[Closed] What's your favourite conspiracy theory?

Not seen anyone mention [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theory ]Pearl Harbour[/url] yet?

Theory goes that code-breaking efforts and other intelligence meant that Americans and British officials knew of the attack well in advance, but allowed it to happen to persuade the American public of the need to join the war.

[img] [/img]

I can't be bothered reading the content before but here's mine:

a) No one's been to the Moon

b) 9/11 was a government ploy to sanction war with the middle east

c) OBL isnt dead / has been dead a while.

I used to love conspiricy theories, still do to some extent, but as I get older I think I've heard all/most of the arguments for/against them.

MrsBouy still loves the 9/11 explosives one, me I'm happy to LOL at the Roswell/Area 51 UFO thingy.

I actually find the anger against 'conspiracy theorists' quite amusing; 'how dare you entertain any concept of something that differs from the official line our wonderful governments have told us!'. 🙂

I think with anything, it's essential to explore all possibilities. In a crime situation, it's often folly to just follow what may appeared to have happened, and fortunately in our legal system you need to provide evidence that someone committed a crime before you can convict them of it.

And it is, as history has proven, entirely possible to fool large amounts of people into believing what you want them to, in order to serve your own ends. Check out the Reichstag Fire in 1933, and the events that followed...

And sometimes, it's actually easier to get large amounts of people to believe your story, than individuals. careful manipulation of the media and other information sources, together with widespread condemnation and ridicule of anyone offering a differing view, can help engender a [i]need[/i] amongst ordinary people to believe something. People are quite sheep-like.

With 911 in particular, the official line on what happened carries as much weight as any 'conspiracy theory', as there has never been any actual significant 'evidence' presented which supports the claims of the US government, who, as we all know, aren't exactly the most reliable when it comes to telling the truth...

Personally I think it's folly to blindly accept anything you are told, without first exploring any alternative possibilities. And I also find it a bit disturbing that seemingly ordinary people, as demonstrated on here, are so quick to denounce anybody who might entertain alternative views, as crankpots, nutcases, and dangerous. Why are you frightened that there might just, possibly, be another, altogether more unpalatable explanation for things?

After all, we routinely vote in governments who spin a web of lies and deceit to gain power... 😉

@Elfinsafety, you speak wise words.

There's a difference isn't there, though, between first exploring alternative possibilities to the official explanation and insisting that thugs gave Marilyn Monroe a toxic enema?

With 911 in particular, the official line on what happened carries as much weight as any 'conspiracy theory', as there has never been any actual significant 'evidence' presented which supports the claims of the US government

😯

Evidence? You mean other than the eye witness accounts, live news footage, flight recorders, crash investigation, engineering reports, the 9/11 commission, the FEMA investigation, the NIST investigation, the independent University of Edinburgh investigation...

My favourite Concorde conspiracy theory actually turned out to be true!

My old chap designed bits of Concorde and told me that they knew that Russian spies were trying to steal engineering secrets from the British and French engineers and designers. One problem that the Russians couldn't solve was the rubber compound used on the tyres - remember that Concorde is a heavy plane and it's landing speed is much higher than a conventional airliner. The Soviets kept blowing tyres on the Tu-144 prototypes.

Suspicious that intruders were scraping the runways for rubber samples, engineers actually went out and scattered bogus rubber samples on the runways. Apparently, this held up the Russians for some eighteen months...

Personally I think it's folly to blindly accept anything you are told, without first exploring any alternative possibilities.

Exactly, you should apply the same critical thinking to each possibility. But when you do this most of the conspiracy theories fall to bits pretty quickly IMO. That's not to say that the official line must therefore be absolutely true of course.

Evidence? You mean other than the eye witness accounts, live news footage, flight recorders, crash investigation, engineering reports, the 9/11 commission, the FEMA investigation, the NIST investigation, the independent University of Edinburgh investigation...

No, I don't mean a bunch of theories presented by such 'investigations' mate, I mean actual hard [b]evidence[/b].

Y'know, what you need to be able to prove something...

