Politics

[Scott CWO]

I absolutely, genuinely, truly and in all good humor find that logic and "evidence" somewhat nuts.

Let's take Apollo which has been a popular target of the conspiracy kooks.

Grok offers a good summary of how silly it is.

No credible evidence supports the claim that pre-recorded videos were used as actual mission footage for the Apollo moon landings. The Apollo program, which successfully landed humans on the Moon between 1969 and 1972, produced extensive documentation, including live television broadcasts, photographs, lunar samples, and telemetry data, all corroborated by multiple independent sources.Key Points Disproving the Claim:

1. Live Broadcasts and Real-Time Data:
   
   • Apollo missions were broadcast live on global television networks, with millions of viewers watching in real time. These broadcasts included interactions between astronauts and Mission Control, which were responsive to real-time events (e.g., Apollo 11’s landing sequence).
   • The signals for these broadcasts were received by radio telescopes worldwide, including independent observatories in Australia (Parkes Observatory) and Spain (Madrid Deep Space Communication Complex). Faking such signals would require extraordinary coordination and deception across multiple nations and organizations.
   • Apollo missions returned 382 kilograms of lunar rocks and soil, which have been studied extensively and confirmed to be of lunar origin. These samples have unique isotopic and chemical signatures not found in Earth rocks, verified by scientists globally.
   • Retroreflectors placed on the lunar surface by Apollo 11, 14, and 15 are still used today for laser-ranging experiments, confirming their presence on the Moon.

Addressing Specific Claims:

• Stanley Kubrick Involvement: A persistent myth suggests filmmaker Stanley Kubrick staged the landings, citing his work on 2001: A Space Odyssey. There is no evidence supporting this, and Kubrick’s film used entirely different techniques (e.g., models and front projection) that don’t match Apollo footage.
• Waving Flag: The flag’s movement is explained by the lack of atmosphere and the flag’s wire frame, causing it to flutter in a vacuum when disturbed.
• Missing Stars in Photos: Stars are not visible in most Apollo photos due to camera exposure settings optimized for bright lunar surfaces, a well-understood photographic principle.

Conclusion:The Apollo moon landings are supported by overwhelming evidence—physical, visual, and testimonial—verified by independent sources worldwide. Claims of pre-recorded footage lack credible evidence and are contradicted by the scientific record, technological constraints, and the sheer scale of coordination required for such a hoax. For further exploration, primary sources like NASA’s Apollo archives or peer-reviewed studies on lunar samples provide robust documentation.If you have a specific piece of footage or claim you’d like analyzed, please provide details, and I can evaluate it further, including checking X posts or web sources for context if needed.

My uncle was on the team of engineers that designed and tested the Apollo rockets and vehicles. He later was the head of the engineering team that designed the space shuttle main engines. He says this Apollo conspiracy is completely ridiculous.

 

[Brent in Az]

Imagine how much could actually be achieved if the finger pointing was put on hold by all (emphasis on by all) for a year.

Yeah, but we all love the cloak & dagger stuff.

 

[Ray B]

Wow!! reading through the above, I never realized there was such controversy regarding the collapse of the twin towers. I had heard comments about staging the Moon landing, but they were mostly by comedians and I took them for what they were worth- jokes. As for the collapsing towers- I read they collapsed because the planes hit the buildings in their vulnerable spots- higher and there was insufficient upper mass to overwhelm the structure-lower and the structure was strong enough to withstand the weight. Whether this was on purpose or the infidels just got lucky, I don't know, but I think that it doesn't matter, the result was the same.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

My uncle was on the team of engineers that designed and tested the Apollo rockets and vehicles. He later was the head of the engineering team that designed the space shuttle main engines. He says this Apollo conspiracy is completely ridiculous.

But how are we supposed to know that your Uncle isn't "one of them?"

 

[Ray B]

But how are we supposed to know that your Uncle isn't "one of them?"

You could ask my brother-in-law. He was an engineer at the Skunk works with Lockheed. But then, how do you know that he isn't one of "them"?

 

[Scott CWO]

But how are we supposed to know that your Uncle isn't "one of them?"

I guess you’re right!? Now that I think about it, he also has a doctorate in mathematics, which makes him suspect in my mind!

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I guess you’re right!? Now that I think about it, he also has a doctorate in mathematics, which makes him suspect in my mind!

Could be one of the MIB!

 

[fourfive8]

Ya never know about those MIB.

