Delfi Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 This deranged nonsense does verge on the insulting really IMO. I think I'd be quite upset if I was associated with any of the victims of these nutters. I have watched 'Loose Change' and I'm not convinced that it offers anything that isn't explained in a simpler sense by the 'official' view (see Occam's Razor). It's about time that people faced up to the fact that the blind acceptance of religion is the root cause of much of the evil that we see in this world. That exact same idea could/should be extended to conspiracy theories ... same idea really ... it's all mystical ###### with no basis and no underlying proof. It's all just opinion and hearsay. Just accept the fact that the universe is a cold place with no invisible friends, (and or multiple virgins to deflower), no hidden meaning or complexity and we'll all be the better for it. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I object to the notion that there aren't loads of virgins to deflower (of a legal age obviously). Link to post Share on other sites
Delfi Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I object to the notion that there aren't loads of virgins to deflower (of a legal age obviously). But you have to die first ... and they may be of legal age but hundreds (if not thousands) of years old. I'll leave you with that thought Link to post Share on other sites
Xaccers Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 But you have to die first ... and they may be of legal age but hundreds (if not thousands) of years old. I'll leave you with that thought mmmm pop tarts.... Link to post Share on other sites
Stealthbomber Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Why did they want to invade Afghanistan? For the cashew nuts. Duh! On a more serious note, I suspect that, as has previously been mentioned, the biggest hiccup over the whole 9/11 tragedy was that the US intelligence and military community had become complacent in the years since the end of the Cold War. AFAIK, the US defence budget had been reduced on a yearly basis and this results in less people doing more work and less fighter planes ready to scramble. People say "the USA knew of Al Quaedas plans" but the fact is that it was probably in amongst a sack-load of "crackpot theories" which a handful of cynical, overworked CIA agents were supposed to be investigating. Anyway... If anybody feels that this thread is mad as a box of frogs and needs closing before Project Echelon spots it and sends the black helo's for us all then feel free to say so. If this thread becomes a blatant rant for any particular POV then it'll be closed. Beyond that, feel free to ignore it and let it sink into oblivion of its own accord. Link to post Share on other sites
Xaccers Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 AFAIK, the US defence budget had been reduced on a yearly basis and this results in less people doing more work and less fighter planes ready to scramble. Stealth, you should be ashamed of yourself, that's a terrible thing to say. It's fewer, not less! tsk Link to post Share on other sites
jay bee Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I find conspiracy theories fascinating and entertaining, but for those who actually believe every word that comes out of Ickes mouth, listen up because I'm about to drop some knowledge. Not everything is connected. Conspiracy theories are formed by taking two events that are related, and assume they are connected. These links build up into a web of events and the conspiracy is formed, a sinister and calculated plan such as the NWO and the like. But it quite simply, is not true. How can I say relatively for certain that these things are false? The government cannot maintain secrecy. If watergate wasn't covered up, how in the world would the NWO be covered up? It just doesn't make sense. Finally, a recent example, the conflict in the middle east. As we all know, big corporations have earned billions of dollars through government contracts. Conspiracy Theorist response: The government engineered the conflict in the middle east through 9/11 etc in order to go to war, so the big corporations could make billions because the government is in fact run by the corporations. Rational Persons response: The corporations win a lot of contracts by having government contacts. There are a lot of ex politicians in corporations, and a lot of ex corporate types in the white house. This is not a conspiracy, people in corporations have a lot of money, politicians have power (and usually money), so it natural to find the rich and powerful mingling with the rich and powerful. It might be a bit rotten, but it isn't evidence of a conspiracy. They are rich opportunists, they don't run America. /rant Link to post Share on other sites
Finius Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 That David Icke bloke is on par in insanity (or should that be stupidity) with people like Nick Griffin who think that the gas chambers in Auschwitz were built after the war to create sympathy towards the jews... >.< Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, although most of them are so obviously *badger*s there isn't alot of point. Much more interested in the INSLAW/PROMIS type stuff. Robert Anton Wilson did a pretty interesting and entertaining book which was like an encyclopedia of conspiracy theories, has most of them in there, its quite a good read for when you have nothing else to do apart from watch the working lunch and masturbate. Link to post Share on other sites
Habakure Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 You read whilst masturbating? Wow, I thought your supposed to look at pretty pictures. I always think of conspiracy story's being the new fables as we need a lit bit more in the story now instead of just burning bush. Link to post Share on other sites
Hop2 Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Yeah where's the harm in these conspiracy theories and poor thinking. It's not like the conspiracy theory about the MMR jab being linked to autism did any harm... oh wait it actually did. Just googling these things now lead me here: http://whatstheharm.net/ Good site. The MMR jab problem wasn't a conspiracy, it was a cock up. Poor Research + Irresponsible Journalism = Negative public perception. Which in turn = lots of kids with measles! I did hear that a lot of parents who didn’t submit their children to the MMR jab were simply hoping that enough of the “herd” (their words not mine) would submit their kids to the jab, thus keeping measles under control. Sadly that turned out not to be the case! Like the whatstheharm.net though. Lot's of interesting stuff there. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 The MMR jab problem wasn't a conspiracy, it was a cock up. Poor Research + Irresponsible Journalism = Negative public perception. Which in turn = lots of kids with measles! I did hear that a lot of parents who didn’t submit their children to the MMR jab were simply hoping that enough of the “herd” (their words not mine) would submit their kids to the jab, thus keeping measles under control. Sadly that turned out not to be the case! I think a lot of conspiracy theories started out that way. The MMR thing has turned into conspiracy though if you google the interweb a bit. The origins are certainly in poor research, irresponsible journalism and lazy thinking though. Link to post Share on other sites