Like, the [b]evidence[/b] that the buildings were actually brought down because of the intense heat from the fires- oh no, hang on, there isn't any. Only [i]theories[/i] as to what caused the buildings to collapse in a manner uncannily like a controlled demolition...

And if you're presenting theories and hypotheses, isn't it customary to have alternative ideas as well, look at the wider picture, explore all possibilities?

People are free to chose what they want, of course. But with such things, just because you have decided on what you're going to believe in, doesn't mean that alternative theories are necessarily wrong. Because if you want your own views to be taken as gospel truth, then you really will need some evidence.

Trouble is with such things, is it's virtually impossibly, in a Human World, to find someone completely impartial and free from any agenda. We tend to go with what we're most comfortable with, as it's 'safer' and more convenient.

Wunundred!

Conspiracy? You bet. 😀

Trouble is with such things, is it's virtually impossibly, in a Human World, to find someone completely impartial and free from any agenda. We tend to go with what we're most comfortable with, as it's 'safer' and more convenient.

At the risk of sounding like a total suck-up, there's some real wisdom here!

Now I have all you posters' opinions in my secret databank I can start leaching critical information... expect some memory loss, but no serious side effects.

Like, the evidence that the buildings were actually brought down because of the intense heat from the fires- oh no, hang on, there isn't any.

You mean apart from the materials and structural investigations that NIST and others performed, and the complete lack of explosives at the scene?

Only theories as to what caused the buildings to collapse in a manner uncannily like a controlled demolition...

Yeah didn't fall like any of the other 110 storey buildings that have been hit by two 767s 🙄

You realise that controlled demolitions only fall like that because they go in with big Stihl Saws and cut key supports before they detonate the explosives?

Are you seriously suggesting that those buildings (and presumably all other skyscrapers in that area) were pre-cut and rigged with a selection of demolition charges (thus endangering everyone in them on a daily basis) just on the off chance that someone flew a plane into them?

I tend to think that being hit by a 767 at 500 miles an hour, then having 10,000 gallons of jet fuel exploding and burning within them may be a more likely explanation.

Elfin; so you DONT believe that the Riechstag fire was starting in 12 different locations on three floors by a disabled Dutch Communist?

Here we go... 😀

You mean apart from the materials and structural investigations that NIST and others performed, and the complete lack of explosives at the scene?

I'm not even going to bother arguing with you, as you obviously have your mind made up, and any 'discussion' along this route will inevitably have you attempting to dismiss anything other than the Official Line.

Fine. You are of course free to believe in what you want. You and I both know that there isn't actually a shred of evidence supporting the Official Line, it's just theory, nothing else. NIST is a US government department, so hardly an impartial agency.

And that's how it is. Lots of 'experts' claiming this that and the other, but no actual proof to back up the various claims.

I tend to think that being hit by a 767 at 500 miles an hour, then having 10,000 gallons of jet fuel exploding and burning within them may be a more likely explanation.

Just because you think that, doesn't necessarily mean it's right. It's only an [i]explanation[/i], not what definitely happened.

But I'm interested in quite why you seem so keen to debunk any theories or views other than the Official Line...

Elf - look at the evidence and theories and make your own mind up as to what is more likely.

The official explanations are backed up by the evidence - there is no evidence at all that backs up any alternative explanation

You and I both know that there isn't actually a shred of evidence supporting the Official Line

I watched a plane fly into the building live on telly. Many hundreds of people were there and saw it first hand. I'm pretty sure it wasn't photoshopped.

Lots of 'experts' claiming this that and the other, but no actual proof to back up the various claims.

What "proof" would you accept? I'm fairly sure that if they built exact replicas of the twin towers, rigged them with cameras and sensors, then flew identical planes into them and got a similar result you would still protest that it was rigged.

NIST is a US government department, so hardly an impartial agency.

Many agencies and organisations involving many, many people have investigated various aspects of the towers and published reports and papers. Conspiracy theories logically fail when they require hundreds of people to keep a secret. Especially when it is a secret that would have cost several thousand people their lives.

But I'm interested in quite why you seem so keen to debunk any theories or views other than the Official Line...

I'm interested in debunking nonsense. I'm quite open to other [i]reasonable[/i] explanations of any event, provided they have some suitable evidence or even just a basic anchor in reality.

