Can someone explain to me why the number of alien sightings, cattle abduction/mutilation by mysterious beings, or random alien space crafts crashing in forests/deserts/etc have suddenly gone down in the last decade or so? Maybe it's because of global warming but I can't be sure...
Excellent question, actually. I think the UFO thing was part of a cultural mania. It's been about since the 1950s but there was a sudden "surge" in media interest in the 1990s (not least due to shows like the X Files) and that created a surge of people claiming to have seen one / been abducted etc.
"Pre Millenium Tension" was blamed for the interest in UFOs etc a decade or so ago but I always thought that was an invented phenomenon, a shorthand way of explaining why people were starting to believe in strange things (something they'd been doing decades before the brink of the year 2000).
The only plausable explination that springs to mind is that the building held financial, and legal records that they did not want recovered. After all it was a trade center.
The 9/11 "truthers" I've encountered tend to claim that the building contained printed/written evidence of the conspiracy which needed to be destroyed. This is preposterous on many levels.
1) This was New York, not Berlin in 1945. If you have documents you need destroyed in an office then, erm, you destroy them the usual way.
2) The best way to destroy documents in an emergency situation is to throw them on a fire and burn them, not detonate the building. When the nazis were burning documents at the fall of Berlin smoke was seen pouring out of government buildings but the bulidings themselves were not set alight and certainly not detonated. Both of these would be inefficient and would not guarantee the destruction of the specific documents.
3) Why on Earth would the conspirators a) print documents saying what they were doing b) leave these documents lying around for a good while before the conspiracy "endgame" c) keep them in a building close to the one they were planning to attack?
Can someone explain to me why the number of alien sightings, cattle abduction/mutilation by mysterious beings, or random alien space crafts crashing in forests/deserts/etc have suddenly gone down in the last decade or so? Maybe it's because of global warming but I can't be sure...
Actually, it's because of camera phones.
Anyone who owns a camera phone cannot convincingly claim to have been abducted by aliens / seen a UFO, because they then have to produce the video footage or come up with a very good reason why they don't have any.
It's a brilliant piece of logic, and I wish I could remember where I heard it first. It'll probably turn out to be something someone here said two days ago, and I'm going to look foolish now.
Most UFO photos are either obvious fakes or the distances are so hard to tell that you aren't convinced. The photo in that link scottie, is the 'ufo' close by or not?
Most UFO photos are either obvious fakes or the distances are so hard to tell that you aren't convinced. The photo in that link scottie, is the 'ufo' close by or not?
I don't really know. They do infur that it was far away but again its hard to tell.
But I think the line "Drinkers spilled out of pubs" about sums it up!!
but this bit really made me laugh:
Sceptics dismissed the UFOs as nothing more than hot air balloons, fireworks or even lanterns which had broken loose from a local rugby club.
My problem with aliens is that 1) why would they come here in the first place, and 2) how did they cross the vast distances of space...did they take multiple generations to achieve it even if they flew close(ish) to the speed of light.
I haven't a problem with aliens in and of itself, it's just so unlikely that we would meet them...
Kids love Butlins (apparently) I guess that feeling is universal.
2) how did they cross the vast distances of space...did they take multiple generations to achieve it even if they flew close(ish) to the speed of light.
Nope, just a bog-standard flying saucer from the Moon to Earth. Easy.
That's the only explanation for molten steel I've heard about, too. (Well, okay, the only plausible explanation - I think it's safe to count out the evidence-free one about a space-based directed energy weapon for now.)
The 9/11 "truthers" I've encountered tend to claim that the building contained printed/written evidence of the conspiracy which needed to be destroyed. This is preposterous on many levels.
I don't know if you mean Building 7 specifically, but it did contain a lot of investigation records of the Security & Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service into corporate tax fraud. Probably no evidence of conspiracies of the shape-shifting lizard variety in there, but still plenty on all the other kinds of conspiracies.
I don't know if you mean Building 7 specifically, but it did contain a lot of investigation records of the Security & Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service into corporate tax fraud. Probably no evidence of conspiracies of the shape-shifting lizard variety in there, but still plenty on all the other kinds of conspiracies.
