Top Ten Conspiracy Theories

[Cardie]

Can someone explain why the other one fell, building 7? I'll stop asking after this one, I promise.

 

Peer pressure.

[Neil G]

....I'm ahead of you, look in the distance*waves* "Hi"

 

They have the whole of the middle east, Iraq is conquered so that it will never be self sufficient due to the laws they slipped in, Iran is surrounded and its enemies geographically, economically and militarily isolated. Isreal is doing fine for itself and the US, mostly itself though, oil and other resources are flowing, no democracy, jobs a good 'un.

 

Sure theres a few 'crazies' blowing up civis but that's not the point is it unless you beleive what they tell you? "we did it for the darkie kids"

 

 

They don't have the whole Middle East at all. They don't have control of Iran's oil, they don't have control of Syria's oil, they don't have control of Libya's oil, they don't have control of Egypt's oil. They wanted all that, but they haven't got it and they're not going to get it, because of what's happened in Iraq.

 

Those "few crazies" blowing people up are entirely the point. It's because of the shitstorm in Iraq that America doesn't have the military capacity or the public appetite to invade any more countries and take their oil.

 

By the way, is your constant mis-spelling of Israel deliberate? An anti-Zionist in-joke maybe?

[Red Phoenix]

I just think Loose Change is all a bit weird and underhand.

 

They take a quote from a guy in the towers talking about explosions and then use it as proof of bombs. That's a huge leap when 100 floors up theirs a jumbo jet burning up, I'd be shocked if their wasn't explosions.

 

Hmm, the final link of the last one's I posted supposedly has actual footage of these explosions, which they call blast points, probably because there were several of them. If you watch from 6:45 here (it finished on 7:47, so it's not long.) you'll see what they're pointing at : YouTube - 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 4

 

Again, not trying to suggest this means it was an inside job, I've grown a lot more skeptical with conspiracy stuff over the years, but keeping an open mind is something I at least prefer doing.

[M_B]

I'm with others who say that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are right up their with the craziest motherfuckers on the planet.

 

The majority of any 'evidence' they have such as the coroner saying their were no body's or 'pull it' or talk of explosions were taken at the time of the event or in the days after when nobody knew what the fuck was going on.

 

Take the steel thing, they bang on about jet fuel not burning hot enough to MELT steel but since when has metal needed to melt to lose it's strength?

 

Go grab your self a spoon and bend it back and for, as it heats up it get's easier and easier to bend as it loses it's strength. It's not melting though.

 

On the whole I agree, but the CIA not telling the FBI is fact. Its impossible to dismiss that.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

I've seen the crackpot explosion video's, where's the credible stuff hiding?

 

 

Try this it's only 7min long about the pentagon plane.

 

ENIL3O56oRo&N

[Cardie]

A Fox News mini documentary.......seriously?

[WaltonRed]

48% of Britons believe that Area 51 exists to investigate aliens and their spaceships.

 

A massive 38% think that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government.

 

And 35% believe that the Apollo landing on the Moon was a hoax.

 

A suspicious 32% are convinced that Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed were murdered.

 

25% think the Illuminati and the Masons are trying to take over the world.

 

And would you believe Scientologists rule Hollywood? Well, 17% of those who took part in the survey would.

 

Big Brother is watching - and 7% believe that barcodes are really intended to control people.

 

And 6% are convinced that Microsoft sends messages via Wingdings.

 

Another dark theory: some 5% believe the US government allowed Pearl Harbour to happen.

 

And 3% think the world is run by dinosaur-like reptiles!

 

The poll also revealed that 61% believe in aliens.

 

And 52% think ghosts exist.

 

 

No ducking the obvious question:

 

Which of the above do you think is most likely to be true?

 

I'll go for Microsoft & Windings.

No idea what a Winding is, but it sounds great.

 

9/11

Moon Landings

Diana and Dodi

Pearl Harbour

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

A Fox News mini documentary.......seriously?

 

 

I guess you aint watched it then.The video footage was taken when the event happend by fox.That guy has fuck all to do with fox.he is from a independent website and news show.

 

Plus you show me footage of the plane hitting the pentagon.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Or try pausing this at exactly 1.28 this is the official release of the plane on cam hitting the pentagon.There is no way that is a 757.

 

Mg4GJzgT0ak

[Cardie]

I guess you aint watched it then.The video footage was taken when the event happend by fox.That guy has fuck all to do with fox.he is from a independent website and news show.

 

Plus you show me footage of the plane hitting the pentagon.

 

Surely you're the one who has to provide proof, not me?

[M_B]

Pearl Harbour is intriguing I admit.

 

There is no evidence other than circumstantial. Both the British and Russians (particularly the Russians who had a spy in Tokyo) had intelligence of an impending attack and told the Americans. This in itself is a bit odd as both wanted the US in the war, so why warn them and potentially risk America not entering the war ? (although granted we warned the Russians aswell).

 

Anyway, yes there certainly was a message, but it didnt get to Pearl in time. You would think such an important message would get to its destination. You do have to wonder.

 

People point to the carriers not being in harbour as positive circumstantial evidence. You have to remember though that in 41, carriers were not the most important capital ship as naval tactics still held Battleships as the most naval dictator. It took the battles of WW2 to change that perception.

[Section_31]

Pearl Harbour is intriguing I admit.

 

There is no evidence other than circumstantial. Both the British and Russians (particularly the Russians who had a spy in Tokyo) had intelligence of an impending attack and told the Americans. This in itself is a bit odd as both wanted the US in the war, so why warn them and potentially risk America not entering the war ? (although granted we warned the Russians aswell).

 

Anyway, yes there certainly was a message, but it didnt get to Pearl in time. You would think such an important message would get to its destination. You do have to wonder.

 

People point to the carriers not being in harbour as positive circumstantial evidence. You have to remember though that in 41, carriers were not the most important capital ship as naval tactics still held Battleships as the most naval dictator. It took the battles of WW2 to change that perception.

 

The yanks had plenty of warning from their own side, they intercepted a communique saying an attack was imminent, and they also discovered a Jap mini-sub on the prowl in the actual harbour itself.

 

Then, when they spotted the first attack wave coming in on radar, the commander said 'they're probably ours' without even bothering to check.

 

In Churchill's book 'The Second World War' he actually admits that the night of Pearl harbour was one of the best night's kip he'd had for years, and wrote something like: "I knew that no matter what happened after that, for the first time I was certain we would be on the winning side.'

[Stu Monty]

As regards 9/11, I am willing to believe that there is a possibility the CIA knew an attack on the US mainland was likely and deliberately did not tell the FBI particularly as there is evidence of that. However there is no clear evidence of why they did not tell the FBI. Were they really that useless or was there another motive ?

 

I'm not willing to believe though that the CIA directly contributed to the events that day or planned them. Not yet anyway.

 

The CIA knew of a lot of the people who took part in the events and the planning. The CIA aren't permitted to follow the leads that they have or act on them because they lead to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia controls the price of oil on the planet for the foreseable future; and is a considerable backer to each and every president that sits in the Whitehouse too. There was a similar situation recently where a rogue scientist from Pakistan was let off the leash by the CIA after orders...the money trail involves Saudi Arabia again.

 

I agree that the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is difficult to believe especially when we watched it happen ourselves.

 

What leaves me a little uncomfortable and is an undeniable fact is that the CIA knew some of the terrorists (who later comitted the attacks) were travelling to the US but did not tell the FBI. Not only that but the CIA also prevented FBI agents they were working with from informing their colleagues in the US.

 

The Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General called the failure to pass the information to the FBI a “significant failure” but was unable to determine why the information was not passed on.

[uS Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 250 Here is the link to the official document http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0606/final.pdf]

 

In 2002, CIA Director George Tenet alluded to e-mails he claims prove the information was passed to the FBI. However, the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry and 9/11 Commission failed to find any evidence of these e-mails and the FBI claims it never received any such e-mails.

 

So you can only draw 2 possible conclusions from that - either the CIA fucked up monumentally, or they deliberately did not want the FBI to have the information.

 

See above. The CIA are not permitted to act in these cases, the boat is not to be rocked.

 

They don't have the whole Middle East at all. They don't have control of Iran's oil, they don't have control of Syria's oil, they don't have control of Libya's oil, they don't have control of Egypt's oil. They wanted all that, but they haven't got it and they're not going to get it, because of what's happened in Iraq.

 

Those "few crazies" blowing people up are entirely the point. It's because of the shitstorm in Iraq that America doesn't have the military capacity or the public appetite to invade any more countries and take their oil.

 

By the way, is your constant mis-spelling of Israel deliberate? An anti-Zionist in-joke maybe?

 

I'm not on-board with the idea that the US overall objective was to occupy the whole of the middle-east Neil, in fact I think it's a pretty wild extrapolation of the facts. They had objectives for Iraq and a few of them have been achieved. I wouldn't say it's been a success though as their utopian free-market, that would finally prove the Chicago boys were right, has collapsed into ruins and the major oil companies got in the way of a lot of their plans for the oil. It's feathered the boys' nests though.

[Neil G]

I'm not on-board with the idea that the US overall objective was to occupy the whole of the middle-east Neil, in fact I think it's a pretty wild extrapolation of the facts. They had objectives for Iraq and a few of them have been achieved. I wouldn't say it's been a success though as their utopian free-market, that would finally prove the Chicago boys were right, has collapsed into ruins and the major oil companies got in the way of a lot of their plans for the oil. It's feathered the boys' nests though.

 

 

It's not a wild extrapolation at all. It was openly advocated by some of the people who were the prime movers behind the Iraq war, people who had been pushing for the war since before Bush was elected.

 

It's easy to forget now that the architects of the war have been so discredited, but back in 2002-2003 they had the upper hand in Washington and were well and truly up for a Middle East roadshow. The likes of Perle and Wolfowitz were preparing the American people and the world for the US to go into country after country in the Middle East, overthrowing their regimes by military force and establishing pro-American governments. They sold it as an issue of national security and spreading democracy to make it palatable.

 

It was clearly on the agenda Stu. If Iraq had been stabilised, the US hadn't lost so many troops and the American people hadn't turned against the war, the US would be preparing to invade Iran now. Not bomb it, invade it.

[Fugitive]

The one that fascinates me the most is the allegation that they actually put Butter in 'I cant believe it's not Butter'.

 

Fucking scandalous if it's true.

[Guest The Big Green Bastard]

Its all bollox, why be rumourmonger.

[Big Ig]

Those poo-pooing the conspiracy theories need to watch that Zeitgeist vid that Snez posted up before going any further. RiS especially, seeing as you keep asking the question that's addressed in that vid, amongst many others.

[Jose Jones]

9/11 was planned by the US government as a means of getting the rest of the world to use their backwards fucked up date system.

It didn’t happen in November you yankee idiots!

[Liquid football]

Those poo-pooing the conspiracy theories need to watch that Zeitgeist vid that Snez posted up before going any further. RiS especially, seeing as you keep asking the question that's addressed in that vid, amongst many others.

 

Conspiracy theorist!

[Red Phoenix]

Those poo-pooing the conspiracy theories need to watch that Zeitgeist vid that Snez posted up before going any further. RiS especially, seeing as you keep asking the question that's addressed in that vid, amongst many others.

 

Thanks, I'd not seen this one, and I feel like I'm half in a state of shock after that. (and was easily in a proper state of shock at least twice when watching it.) I feel pretty angry aswell, there's definitely elements in our governments that are badly, badly fucked up. Sometimes I think more than many want to believe or accept aswell, including myself.

 

Am gonna track down parts 1 and 3 anyway, and hope that the positive/hopeful ending I've just read about on wikipedia is enough to make me feel a bit better once I'm done. Fuck.

[sh#t waffle]

Its all bollox, why be rumourmonger.

Says he who I've heard fellates goats.

[Acid]

YouTube - