[Closed] Conspiracy theorys......does anyone believe them?

The great thing is that you could build a rocket, stick a camera on it and have a look. There are photos of the landing site that have been taken recently, yet when this is presented as evidence, deniers claim the stuff and tracks were deployed at a later date by robots...

any plausible ones though?

This'll really worry the tinfoil hat brigade:
Tinfoil hats actually amplify mind-control beams
http://boingboing.net/2012/10/01/tinfoil-hats-actually-amplify.html

Well, buzz if you followed the thread you'd know that it was quite clearly snow white.

That bitch has a lot to answer for !

I've had my doubts about the Diana thing ever since being told it was going to happen three weeks prior by a pal who was working in the personal protection business at the time, he then denied he ever said it even though he claimed she was pregnant, was threatening conversion to the Muslim faith and likely it would be a car accident.

So your mate who "worked in the personal protection business" told you Diana was going to be killed then ?

So it must have been pretty common knowledge among people who worked in that industry at the time I would imagine.

And yet nobody credible has ever come forward with any Actual Evidence ?

They are all so tight lipped and reliable that "they" could just let everyone in the trade know, safe in the knowledge that it would never get out.

(Even though your mate just decided to let it slip a few weeks beforehand, and then later said "no mate, I never said anything like that" when he suddenly remembered he shouldn't have really said anything ?)

Seems plausible enough 🙄

How has this come to 3 pages without any input from or even a mention of... you know...[i] him[/i].

Voldemort?

Jimmy Savile?

BTW, did anyone see the 7/7 roadtrip programme the other day? Interesting to see how people almost need to believe that a load of unconnected things are connected (by a pack of lies). I also found an interview with one of the people on the programme which introduced me to two new phrases:

Conspiracy fact - apparently this alters the psychology of unbelievers to believe that what the foil-hatters are saying is fact not a theory. clever eh?

Alternative Research - I think this falls into the genesis is taught equally valid as the theory of evolution thing. Supposed to make us feel all possibilities are equally valid

How has this come to 3 pages without any input from or even a mention of... you know... him.

nealglover - Member
So your mate who "worked in the personal protection business" told you Diana was going to be killed then ?

So it must have been pretty common knowledge among people who worked in that industry at the time I would imagine.

And yet nobody credible has ever come forward with any Actual Evidence ?

They are all so tight lipped and reliable that "they" could just let everyone in the trade know, safe in the knowledge that it would never get out.

(Even though your mate just decided to let it slip a few weeks beforehand, and then later said "no mate, I never said anything like that" when he suddenly remembered he shouldn't have really said anything ?)

Seems plausible enough

I don't recall saying it was plausible, I said I had my doubts. We're talking conspiracy theory here, if it were fact we wouldn't be discussing it, it is a theory one can't help subscribing to given that prior warning, followed by the controversy of the delay in hospitalisation, the missing white punto and death of witnesses, the flash in the tunnel, the premature embalming, the high concentration of carbon monoxide in the chauffeurs blood sample etc etc..
Which makes the death by 'accident' actually more implausible, but hey, who cares, it's just a conspiracy theory.

Elvis isn't always the nice guy he made himself out to be y'know...

My girlfriends brother is apparently a fairly major figure in the 7/7 'truther' community. He has made a few documentaries about it. Some of it is a bit wacko but some is pretty interesting. There's a fairly long history of quite shady use of agent provocateurs and double agents by governments/security services so it would hardly be a massive surprise if it was still going on.

http://www.investigatingtheterror.com

I don't recall saying it was plausible

And I didn't claim that you had ?

I said it (sarcastically)

because it sounds just like the usual load of old bollx.

Ed Oxleys' beard isn't real, it's a chin wig! He bought it second hand at a flea market from some bloke who used to be in zz top.

nealglover - Member

I said it (sarcastically)

Hmm is that allowed now? I thought the use of excess sarcasm and irony had been banned?

[i]Because STW was in the process of being sold, so all disruptive elements had to be eliminated, sssh conspiracy theory[/i] 😉

So if we never got to the moon, how have we got to Mars ?