At 5:20pm on September 11th, 2001, Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex fell without logical explanation. The news said it was a "sudden collapse". Firefighters and press in the area were told to "get back" because they were going to "pull-it". ["Pulling" a building means taking it down with strategically placed demolition charges at the inner support columns so that the building falls in on its own "footprint" as to not damage the other structures in the vicinity.] It was a classic bottom-up implosion. You can actually see the demolition charges running up the top 6 floors.
Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the WTC, who just months before 9/11 had gained property rights on the entire complex and took out record insurance on it, confirms having given the "pull" order on the PBS documentary America Rebuilds. In the film Silverstein says: "I remember getting a call from the...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. And I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull-it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." After getting caught in his Freudian slip, Silverstein tried saying that he meant "pull the firefighters off the blaze", but there weren't even any fighting it. Why? Because the fires were so small that there was no danger of a collapse. It's not sure how these fires even started in the first place, since 7 was two buildings away from the North Tower, so it couldn't have been damaged by falling debris and definitely didn't get hit by a plane.
Building 7 played host to then Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management command center, with the 23rd floor built in 1998 as a "bunker" with bullet and bomb-resistant windows, its own water and air supply, the ability to withstand 160mph winds, and a full commanding view of the entire WTC complex. Interestingly, on 9/11 Giuliani didn't bother to put the center to use [even though that's what it was built for] and decided to instead set up a makeshift command center down the street. Seven also served as the command center for the security of the entire WTC complex, which was headed by the President's brother, Marvin Bush, whose contract ended "coincidentally" on 9/11. WTC7's other tenants included the IRS, CIA, Secret Service, FBI, Department of Defense, and the SEC. It has been reported that several banks involved in sending money to the 9/11 hijackers had their offices there, and important files pertaining to the Enron investigation were stored there as well.
the building falls in on its own "footprint" as to not damage the other structures in the vicinity.] It was a classic bottom-up implosion. You can actually see the demolition charges running up the top 6 floors.
The 2 towers also fell on their own footprint...most buildings do when they collapse from within.....no reason they would lean to the side unless one side collapse before the others...internal collapse would cause most building to behave this way. The 'charges' have been explained before as the internal floors colapsing and your seeing the dust puff out as this happens...again classic internal collapsing behaviour.
"I remember getting a call from the...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. And I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull-it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Because the fires were so small that there was no danger of a collapse.
Umm Don't these 2 statements contradict each other. One says they couldn't contain it and had terrible loss of life, the other in the same paragraph says they were not fighting the fires because they were so small.
BInterestingly, on 9/11 Giuliani didn't bother to put the center to use [even though that's what it was built for] and decided to instead set up a makeshift command center down the street.
Well I probably would not put the command center next to 2 burning buildings either. the statement 'what it was built for' is misleading...it was not build for this incident....and to expect its use in such close proximity to the events is pretty retarded. EDIT: btw, if there is ANY fire in a building you would have to evacuate according to fire regulations. As the building was on fire, they could not use it, I'm sure the phones were out, the power was out, and access to and from would be near impossible with the stuff going on around it. That question/statement alone invalidates anything else in that article for me..stupid.
All this and still no explanation from the cooks as to why they would not just say....its dangerous so we had to pull it. I'd love to have this conversation with them face to face and ask that question.....why would they not just say they pulled it as it was interfering with the rescue attempts and was a danger to the emergency services.
Umm Don't these 2 statements contradict each other. One says they couldn't contain it and had terrible loss of life, the other in the same paragraph says they were not fighting the fires because they were so small.
Yes conflicting information. I think that was what this peice of the article was tring to highlight.
I dont know about this 911 thing. I see both sides of it. I see that are are holes in both sides of the fence.
I see that are are holes in both sides of the fence.
Aye. Some people don't seem to comprehend that the official version(s) of what happened are not hard and fast explanations, but their best guesses as to what happened based on the available evidence. The set of people who don't understand that as being the case overlaps heavily with the set of people running around yapping on about conspiracies when they dicover holes in the official explanations.
Yes contradictory statements are made in any event....its the nature of the beast obviously its going to happen in such events. Just read the newspaper headlines after any major event the next day....
Daily Mail 12 dead!
Daily Mirror 15 dead!
Telegraph 16 dead!
The Sun 18 dead!
