Hello JREF, I bring you "Tin Foil"!

[beachnut]

Pulitzer Prize!

This is arguably the most important discovery in history! I'm sure that others here will join me in celebrating your fame and fortune once this astonishing evidence is released. I hope you're prepared to be one of the most famous people to ever walk the Earth!

Pulitzer Prize! And he has clearly lived up to ---
"Hello JREF, I bring you "Tin Foil"! " Finally!"

For example, right now we're converting Clifford Stone's vast archive of FOIA documents... some of which provide overviews of the analysis of captured space vessels of extraterrestrial origin.

Wow. This is your BS proof of the government and 9/11 stuff? Now what do you do at ATS?

 

[Drudgewire]

As a skeptic, I'd be THRILLED to see verifiable evidence of UFOs. While "declassified documents" have always been a part of the movement and have never yielded results, I'm certainly open to the possibility of finding the exception to the rule.

Just make absolutely sure they're on the up-and-up before presenting them here. Post-Rathergate, if they're not they'll be exposed before the e-ink is dry on the PDF.

 

[tuc0]

SkepticGuy: In this thread you said that some events now known to be conspiracies have been cosnpiracy theories before "going mainstream" (my words, not yours). My question is: were these conspiracy theories in any way similar to the real story? Can you give examples?

 

[Gravy]

One of the more commonly referenced sources of the connection is this book, the author's website here

I see. I haven't read the book, but I've read several reviews of it, interviews with the author, and other articles by the author. Nowhere did I find a hint of the bin Laden-CIA connection you claim. In fact, I'll be willing to place a side wager with you that no evidence for such a connection is given in that book. It certainly isn't in other in-depth books on the Mujahideen, the rise of the Taliban, and bin Laden, such as Steve Coll's Pulitzer-prize-winning "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001"

I think you're misinformed and need to do some more research on this topic.

 

[Disbelief]

This Clifford Stone?

On July 20, 2005 I completed a phone interview with Sgt Clifford Stone (ret) who discussed at length his involvement in UFO crash retrieval teams during his 22 year military service from 1968-1990. Sgt Stone served in the U.S. Army and claims he was covertly recruited into an elite UFO retrieval team due to his natural ability to interface with extraterrestrial biological entities (EBEs). He claims that he was picked out during his childhood by the U.S. military and had an Air Force Captain regularly visit him on a weekly basis who encouraged Sgt Stone in pursuing his interest in UFOs, and eventually influenced his decision to join the military. Upon joining the military Sgt Stone found himself starting a very untypical military career.

You say your skeptical, but you never asked him about this info?

 

[Dog Town]

Now what do you do at ATS?

He is one of the "Three Amigo's", it is his income, in life. Sad really...explains his outlook!

 

[Gravy]

This Clifford Stone?

Uh, yeah, and this Clifford Stone:

"You have individuals that look very much like you and myself, that could walk among us and you wouldn't even notice the difference," says Sergeant Clifford Stone, adding that 57 species of Extraterrestrial origin have thus far been catalogued.

I suspect that the recovered E.T.s are being stored in a vinegar/saline solution in the refrigerators at the Heinz plant. But "you wouldn't even notice the difference" is overstating it. Case in point: Christopher Walken.

I'm sure the proof that Clifford Stone isn't barking mad will be forthcoming. I, for one, welcome our 57 varieties of extraterrestrial overlords.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Uh, yeah, and this Clifford Stone:
I suspect that the recovered E.T.s are being stored in a vinegar/saline solution in the refrigerators at the Heinz plant. But "you wouldn't even notice the difference" is overstating it. Case in point: Christopher Walken.

I'm sure the proof that Clifford Stone isn't barking mad will be forthcoming. I, for one, welcome our 57 varieties of extraterrestrial overlords.

Which variety would Walken be?

 

[Gravy]

Which variety would Walken be?

I'm guessing Hot 'N Spicy Ketchup Kick'r or Jack Daniel's Honey Teriyaki EZ Marinade.

 

[T.A.M.]

OMG...McFly...Hello...

Dear lord

TAM

 

[Sabrina]

Uh, yeah, and this Clifford Stone:
I suspect that the recovered E.T.s are being stored in a vinegar/saline solution in the refrigerators at the Heinz plant. But "you wouldn't even notice the difference" is overstating it. Case in point: Christopher Walken.

I'm sure the proof that Clifford Stone isn't barking mad will be forthcoming. I, for one, welcome our 57 varieties of extraterrestrial overlords.

You forgot Dennis Rodman.

 

[FramerDave]

I've never made any assertions that I'm associated with, or supportive of "the truth movement." I once extended an offer of a helping hand, but that didn't work out so well.



That comment of mine was from a while ago, and there's been a multitude of distractions since. A contemporary example (not 9/11-related) is in relation to the "government's" response to both the UFO sighting at the O'Hare airport (where the official FAA response was that no such thing ever happened, except that the tower logs refute such a claim) and the original and follow-up responses to the Barskdale warhead fiasco. Both are reasonably current and not difficult to locate. Given a history of the planting of obfuscatory "leads" such as had been discovered during the Watergate investigation (which had been disparaged as wild conspiracy theory), it's at least not much of a stretch to speculate recurrence.

If you're looking for a specific 9/11-conspiracy related example, it might take some time to dig it up.

Have you been able to find any examples of documented government meddling and COINTELPRO in regards to 9/11 yet? Pretty please?

 

[Vincent Vega]

I don't hold to that theory, and have never created anything (I can remember) that supported pre-planted explosives in the WTC. I've often speculated that the scenario of limited high-energy charges planted to weaken the core is the most plausible offshoot of the demolition theories, but I've not seen any material that support the idea of a crew of people spending enough pre-attack time in the building to accomplish even that task.

