Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - JaquesPlafond

Pages: 1 2 [3]
Future Episodes / Re: The 9/11 Conspiracies
« on: July 09, 2009, 11:41:10 PM »
In that case i suggest you watch the video i linked to.. it'll provide you with lots of info, and food for thought :)

It's presented by Mike Ruppert:

"This is the man who cost CIA Director Deutch his guaranteed appointment as Secretary of Defense after confronting him at Locke High School with hard facts about CIA dealing drugs." - Dick Gregory

" the course of investigations in the mid 70's he came across information that the CIA was trading drugs in order to fund covert operations in the Middle East...Perot called him back to offer encouragement...Ruppert says that his main objective is to see that the country gets a leader worthy of its people. Even for Ross Perot those will be tough shoes to fill." - PEOPLE MAGAZINE 6/22/92

Future Episodes / Re: Global Warming
« on: July 09, 2009, 11:33:37 PM »
Well, here's another source.. seems to be biased to the deniers side:

Any way you slice it, the official party line as far as the government is concerned still buys into the Al Gore version of things, and introduces rediculous bills to 'combat' global warming, based on this assertion.

An article:


The "cap and trade" bill pending in the House of Representatives would revolutionize how Americans use and consume energy to combat climate change. U.S. Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, and Ed Markey D-Mass., sponsors of the bill, claim that it will create green jobs, increase energy efficiency, and combat global warming. The inconvenient truth is that the legislation will hinder economic recovery, result in a net loss of jobs and do very little to change short- and long-term global temperatures.

What people should know first about cap and trade is that it is a tax, despite the effort (1,200 pages' worth) to hide that fact. The cap and tax would increase the price of fossil fuels, with the cost passed on to consumers.

Here is how cap and tax would work: The bill would cap greenhouse gas emissions -- a byproduct of burning coal, oil and natural gas. These fuels constitute 85 percent of U.S. energy production. From 2005 emission levels, the Waxman-Markey bill would require a 3 percent reduction by 2012, a 17 percent reduction by 2020 and an 83 percent reduction by 2050. The major providers of electricity would be given "allowances" of carbon dioxide, which would be tradable (hence the "trade" portion of the name). The allowances would be reduced each year.

The bill makes energy production more expensive and thus, costlier for us to consume. The point of the bill is to force Americans to use less energy and force energy providers to create new, alternative sources.

The questions on everyone's mind are how much the plan will cost and whether it will work. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2020, Waxman-Markey compliance will cost about $110 billion a year.

The businesses that are forced to pony up this staggering sum will be left with three options: pass the cost on to consumers; move their operations overseas; or close their doors.

Some estimates show that the bill may cost a family of four $1,870 a year in 2020 and $6,800 a year by 2035. Any way you slice it, the economy will suffer.

So after hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs and families are paying excessive costs for energy, what do we get in return? Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger of New Hope Environmental Services has calculated that the bill would reduce the Earth's temperature by a rather anticlimactic 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.

American families simply cannot afford the Waxman-Markey bill. It would put the United States at a severe disadvantage against countries such as China and India, which have said they will not sacrifice prosperity for energy reform.

However, I strongly agree that America must wean itself off of foreign energy sources. That is why I introduced the MORE Act, H.R. 797, which prevents energy exploration and production within 25 miles of a state's coastline, unless the state enacts a law approving such exploration.

The MORE Act also provides coastal states with an increased share of royalty revenue, which would help with our state budget deficit. To help end dependence on fossil fuels, the bill also dedicates a portion of the royalty revenue to renewable energy and energy efficiency research.

I also signed onto the American Energy Act, which would create more supply and less carbon dioxide through increased use of nuclear energy. This "all of the above" strategy takes advantage of domestic energy resources and creates incentives for clean, renewable energy -- the carrot approach. In addition to reducing our dependence on foreign oil, this approach would create all kinds of jobs -- green, high tech and construction.

When a government wants to legislate change in societal behavior, it has the option to use a stick or a carrot. Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress have opted to use the stick to bring about change in the way we use energy. Like many American families, I wish they had chosen the carrot.

Ken Calvert, R-Corona, represents the 44th U.S. Congressional District.

Well, that may or may not be the case. The point i'd like to make that the interpretation of the event by the witnesses doesn't really matter too much. Nye and other skeptics use the 'alien spaceship' card all the time because it makes UFO proponents look like looney tunes.

What's important here is that -something- caused a 'no-go' situation in 10 missile silo's (which have triple redundancy when it comes to power) while there's something weird hovering over the base. Nye wants you to believe that it was just because of all those people misperceiving things, someone allegedly having a drink too many, and/or a 'normal' power outage (in several silos at the same time, with said triple redundancy), but if you look into the case a bit more deeply, you'll soon find that it's a bit more complicated than that.

Anyway.. doesn't it strike you as odd that a poorly informed 'skeptic' who wasn't a witness to the case is supposed to provide an explanation to this whole thing? Before he utters his opinions, he had better familiarize himself with the data before spewing his generalisations and making a fool of himself.

In fact, i suggest you read the following carefully, so at leats you're informed:

Future Episodes / Re: The 9/11 Conspiracies
« on: July 09, 2009, 08:02:41 PM »
Personally, i consider this one of the best 911 vids.. it contains a lot of good info. Enjoy!

It's all good fun to debunk the regular nonsensical 'missile in the pentagon' and 'no jets but holograms' nonsense, but i suggest that for once someone really looks into this subject a bit more deeply. There's enough cheap shots out there already, after all.

If this episode is going to be made, i think it'd be interesting to look at how 9/11 has been used bij 'the government', and still IS being used, to push all sorts of political agendas..

I'd like to close with the key points formulated by PNAC

Among the key conclusions of PNAC's defense strategy document (Rebuilding America's Defenses) were the following [3]:

-"Develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."
-"Control the new 'international commons' of space and 'cyberspace,' and pave the way for the creation of a new military service--U.S. Space Forces--with the mission of space control."
-"Increase defense spending, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually."
-"Exploit the 'revolution in military affairs' [transformation to high-tech, unmanned weaponry] to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces."
-"Need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements" complaining that the U.S. has "virtually ceased development of safer and more effective nuclear weapons."
-"Facing up to the realities of multiple constabulary missions that will require a permanent allocation of U.S. forces."
-"America must defend its homeland" by "reconfiguring its nuclear force" and by missile defense systems that "counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction."
-"Need for a larger U.S. security perimeter" and the U.S. "should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces," citing the need to move beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia to increased permanent military presence in Southeast Asia and "other regions of East Asia." Necessary "to cope with the rise of China to great-power status."
-Redirecting the U.S. Air Force to move "toward a global first-strike force."
-End the Clinton administration's "devotion" to the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.
-"North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or similar states [should not be allowed] to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies, or threaten the American homeland itself."
-"Main military missions" necessary to "preserve Pax Americana" and a "unipolar 21st century" are the following: "secure and expand zones of democratic peace, deter rise of new great-power competitor, defend key regions (Europe, East Asia, Middle East), and exploit transformation of war."

According to the PNAC report, "The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time: even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself." To preserve this "American peace" through the 21st century, the PNAC report concludes that the global order "must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence." The report struck a prescient note when it observed that "the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."

Many of PNAC's conclusions and recommendations are reflected in the White House's National Security Strategy document of September 2002, which reflects the "peace through strength" credo that shapes PNAC strategic thinking.

When reading his, you may want to ask yourself to which extent 9/11 represents this 'New Pearl Harbor' event, and how it has helped reaching the stated goals.

Hi all,

First of all, i do enjoy all the bogosity episodes, especially the ones on the so-called moon-hoaxes.

So i decided to go and have a look at this forum, and found this topic, which i think is really interesting. I suppose this forum is frequented by a lot of people who call themselves 'skeptics', and usually that includes skepticism towards the subject of UFO's.

I thought the Larry King episode was really interesting. Here we have a bunch of former airforce personnel on a nuclear missile site, and they claim that a UFO was hovering over the base as several of the silos go out.

Here's a recap of the event:

In central Montana, Thursday morning March 16 1967, the E-Flight Missile Combat Crew was below ground in the Echo-Flight Launch Control Center (LCC) or capsule. During the early morning hours, more than one report came in from security patrols and maintenance crews that they had seen UFOs. A UFO was reported directly above one of the E-Flight Launch Facilities (LF) or silos. It turned out that at least one security policeman was so frightened by this encounter that he never again returned to security duty.

A short time later, the Deputy Crew Commander (DMCCC), a 1st Lieutenant, was briefing the Crew Commander (MCCC), a Captain, on the flight status when the alarm horn sounded. Over the next half-minute, all ten of their missiles reported a "No-Go" condition. One by one across the board, each missile had became inoperable,

From there on, as an ex-Missileer describes it: "All Hell broke loose!" Among the many calls to and from the E-Flight LCC one was to the MCCC of November-Flight which links to the equally dramatic story of what happened in another LCC that same morning.

In this case we have shutdown of strategic nuclear missiles coincident with UFO sighting over a missile silo! These were missiles lost to America's nuclear deterrent forces.

And here comes Bill Nye, who shows his complete ignorance when he suggests that there was a power-outage coinciding with whatever it was that caused the people at the base to see the UFO. Then he makes the classic mistake (when it comes to pathological UFO-skeptics anyway) of putting words in the mouth of the witnesses by stating that 'a lot of people see somthing that they can't identify, and they think it's an alien spaceship'. This is the typical red herring a lot of these skeptics come up qith.. in fact, what these airforce people are saying is that a weird flying light showed up and powerded down the missile silo's.. Now you tell me who or what could have done that in 1967.

Pages: 1 2 [3]