Some rational thought with Mike Shermer

[Randall]

Thanks for posting. That is quite an array of experiences on your web page. They're all very interesting. I might have to reevaluate my dismissive view of MIB.

Ya. The MIB thing wasn't even something that had fizzed on me yet when I had that first experience. So imagine years later finding out about them, complete with the traveling in threes and vintage Cadillacs. What I found personally kind of humorous is that they'd devolved into K-Cars by the time I had the experience in the 90s ... LOL. Something bizarre is up with all that. But I dunno what. My best guess is that the totality of MIB reports are made up largely of private investigators, government agents, corporate reps, and hoaxes, with these mystery players forming some small percentage of cases. I dunno the answer. Aliens? Some league of extraordinary gentlemen? I haven't had anything really bizarre happen to me in years now.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Thanks for posting that. This is exactly the kind of thing I try to get across to people when I say there's no way I'm the only one in the world who's seen one of these types of things. An excellent case! I have of course run across the written account before, but never knew there was a video. Great find! I really must add that case to the USI website.

You're welcome Thank you for posting your account. I probably would have been petrified watching that.

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

For anyone who's interested, I made this artist's impression of the object in my sighting, as if it were seen from much closer ( 30 - 40 yards ):



I believe the illustration is fairly accurate. I used an actual forest scene photographed in the area the UFO was observed. The size is accurate to within a meter or two, and the color is also very close. Perhaps if I had been closer and had protective eyewear, I might have been able to see if there was an internal structure, but since that wasn't the case, I decided to just go with the way it looked. Note that a the UFO descended into the forest, it could be seen illuminating the trees below it, going down behind the tree tops in front of it, and finally its light shining out through the branches, until it seemed to land and its light went dark.

Skeptics have tried to claim that one cannot see an object like that at night that far away, however that simply isn't true. I've watch aircraft on approach from much farther away, and cars on the highway way farther off in the distance. For that matter I've watched satellites with no illumination of their own, just reflecting the Sun, go overhead at night, and most of them are out past the ISS, which is 250 miles out, and it's well accepted by sky watchers and astronomers that under the right circumstances, satellites can be seen all the way out in space with the naked eye. I once even watched one of the space stations come over during daylight!

So skeptics will sometimes just make up stuff if they have no other explanation. How does Shermer explain that I wonder? Is that rational? Doesn't seem like it to me.

That's weird I saw your picture amongst the trees and it reminded me that I did see a similar glowing white will o wisp in the woods as a teenager but I was on mushrooms so I never thought it counted.

 

[Randall]

For anyone who's interested, I made this artist's rendition of the object in my sighting, as if it were seen from much closer ( 30 - 40 yards ):




I believe the illustration is fairly accurate. I used an actual forest scene photographed in the area the UFO was observed. The size is accurate to within a meter or two, and the color is also very close. Perhaps if I had been closer and had protective eyewear, I might have been able to see if there was an internal structure, but since that wasn't the case, I decided to just go with the way it looked. Note that as the UFO descended into the forest, it could be seen illuminating the trees below it, going down behind the tree tops in front of it, and finally its light shining out through the branches, until it seemed to land and its light went dark.

Skeptics have tried to claim that one cannot see an object like that at night that far away, however that simply isn't true. I've watch aircraft on approach from much farther away, and cars on the highway way farther off in the distance. For that matter I've watched satellites with no illumination of their own, just reflecting the Sun, go overhead at night, and most of them are out past the ISS, which is 250 miles out, and it's well accepted by sky watchers and astronomers that under the right circumstances, satellites can be seen all the way out in space with the naked eye. I once even watched one of the space stations come over during daylight!

So skeptics will sometimes just make up stuff if they have no other explanation. How does Shermer explain that I wonder? Is that rational? Doesn't seem like it to me.

 

[TheBitterOne]

I agree with some points of his; like just once (Just once please) - can we get the irrifutible footage or photo? All these years and not one?? I'm a believer but it makes me wonder; how is this possible? There's 800 trillion photos videos that are inconclusive or hoaxes, but not one valid one? And then the ones that seem like the "ah ha! We finally got it!" (like Meier, Ed Walters, etc.) are always hoaxes. As Spock would say, this is not logical..

How is this possible?

Um...the simple answer is: we don't know.

See? Two can play at that game.

Neither you nor Shermer have the slightest clue whether you've seen any genuine UFO photos or videos; you just pretend to know that you haven't.

Perhaps the force behind such craft might also possess the technology to block or erase high quality human recordings of them - a phenomenon that has often been noted by eyewitnesses.

If somebody is hiding from you, is it a surprise that you can't see them?

Like most big S skeptics, Shermer is a lightweight buffoon with nothing but childish arguments to support his pathologically myopic worldview.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I hear you. But I think most of the time Shermer doesn't necessarily say that it's "nonsense" but just "we don't know. He usually says going from "lights in the sky to it was a flying saucer from outer space" is a far stretch. He says it doesn't mean the witness didn't see what they claim, but it's just an "unknown". I agree with some points of his; like just once (Just once please) - can we get the irrifutible footage or photo? All these years and not one?? I'm a believer but it makes me wonder; how is this possible? There's 800 trillion photos videos that are inconclusive or hoaxes, but not one valid one? And then the ones that seem like the "ah ha! We finally got it!" (like Meier, Ed Walters, etc.) are always hoaxes. As Spock would say, this is not logical.

