Re: Parg is not Marg

On 4 May, 19:18, d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Andre Lieven) wrote:
Stephen Morgan (grauniad2libe...@xxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
On 3 May, 21:39, Masculist <MASCUL...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 2, 7:02 pm, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

[...]

History is a conspiracy theory for crissakes, but one most historians
agree on.

The "Official Conspiracy Theory" as those in the 9/11 Truth Community
say.

<Laughs> Yes, as with the " we never landed on the Moon " wingnuts,
the " 9/11 was a gov't conspiracy " loons are also faclessly idiotic.

The Government is also behind the terror in Iraq. And I don't just
mean the now well known interior department-backed Shi'ite death
squads, either, I mean the SAS.

Hey, don't think that a fire can soften steel to the point of a collapse ?
Check out the bridge ramp in San Francisco last week...

When the road fell off the columns holding it up but the columns were
undamaged, I know of that. I don't see how a wind-fanned fire failing
to damage a structural column makes it more likely that the WTC
collapsed because an oxygen starved fire melted a far thicker and
tougher column, let alone that WTC 7 (which was hardly even on fire)
collapsed when the two building between it and WTC1/2 didn't.

Think fire can bring down a skyscraper? See here:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/madrid_towering_inferno.htm

[...]

Give me a fucking break. Warren was a darling of the Right Wingers in
California before he went on to do his great counter insurgency work
for them on the Court. The Right was determined to use civil rights
to it's advantage. They knew it was inevitable and when the time came
they slipped women into the Bill and the Warren Court gladly gave the
emerging feminists all the legal advocacies they would need to build a
huge movement. JFK was either killed or allowed to be killed because
he would have never gone along with women being put into CRA'64 and
the Vietnam War, both essential for the long term victory of the Right
that we witnessed in our lifetimes.

That's another reason for JFK being killed, then, along with his plans
for destroying the CIA, the MIC (by getting out of Vietnam), the
Mafia, the CIA again (by abandoning the Golden Triangle drug trade),
and so on.

The sheer lunacy of this claim is well handled by an old Tom Clancy
essay found in The Tom Clancy Companion ( Hmm, theres a new edition
that updates the 1992 edition that I have... ), in which he utterly
demolishes the idiocy in the Oliver Stone JFK film of idiocy.

"JFK" is just a film, it's based on the research of the conspiracy
theorists, not the other way around.

Unlike parsimonious Reagan, JFK, in but three years, funded *41*
strategic nuclear missile subs. Any military that would try to off
such a *military friendly* President, well, they'd be as nuts as
the conspiracy loons.

They had been peddling the missile gap, he had found out it was a load
of *** and was going to cut them off. He'd already signed the order
to withdraw "advisers" from Vietnam. He had vowed to "shatter" the
CIA.

Other conspiracy theories are more fun. It's fun to think about alien
bodies resting on ice at Roswell, though the idea is completely
loony. It's fun to think about a series of faked moon landings -- the
issue on which Stephen Morgan and Andre Lieven so vociferously
disagree.

I briefly conversed with Andre about moon landings (I don't disagree
that people went to the moon, but I think the "moon landings" were
faked, to disguise the fact that the Nazis and the aliens got there
first). It's not important.

<Laughs> Thats another way of saying " I cannot prove a thing that I
claim, and I resent that Andre has 100% of the facts. "

Thats OK, I can live with being PROVEN 100% right...

You seem to live perfectly well with mindless assertions, so I'll
leave it at that.

Those kind of conspiracy theroies are harmless and shouldn't be
included in the political ones we are talking about.

Here's a conspiracy theory for you Martin Luther King was assassinated
by a conspiracy of US government agencies. According to a jury,
anyway.

Yeah, we know that juries are always right.... <cough> OJ <cough>.

They evidently had reasonable doubt abuot OJ, so they made the right
decision. Better a thousand guilty men go free, and so on. You stick
to your trial by media, I'll stick to trial by jury. The US Government
agencies were the defendants, they had the benefit of the doubt.