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2012/10/01/out-of-control-mars-rover-building-sandcastles/

MI6 was set up to deal with 'political problems' , its role has expanded to lots of groups in society. Special branch also keep agents in groups , and in some cases are the main protagonists.

however they are not very effective, whatever they seem to do- most info comes from traditional sources, 'intelligence/grass '-- i'm sure with the upsurge in militant islam they are recruiting lots of relevant people.

So if we never got to the moon, how have we got to Mars ?

Looks like Nevada to me.

There's a fairly long history of quite shady use of agent provocateurs and double agents by governments/security services so it would hardly be a massive surprise if it was still going on.

Er, there's one thing shit stirring politics in other countries, and there's another killing thousands of your own citizens.

The US has been meddling in other countries since WWII, they never needed to commit their own attrocities to justify it before. The Domino Principle was far shakier and that was all the excuse they needed.

Depends on the 'theory'. If you're talking about 3 letter acronym organisations and/or governments doing shady stuff behind the scenes and being shockingly unscrupulous then sure- it'd be more surprising if that's not going on. If you're talking about things like the twin towers being brought down by controlled demolition then no.

The ones involving a handful of people doing relatively limited things with not much scope for it all coming out are plausible. The ones involving thousands of people with countless opportunities for it to all go wrong are not.

Er, there's one thing shit stirring politics in other countries, and there's another killing thousands of your own citizens.

The US has been meddling in other countries since WWII, they never needed to commit their own attrocities to justify it before. The Domino Principle was far shakier and that was all the excuse they needed.

I'm not suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job btw, but there are lots of documented cases of agent provocateurs being used domestically. Look at how infiltrated the relatively innocuous animal rights movement was in this country - there was supposedly meetings where there were more people in the pay of the government than genuine protestors.

Stirring politics is a bit of a euphemism too TBH. We are talking about arming/training/sponsoring death squads, political assassinations and terrorism on a pretty major scale, organising coups against democratically elected leaders etc etc

Given the well documented history of these things, what makes you so sure nothing vaguely similar could ever happen in the US?

The US has been meddling in other countries since WWII, they never needed to commit their own attrocities to justify it before. The Domino Principle was far shakier and that was all the excuse they needed.

It seesm to me that the inability to hide even the simplest of pecadillo's by the most powerful of politicians tends to undermine the concept of conspiracy as a plausible explanation for anything much.

Think about it, if you can't keep the whereabouts of your cigar box a secret when only two people are party to the secret of moist tobacco how the hell can you keep an incredibly complex deception such as 9/11 or 7/7 quiet?

Politicians will be the last to know in pretty much any scenario - conspiracy or policy decision. Thats why they are there - to take the blame as the disposable objects they clearly are.

Conspiracy makes the world go round but governments couldn't organize a b*mming in a barracks

Who was it who said "If there's one thing we learn from history, it's that we don't learn from history."

Powerful people with big agendas and lots at stake will do bad things if it furthers their causes. They might not want to tell you about it.

Is it about time someone brought up Hitler?

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."

Personally, I think there's a lot that doesn't add up about the official explanation of 9/11, and a lot that doesn't add up about many of the alternatives. But it's almost impossible to discuss, because the arguments and counter-arguments have been gone over so many times before, there's so much ridiculous rubbish floating around that discredits both sides and almost everyone you speak to has made their mind up already about what they think went on.

And let's not forget that "conspiracy theorists" shouldn't be taken to be short-hand for "tin-foil-hat-wearing nutter"

The official story is one of a conspiracy: Shady, Western-educated, Saudi rich-boy-gone-bad controlling global network of terror cells, orchestrates plot to shake the Western world to its core to bring about a shift in power. Pretty similar in concept to the Guy Fawkes conspiracy.

etc. ad finitum

LOL: Classic conspirascist response there winston. Absolutely no substance whatsoever, but a perfectly phrased dark undertone, lightened with a touch of a jolly jape at the end just to prove that depsite wearing the tinfoil with pride you are in fact just one of the lads. Good work, keep it up.

ditto nedrapier

Conspiracy makes the world go round but governments couldn't organize a b*mming in a barracks

That doesn't really matter, if no one is going to expose them anyway.