But still I look & hope. When I was 8 years old, I felt comfort that knowing in my lifetime that this mystery would be solved. Or at the very least establish that flying discs from other worlds do exist. Now I'm 44 and were basically back where we were was I was 8.

It is very true that a photo alone, however good, is never proof of anything really. UFO photos, to be taken at all seriously really need some corroborating evidence to back them up. For instance, 2 or more separate photos of the same object but taken from different cameras at different vantage points, possible with some other eyewitnesses thrown in for good measure. With all that, you conceivably have excellent evidence. Not a smoking gun but as close as we are likely to get with photography alone. I think the only 'smoking gun' that will ever settle the UFO question is a bone fide landed or crashed UFO that people can touch and see up close and personal.

So If we set aside UFO photos being 'proof' in isolation, then we can still say that there are many fantastic photos of UFOs available. I believe that I have seen stacks of fantastic UFO photos that are not just lights in the sky. I cannot prove they are not hoaxes and I certainly cannot prove they are 'alien' but at the same time, owing to the sheer numbers of them, I simply do not think they are all hoaxes or conventional objects and as far as most of us know, many of them do not conform to any known human built configuration.

The one thing that the skeptics cannot account for in many cases are flight characteristics that are simply impossible for our technology and current understanding of mass and inertia. There are a number of videos that demonstrate this very well with near-instant acceleration and deceleration coupled with right-angled turns. Never mind a human pilot getting squished, our aircraft frames and wings and engines would be squished. To me these observations are the real indicator that witnesses have seen something truly unidentified.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

It is very true that a photo alone, however good, is never proof of anything really. UFO photos, to be taken at all seriously really need some corroborating evidence to back them up. For instance, 2 or more separate photos of the same object but taken from different cameras at different vantage points, possible with some other eyewitnesses thrown in for good measure. With all that, you conceivably have excellent evidence. Not a smoking gun but as close as we are likely to get with photography alone. I think the only 'smoking gun' that will ever settle the UFO question is a bone fide landed or crashed UFO that people can touch and see up close and personal.

So If we set aside UFO photos being 'proof' in isolation, then we can still say that there are many fantastic photos of UFOs available. I believe that I have seen stacks of fantastic UFO photos that are not just lights in the sky. I cannot prove they are not hoaxes and I certainly cannot prove they are 'alien' but at the same time, owing to the sheer numbers of them, I simply do not think they are all hoaxes or conventional objects and as far as most of us know, many of them do not conform to any known human built configuration.

The one thing that the skeptics cannot account for in many cases are flight characteristics that are simply impossible for our technology and current understanding of mass and inertia. There are a number of videos that demonstrate this very well with near-instant acceleration and deceleration coupled with right-angled turns. Never mind a human pilot getting squished, our aircraft frames and wings and engines would be squished. To me these observations are the real indicator that witnesses have seen something truly unidentified.

Agreed. I know eyewitness testimony has a horrific track record, but in certain instances, I find it as close to the smoking gun as one can get. One in particular is the U.S. Army Coyne helicopter incident. Small crew, physical effect from UFO on helicopter, all crewman witnessed the event (and supposedly a family that was pulled over on the side of the road as well). Coyne gives a good description of the object. It was structured and he could see detail. Either this event happened as described or the other option is that the crew was flying and was bored and one of them said "hey guys, I have an idea that will probably ruin our military careers and haunt us negatively for the rest of our lives." - "I'm interested, tell me more..." - "well, what if we say we all saw a flying saucer and....."

The later option makes no sense. So as far as I'm concerned, the event happened as described.

 

[Vimana]

I gotta say this Mr. Fibuli and I could likely share a beer and have a good talk. I too am "reality agnostic" but never defined it like that til now. Thanks Mr Fib!

I seem to find myself in a highly subjective reality, where even the most intense shared experiences are remembered in opposition, and there is not one set-in-stone TRUTH. I attempt, often poorly, to accommodate this notion in everyday life.

Ps Everyone come to Colorado the first round is on me

 

[Cat Jockey]

The thing is: Being a skeptic is just way too easy
...
Maybe Shermer should remember that cognitive dissonance works both ways. Sure, people who believe nonsense are reluctant to change their mind about it, but then again, people who believe that something is nonsense when it's not are just as reluctant to change their mind about that too. I wonder how many hard-core skeptics would refuse to believe their own eyes and keep it to themselves if they saw an alien craft firsthand? I suspect there would be at least a few.

I like those points you make. I would add that it goes waaay beyond being too easy. Starting with it being intentionally ingrained into society. Conspiracy Theorist = Nut Job. That is what we are 'taught/reinforced with'. There are points along that Path of Truth where one is constantly bombarded with the anxious/uncomfortable feeling to stop. To not keep pressing down the Rabbit Hole, but simply park oneself in a dead end side hole, and go no further down in search of the Truth. For the further down the Hole you go, the more you realize that there is a significant amount of what you have always believed to be true that simply ain't. That everything you believe is a lie. Okay, maybe not everything, lol, but a whole bunch of what one thinks true, what the 'average' person thinks true, is a steaming pile of BS. Intentional BS. Intentional as in not an accident, and we are led astray from the Truth from Day One.

