believe that they're space travellers. It's a heck of a long way to travel just to play hide and seek.
Agree totally there Rik. 
Area 51 has nothing to do with crashed UFO's
But, if the gov know of the existence of UFO's then they are obviously lying to us, they are covering it up.
Did you see the footage of the UFO attached to the WTC? Nothing to do with 9/11 though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbh7atqASbo
Area 51 has nothing to do with crashed UFO's
But, if the gov know of the existence of UFO's then they are obviously lying to us, they are covering it up.
Did you see the footage of the UFO attached to the WTC? Nothing to do with 9/11 though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbh7atqASbo
Any craft that uses magnetic manipulation as a means travel are terrestrial craft anyway.
Lovely! If that's not proof of UFO's then I don't know what is (and despite the actress, Barbara Sicuranza, claiming it was all an advert for a Sci Fi channel makes it all more convincing - it means they've got to her as well)
Wasn't suggesting it as proof of anything.Lovely! If that's not proof of UFO's then I don't know what is (and despite the actress, Barbara Sicuranza, claiming it was all an advert for a Sci Fi channel makes it all more convincing - it means they've got to her as well)
The professor in question was discreditted and fired by Brigham Young University, a private Mormon university with NO government connection. A very large and well respected univesity at that. Or are you now saying that the Mormon Church is the chief conspirator?
No. As a retired cop I can categorically state that the FIRST thing to establish is where is the nearest supply of coffee and doughnuts for the investigators!
No government connections? OK, but so what? Read on...
Mainstream universities and institutions of science will always discredit anything that goes against the grain of conventional history and science. This is due partly becuase of the source of funding for these places always comes out from the conspirators pockets and so comes with a long list of conditions and restrictions on the nature of research they can perform and secondly becuase human nature is self-governing in the respect that people desire a common conventional knowledge that stays the same over time, anything that challenges this is uncomfortable to us and we automatically seek to ignore and suppress it. Not only this but we have an extremely strong desire to fit in with one another, to not be the nail that sticks out, and a strong fear of what others think of us, so you never really see mainstream institutions come out with this sort of information for fear of being discredited, outcastasted and loss of funding. We are in effect the prison guards as well as the prisoners rolled into one.
The list of breakthroughs, finds and cures that are actively supressed, outlawed and ignored is absolutely vast and the average person just hasn't got a damm clue. Did you know cancer can be killed by sprinkling baking soda directly on the tumor, for instance? Why isn't this performed during surgery? Well becuase firstly it actually works, so they don't like it, and secondly becuase baking soda can't be patented like a drug, so there's no money in it. Another one is the guy who was bombed by big pharma's gansters for curing thousands of poor Africans of malaria using nothing more than sodium chlorite, which of course has now been banned in most of the world becuase it kills viruses and pathogeons on contact. Yes, anything effective that works well is always invariably banned and/or outlawed.
There is a common saying amoungst archaologies that if they dug something up that would require the re-writing of history as we know it, they would promptly fill that hole back up and forget about it, it's just not worth the sh*t storm it would kick up. You see, self-supressing, self-policing human nature....
... no wonder only a few families can control the entire world and everything in it. As soon as conventional wisdom and societies norms are established and upheld by the establishment, we then reliably and indefinately police ourselves, so there's no need for prison bars and guards at all! The control system really is self-governing and is genius in how it works.
Last edited:
Refer back to post # 532. Basically he simply published his theories without substatiating them through peer review.
I'll also use this post to reply to lubO's comment in post #573. Yes we do self police but that's usually neccessary in science to keep us focussed and relevant. You're cetainly correct that tangents and independents make VALID discoveries that aren't readily accepted. BUT. Said peer review, RIGOROUS peer review, is neccessary to assure the research methodology is relevant and valid.
Also BYU's funding comes mainly from the Mormon Church (it's owner) and the university's alumni. As a private university ALL it's students must pay full tuition because the state does not subsize the tuition of state residents (in this case Utah) as it does at state universities. The same as most private unversities over here.
Two of our largest military training universities (The Citadel in South Carolina, and Virginia Military Institute in Virginia) have NO ties whatever to the military or the US government apart from the ROTC paying tuition for some of the students in their last 2 years of study; just as they do in ALL universities. The obligation in those cases is upon the graduationg student to serve in the military; not on the university other than that said university MUST remain accredited. And said accrediting bodies are not associated with the government either. They are all done by peer review among universities themselves (even the "offiical" military universities (the Military Accademy at West Point, the Naval Accademy at Annapolis, the USAF Accademy at Colorado Springs, the Coast Guard Accademy in Conneticut, and the Merchant Marine Accademy in New York) all must be accreditted through NON-government agencies.
Last edited:
I agree peer review is a good thing in that it ensures new studies and breakthroughs are indeed valid, but my point is that if you are looking for proof for 9/11 inside job and things of that type of nature, you'll never find it coming from the mainstream establishment.
Look for the scientists, doctors and experts whom get sacked and outcasted becuase of their discoveries. These are the guys to listen to, and there are plenty when it comes to 9/11.
Another point I'd like to make is that the standard for classing something as a mainstream fact can be far too rigorous and actually purposely be set too high that it can never feasibly pass the standard set for it, even though it is perfectly logical and likely to be true/factual in the first place!
Another way of putting this is if you serveyed the public regarding some sort of lawsuit and 100% of people serveyed agreed party A is in the wrong. Bring the case to court and let the lawyers battle it out and you'll be forgiven for thinking that party A is actually perfectly in the right and in fact party B is in the wrong. Facts can be twisted in court to such an extent that they can seem to be the complete opposite to what they were originally. This is similiar to how peer reviewing works, except by the time the peers have denounced the persons work/find as total crap, that person has already been fired, denied a platform to speak out, and is discredited in the eyes of the establishment and the public, and so the status quo has been preserved and maintained once again.
Last edited:
Utter nonsense, third party anecdote is meant to prove something. Just what kind of discovery? Human footprints next to dinosaurs? You libel archaeologists or do you believe that there is a warehouse containing the Ark of the Covenant etc?