The Sunday Sport WW2 bomber found on moon!
at work we have emergency procedures for various events such as toxic spills, natural disasters, epidemics (plague included) and the one thing that is drilled into the emergency planning co-ordinators is record keeping, everything has to be written down and filled. we have cabinets full of unsued folder, paper, pens, files etc ready for an event.
you might think this is daft but after such an event inquires are made, decisions are looked at etc.
at work we have emergency procedures for various events such as toxic spills, natural disasters, epidemics (plague included) and the one thing that is drilled into the emergency planning co-ordinators is record keeping, everything has to be written down and filled. we have cabinets full of unsued folder, paper, pens, files etc ready for an event.
you might think this is daft but after such an event inquires are made, decisions are looked at etc.
Aye thats called job security for the safety guy...I used to be one haha.
ha ha, im sure our risk manager engineers accidents for peole, just to make himself look important.
Off topic but I can't resist.
We had a complete dumbass guy working with us at Compaq...anyway...someone fell 20ft out of a rack and cracked his skull open...blood everywhere....the dumb guy witnessed it and rather than shout 'quick get an ambulance' he yelled 'Quick...someone get a broom!' (to clean the blood up).
But there are so many important questions that have gone unanswered in this case.
Like the whole molten steel issue, why were fires brining underground for so long?
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I'm also not naive.
It?s not as if the US administration has been generating squeaky-clean image of late. You can impeach a president lying about sex, but the next one can to cheat his way into power completely unchallenged??
But there are so many important questions that have gone unanswered in this case.
Like the whole molten steel issue, why were fires brining underground for so long?
Unless you are there at the time making accurate measurements, there are some questions which cannot be answered reliably.
Again, these sorts of people do not understand that some questions cannot be answered, instead prefering to believe that someone does actually know the answer but is keeping it to himself so that he can achieve something nefarious.
Like you there are some unanswered questions and another conspiracy - the Diana one has many holes.
But i just dont believe in this day and age there isnt someone who can 'tell the world' what happened, i cant believe the US frankly are clever enough to get everyone silenced and to do something like 9/11. Again if Al Quada sent out messages saying 'your government are lying to you, they organised 9/11' then i would be 'converted more'.
But again these conspiracy nuts tend to think every single thing is a conspiracy, like boy who cried wolf so IF there is a major conspiracy (like 9/11) i'm less likely to believe some nutter whos waffling on about who funded Hitler, who prints out money and how stocks and shares in the US will plummet tons in a weeks time.
If Cornish concentrated solely on 9/11 i might be a bit more convinced but he gives the view that he believes every single thing out there as someone said so on the net. Just as i dont believe every single thing the government tells me i definately dont believe every thing some conspiracy loon on some website would try telling me. What next ? Believing everything David Icke says ?
And great point Nick put, some questions you cant just answer but some people then believe its a conspiracy/cover up from that. I watched Farenheit 9/11 with an open mind, a lot of it at first had me going 'woahhhh' but then later on some bits were just ridiculous and talking about going over the top so it ruined it for me later on.
Unless you are there at the time making accurate measurements, there are some questions which cannot be answered reliably.
Again, these sorts of people do not understand that some questions cannot be answered, instead prefering to believe that someone does actually know the answer but is keeping it to himself so that he can achieve something nefarious.
Yeah probably.
Ok lets draw a line under this, its's gone to far allready and nout good will come of taking it further.
A lot of the questions have been answered as well, Its just that certain parties choose to ignore those answers and continually ask the same questions over and over and over.
The collapse of the towers has been explained by multiple architects, physicists etc to the point that future skyscraper design has been revised based on those findings....yet its still questioned by unqualified people.
Comments
Excellent question, actually. I think the UFO thing was part of a cultural mania. It's been about since the 1950s but there was a sudden "surge" in media interest in the 1990s (not least due to shows like the X Files) and that created a surge of people claiming to have seen one / been abducted etc.
"Pre Millenium Tension" was blamed for the interest in UFOs etc a decade or so ago but I always thought that was an invented phenomenon, a shorthand way of explaining why people were starting to believe in strange things (something they'd been doing decades before the brink of the year 2000).
The 9/11 "truthers" I've encountered tend to claim that the building contained printed/written evidence of the conspiracy which needed to be destroyed. This is preposterous on many levels.
1) This was New York, not Berlin in 1945. If you have documents you need destroyed in an office then, erm, you destroy them the usual way.
