Russia crashes: Traces of explosives found

I know someone who's seen a Putin clone; in a certain upmarket hotel in Mexico.

I know it must have been a Putin clone (complete with bodyguards etc entourage), because a long time after that that I read a news report touting Putin's "first visit to Mexico" ;)
 
Lak,

If one had complete psychic access to every memorandum, feasability study, contingency plan, and "think-outside-the-box" brainstorming session that has occurred in just the US government in the last 50 years, a true conspiranoiac would just know that we were going to nuke Russia first with a surprise attack, use NATO troops to overthrow the Turkish government, brutally put down a civilian uprising here at home (Operation Garden Plot), and assassinate the prime minister of Japan.

None of this, oddly, happened, but people get paid to write this stuff, put it in folders, stamp "Classified" all over it, and let it moulder in file cabinets.
 
Lak, I found it, read it, and was not particularly impressed.
Now Tom Brokaw says it's being blamed on Chechen rebels. What a surprise.
Click to expand...
No surprise at all, especially after they called in and took credit/responsibility for it. You seem to be determined to find a conspiracy among everyone except those who actually conspired to do it, the Chechen terrorists. Why?
 
Tamara,

None of this comes as a "surprize" to me. In addition to almost five years in the military, let's say I am "well travelled". When I see women going into hair salons ready to part with considerable sums of money I am tempted to tell them to save their money; I could tell them some things that would permanently curl their hair at no expense. It might put some of those trendy silver streaks into it as a bonus.

The point is, for high ranking people in the United States government to actually consider such ideas - let alone forward them to the WH for serious consideration - ought to cause more than alittle consternation.

You can often tell a great deal about someone by, among other things, some of the things they say. What a person says in jest is one thing; what someone is prepared to write, sign and forward for possible action is quite another.

In the case of the Russians, rather than speculate that Putin is behind the downing of the two airliners, I am rather more inclined to believe it might be elements within or without Russia putting the heat on Putin. There has been a power struggle going on within Russia for a considerable period of time now.

Strikes me odd that the media is now referring to the two "black widows" (new buzz phrase) who they suggest "might" (might??) have been aboard the aircraft. And remarking that "no relatives have come forward to identify/claim them". If these two ladies were in fact strapped with explosives, which we would assume exploded - how much of them is left to "identify" after exploding and falling many thousands of feet, and one further mangled in a crashing plane?
 
If these two ladies were in fact strapped with explosives...
Click to expand...

Were they? Wouldn't it have been ever so much easier to get the bombs through security in one's luggage? (One would think that it'd take a lot less explosives to do catastrophic damage from overhead stowage or the rear luggage compartment than from seat 7B, too...)
 
No surprise at all, especially after they called in and took credit/responsibility for it. You seem to be determined to find a conspiracy among everyone except those who actually conspired to do it, the Chechen terrorists.
Click to expand...

So now you believe the Chechen "terrorists"? And you believe that whoever claimed responsibility were in fact "Chechen terrorists". Do you also believe the news agencies who reported it? I guess so. This is the definition of spoonfed.

You gotta do some critical thinking of your own, not let FOX and CNN do it for you.
 
When I hear hoofbeats in the pasture across the road, it is possible that someone snuck a zebra in there last night, but, absent the sight of the zebra, I will assume the hoofbeats come from the horses that live over there.
 
Your right, that analogy breaks down because zebras are much too plausible. To get a analogy that resembles this discussion she should have used horses and unicorns, or better yet, horses and genetically engineered unicorn/Putin hybrids. :D
 
Too bad we're not talking about zebras and horses, otherwise that analogy might be valid.
Click to expand...

To anyone who knows what Occam shaves with, that analogy is plenty valid. I have yet to get one single convincing piece of evidence that there are zebras across the road. So far, we've found horse dung, and horse corpses, and horse pedigrees. In opposition, the zebra theorists tell me that all this was planted by the zebra ranchers who've surreptitiously planted invisible zebras in the field across the way. Until I see the zebras, consider me a willing spoonfed dupe of the horse theorists.
 