Graham S, don't forget the other biulding that collapsed in a similar fashion and wasn't hit by a plane.

Plenty of inconsistencies and disquieting elements to the official story. Trouble is, there are so many arguments, counter arguments, suppositions stated as fact, facts dismissed as supposition, arguments presented and dismissed using straw man fallacies, and all from every conceivable viewpoint that it's very hard to make any headway in a conversation with someone about it.

well my favouite is from the weekly world news which stated that jfk is alive, and the his coffin is full of wooden planks. and according to the utterly reliable weekly world news "the evidence is there for anyone with a shovel to see for themselves"

Weekly World News, The World's Only Reliable Newspaper
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Elf - look at the evidence and theories and make your own mind up as to what is more likely.

I have done. And I've also considered the motivations behind those who are presenting the theories. Indeed many of those presenting 'alternative' views and theories have no apparent political or economic motivations, whereas agencies such as NIST definitely do. Oh, and several leading academics and scientist lost their jobs for daring to suggest alternative views...

The official explanations are backed up by the evidence

Yeah, ok, if you say so, eh? 😉

Open mind is what it's all about. Not swallowing the Official Line. Having an open mind doesn't make you a nutter, a crankpot, unpatriotic or any of the other vitriolic accusations flung about by those siding with the Official Line, it just means you might want to actually know the whole truth, not just accept what you are told to think.

You'll be telling me the USA is a democracy, next...

exactly the same manner as a controlled demolition

I love the way this is trotted out every time. What exactly do you know about demolition to say that this is true?

I'm interested in debunking nonsense. I'm quite open to other reasonable explanations of any event

No you're not. You're interested only in appearing correct, clever, and superior to someone who might have a different onion to your own. Your apparent desire to debunk any of what you call 'conspiracy theories' suggests perhaps that you aren't, actually, entirely convinced deep down, but need to feel that you are...

I watched a plane fly into the building live on telly. Many hundreds of people were there and saw it first hand. I'm pretty sure it wasn't photoshopped.

Sigh. We [i]know[/i] that two planes crashed into the towers. What I am interested in is why they collapsed. The official Line states categorically that the collapse was due to the heat melting the steel structure, but hasn't actually produced and real [i]evidence[/i] of this. Ergo, it's only theory. So, why is this theory more 'correct' than any other? Because it's the one the US government want you to accept? Why do the US government want you to accept it? Have you not asked yourself this?

It could be purely coincidental, but since 911, the US has consolidated it's global position of power, and many people have got very, very rich from the spoils of war. Funny that, eh?

Next you'll be telling me that were definitely Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq... 😉

Graham, don't forget the other building that collapsed in exactly the same manner as a controlled demolition would produce, and wasn't hit by a plane...

That would be [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center ]7 World Trade Center[/url] where numerous fires burned out of control most of the day, with no working sprinkler system to stop them. A massive bulge in the building was spotted accompanied by structural creaking at 2pm and fire crews were withdrawn at 3:30pm because it was obvious to them that the building was going to collapse.

I love the way this is trotted out every time. What exactly do you know about demolition to say that this is true?

What do you know about demolition to say that it's [i]untrue[/i]? More than the various experts on demolition of large buildings, architects, scientists, engineers etc who have all presented their own theories that the towers' collapse was brought about by a controlled demolition?

See, notice how I'm not actually saying one thing or another here, unlike some of youse? I'm merely entertaining different views, is all. Youse seem stuck on believing one Official Line.

The official Line states categorically that the collapse was due to the heat melting the steel structure, but hasn't actually produced and real evidence of this. Ergo, it's only theory.

If you had actually read the NIST report you would not say this, because this is not the official line. I cannot see how you can argue that your mind is open and that they ahvent produced any evidence when you have nto bothered to examine what they have produced. Ergo you're talking boillocks as usual.

More than the various experts on demolition of large buildings, architects, scientists, engineers etc who have all presented their own theories that the towers' collapse was brought about by a controlled demolition?

If you had actually read the NIST report you would not say this, because this is not the official line.

Sigh

Metallurgic examination by NIST [i]suggested[/i] that heat damaged conributed to the weakening of the steel core which in turn contributed to the failure of the structures' integrity.

Can't be bothered any more, cos you're resorting to vitriolic crap rather than actually have a polite discussion. You're whole agenda is not about finding out the truth, but denouncing those who dare question the Official Line.

If you want to believe it, and close your mind to any possible alternatives, based on bugger all real evidence and actual proof, fine. Up to you. Your choice.

Personally I think it's more important to hold out for actual facts, rather than theories and conjecture, but there you go.

Oh, and you might find these useful:

[img] [/img]

Oh, and this lot don't really seem like a bunch of nutters and crankpots, somehow:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/about-us.html

Oh, and several leading academics and scientist lost their jobs for daring to suggest alternative views...

Who? Which ones?

No you're not. You're interested only in appearing correct, clever, and superior to someone who might have a different onion to your own.

I've read the alternative explanations and found lots of wild conjecture and no convincing evidence. I've read the "official line" and found evidence and explanation that fits with what was observed.

We know that two planes crashed into the towers. What I am interested in is why they collapsed.

You don't think the two might be somehow related?

The official Line states categorically that the collapse was due to the heat melting the steel structure, but hasn't actually produced and real evidence of this.

Steel buckles, deforms and even melts in very hot fires. I don't need the [i]real[/i] evidence from the US government to accept this. Do you?

It could be purely coincidental, but since 911, the US has consolidated it's global position of power, and many people have got very, very rich from the spoils of war. Funny that, eh?

Yes, yes, I read Chomksy too.

No doubting the US used 9/11 to that end, but that doesn't mean they had a hand in it, or assisted in the murder of 2,753 of their citizens (but bizarrely decided to control the destruction so that no more than that died).

Why would they need to risk being caught orchestrating a terrorist attack against their own people when one would happen anyway?

the 9/11 ones are great, and i actually reckon there's some sniff of truth in some of them 🙂

Metallurgic examination by NIST suggested that heat damaged conributed to the weakening of the steel core which in turn contributed to the failure of the structures' integrity.

the collapse was due to the heat melting the steel structure

Which is just part of the classic obfuscation that you are trying to carry out. and now that I have called you out over your so called experts view on demolition you are backing out because of my vitriol? Or is it because you havent got anything to back it up with.

Oh, and this lot don't really seem like a bunch of nutters and crankpots, somehow:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/about-us.html

Ha ha they have been soundly debunked numerous times I'll just look up the ref for you. Ha ha oh my golly gosh that is weak, I didn't realise yhou were basing this tripe on stuff from AE911, anyone with half a minutes experience in 911 consipracies knows whaty a bunch of charalatans they are.

[url= http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/ ]here ya go loads of easy to read stuff about why ae911 truth is a load of bollocks[/url]

its probably been done already but I think its about time for xkcd...

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.rense.com/ ]null[/url] jeff rense

great site with a mixture of conspiracy stuff and other nonsense.

elfinsafety - just for the record, what do you think caused the twin towers to collapse?

elfinsafety - just for the record, what do you think caused the twin towers to collapse?

It isn't relavent, he is just trolling as usuual.

elfinsafety - just for the record, what do you think caused the twin towers to collapse?

I don't know, you know why?

No definitive [b]evidence[/b] has been presented which proves or disproves any official or unofficial claims. I do believe, that from the various theories and ideas presented, that it is entirely possible that scenarios other than the Official Line could equally have taken place.

Therefore, unlike some on here, I'm keeping an open mind. Could well be that the Official Line is in fact the truth. Then again, there are other explanations that are equally plausible.

Toys19; not even going to bother with you mate, cos instead of actually presenting any evidence of what you claim, you're just diverting to views of others which again are only theories, not truth. Again, you believe what you want to believe, up to you, innit?

And leave others to have an open mind. Just cos I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm wrong, or you're wrong, or anything. None of us have any real proof of what actually happened to cause those buildings to collapse, so there's little point in arguing, as we none of us have any real 'evidence' to back any of our views up. and as I've aid; I'm not actually presenting a theory, just suggesting it might be a good idea to keep an open mind, until such time as there is actually some real, hard evidence.