There's a multitude of various demolition theories that involve the need for teams of people to be doing "something" to the buildings. Since we have only a small handful of uncorroborated reports of "something" happening during the prior weekend, I don't think it's worthy of wasting any more time.

However, lots of people with credible backgrounds continue to look deep into this issue. It's worth looking into as long as wild speculation isn't presented as certainty.

Silly me, I when you spoke of:

"some degree of "assistance" that ensured total structural failure."

I assumed you were referring to "pre-planted explosives in the WTC". But hey, I guess you know what happens when one assumes?

Or perhaps you just forgot you misspoke?

 

[SkepticGuy]

Or perhaps you just forgot you misspoke?

No. As is clear to anyone reading the entire context, I was referring to the concept of pre-planted full-building demolition charges that were the only cause of total structural failure. I don't believe that scenario was possible.

However, I think it's plausible to speculate the possibility of a very-limited number of high-energy devices intended to aid collapse after the aircraft impact weakened the structure. Based on the full spectrum of discussions and debates I've seen, to me, this remains the one somewhat reasonable possibility for those focusing on "bombs in the building."

I hope that's crystal clear, but I'm sure someone will soon find a way to rearrange that into unintended meaning.

 

[Gravy]

No. As is clear to anyone reading the entire context, I was referring to the concept of pre-planted full-building demolition charges that were the only cause of total structural failure. I don't believe that scenario was possible.

However, I think it's plausible to speculate the possibility of a very-limited number of high-energy devices intended to aid collapse after the aircraft impact weakened the structure. Based on the full spectrum of discussions and debates I've seen, to me, this remains the one somewhat reasonable possibility for those focusing on "bombs in the building."

I hope that's crystal clear, but I'm sure someone will soon find a way to rearrange that into unintended meaning.

It's not crystal clear to me what you mean by "high energy devices." Explosives? Incendiaries? Or something more exotic?

And how do you suppose a "very limited number" of devices would make a significant difference, yet not be noticeable? Can you think of a plausible motive to risk planting these few devices in a building that you were going to ram an airliner into?

I guess what I'm asking is, how does any of this make any sense?

 

[David Wong]

However, I think it's plausible to speculate the possibility of a very-limited number of high-energy devices intended to aid collapse after the aircraft impact weakened the structure.

Planted by the terrorists? How did they get them around security? That would be a massive failure by the Port Authority police, among many others.

Planted by people on the inside? Then we're right back to the assertion you are trying to run from.

Why is trying to get you to simply assert what you think happened like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling?

Why do you dress everything up in vague, hazy, language, let us spend a dozen posts trying to figure out what you meant, while you say, "I didn't mean that, I don't mean that, I didn't mean that" a dozen times?

Why not just state your position plainly?

 

[dudalb]

When Skepticguy started with the UFO Woo his credibility in my eyes suffered a total collapse.

 

[SkepticGuy]

It's not crystal clear to me what you mean by "high energy devices." Explosives? Incendiaries? Or something more exotic?

This line, "I think it's plausible to speculate the possibility of..." wasn't clear? When you combine with, "Based on the full spectrum of discussions and debates I've seen..." I had hoped the understanding would be that I was commenting on my perception of the discussions I've seen... not that I had a solution I would put forth.

 

[SkepticGuy]

I had imagined the participants here had spent enough time playing this tit-for-tat game... apparently one never tires.

Planted by the terrorists?

Certainly there's a plethora of material here on this point with properly self-righteous debunkery thereof. Why even ask the question? I've not seen any "conspiracy speculation" that includes pre-planted material of any type from the "terrorists," but in this mess of "9/11 Truth," there's room for anything at this point.

Planted by people on the inside? Then we're right back to the assertion you are trying to run from.

What makes you think I've made an "assertion" and that I'm running from it?

Why is trying to get you to simply assert what you think happened like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling?

Because I admit I don't know what happened (as it relates to aspects of 9/11 conspiracy theories), but you (and others) assume I think I do because I self-profess to be a "conspiracy theorist." And because of your assumption, you experience frustration when I do not say "what I think happened" until I myself am certain. I may lend credence to certain directions of speculation or research I've seen based on the broad spectrum of material I've been able to review... but that's far from an "assertion."

Why not just state your position plainly?

Was the above plain?


Perhaps what you're having trouble with is my "assertion" that it's possible to be an aficionado of "conspiracy theories," while being cautions about making definitive statements, and disliking most of what comes out of the "truth movement."

 

[Undesired Walrus]

A theory that is becoming increasingly more popular, was actually one of the original theories within days or weeks of the attacks, is that of the historical involvement of covert US agencies with Osama Bin Laden. The short synopsis of the theory is: "Osama was directed by a covert agency to attack NYC and DC as the pretext to begin the beating of war drums. The fanaticism of the participants resulted in an attack of larger magnitude than expected."

Fine, that is interesting. Show me the evidence.

If we could see FOIA documents officially severing the ties with Bin Laden forged during the Soviet/Afghan conflict, the magnitude of the relationship-severing in those documents might sway that theory. I know of at least one person on such a search.

The money was 'donated' through Pakistan's ISI. They had responsibility then to pass it on to the Arab army, in whatever way possible. There is therefore no way the US could have funded Bin Laden, and the man himself doesn't see any evidence for it.

Pakistan is a 'friend' with the US only because of the latter countries past interest in witholding communism from entering Asia. You have to understand that even now, Islamist fundamentalism is very young in the scale of things. Younger than communism and democracy. Back in the 80's, the words of Syed Qutb and Maududi were only just leaking into the minds of collectivist-starved Arabs. The US's only interest was preventing communism, not funding some Arabs on the off chance some may form into a radical cell.