The expenses scandal, the guy selling the information had them for months, no one in the media was interested. I can't remember the exact details, but somehow the story was getting out that they media was turning down the information, then the Telegraph run with it.

Hillsborough was covered up for 25 years, only massive public pressure from the familys brought out the truth in the end, if they had given up we would never know.

The murdoch/police/poloticions three way love in went on for years and years, we will never know how much it has shaped the face of british polotics, influence and policing, and we never would have if they hadn't interfeared with a dead girls phone.

Liam Fox selling acceess to the highest bidder, fleet street didn't care untill there was a hint of homosexuality in the story. Does anyone think that selling access isn't standard practice?

They can cover up whatever they want as long as the media is more interested in Jordans latest boob job than doing any actuall inestigative journalism.

To be honest my own "theory" at the time; that his death was faked and he was whisked away to Israel with the help of Mossad to live out his last few years with his ill-gotten millions (shared with the state) was more outlandish than the murder theories

BB classic response from you too, attempt to be withering and dismissive without actually responding to anything at all.

glad you appreciated it BB - perfectly willing to believe in the odd conspiracy and make no apology for it. However I'm inclined to think most of them happen along the lines of Burn after reading

CIA Superior: What did we learn, Palmer?
CIA Officer: I don't know, sir.
CIA Superior: I don't ****in' know either. I guess we learned not to do it again.
CIA Officer: Yes, sir.
CIA Superior: I'm ****ed if I know what we did.
CIA Officer: Yes, sir, it's, uh, hard to say

Who killed Cock Robin ?

Think about it, if you can't keep the whereabouts of your cigar box a secret when only two people are party to the secret of moist tobacco how the hell can you keep an incredibly complex deception such as 9/11 or 7/7 quiet?

I'm not sure why some people seem to think the only two options are either: massive and incredibly sinister conspiracy where thousands are colluding to some evil end, or everything is always just as it seems and anyone who disagrees is a nutty conspiracy theorist.

I don't think 'George Bush organised 9/11 to justify war in Iraq' for example, but that doesn't mean I don't also think there may well have been some pretty dodgy shit related to 9/11 that doesn't tally with the official version of events. It's not a black and white either/or for me.

As above, just look at documented history for all kinds of examples.

However I'm inclined to think most of them happen along the lines of Burn after reading

ditto

Just heard Sparrow been arrested

here's my very own conspiracy theory of what happened on 9/11

i suspect (i haven't even convinced myself with this one) that it's possible, that the twin towers WERE brought down on purpose, with built-in explosive charges, that were built-in during/after construction. These charges meant that the buildings could be brought down more-or-less within their own footprint in an emergency, rather than falling over like a tree, which would be much more destructive to the surrounding buildings/lower Manhattan.

and if that's possible/feasible, then it's also possible that other tall buildings have 'self destruct' demolition charges in them, so that (god forbid) they can be brought down quickly if needed.

don't worry, i'm going home to lie down soon.

Yep Sparrow been charged with murder of Cock Robin-- that should be the end of that.....for now....always the trial....

here's my very own conspiracy theory of what happened on 9/11

Hmm.. your very own conspiracy theory sounds like one that a lot of other people have come up with.

Some obvious problems being:
- who routinely places these explosive charges in tall buildings?
- why doesn't anyone notice?
- surely they'd have to tell folk like the Fire Department about this or are you suggesting a secret organisation of demolition engineers does this without telling anyone? Ever?
- Most tall building demolitions involve a lot of planning and strategic cutting through major supports to weaken them in the right direction. Did they also do that?
- wouldn't they have to maintain them regularly? Explosives become unstable over time don't they?
- what if there was just a small fire near the explosives?
- why would you provide terrorists with a ready-made way to bring down tall buildings full of people? All they'd need would be the remote trigger codes.

So on logic alone it seems unlikely. However, I'll return with my own 9/11 conspiracy theory: it is quite possible that Flight 93 was shot down, rather than brought down by the actions of the passenger fighting back against the hijackers.

But the latter is considerably more palatable. And now there is a Hollywood film about it so it is written indelibly as the correct historical version (just like U-571 😉 ).