And that is 'too much' to handle for guys like Shermer, whom I am wholly unimpressed with - he is as reactionary and dogmatic as any devoutly religious person, and far more close minded thatn those, like me, that he insults. Yes, skepticism is a religion. A set of beliefs, or rather, a disposition to automatically disbelieve things if they run counter to what Authority tells us. He is an intellectual coward, mentally afraid to challenge dogma, who profits off of that cowardice in my book ...

Skeptics, like Shermer, are Accident/Coincidence Theorists - everything that happens that runs counter to what 'should' (according to his expectations) happen is just one big, happy, damn accident, and nothing else. Nobody in a position of power lies, and everything is just a big assed coincidence/accident, according to guys like Shermer.

To even begin that journey down the Rabbit Hole makes a whole bunch 'o people real damn uncomfortable. So they stay on the Kool-Aid. And make fun of people like me, lol. Ufologists aren't mocked to the extent that 'Conspiracy Theorists' are. Almost half of Americans give credence to shiny flying saucers and little green men from other planets. Tell them 9/11 was a bunch 'o crap or that there is an oligarchical structure running the world, and have been for centuries, and you get laughed at, even though, for what is at stake, people should expect such cabals to exist, for no other reason than what is at stake to gain for power.

Shermer mentioned that the larger the conspiracy, the more people that needed to be involved, and the more likely that the conspiracy is not true. Funny thing is, I spent the better part of a decade after 9/11 using that as my Numero Uno argument. My go to response to the 'nutjob truthers'. No way could there be a Conspiracy involved, and of course those buildings all fell because of fire, for there wold have to be too many people involved, and if nothing else, somebody WILL spill the beans and tell the Truth. Add to that that those involved would have to be probably both foreign and domestic, as well as high ranking members of government and the Military, etc., well, of course 9/11 happened exactly like we were told and 'saw'.

And then, about 6-7 years ago, I had to start believing my lyin' eyes, for they were not lying. To stop being afraid to believe the Truth. It does NOT matter how 'unlikely' a conspiracy would be, according to him. It is absolutely possible, and the EVIDENCE IS STARING ME IN THE FACE. I know what the hell I am watching here, and so does everybody else - it is simply an issue of WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT AND BELIEVE THE TRUTH:

You do NOT need to be a structural engineer, nor building demolition expert, to know what you are watching. You are watching a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of a building. NOTHING looks like a building demolition but a building demolition. NOTHING. There is only one thing that can make a CONCRETE and STEEL building fall like that - a controlled demolition. That's it.

Here is a comparison with a 2005 skyscraper fire in Madrid:

Now, that building is on fire. Way more 'on fire' than WTC 1,2, or 7 ever were. Yet, it still stands while fire supposedly turned those buildings to dust ...

Shermer addressed the World Wide Conspiracy, which 9/11 is a part of. Not trying to initiate a discussion about 9/11 specifically, just using it as an example of how difficult it is for people to accept Truth staring them in the face (like the WTC7 video staring you in the face, telling you EXACTLY what happened on 9/11; namely some people other than the 19 Arabs and Al Q we are told did it set their Conspiratorial Plans into motion) if it goes against what they are being told by Authority Figures and were raised to believe. Add to it that skeptics think people who accept the truth about things like 9/11 are nutjobs, or idiots, etc., and well, guys like Sherman arrogantly sip their Kool-Aid, telling everyone that it is coffee he is drinking and serving instead of what it really is - BS, indoctrinated flavored Kool-Aid.

But, boy. To accept that as Truth means you have to pretty much ditch and throw out the window everything you thought you knew about your government and military and start over. That is WAAAAAAY too uncomfortable for a whole bunch 'o people. Like, apparently, the majority of people, lol.

And dudes like Shermer turn into condescending pricks concerning the 9/11 issue (and other issues), despite the EVIDENCE in front of their face, and I do not respect his intellect nearly as much as his own pompous ass does. As mentioned, I am unimpressed with his thought process and find it quite immature and shallow, often flying in the face of the very logic he claims is in his sole possession ...

 

[Randall]

I think there's more to the 911 attacks than we're being told, but at the same time, something most people don't consider is that even if there was a controlled demolition, it doesn't necessarily mean "conspiracy". I've mentioned this before but you may not have run across it. Basically, the WTC had been the target of pervious attempts to bring it down, and it was discovered in follow-up investigations that the intent was to make it topple sideways to maximize the damage. Knowing this to be the case, and that the WTC was an ongoing target, consider the possibility that if there was a controlled demolition, that it was a secret last-ditch fail-safe .

Because of the secrecy needed to put such a plan into action, the numbers of people would naturally be kept to a minimum, sworn to secrecy, and given cover clearances to do the work. All this fits with the situation. So it may be the case that a controlled demolition did happen, but not as a conspiracy to create damage, but rather to minimize it. This makes way more sense than thinking our own people were out to get us from the inside.