Again, why do you believe it is not Chechen terrorists? You've done nothing to support your insinuation, other than attempt to belittle those who disagree. Answer the question.
 
Tamara,

"Strapped with" is what the going theme is.

But this is an interesting point, because first of all we have the suggestion that the two "Chechen ladies" might not have even been on the planes. The media have repeatedly referred to these two have having, quote, "might" have been on the planes. Then the repeated reference to suspicion because no relatives have "come forward to identify or claim the bodies".

So as well as not stating these two were in fact on the planes, they are also not saying whether they had the explosives strapped to them or elsewhere. Now both points ought to be pretty clear one way or the other. Unless they have no bodies - and hence the question of whether they were on the planes or not - and lacking confirmation by "no relatives coming forward".

So there is apparently a distinct lack of evidence over the two ladies.

And speaking of evidence, we are generally not obliged to examine evidence concerning facts over the livestock in the neighboring corral or field, be they zebras or horses. However governments ought to be considered obliged to provide evidence on matters like, where thousands of people have died and many more are at stake. Not to mention the billions of dollars involved. People might take alittle more analytical interest were they not so guillable and or distracted. But compared to what's been made freely available to the public over the last four years I have seen more testimonial and physical evidence openly presented when there is a question of statements of fact in traffic courts etc.
 
But this is an interesting point, because first of all we have the suggestion that the two "Chechen ladies" might not have even been on the planes. The media have repeatedly referred to these two have having, quote, "might" have been on the planes.
Click to expand...

A media announcer stating that someone "might" have been on the planes is not an attempt to suggest that they weren't. It's journalism 101: might, alleged, presumed; in the absence of rock-solid proof, these are the words one uses. Is it possible that the FSB downed the airliners and tried to frame Chechen or other Islamic terrorists for the crime as sources here have alleged? Yes. Is it the most plausible chain of events? No.

But in the world of Conspiranoia, the government just can't win. If they say they have remains, people will say "Oh, sure! They detonate their RDX Reeboks and fall 34,000 feet and the government claims to have their bodies! Right." If they say they don't have any positively identifiable remains, the conspiranoiacs get to say "Well, that's because they weren't even on the plane at all, and the Putin clone on the grassy knoll planted the bombs!" That's the beauty of a really good conspiracy theory: every piece of evidence you get can be worked into proof to support it, as can every absence of evidence.

I'm not going to convince you on this one, obviously, LAK, nor will you, based on the evidence thus far, convince me, and so I will have to remain an unwitting dupe of my government masters as the Priory of Zion works its way into tighter control of the Russian government.
 
Tamara, unfortunately women don't have a real grasp of how ruthless men can be. If you look back into history you'll find that this type of thing has gone on countless times.

There doesn't seem to be much evidence either way other than RDX, a military explosive was found in both plane wrecks and that people claiming to be Chechen rebels claimed responsibility for it. Anyone that doesn't go along with this neat little prepackaged event....let's just dismiss them all as conspiracy theorists with a conspiratorial view of everything and revel in our smugness while we're at it, right? :rolleyes:

As far as your last comment, I don't see anyone here screaming "death to ZOG."
 
unfortunately women don't have a real grasp of how ruthless men can be
Click to expand...

Jeez, Psycho, why don't you just give her a swat on the behind and tell her to run into the kitchen and fetch you a beer?

By the way, Tamara's analogy is valid and apt. "Horses" have been blowing up planes, buildings, boats etc, etc, for decades, all in the name of their, um "horse god". To ignore the simplest answer is to spit in the face of logic. Even if Russian no-good-niks are framing the Chechens, does that make the radical muslim terrorists any less culpable for the years of violence and bloodshed? We already know they're evil. Making them look "more" evil seems like a waste of resources. I guess that's just the lengths a government must take to convince the PC brain-dead that there are actually enormous pockets of the world worthy of our attention and MX missles.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top