The CIA have had their grubby fingerprints all over various world events, for example the overthrow of Allende in Chile in 1973: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_ d'état
You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to know that, they are institutionally incapable of stopping themselves poking their noses in.
See also Afghanistan, and more recently the gun-running into Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

Edit: Graham, totally with you, there's a lot of that that doesn't really make any sense. Or needs you to take a massive step to one side in what you thinks goes on, what group of people are happy to see in place. A bit far for me. But, there's plenty on the other side that doesn't make sense either.

Most tall building demolitions involve a lot of planning and strategic cutting through major supports to weaken them in the right direction.

Interesting to know why they bother to be honest, when a fire and some extra weight in the top seems to have precisely the same effect. Or some small fires and not a lot else, in the case of the other one that collapsed.

My summary: Fishy. No idea what, how or why, but there's plenty that doesn't add up.

perhaps demolition by Jumbo jet is less predictable and a touch OTT when we have other methods?

My summary: Fishy. No idea what, how or why, but there's plenty that doesn't add up.

That could be because you (or I) know somewhere between very little and nothing about Structural Engineering or Demolition ?

And also the fact that you seem to have been reading websites about how it was an "inside job" (and believing some of it) ?

Maybe.

From where I was sitting the WTC did not collapse into its own footprint in a controlled nature.

From where I was sitting the WTC did not collapse into its own footprint in a controlled nature.

Where were you sitting ?

perhaps demolition by Jumbo jet is less predictable and a touch OTT when we have other methods?

Fred dibnah would have agreed with you on that one

neal, I've read a fair bit, because some people close to me are convinced it was an inside job, and they've asked questions that have piqued my interest. As I said there's a lot of rubbish spouted as fact, lots of unbelievable stuff from every angle, some of it more easily dismissed than others.

But let's face it, the very facts in plain view (airliners flying into skyscrapers in New York City, buildings collapsing) if they'd been a movie script a few years previously, would have been pretty far fetched, so any explanation of how it actually happened in real life needs a deep breath and a step back.

Having said all that, there's one main thing for me. I've seen a few telly programmes over the years (yup, that's the extent of my knowledge) about demolition and how incredibly complex it is and how skilled and experienced you have to be even to bring down a 10 story block of flats in London in a controlled, contained manner. Then we have 3 buildings, 2 of them 100+ stories high with planes and fires in the top, another off to one side with fires and some debris, which all collapse into their own basement in a fashion I understand to be incredibly complex and difficult to achieve. By chance. One after another.

Fishy. Doesn't quite add up.

That's all.

Don't like where it ends up, but that doesn't change that it doesn't seem quite right.

"So you're an expert on physics and demolition, are you?" No.

"So you're saying George Bush did it, despite all that other stuff he got wrong?" No.

"So you're saying..." No.

Not saying anything other than the buildings coming down in the way they did, and the official explanations of why they came down don't add up. The uncomfortable questions that follow on from that are uncomfortable and I don't know the answers, but that doesn't help the fishy feeling about the initial explanations.

"tin hat"

whatever. lazy.

Not saying anything other than the buildings coming down in the way they did, and the official explanations of why they came down don't add up

What do you disagree with in the Official Explanation of why and how the buildings came down ?

Just saying "it seems unlikely based in the small amount I think I might know" isn't much to go on really is it.

Based on the small amount I know about riding bikes, the stuff Danny MacAskill does seems impossible.

But it still happens.

Can't quite believe I'm doing this. Yes: 'it seems unlikely based in the small amount I know' .. that fire over a few floors and damage from falling debris caused this:

IN all honesty if you asked me I would say it was unlikely that planes flown into the sky scraper would cause it to collapse into its own footprint. I would have leaded to have no idea re WTC7 and what would happen

Then again
1. I know nothing about crashing planes into buildings
2. I know very little about demolition

Mm who to believe, my own ignorance or what happened?

It also took about 7 hours from the damaged caused from the fall of the North tower till that building collapsed. Any ideas as to why they waited so long to detonate the demolition job?

Yes: 'it seems unlikely based in the small amount I know' .. that fire over a few floors and damage from falling debris caused this:

As Junkyard said. Yes it does seem unlikely.

But then again, non of us know anything about the technicalities of the subject matter do we.