 

[William Strathmann]

I also accepted the "conventional" explanation for years, like you Cat Jockey. I'd had an eight year stint as a firefighter prior to 9/11, and I'd seen how lower temp fires can seriously deform metal without melting it. However, several years ago I became familiar with building 7's collapse in ~ 6.5 seconds, nano-thermite residue in the dust, and a review of the construction of the towers by the 9/11 Architects and Engineers organization. They emphasized that high rise buildings are designed much stronger toward the base of the structure, so as to safely support the structure's weight and flex stresses. Thus regarding the Twin Towers, it might have been possible for upper floors to collapse down several floors below the level of the plane strikes. But it is highly unlikely that both towers would collapse all the way to the ground in ten or so seconds. There is just too much mass of "undamaged" building structure there to allow a near free-fall rate of collapse. So, the conclusion of the architects and engineers is that the building was not "undamaged" below the floors where the planes struck.

Dr. Jones' rough estimation of the amount of nano-thermite present, admittedly based on a very small sample of dust, is at least ten tons. But good grief, a semi trailer can carry up to 25 tons of cargo. So if we are talking highly energetic nano-thermite material, then it is very likely quite dense, and thus a very heavy load in a relatively small package. So a couple, three semi trailers might have brought in these materials, which were placed in the internal column structure, probably at night. In '93 a truck was driven in to one of the towers with a ton or so of DIY explosive. So, there have been people dedicated to destroying the towers. Nano-thermite, strategically placed, would be much more effective than the DIY bomb. In any case, Shermer makes the ridiculous comment that conspirators involved in the WTC building collapses would certainly have bragged about what they did. Oh. Okay. Right. Murder of nearly 3000 people, and someone is going to go out bragging about it? Like Duuhhhh! I by no means think Bush and Cheney planned and executed 9/11, nor do I think most of the members of the 9/11 Architects and Engineers organization hold that view. But Shermer and the interveiwer stuck with that rather fringy assertion throughout the interview. I do think US bureaucratic inertia aided a highly sophisticated attack on 9/11 that simply rode the back of the less-sophisticated 19 hijackers' attack.

 

[Cat Jockey]

I think there's more to the 911 attacks than we're being told, but at the same time, something most people don't consider is that even if there was a controlled demolition, it doesn't necessarily mean "conspiracy". I've mentioned this before but you may not have run across it. Basically, the WTC had been the target of pervious attempts to bring it down, and it was discovered in follow-up investigations that the intent was to make it topple sideways to maximize the damage. Knowing this to be the case, and that the WTC was an ongoing target, consider the possibility that if there was a controlled demolition, that it was a secret last-ditch fail-safe .

That's an interesting theory. I would have to consider it as possible. What happens if a repeat of WTC 1998 occurs and the building doesn't fall, but is so damaged it eventually will and it is dangerous to be in and try to place demolitions to deal with it post-bombing? That'd be a helluva mess - building is/will fall down and take a bunch 'o stuff out with it, but it is too dangerous to work in or around to properly rig it to implode.

But, in the case of what happened on 9/11, I don't think it probable because of all of the other issues.

Fire has never imploded buildings like this. And the only three ALLEGED cases in existence all occurred on 9/11. Additionally, WTC 1&2 were designed to handle the impact of an airplane - the architect designed that into them because they were so tall and dominating on the NY skyline. Point being, nobody had any reason to believe those buildings were in any danger of toppling over. You could argue they just had an itchy trigger finger, since such plans were in place, so what the hell and use them. But, that would be to ignore the other 'issues'.

There aren't just issues with WTC7, but with everything. Problems with what we are told about 1 & 2. Problems with the Pentagon and way too small of a hole for a plane as big as what supposedly hit it. Hell, before you get that far, one needs to explain how someone with no real flying experience was able to maneuver that particular plane along the supposed flight path it took. Problems with what we are told about Flight 93. A whole bunch 'o problems everywhere you look, not just with WTC 7.

Problems to the point that there is no way but to incriminate at least some high ranking members of the government and military.

It has been a while since I looked into 9/11, but this is one of the better documentaries I have come across and the clip about the Madrid Tower fire comes from it. It is a professional production from Europe. It presents plenty of issues the theory you present won't explain.

Because of the secrecy needed to put such a plan into action, the numbers of people would naturally be kept to a minimum, sworn to secrecy, and given cover clearances to do the work. All this fits with the situation. So it may be the case that a controlled demolition did happen, but not as a conspiracy to create damage, but rather to minimize it. This makes way more sense than thinking our own people were out to get us from the inside.

Sworn to secrecy about what? I ask that to stimulate the thought that with things like this, there are most likely multiple layers of knowledge with many people who are 'in the know' being nothing more than Useful Idiots unaware of the true objectives they are working towards; that they are helping Bad Intentions and are unaware of their doing so, often thinking the opposite - that they are working towards good ends.

It 'may be the case', lol? You know what you are watching there. We all do. There is only ONE thing that can make a metal framed building fall like that - intentional demolition by precise eradication of specific support columns in precise order and timing. That's it. The only question concerning WTC 7 is the technology used - conventional explosives, thermite, or something else. Dr. Judy Wood presents an interesting argument for some type of Directed Energy Weapon to have been at play. She points out some very interesting 'weird' things that defy explanation with conventional demolitions or thermite.

This makes way more sense than thinking our own people were out to get us from the inside.