2) The best way to destroy documents in an emergency situation is to throw them on a fire and burn them, not detonate the building. When the nazis were burning documents at the fall of Berlin smoke was seen pouring out of government buildings but the bulidings themselves were not set alight and certainly not detonated. Both of these would be inefficient and would not guarantee the destruction of the specific documents.
3) Why on Earth would the conspirators a) print documents saying what they were doing b) leave these documents lying around for a good while before the conspiracy "endgame" c) keep them in a building close to the one they were planning to attack?
Actually, it's because of camera phones.
Anyone who owns a camera phone cannot convincingly claim to have been abducted by aliens / seen a UFO, because they then have to produce the video footage or come up with a very good reason why they don't have any.
It's a brilliant piece of logic, and I wish I could remember where I heard it first. It'll probably turn out to be something someone here said two days ago, and I'm going to look foolish now.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=470579&in_page_id=1770#StartComments
*Ducks and runs for cover!! :p
I had never heard this before. But on reading your post, I just though it makes perfect sense.
I don't really know. They do infur that it was far away but again its hard to tell.
But I think the line "Drinkers spilled out of pubs" about sums it up!!
but this bit really made me laugh:
Sceptics dismissed the UFOs as nothing more than hot air balloons, fireworks or even lanterns which had broken loose from a local rugby club.
Andrew.
I haven't a problem with aliens in and of itself, it's just so unlikely that we would meet them...
Except for Cornish Davey. Hehe.
Kids love Butlins (apparently) I guess that feeling is universal.
2) how did they cross the vast distances of space...did they take multiple generations to achieve it even if they flew close(ish) to the speed of light.
Nope, just a bog-standard flying saucer from the Moon to Earth. Easy.
That's the only explanation for molten steel I've heard about, too. (Well, okay, the only plausible explanation - I think it's safe to count out the evidence-free one about a space-based directed energy weapon for now.)
I don't know if you mean Building 7 specifically, but it did contain a lot of investigation records of the Security & Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service into corporate tax fraud. Probably no evidence of conspiracies of the shape-shifting lizard variety in there, but still plenty on all the other kinds of conspiracies.
Necros.
By the time you get through all seasons your gonna be Cornies bet bud!
The following text comes from the following source: http://www.grandtheftcountry.com/facts/911/seven/.
At 5:20pm on September 11th, 2001, Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex fell without logical explanation. The news said it was a "sudden collapse". Firefighters and press in the area were told to "get back" because they were going to "pull-it". ["Pulling" a building means taking it down with strategically placed demolition charges at the inner support columns so that the building falls in on its own "footprint" as to not damage the other structures in the vicinity.] It was a classic bottom-up implosion. You can actually see the demolition charges running up the top 6 floors.
Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the WTC, who just months before 9/11 had gained property rights on the entire complex and took out record insurance on it, confirms having given the "pull" order on the PBS documentary America Rebuilds. In the film Silverstein says: "I remember getting a call from the...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. And I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull-it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." After getting caught in his Freudian slip, Silverstein tried saying that he meant "pull the firefighters off the blaze", but there weren't even any fighting it. Why? Because the fires were so small that there was no danger of a collapse. It's not sure how these fires even started in the first place, since 7 was two buildings away from the North Tower, so it couldn't have been damaged by falling debris and definitely didn't get hit by a plane.
Building 7 played host to then Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management command center, with the 23rd floor built in 1998 as a "bunker" with bullet and bomb-resistant windows, its own water and air supply, the ability to withstand 160mph winds, and a full commanding view of the entire WTC complex. Interestingly, on 9/11 Giuliani didn't bother to put the center to use [even though that's what it was built for] and decided to instead set up a makeshift command center down the street. Seven also served as the command center for the security of the entire WTC complex, which was headed by the President's brother, Marvin Bush, whose contract ended "coincidentally" on 9/11. WTC7's other tenants included the IRS, CIA, Secret Service, FBI, Department of Defense, and the SEC. It has been reported that several banks involved in sending money to the 9/11 hijackers had their offices there, and important files pertaining to the Enron investigation were stored there as well.
The 2 towers also fell on their own footprint...most buildings do when they collapse from within.....no reason they would lean to the side unless one side collapse before the others...internal collapse would cause most building to behave this way. The 'charges' have been explained before as the internal floors colapsing and your seeing the dust puff out as this happens...again classic internal collapsing behaviour.