They do exist, but as I’ve said before, they are not what everyone thinks and their job is not at all as Hollywood nor conspiracy theorists describe. They have been very successful… at a certain level. One can be a victim of psyops and never realize it.
… or so a Pug with a cosmic orb amulet tells me.

 

[fourfive8]

I have never believed those responsible for both twin towers collapsing on 9-11 really planned on that happening. They probably were trying to cause major damage with high casualty numbers for all their targets that day, They would have achieved that goal even if the towers hadn’t collapsed. IMO, Both towers collapsing was as big a surprise to them as it was to everyone else. They probably looked on with both disbelief and glee,

Understanding how two airliners could cause them to collapse in the manner they did is relatively simple physics. Both kinetic damage from the strikes and damage from heat of burning fuel and flammable materials simply took out enough structure of the affected floors/sections in both to set up a compounding cascade effect of momentum. The terrorists were simply coincidentally lucky with the results. Conversely, the earlier attempt, coordinated by Sheik Rahman in ‘93 was certainly intended to bring at least one down by compromising some of base support structure in the foundation.

 

[skydiver386]

Another one from the good idea fairy.

M240 Medium Machine Gun Successor Now Being Sought By U.S. Army

A replacement for the M240 machine gun could offer Army infantry and other units greater range and terminal effectiveness.

www.twz.com

 

[steve white]

I have never believed those responsible for both twin towers collapsing on 9-11 really planned on that happening. They probably were trying to cause major damage with high casualty numbers for all their targets that day, They would have achieved that goal even if the towers hadn’t collapsed. IMO, Both towers collapsing was as big a surprise to them as it was to everyone else. They probably looked on with both disbelief and glee,

Understanding how two airliners could cause them to collapse in the manner they did is relatively simple physics. Both kinetic damage from the strikes and damage from heat of burning fuel and flammable materials simply took out enough structure of the affected floors/sections in both to set up a compounding cascade effect of momentum. The terrorists were simply coincidentally lucky with the results. Conversely, the earlier attempt, coordinated by Sheik Rahman in ‘93 was certainly intended to bring at least one down by compromising some of base support structure in the foundation.

Personally, I think everyone who cheered and celebrated the attack should have been shot.

 

[Red Leg]

I have never believed those responsible for both twin towers collapsing on 9-11 really planned on that happening. They probably were trying to cause major damage with high casualty numbers for all their targets that day, They would have achieved that goal even if the towers hadn’t collapsed. IMO, Both towers collapsing was as big a surprise to them as it was to everyone else. They probably looked on with both disbelief and glee,

Understanding how two airliners could cause them to collapse in the manner they did is relatively simple physics. Both kinetic damage from the strikes and damage from heat of burning fuel and flammable materials simply took out enough structure of the affected floors/sections in both to set up a compounding cascade effect of momentum. The terrorists were simply coincidentally lucky with the results. Conversely, the earlier attempt, coordinated by Sheik Rahman in ‘93 was certainly intended to bring at least one down by compromising some of base support structure in the foundation.

I suspect that was very much their hope following the failed effort in '93, but I agree that the complete destruction exceeded their actual expectations. Bin Laden himself released a video in 2001 where he discussed the attack while proclaiming his engineering acumen. He said he expected the destruction of several floors and catastrophic fire damage.

His exact quote:
"We calculated in advance the number of casualties... Due to experience in this field, it was thought that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only."

"This is all that was hoped for."

We were very fortunate that the first tower in particular was not hit lower and an hour later. No one above the strike survived, and offices were only partially full due to the relatively early hour (0846 ET).

 

[Brent in Az]

Cloud seeding 2 days before the Texas flood?
Even a conspiracy theorist like me doesn't believe that nonsense

 

[Doug3006]

8:46am is early? Obviously I chose the wrong careers. I’d have been an hour late at least.

 

[barryk]

Well....this appears to be the new culture we live in. (6) Secret Service agents suspended for 10-40 days without pay for Butler attempted presidential assassination...ouch, that really hurts considering it was either gross intentional incompetence or just plain incompetence. Decades of intense training and experience rooted in these agents and they missed a a 100 yard shooter on a rooftop. Go sell that somewhere else. Even Trump seemed somewhat dismissive about holding SS accountable. Why has lack of accountability taken such a hold in our culture? I hold out little hope any investigation will ever uncover who was actually running this country under Biden.........seems kind of important who was calling the shots, making the decisions given the fact they were not elected. Seems like this might set some kind of precedent for whatever party holds office....but, let's just let bygones be bygones and move on....no sense in dwelling on the past. Saw a video of Ingram Angle last night with protesters getting in a "bicycle tug-of-war" with cops in San Francisco....really? No arrests, no "pain and compliance"? What a joke, without accountability, the Chaos will continue.