'Our own people?' What makes you think the people who had a hand in this consider me one of Them? That they are 'my people' working for my best interest? What makes you think it localized to members of just the US government? I am of the Profane, not the Elite. I am a debt slave and cannon fodder to The Powers That Be. The proverbial Profane Pawn to be appeased with the dichotomy presented by the Hegelian Dialectic in the political system, to constantly label my fellow Profane as The Enemy for being on the Left when I am on the Right, or for being on the Right when I am on the Left.

Personally, I consider 9/11 international in scope and players.

Once it became clear to me what happened on 9/11 concerning each of the four supposedly hijakced planes, I decided to see if I could go back to the starting point for when such elements could have entered the US government and the 'Things' it stood for. The principles us Bloody Yanks have been blathering about for a couple centuries, like self governance, freedom of choice, etc. All kinds of things, like that whole Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness that Jefferson dude wrote about in the Declaration us Americans have been so proud of.

Conspiracy 101 is, of course, the Banksters and the money system, and how the Federal Reserve, the PRIVATELY OWNED entity that prints our money, makes money off of our debt. But, the current iteration of this Central Bank only goes back to the early 1900's. So, things were all swell, and shit, prior to that, right? Hardly ...

Well, ufology, once I got back to Benjamin Franklin and the Secret Societies he was involved in in both London and Paris, like the Hellfire Club in England and La Loge des Neuf Sœurs in France, and things like skeletons being dug up under the house he lived in while in London (this was recent, and can be found on BBC media - a legitimate story), well, that whole Illuminati, as well as opposition, thing has been here in the US from the start ...

That is a tough one to get over and accept - our own people were out to get us from the inside. Yup. Some of them, at least. And my opinion is that for what ever 'good' on the inside providing resistance, well, they are getting their asses kicked right now, so this Knucklehead of the Profane is out to save my own ass, lol, which ties into my other, and more important research I brought up in the Ancient Mysteries forum, which includes the Spiritual/Paranormal side of things, some of which I have been researching long before 9/11.

I personally put little green men in shiny flying saucers from other planets at the bottom of the list for explaining any of this stuff, and that includes radar readings and abductions, and everything else, hence I am not a UFOlogist - I do not subscribe to the Flying Object theory to explain away this stuff. And I am quite certain there are those that have far more knowledge of this paranormal stuff than you would initially think.

Those behind things like 9/11 are themselves quite concerned in that Spiritual/Paranormal side of things, too, and I am sure They don't believe in little green men and flying saucers, either ...

 

[Randall]

That's an interesting theory. I would have to consider it as possible. What happens if a repeat of WTC 1998 occurs and the building doesn't fall, but is so damaged it eventually will and it is dangerous to be in and try to place demolitions to deal with it post-bombing? That'd be a helluva mess - building is/will fall down and take a bunch 'o stuff out with it, but it is too dangerous to work in or around to properly rig it to implode.

But, in the case of what happened on 9/11, I don't think it probable because of all of the other issues...

But the thing is, a controlled demolition set-off by the good guys to prevent an even bigger catastrophe actually fits with all the other issues I'm aware of. That's what I'm getting at. If it had been set off by the bad guys, they would have made the buildings go over on their side to create even more destruction. Instead it was a near perfect collapse into their own footprint, which contained the damage as much as possible under the circumstances.

 

[Cat Jockey]

Forget about NYC for a minute. Think about all of the other issues. Like the Pentagon. Whatever it was that hit the Pentagon, it sure as hell wasn't the airplane the government said it was. You can 'know' this from multiple things. From pilots telling us that there are things that plane supposedly did in its flight pattern that would be sketchy to try (if not certain things being flat out impossible) for an expert pilot, let alone a flight school drop out that has never even flown a jet plane before. Additionally, the hole ain't big enough. The hole in the Pentagon was about 15 feet wide. How does a jet liner pull that off? Many issues surrounding the Pentagon.

Your time is yours, not mine, and it's no sweat off my balls if you never watch it, but that video I posted goes through multiple points that have nothing to do with WTC 1,2 or 7 that your theory doesn't really address as far as absolving internal involvement and that something very, very different happened that day than the BS thrown out there. I don't say that to be combative, just my honest opinion. The vast majority of people simply haven't looked too far into it all and aren't aware of all the issues with story we were told. And one of the biggest reasons I attribute that lack of 'looking into' to is the fact the most people are good human beings, and could never imagine other humans being capable of such deeds on such large scale and being in positions of power, to boot.

They are ...

If it had been set off by the bad guys, they would have made the buildings go over on their side to create even more destruction.

Were the actual, REAL bad guys the 19 Arab men we are told were responsible, I probably would fully agree with that, for they had a limited number of airplanes and it would have maximized damage for the limited weapons.

But, those 19 dudes aren't the REAL bad guys, and the ultimate goal of 9/11 was NOT to cause as much destruction in NYC as possible.

Take a look at everything that has happened on a global scale since, and as a direct result of, that day. All of the war, death, destruction. All of the financiers of the war making money, the defense contractors making money, etc. Governments deposed and executed and replaced, etc. US Military Bases installed in regions nowhere near the US and where none existed before. How many billions upon billions upon billions of dollars have been spent as a direct result of 9/11?

The reduction of Rights of Americans in the name of security with things like the Patriot Act.

How few hands have those billions upon billions of dollars been funneled to?