So what we see as "unlikely" doesn't really factor very highly in what is actually possible or likely in reality.

I like to think that modern buildings are built in a way that means localised impact damage and small fires of burning plastic and paper can't (not "are unlikely to", but "can't") lead to total and complete structural failure and collapse of a large office building.

I understand that buildings are designed to withstand this, and have done (bomb attacks in CBD's in London, USA, wherever else). I'd like to think that if it was found that building methods were found to be insufficient to withstand localised fires and impact damage without collapsing, we'd see some remedial action taking place in a great many other buildings around the world.

There's some stuff that isn't explained, and the stuff that could explain it better (eg: 'buildings collapse all the time', 'WTC7 was terribly designed and constructed and the builders/architects have all been imprisoned following investigation', 'demolition "experts" are a bunch of charlatans and it's actually a piece of piss'...) hasn't been presented. We just get "impact damage from falling debris and fires".

Which doesn't seem likely to me on it's own. And neither does it to JY or NG by the sounds of things. The absence of other explanations when there could easily be some, leaves me with a sense of unease and unanswered questions.

If it is wrong to question, then why is it wrong to question? if all that we know comes from unverifiable sources, then how do we verify that what we know is real?

If to ask questions is wrong and anyone that does ask is a fool, what exactly do you hope to learn and who prey tell will teach you it?

Nedrapier, you cannot challenge the held view on 9/11, everyone has already been told what happened in 9/11 and if the facts contradict what the media is saying, who you gonna call? CONSPIRACY BUSTERS!!!

BEHOLD YOU FOOLS FOR I SHALL ILLUMINATE THEE!!!

shit I've forgotten what I was going to say, something important something central to this conspiracy theory!

I like to think that modern buildings are built in a way that means localised impact damage and small fires of burning plastic and paper can't (not "are unlikely to", but "can't") lead to total and complete structural failure and collapse of a large office building.

I understand that buildings are designed to withstand this,

I'd like to think that if it was found that building methods were found to be insufficient to withstand [b]localised fires and impact damage[/b] without collapsing,

And neither does it to JY or NG by the sounds of things.

The absence of other explanations when there could easily be some, leaves me with a sense of unease and unanswered questions.

Let us begin at the beggining of 9/11 anyway!

2.3 trillion dollars vanishes, the next day 9/11 happens and a shit load of computers and hard drives get taken out well thousands of computers and loads of paper records anyway, between 180 and 300 billion dollars in gold goes missing from the basement vaults. 130 million is recovered due to a van being caught in one of the explosions.

At the pentagon a plane crashes and several thousand documents go missing from an unaffected area, let me repeat that in an area not affected by the plane crash thousands of files simply vanish, the files relating to the missing trillions 😯

the facts contradict what the media is saying

"So here are two videos from the media that prove my case..." 🙂

Incidentally I reckon you CAN see the plane in that second video, about 0:09 you can see what appears to be the tail fin. Only very briefly mind you, as you might expect with a plane travelling at 500mph+ being recorded by a crappy slow frame rate CCTV camera.

Here is a clip from the you tube that provides extra info on the subject of 911, I'm not so insecure or deluded that I feel the need to prove anything.

There are countless unanswered questions and anomalies from 911, considering we went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq over this event, might not be a bad idea to look into it.

I'm not so insecure or deluded that I feel the need to prove anything.

Probably just as well 😆

Here's a conspiracy theory for you to discuss, you can't of course deny it!

Nice to see Kaesae joining in with his 'evidence.'

Whilst we talk about conspiricies, I think there may have been a cover up that Kaesae could shed some light on.

Kaesae, where did you get those frames from that you were selling?

2.3 trillion dollars vanishes, the next day 9/11 happens and a shit load of computers and hard drives get taken out well thousands of computers and loads of paper records anyway, between 180 and 300 billion dollars in gold goes missing from the basement vaults.

oooh.. I like this one

international robbery and espionage.. yes please

between 180 and 300 billion dollars in gold goes missing from the basement vaults.

And isn't it [i]amazing[/i] that the World Trade Centre would apparently contain more gold than the purpose-built, fortified [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bullion_Depository ]US Bullion Depository at Fort Knox[/url].