Here's another: the CIA recruited a load of mafiosos and
former fascists and Nazis to run an underground (figuritively) terror
network in Western Europe to depose left wing governments. That,
though, is history not theory.

I have no real familiarity with the photographic/logistical issues.
My common sense tells me that the moon landings couldn't have been
faked. They just couldn't have been. How could something like that
have been faked and how many people would have needed to cooperate to
accomplish it and how could they all have remained silent and how many
secrets remain secret in Washington anyway?

The Manhattan project was secret for as long as it took. Obviously the
Soviets found out, but the demos didn't and that's what counts.

And, theres more PROOF that Apollo was real;

I didn't say it was, just that the film beamed back from the moon
wasn't beamed back from the moon.

The Soviets did NOT " blow
the whistle ", because the truth was exactly what we, and they saw.

The Soviets were just tools of the world banking system. The Soviets
were an essentially counterrevolutionary movement.

Over a long time ago on sci.space.history, folks with even more
background than I with the space program did some Michael Snyder
like calculations, and arrived at a conclusion that, aside from
the sheer impossibility of keeping such a secret from the literally
hundreds of thousands of trained folks who worked on space designs
and hardware, that the faking of the landings would have cost MORE
than actually going.

Since when has cost-effectiveness been important to the government?

After all, since you are going to be launching a dozen Saturn V
rockets anyway.... And, though I was too young to go myself to an
Apollo launch ( The last Moon Apollo launched on Dec 7, 1972, and the
last Saturn V ever to fly launched Skylab on May 14, 1973 ), I have
been to a Shuttle launch ( Launch masses and thrust are pretty
similar, though the Shuttle stack has a better starting thrust to mass
ratio than had Saturn V. ), and let me tell you, the effects that
come with the launch are real, and are damned impressive, including
both *feeling* the air displacement hit you in the chest, and
feeling the roar of the engines reach you through the *ground*,
as well as as sound through the air. Thats *real*.

I'm not claiming the rocket was some kind of optical illusion, only
that it was irrelevant.

Same
goes for Gladio, stayed secret (although the Italian Left had its
suspicions) until Andreotti (since convicted of murder) blew the
whistle in 1990.

And yet, in the year 2007, why aren't flights to the moon standard
tourist fare -- at least for the rich and famous if not for the
average vacationer?

I'm not sure anyone's that rich. Perhaps with the advent of the
emdrive, though.

More fictional lunacy. Its amusing for lunatics to, at the same time,
claim that what we did, we didn't, and, what is impossible, is done
regularly now.

Both claims cannot exist in the same Universe...

I don't understand that paragraph.

And why all these fatal accidents involving space
shuttles a few hundred miles above earth, and yet flights to the moon
240,000 miles away proceed as scheduled without any fatalities?

Shot down.

More fictional wingnuttery. What destroyed Soyuz 1, and killed the
crew of Souyz 11, as well as what destroyed Challenger and Columbia
is well known, and understood.

One tidbit: Challenger did NOT " blow up. " It and it's launch stack
( The pair of solid rocket boosters, plus the External Tank ) broke
apart, as the failed solid booster broke away from the stack, and
as it's breaking away ruptured the base of the tank, some of the
then excaping fuel burning as it emerged. All that going on
threw Challenger ( Remember, at that time, flying supersonically )
away from the stack into a sideways position. NO aircraft can survive
such a maneouver in flight, at such speeds. Thus, Challenger broke
apart, and its pieces continued to fly ballistically, and the came
back down.

I think most people would recognise that as blowing up, but I know all
about the O rings and so on.

Most of the damage done to the pieces of Cgallenger was done when they
hit the water. Most pieces and large assemblies came down with at least
200 MPH of downwards velocity, and at that speed, you hit dry land or
water, not much difference.

Of course. And to think, the astronauts were still alive until they
hit the water.

I know that it's "crazy" to think that the moon landings could have
been faked -- and yet, sometimes I wonder...

I don't think you do.

Then, that would be a Good Thing. Wingnuttery is always to be avoided,
lest one's brain flows out of one's head from the mass rot.

I'll take your word for it.

.