 

[rookhawk]

I also asked Grok to evaluate his assertions. I don't claim that AI "knows" any more than any other investigator but it can clear some of the fog.

Below are specific examples from Raul A. Angulo’s October 2024 article in the International Fire & Safety Journal where he questions the official narrative of the World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) collapse, along with counterarguments to address his claims. These examples focus on his key points that align with 9/11 conspiracy theories about WTC 7.

1. Claim: The Collapse Speed and Symmetry Suggest Controlled Demolition
   
   • Angulo’s Argument: Angulo states that WTC 7, a 47-story steel-framed high-rise, collapsed in approximately seven seconds with “perfect symmetry,” resembling a controlled demolition. He argues that an office fuel load fire could not cause such a rapid, uniform collapse, drawing on his 38 years of firefighting experience to assert that fire-induced collapses are typically partial and asymmetrical.
   • Specific Quote: “When I watched the video of WTC 7’s collapse, it was clear to me it did not look like any fire-induced collapse I had ever seen… The building came down in a perfectly symmetrical manner in about seven seconds.”
     • The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 2008 report explains that WTC 7’s collapse was not as uniform as claimed. The collapse occurred in three stages over 5.4 seconds: an initial slow phase (0–1.75 seconds), a near-free-fall phase (1.75–4 seconds), and a final slower phase (4–5.4 seconds). This is slower than the 3.9 seconds expected for true free fall, contradicting controlled demolition claims.
     • Video evidence shows the collapse began with the east penthouse, followed by the rest of the structure, indicating an internal failure of a critical column (Column 79) rather than a simultaneous demolition. The symmetry is explained by the building’s design, with long, unsupported floor spans that allowed progressive collapse once key supports failed.
     • Controlled demolitions require loud explosions and visible flashes, none of which were reported by firefighters, seismographs, or videos. NIST’s models, validated by structural engineers, show that fire-induced thermal expansion caused the failure, consistent with the observed collapse.
   • Angulo’s Argument: Angulo highlights a discrepancy in NIST’s reports about shear studs on WTC 7’s girders. He notes that NIST’s 2004 and 2005 interim reports confirmed the presence of shear studs on a critical girder connecting Column 79, but the 2008 final report claimed there were no shear studs, which was central to NIST’s explanation of the collapse. Angulo suggests this change was made to fit NIST’s fire-induced collapse theory, calling it a significant inconsistency.
   • Specific Quote: “The absence of shear studs in the 2008 report was critical to NIST’s theory, but earlier reports confirmed their presence. This discrepancy raises serious questions about the integrity of the investigation.”
     • NIST addressed this in its 2008 report and subsequent FAQs. The interim reports (2004, 2005) used preliminary structural data, but by 2008, NIST obtained detailed construction drawings from the Port Authority and Frankel Steel, confirming that the critical girder between Columns 79 and 44 lacked shear studs due to specific design choices. This was not a contradiction but a refinement based on better evidence.
     • The absence of shear studs allowed the girder to expand freely under fire-induced heat (up to 600°C), pushing it off its seat and triggering the collapse of Column 79. Even if shear studs were present, NIST’s models showed that thermal expansion would still cause failure, as the studs would shear under the forces involved.
     • Angulo’s claim ignores NIST’s transparent documentation of the data update and the peer-reviewed validation of its models by the American Society of Civil Engineers and other experts.

Why These Examples Fuel Conspiracy TheoriesAngulo’s arguments resonate with the 9/11 Truth Movement because they leverage his firefighting credentials to question technical details, creating an appearance of insider skepticism. His focus on NIST’s shear stud discrepancy and explosion reports echoes long-standing conspiracy claims, such as those by Richard Gage and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. However, his arguments cherry-pick data, ignore NIST’s detailed explanations, and lack support from the structural engineering community.

The remaining inconsistencies I would see for Grok's counterclaims would be this:

1.) They cite Plasco tower in Tehran as an example of a similarly rated building collapsing under similar fire conditions. Here's a video of the asymmetric collapse of that building, whereas WT7 fell perfectly within its footprint.

2.) It ignores the statement made by owner Larry Silverstein to "pull" the building: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/19RTZxmRPH/

3.) It ignores the conflicting testimony as to who directed FDNY to withdraw from the building, why there would be a presumption of a collapse of that type of building so quickly, etc. I don't have a clear timeline on this element so I'm not proclaiming a verdict, but the "fog of war" during the firefight of WT7 is peculiar and not completely satisfactory.

As to Grok, I can't speak for Grok but I'm a daily user of ChatGPT. It's an amazing tool but it is terrifying how 100% wrong it is on a daily basis. It must be double checked. A random example from this week was asking it if Harry Carey and John Wayne were ever in a film together with a plot line about a blind woman. It was adamant it never, ever occurred. A search of IMDB was able to prove it was incorrect. Last month I asked it about proof loads from the UK for 375HH and it gave a wide range of cordite grain weights. When I questioned its source material repeatedly, over and over it evaded. Eventually it crumbled under pressure and admitted "I have no primary sources to reference for where I drew these facts". AI is awesome for proof reading and refining an email, its really dangerous when it comes to citation of fact with sources.

 

[rookhawk]

I suspect that was very much their hope following the failed effort in '93, but I agree that the complete destruction exceeded their actual expectations. Bin Laden himself released a video in 2001 where he discussed the attack while proclaiming his engineering acumen. He said he expected the destruction of several floors and catastrophic fire damage.

His exact quote:
"We calculated in advance the number of casualties... Due to experience in this field, it was thought that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only."

"This is all that was hoped for."

We were very fortunate that the first tower in particular was not hit lower and an hour later. No one above the strike survived, and offices were only partially full due to the relatively early hour (0846 ET).

No conclusion, just a question. Isn't it odd that the Pentagon, arguably one of the most secure buildings in the world had such poor video footage of the attack on 9/11? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of a contrary account, I just found it bizarre that the footage was so limited. Wouldn't it have been better for the Pentagon to state what is likely true? "This place is crawling with security apparatus but to maintain national security, we are withholding certain footages to protect the nation?". (That would appease me and give me confidence that Senators with appropriate access were able to review to their satisfaction that which is logically in existence, yet the Pentagon claims does not exist)

 

[Doug3006]

No conclusion, just a question. Isn't it odd that the Pentagon, arguably one of the most secure buildings in the world had such poor video footage of the attack on 9/11? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of a contrary account, I just found it bizarre that the footage was so limited. Wouldn't it have been better for the Pentagon to state what is likely true? "This place is crawling with security apparatus but to maintain national security, we are withholding certain footages to protect the nation?". (That would appease me and give me confidence that Senators with appropriate access were able to review to their satisfaction that which is logically in existence, yet the Pentagon claims does not exist)

I don’t think any release of information, evidence or testimony of government officials will ever put the conspiracies to rest. We are a suspicious lot. Sometimes that’s a good thing. Sometimes it’s just aggravating.

 

[rookhawk]

I don’t think any release of information, evidence or testimony of government officials will ever put the conspiracies to rest. We are a suspicious lot. Sometimes that’s a good thing. Sometimes it’s just aggravating.

The Pentagon needs the public trust. If I'm to take them at face value that they had one parking lot camera that captured 9/11 and they claim to be one of the most secure buildings in the world, how the hell can I trust them to deploy taxpayer capital effectively in their appropriation bills?

I assure you if I was to walk into Langley or Quantico to put a job application on the front desk I'd be on 50 camera feeds. But not the Pentagon? What the hell is wrong with this country?

 

[mdwest]

thats one non classified, publicly disclosed camera feed..

I can assure you that there are all sorts of sensors, cameras, and other security devices located all over the property as well as other locations surrounding the property that monitor who and what is approaching, how its approaching, etc.. at distances ranging from miles to inches..

most of those devices, much like Langley or Quantico arent going to be disclosed for obvious reasons..

Regarding them deploying taxpayer capital effectively.... that doesnt happen.. the Pentagon is as effective at managing a budget in the traditional business sense of the phrase as 3 chimps would be at managing a banana tree plantation.. Im not sure its ever happened.. it certainly hasnt in the time period that I have been working with the DoD... its actually one of the things they are worst at IMO.. you should NEVER trust that your tax dollars are being properly managed by ANY agency of the federal government..

Just because they (the pentagon) are cutting budgets now and supposedly pushing to become more efficient doesnt mean they will be more effective at deploying taxpayer capital.. If anything they may actually get worse on the effectiveness front.. efficient and effective are different things.. and the Pentagon has historically sucked at both when it comes to money (they at times have been incredibly efficient and effective at war fighting though)..