Toys, this is me:

[i]'You know what, might be a good idea to be objective and open minded about stuff'[/i]

This is you:

[i]'I am right and you are wrong because I say so!'[/i]

Sigh... Do you see how you might be coming across mate? Seriously?

Enough already.

freemasons organised the whole thing, i'm right, you know i am, no point arguing with me.

EDIT - calling toys 'mate'... well you might want to see how that makes your posts come across elfin, very confrontational.

just saying like, and i'm right you know i am, no point arguing with me.

There is actually real hard evidence, read the NIST report, properly.
I am happy that you wont bother with me, it shows that you actually havent got the backing or the backbone to support any of the trite rubbish you have trotted out.

Toys, this is me:

'You know what, might be a good idea to be objective and open minded about stuff'

This is you:

'I am right and you are wrong because I say so!'

Sigh... Do you see how you might be coming across mate? Seriously?

Enough already.

Elfin this is weak. I think you will find you are the one who is closed minded, you havent bothered to consider the reports and evidence, and yet you keep saying that there is no evidence, if you opened your mind and actually read the reports you will find plenty of evidence.

Oh and taking advice on how I might be coming across from you is laughable, do try harder.

None of us have any real proof of what actually happened to cause those buildings to collapse

I think I saw some footage once of some planes flying into them. Just sayin'.

[img] [/img]

Therefore, unlike some on here, I'm keeping an open mind. Could well be that the Official Line is in fact the truth. Then again, there are other explanations that are equally plausible.

I'm interested in these other explanations as to why the twin towers collapsed which are "equally plausible" to the version the official reports suggest. Which explanations are these? Are they really "equally plausible"? Just because more than one theory exists does not mean we should give all theories equal credence.

One that got me thinking recently concerns the death of AC/DC original vocalist Bon Scott.He famously choked on his vomit after a typically big night out.Its well known that Bon kept diaries with lyrics/song ideas in.His girlfriend at the time claims following his death " two large men" came to their flat and went through his belongings,during which these diaries went AWOL.The band went on to replace Bon with Geordie screamer Brian Johnson,who admits to being no great lyricist himself,and brought out Back In Black in double quick time.The theory goes,the band used those diaries and the lyrics to form the basis of Back In Black and subsequent albums.

No definitive evidence has been presented which proves or disproves any official or unofficial claims.

No, actually loads of evidence has been presented which supports the "official claim" but, thanks to your "open mind", you refuse to accept it.

Which brings us back to the question: what possible evidence could be offered to you that would convince you one way or the other?

Oh come on ...lets all go for a beer and forget all this nonsense

No, actually loads of evidence has been presented which supports the "official claim" but, thanks to your "open mind", you refuse to accept it.

Toys et al; I said Enough Already.

If you are so convinced and sure about stuff, why you argue about it?

That's the bit I find funny. If those who won't blindly accept the Official Line are such crankpots, why do you spend so much time and energy trying to appear more righteous and clever than them? If, like, y'know, you're so clever and right?

Here's something to keep you busy for the rest of the day:

Provide me with [b]actual evidence[/b] that the towers collapsed [b]purely as a result of the planes crashing into them[/b] (IE, something no-one has actually proven yet...).

Of you go.

No, actually loads of [s]evidence[/s] theories have been presented which supports the "official claim"

FTFY...

(And for a bonus point, can you tell me what happened to the metal which was removed from the scene before any independent bodies could forensically examine it?)

Oh and RealBoy; keep up mate. We did that ages ago... 😉

And just one more thing, and I am genuinely interested:

Why is the idea that the explanation may lie somewhere outside of the Official Line so unpalatable to you?

Elf - its nothing to do with it being the "official line" Its to do with it being the one that is consistently in line with the evidence

Elf, you might have missed this - I asked:

I'm interested in these other explanations as to why the twin towers collapsed which are "equally plausible" to the version the official reports suggest. Which explanations are these? Are they really "equally plausible"? Just because more than one theory exists does not mean we should give all theories equal credence.