And that nearly 5,000 metric tons of gold could go missing without anyone noticing.
It's not like you could stuff it up your jumper.

Buildings are designed to withstand a certain amount of structural damage. Its called "load shifting". The idea us that if one side of a building fails it doesn't topple over like a giant game of jenga,the rest of the structure supports it. If/when the remaining structure fails the building drops vertically like a sack of spuds Which is what I saw on 911.

What happened to those buildings was well outside the design parameters.

And that nearly 5,000 metric tons of gold could go missing without anyone noticing.
It's not like you could stuff it up your jumper.

14 Dump trucks?

can we have a comp for the most outlandish conspiracy theory -Kaesae can be judge - and can then promote it on all the sites available....

14 Dump trucks?

allmountainventure: so you can chuck all sorts of asymmetric loads at modern buildings, and they'll "load shift" then neatly collapse?

So you're going for c) 'demolition "experts" are a bunch of charlatans and it's actually a piece of piss' then? 🙂

Who was it who said "If there's one thing we learn from history, it's that we don't learn from history."

32 computer hardrives and $100,000,000 million missing due to illegal transfers.

Grahams the world trade center was one of the largest gold depositories in the world, true or false?

Before I forget, when you research something you look into it get facts them attempt to verify or eliminate them. I shouldn't have to tell you this basic fact, but it's best not to take any chances!

Anything you want to verify write down the details and then do more research!

Nice one Kaesae, more evidence in the form of a you tube video.

You may have missed my post above. The frames?

So according to the general logic on STW, youtube documentary clips with clear references to facts that can be independently verified are not in fact valid sources 😯

Grahams the world trade center was one of the largest gold depositories in the world, true or false?

Well you said it, so I guess it must be true.

I mean, obviously that doesn't tally with [url= http://americanfreepress.net/?p=298 ]what was reported[/url], but we know the world media are all in on it, so I trust your undisclosed sources.

I was just [i]surprised[/i] they'd keep it all there, rather than say Fort Knox or the nearby Federal Reserve Bank.

Konabunny, not sure. Possibly both, or neither! I heard it in a piece on radio 4 by an American military advisor and historian talking about the repition of mistakes in warfare, Vietnam, Afghanistan through the ages etc. Can't remember if he was quoting someone else, though.

2.3 trillion dollars vanishes, the next day 9/11 happens

So they rigged the entire thing in one day? Pretty good work really. I'm glad that the US has such an efficient body to carry out atrocities like this. Perhaps they could teach their government (and ours) some lessons as I think it would be beneficial.

Could you, perhaps, find some non-"truther" corroboration for those videos? Or is the absence of them just proof that the truthers are right?

So according to the general logic on STW, youtube documentary clips with clear references to facts that can be independently verified are not in fact valid sources

YouTube has never been considered a valid source of evidence.

It's not an STW thing.

It's just common sense.

And that nearly 5,000 metric tons of gold could go missing without anyone noticing.
It's not like you could stuff it up your jumper.

I was bought a rather baggy jumper and am strong enough to carry 5000 metric tons. Does that put me in the frame for the theft?

So according to the general logic on STW, youtube documentary clips with clear references to facts that can be independently verified are not in fact valid sources

Thanks for leading us to the light

So anyone those frames and the earthquake research?

According to a Nov. 1, 2001 article in The London Times: “The Comex metals trading division of the New York Mercantile Exchange kept 3,800 gold bars—weighing 12 tons and worth more than $100 million—in vaults in the building’s [apparently Building 5—Ed.] basement. Comex also held almost 800,000 ounces of gold there on behalf of others with a value of about $220 million. It also held more than 102 million ounces of silver, worth [an estimated] $430 million.”

Oddly enough, the "London Times" 🙄 website has no such article in its archives but they definitely shouldn't let actual facts get in the way of conspiracy facts!!!!

nealglover, common sense? I do not think that means what you think that means!

When you research something you gather facts, the place that each fact relative to what you are researching comes from, is called a source. Once you identify information relative to what you are researching you then need to verify it and incorporate it into the picture you are building of the events or circumstances, of what has occurred.