PlasticMag Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 From XKCD Link to post Share on other sites
Stealthbomber Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 A new conspiracy theory to discuss... Is Operation Panthers Claw merely political spin designed to distract a gullible public from domestic troubles and deliver a tangible military victory to a troubled leader just in time for a general election? Link to post Share on other sites
jay bee Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 A new conspiracy theory to discuss... Is Operation Panthers Claw merely political spin designed to distract a gullible public from domestic troubles and deliver a tangible military victory to a troubled leader just in time for a general election? Maybe... But I doubt Brown really has that much involvement in military operations.. He's not getting back in though, kind of a shame as he has a very good record with handling economics, but just has no charisma. Be interesting to see what the Tories will be like. Link to post Share on other sites
MDK_Marshal Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Right, the thread has been cleansed... or as much as a conspiracy thread CAN be cleansed. Much as I'd love to lock this thread up hard and fast, I feel there'd be objections. So, keep it clean and sensible, folks. Link to post Share on other sites
Habakure Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Suppose if you did lock it, another would pop up saying:- Look it is a conspiracy. There trying to stop us from preachign the truth to a bunch of re-enacting military types with toy guns and lots of pressure air. Link to post Share on other sites
jay bee Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 sorry to ressurect this, but a good documentary on the 7/7 conspiracy theories on iplayer here Link to post Share on other sites
Ki Adimonky Posted June 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Yeah, I watched that documentary, or should I rightly put it as propoganda by 'Brown's Broadcasting Channel'. It was incredibly bias towards the 'Official story' if ya ask me, but before you all start flaming me with a vengeance, can I just say that when it comes to the 7/7 bombings I haven't read anything on it apart from what I have seen in the news. So I'm not saying it was an inside job, I just want to read a little more first, then I'll make my mind up. One thing I did notice though was how quick certain points supporting the conspiracy theorists were dismissed, for example, the bit where some witnesses said the floor of the carriages were blown upwards, supporting pre-planted explosives underneath the trains. Surely the floor should have been blown downwards? Another point is how there was never a public enquiry into the attack, surely if the government had nothing to hide they would allow one? Link to post Share on other sites
jay bee Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Yeah, I watched that documentary, or should I rightly put it as propoganda by 'Brown's Broadcasting Channel'. It was incredibly bias towards the 'Official story' if ya ask me, but before you all start flaming me with a vengeance, can I just say that when it comes to the 7/7 bombings I haven't read anything on it apart from what I have seen in the news. So I'm not saying it was an inside job, I just want to read a little more first, then I'll make my mind up. One thing I did notice though was how quick certain points supporting the conspiracy theorists were dismissed, for example, the bit where some witnesses said the floor of the carriages were blown upwards, supporting pre-planted explosives underneath the trains. Surely the floor should have been blown downwards? Another point is how there was never a public enquiry into the attack, surely if the government had nothing to hide they would allow one? The eye witnesses saying the floor was blown upwards firstly was only reported by a minority of witnesses, and as I'm sure anyone who's studied psychology at even the really basic levels can tell you, you can't trust eye witness testimony. As for the public enquiry, I imagine the problem with that is that it depends who conducts the enquiry.. An enquiry carried out by the 9/11 truth movement would certainly point fingers at a conspiracy without considering the pesky forensics reports and so on with all their pesky evidence... I really had to lol at the controlled demolition bit EDIT: Also on the public enquiry thing, you have to take into account that some of the information used to determine what happened will come in from the intelligence services. Such information could be a bit sensitive given the context in which it may have been acquired. Link to post Share on other sites
Ki Adimonky Posted July 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 You have a point there about an enquiry, who would conduct it? The thing I hated most about that documentary was how towards the end, they used the 'Ripple Effects' creator to their own means to show people that all conspiracy theorists are crazy, even though their not, I'll admit some are, but not all. Link to post Share on other sites
Xaccers Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 You have a point there about an enquiry, who would conduct it? The thing I hated most about that documentary was how towards the end, they used the 'Ripple Effects' creator to their own means to show people that all conspiracy theorists are crazy, even though their not, I'll admit some are, but not all. Indeed, some are, yes, some... Some are just paranoid, and will read what they like into any situation, no matter how obvious the facts are. Link to post Share on other sites
jay bee Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Indeed, some are, yes, some... Some are just paranoid, and will read what they like into any situation, no matter how obvious the facts are. *Cha Ching!* And with that I say goodnight. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 The entertainment value of this thread keeps on giving! jay - Cheers for the link heard about this yesterday so was after finding it. Ki - Dismissing something because of the source is surely something you'd lecture us against doing, so why do it yourself? Just because something is the 'official story' doesn't necessarily make it wrong. If you want to debunk what the documentary says you'll have to actually attack what it says rather than the people that made it. Here's the journalist responsible for the 'floor raising up' guff, a simple case of inaccurate reporting of a couple of witnesses away from the explosion prior to all the facts being known: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jun/27/july7.uksecurity Link to post Share on other sites
Xaccers Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 I'm pretty sure the photo they showed had the floor bending down into a hole, not up out of a hole, but hey, facts aren't always as much fun as fiction are they? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.