Umm Don't these 2 statements contradict each other. One says they couldn't contain it and had terrible loss of life, the other in the same paragraph says they were not fighting the fires because they were so small.
Well I probably would not put the command center next to 2 burning buildings either. the statement 'what it was built for' is misleading...it was not build for this incident....and to expect its use in such close proximity to the events is pretty retarded. EDIT: btw, if there is ANY fire in a building you would have to evacuate according to fire regulations. As the building was on fire, they could not use it, I'm sure the phones were out, the power was out, and access to and from would be near impossible with the stuff going on around it. That question/statement alone invalidates anything else in that article for me..stupid.
All this and still no explanation from the cooks as to why they would not just say....its dangerous so we had to pull it. I'd love to have this conversation with them face to face and ask that question.....why would they not just say they pulled it as it was interfering with the rescue attempts and was a danger to the emergency services.
Yes conflicting information. I think that was what this peice of the article was tring to highlight.
I dont know about this 911 thing. I see both sides of it. I see that are are holes in both sides of the fence.
Aye. Some people don't seem to comprehend that the official version(s) of what happened are not hard and fast explanations, but their best guesses as to what happened based on the available evidence. The set of people who don't understand that as being the case overlaps heavily with the set of people running around yapping on about conspiracies when they dicover holes in the official explanations.
Daily Mail 12 dead!
Daily Mirror 15 dead!
Telegraph 16 dead!
The Sun 18 dead!
The Sunday Sport WW2 bomber found on moon!
Daily Express: Diana - My Secret Torment - A Window Cleaner Tells His Sad Tale
at work we have emergency procedures for various events such as toxic spills, natural disasters, epidemics (plague included) and the one thing that is drilled into the emergency planning co-ordinators is record keeping, everything has to be written down and filled. we have cabinets full of unsued folder, paper, pens, files etc ready for an event.
you might think this is daft but after such an event inquires are made, decisions are looked at etc.
Aye thats called job security for the safety guy...I used to be one haha.
ha ha, im sure our risk manager engineers accidents for peole, just to make himself look important.
Off topic but I can't resist.
We had a complete dumbass guy working with us at Compaq...anyway...someone fell 20ft out of a rack and cracked his skull open...blood everywhere....the dumb guy witnessed it and rather than shout 'quick get an ambulance' he yelled 'Quick...someone get a broom!' (to clean the blood up).
Only in America..
But there are so many important questions that have gone unanswered in this case.
Like the whole molten steel issue, why were fires brining underground for so long?
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I'm also not naive.
It?s not as if the US administration has been generating squeaky-clean image of late. You can impeach a president lying about sex, but the next one can to cheat his way into power completely unchallenged??
Andrew.
Unless you are there at the time making accurate measurements, there are some questions which cannot be answered reliably.
Again, these sorts of people do not understand that some questions cannot be answered, instead prefering to believe that someone does actually know the answer but is keeping it to himself so that he can achieve something nefarious.
But i just dont believe in this day and age there isnt someone who can 'tell the world' what happened, i cant believe the US frankly are clever enough to get everyone silenced and to do something like 9/11. Again if Al Quada sent out messages saying 'your government are lying to you, they organised 9/11' then i would be 'converted more'.
But again these conspiracy nuts tend to think every single thing is a conspiracy, like boy who cried wolf so IF there is a major conspiracy (like 9/11) i'm less likely to believe some nutter whos waffling on about who funded Hitler, who prints out money and how stocks and shares in the US will plummet tons in a weeks time.
If Cornish concentrated solely on 9/11 i might be a bit more convinced but he gives the view that he believes every single thing out there as someone said so on the net. Just as i dont believe every single thing the government tells me i definately dont believe every thing some conspiracy loon on some website would try telling me. What next ? Believing everything David Icke says ?
And great point Nick put, some questions you cant just answer but some people then believe its a conspiracy/cover up from that. I watched Farenheit 9/11 with an open mind, a lot of it at first had me going 'woahhhh' but then later on some bits were just ridiculous and talking about going over the top so it ruined it for me later on.
Yeah probably.
Ok lets draw a line under this, its's gone to far allready and nout good will come of taking it further.
In any case I bet the Pasty is loving it.
Andrew. :)
The collapse of the towers has been explained by multiple architects, physicists etc to the point that future skyscraper design has been revised based on those findings....yet its still questioned by unqualified people.
Pasty or patsy :) ?