None of that required maximum damage from limited weapons, did it? There was never any need to cause maximum damage in NYC, in addition to it being in Their best interest to not cause a bigger mess than They did, taking longer to clean up, exposing themselves to more questions and investigation of the scene before it [evidence] was all hauled off, lickity split, to China and melted down as scrap metal.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on that particular point, which is okay with me. I am a Cat that likes to take a real big step backwards with this stuff. Get a better and clearer view of the Big Picture. 9/11 is just one piece of the puzzle that is that Big Picture, and just one more despicable act in a long, long list of such acts at the hands of The Powers That Be ...

 

[Randall]

...But, those 19 dudes aren't the REAL bad guys, and the ultimate goal of 9/11 was NOT to cause as much destruction in NYC as possible ...

I guess that all depends on what story you choose to believe from whom. I'm going on alleged informant information obtained by investigators following the first trade center bombings. But on top of that there seems to be far too much evidence that actual hijacked planes were flown into the towers by Islamic nut jobs, so how can you reasonably claim that they didn't want to cause as much damage as possible? FFS they flew giant jetliners into skyscrapers! LOL ... Really. Think about it. Would they do that to cause as little damage as possible? That's ludicrous.

People have also provided explanations for the pentagon plane that makes sense to me. So I don't believe this was a case of our own people staging an attack. I do think that there are oddities, but that those oddities can be better explained by the alternative "friendly conspiracy" I've already mentioned. Do I have proof of that? No. Just like you and nobody else has proof it was some other conspiracy. All we know for sure is that there were good guys and bad guys and the story is more complex than we're probably ever going to know, and someplace in there I think some kind of heist from the basement vaults took place we've never been told about too. But again, where's the proof?

 

[Decker]

Well, getting back to the start of this thread ... I know Dr. Mike Shermer. I had an interesting encounter with Shermer. So, prior to telling you what that encounter entailed ... let me state that in my opinion ... Mike Shermer is just another full of shit skeptic.

Prior to his death, Dr. Scott Littleton, a prof. at Occidental College, used to invite me to address his class each spring about the topic of the UFO phenomena and how the news media covered UFOs. The last time he invited me he asked me if I would be open to debating another academic, Dr. Mike Shermer ... a history prof. and phenomena skeptic. I knew Shermer already and told Scott that was fine with me.

Shermer knew me because I had been the first guy to interview him on my old radio show UFOs Tonite! along with Dwight Schultz back in the 1990's. He and I had also appeared on another LA radio program sometime later.

Shermer and I entered Littleton's class room .. Shermer carrying a bunch of material his 11 or 12 year old daughter prepared for her school presentation on a talk she gave dissing UFOs. I suppose he thought this material was good enough to use on me. At any rate we began our back and forth when we drifted on to the subject of Col. Phil Corso and The Day After Roswell book written by Corso and Bill Birnes.

Regardless of your feelings on that book and what it had to say about Corso and the Roswell incident ... Shermer began by calling Corso a "wanna be", a liar, a confabulator and on and on. He was tearing the book and Corso apart like only a die-hard debunker can do.

Now, I will tell you that over the years my feelings about Corso and Birnes book have been conflicted. Conflicted because I knew who Corso was prior to this book coming out. I knew Corso's background and what he was doing from the end of WWII up thru the 1950's. I knew who he was because of his work with MIA-POWs from WW I thru Vietnam. I respected Corso for that. So, I asked Shermer about the book. He evaded my question. Oops ... he should not have done that because he tripped my old "cop" alarm. I began to badger him ... did you READ THIS BOOK Dr. Shermer? He still tried to evade my question so I really bored in on him. By now I knew he had not read it. I just had that "gut feeling." He then broke down and admitted before that entire class room that he had NOT READ The Day After Roswell. That class room of kids were shocked. Here was a respected Prof. that had just blown all his credibility out the window.

As an aftermath, Littleton and I and Shermer were to have lunch after the debate and Shermer refused to show up ... he split and was no where to be found. That is why I stated at the beginning of this note that in my opinion Mike Shermer is just another full of shit and dishonest skeptic.

Decker

 

[Waller]

The thing is: Being a skeptic is just way too easy. You don't have to interview witnesses. You don't have to go out into the field. You don't have to come up with outside-the-box solutions to try to explain anything. You don't even have to bother to get up and look out the window. All you have to do is sit there in your comfy chair parroting the stereotypical bla bla bla ... It was just a misperception or your imagination or sleep paralysis or whatever.

Just make something up knowing that the pseudoskeptical crowd-sheeples who adore and froth at the feet of these pseudocelebrities will fall inline and spit back your BS with glee and the bravado of the pseudointellectual...without putting out the slightest effort to do their own damn work instead of being mesmerized by utter nonsense.

Yeah, there are loads of peoples who are like that.

 

[Cat Jockey]

I guess that all depends on what story you choose to believe from whom. I'm going on alleged informant information obtained by investigators following the first trade center bombings.

My position on 9/11 is not about who's story I believe. There is only ONE story being sold, and that is the Official Story. My position is one of EVIDENCE of things like controlled demolitions, and all of the other evidence available concerning The Powers That Be and an oligarchical structure running things spanning centuries and geography. That info you relate could be legitimate while there still being nefarious intent and goals behind the whole thing. This gets back to that Useful Idiot concept, of which They oft employ. It goes like this:

Bad Guy: "Hey Joe. We're worried that we'll have a repeat of 1993. We came up with the idea of pre-rigging the WTC complex to implode in the event a building is so damaged by an attack that it needs to come down (or whatever reason BG chooses). This is serious work, Joe, and we need damn good men, like you, and National Security is involved, so you are sworn to secrecy. Here, sign this saying you'll keep yer mouth shut. Now, say one damn word about any of this, and your ass will be thrown in jail."

Joe:" Wow! You want me to help keep the country safe? And I need to keep it a secret? I must be important and feel so cool and privileged to be on the 'inside'. Of course I'll help save lives and rig the WTC complex for demolition, and must keep this all a secret, for the general public just wouldn't 'understand' and does not need to know."

Bad Guy to himself after Joe signs away his freedom to talk about it and leaves: "Sucker, lol. What a dumbass that Useful Idiot is. He thinks he is doing 'good and pure' work to help 'save' America from bad guys. He has NO CLUE as to the REAL REASON we want those buildings rigged to blow, or that the whole 19 Fundamentalist Islamists who don't know how to fly pulling off a Tom Cruise rendition from Top Gun with their flying skills committing suicide is a pile of BS. What a dumbass. These people deserve everything we give them and take from them ..."

See how easy that kind of stuff is for Them?

And, again, if what you suggest is indeed what actually happened in NYC, then how do you explain the Pentagon and all of the issues with that official story, or with Flight 93? It isn't just NYC where what we are told doesn't match what we watched, but with all 4 flights and incidents. And with the hijackers themselves, there are issues. MULTIPLE issues from multiple angles.You can find pilots (plural) telling you that the flight path of Pentagon Plane is not anything any one of those 19 alleged hijackers (non-pilots who had never flown jets before) could have pulled off, and an expert would probably crash half the damn time trying. Let alone that particular plane not being capable of certain things, or a little bitty hole in the Pentagon that a 757 wouldn't even come close to fitting into.

None of what you suggests has anything to do with all of the shady things going on with jets not being scrambled, orders not given, operating procedures changed shortly before 9/11, etc. It ain't just that those were OBVIOUSLY controlled demolitions of buildings in NYC, ufology - the problems are EVERYWHERE in the story and what happened. You need a bigger, and more comprehensive theory to deal with all the issues aside from just why and who placed charges in and demolished the WTC buildings, IMO ...

When you get into those issues, the 'Good Guys on the Inside did it for safety reasons' doesn't work.

Unfortunately, ufology, the Inside is littered with d-bags, up to and including them controlling entire sectors of the Inside. I don't discount the concept, nor the possibility of some good folks on the Inside actively engaged in 'secret operations' as you suggest, but they do not exist in a vacuum of only good guys working in secret . And, as mentioned, that group of Good Guys on the Inside are getting their asses kicked, whether they have that figured out or not ...

Further, legions of Useful Idiots 'on the inside' are absolutely necessary to pull things like this off. People clueless as to the REAL goals their work and effort is advancing, like that source you mention. If legit, he proves nothing as you suggest, for if you accept the fact those building were intentionally demolished, you MUST FIRST rule out he isn't a Useful Idiot, or a bad guy telling a lie as disinfo.

The Powers That Be intimately understand human nature and know how to manipulate it. They are always several steps ahead of most people's realizations about Their existence or involvement in certain things ...

But on top of that there seems to be far too much evidence that actual hijacked planes were flown into the towers by Islamic nut jobs, so how can you reasonably claim that they didn't want to cause as much damage as possible? FFS they flew giant jetliners into skyscrapers! LOL ... Really. Think about it. Would they do that to cause as little damage as possible? That's ludicrous.

Who are these 'they' you refer to as being the pilots, and what actual evidence do you have those 19 men were on the planes that day? In that video I posted, you will see apparent proof that some of those men were alive and well on 9/12 and nowhere near the US, while others have ties to governments and Air Force Bases. Further, witnesses who knew the 'ring leader' testify that he liked booze, cocaine, bars and strip clubs a little too much to be some type of Islamic Fundamentalist, as put forth in the media and as yo seem to believe.

You accept the BS told that 19 fundamental Islamic Jihadist Arabs that didn't know how to fly jetliners hijacked and flew jetliners, quite spectacularly to boot, are responsible for this. I don't. Look into those 19, and you will find issues (everywhere you look, serious issues arise). Like some of them being still alive and well ...

People have also provided explanations for the pentagon plane that makes sense to me.

Care to point those rationalizations that explain away all the questions out to me, for I have not seen them. I hope it is better than that silly pancake theory Shermer espoused so arrogantly. We'll trade links. Throw one up to that explains away the MULTIPLE issues with the Pentagon story, and then I'll throw up some 'counter-argument' links. I bet I will have more links than you. And my first links are going to be to pilots telling you there are serious issues with what we are told a 757 did by someone who did NOT know how to fly one ...

So I don't believe this was a case of our own people staging an attack.

I used to share that view. The view of 'our own people'. I used to think that was the way geopolitics worked. There was My People, then you Canucks had your people, and the Blokes across the pond had their people, etc. But, I came to realize that while there is something to that involved, it is far, far more complex than that, and there are International Concerns involved, too, including within the US. And some of those International Concerns are quite old and around long before the US ...

I do think that there are oddities, but that those oddities can be better explained by the alternative "friendly conspiracy" I've already mentioned.

I would suggest that labeling the ENORMOUS discrepancies between the Official Version and what we actaully watched and what actaully happened as 'oddities' as the Understatement of 2016, thus far.

Do I have proof of that? No. Just like you and nobody else has proof it was some other conspiracy.

I don't claim to possess Ultimate Truths on anything. I have Working Theories, some of which, depending upon the subject, I feel confident enough in to label as a belief (while ALWAYS remaining open to changing my mind in the future). When it comes to 9/11 and ANY Conspiracy, from our position, it is often not about proof, but evidence. And that evidence is usually circumstantial. So, I don't claim I have smoking gun proof of anything, but I do hold a position supported by a preponderance of evidence ...

Bringing Shermer back into it (it is damn near impossible to talk Shermer without some form of 9/11 discussion taking place - he mentions 9/11 shortly into that video and though around prior, 9/11 is what he really got his name and face everywhere with), a big point of double standards is with this 'proof' word you keep using, with the seeming implication being that if someone cannot provide smoking gun evidence, absolute proof, then we just have to shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh well. No smoking gun evidence, so I cannot come to any conclusion about what happened and will never be able to figure it out."

Yet, every damn day, in every damn country, people are thrown in jail, convicted of crimes, with NO PROOF. No smoking gun evidence. Hell, people are put to death in the US based on nothing but circumstantial evidence. We live in a society where a human's life can be ended with no 'proof'. Yet suggest a conspiracy and provide an ABUNDANCE of circumstantial evidence, and you get mocked and laughed at by skeptics like Shermer for having no proof.

Proof? Proof is an elusive thing, ufology, and not just the conspiracy or judicial world, but in life. Sometimes (a lot of the time, actually) all ya get is a shitpot full of circumstantial evidence. And with that full pot, you can actually come to solid and accurate conclusions about what you think most likely occurred, and then build upon that working theory of Truth.

All we know for sure is that there were good guys and bad guys and the story is more complex than we're probably ever going to know, and someplace in there I think some kind of heist from the basement vaults took place we've never been told about too. But again, where's the proof?

All we know for sure is that there were bad guys. Who those bad guys are is the next question. I assure you the bad guys responsible are far, far more powerful, established, and camouflaged than the 19 men we are told were solely responsible for 9/11. Then, for any good guys you can find, you need to make sure they weren't merely Useful Idiots, naïvely serving the purpose and ultimate goals of the bad guys. And then, you need to make sure the good guys aren't actually bad guys lying to you. Don't forget that you also have the largest group - the unaware believing the BS and playing along with the bad guys plans, completely oblivious to it all, and just PREDICTABLY reacting under assumptions of the BS storys being the Truth ...

Not really trying to argue with you personally or tell you your opinion is wrong because it doesn't agree with mine, so the last word on the issue is yours, ufology ...

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Like I stated before, I think there is enough proof & evidence to establish that everybody (men, woman, children, crew) onboard the hijacked planes are living comfortably on an alien underground base on the dark side of the moon. E.T. has set them up with a city which is a duplicate of which they were used to here on Earth (much like the Martian Chronicles). It's comforting but sad at the same time to know they are alive - but have to live out the rest of their lives underground the surface of our moon.

Some of my friends are almost done with their documentary exposing how the KC Royals didn't win the world series this past season. It was really an elaborate conspiracy & hoax utilizing state of the art holograms, mass halucinations and other CIA mind tricks. The real players on the Royals & Mets were secretly flown to Ukraine by our government for purposes that will be exposed in the documentary.

More to come...

 

[Cat Jockey]

More to come...

I can hardly wait. I've never seen condescension as an avoidance response to my pointing out serious flaws in what we were told about 9/11 and the VERY OBVIOUS FACT WTC 7 was a 'victim' of a controlled demolition, and am sitting on the edge of my seat, eagerly awaiting. This will be such a new thing you are doing here. Never seen it before when trying to talk about this subject. Blown away by your creativity and originality, bro.

That's me being sarcastic.

Shermer denies OBVIOUS facts in front of his face, like WTC 7 being an OBVIOUS and UNDENIABLE controlled demolition. I assume your attempt at humor to mean you deny such obvious and observable facts, too. I guess you think non-pilots can make jumbo-jets do things that are boderline, if not entirely, physically and aerodynamically impossible for said particular plane, like with the Pentagon plane, etc.

But I ain't a mind reader and am just guessing at your thoughts on all of that and at your intent with that post.

It was really an elaborate conspiracy & hoax utilizing state of the art holograms, mass hallucinations and other CIA mind tricks.

Nah, no need to get so fancy with all of that, Creepy. They have most people so well conditioned and trained to just nod their head and accept piles of bullshit as fact, like the three WTC buildings impossibly imploding upon themselves into their own footprint because of fire. They also have the good little boys and yes men trained to automatically make sure to completely avoid any logical and rational discussion concerning brought up pointing out of major flaws with what we see and were told about that day, and trained to try to pile on heaps of sarcastic ridicule as a means of argument and debate, or, rather, as a means avoiding argument and debate, and as a means to try to shut people up, and as a means to avoid having to face the fact they have been wrong about this and got sucked in by a bunch 'o bullshit for going on two decades about it all ...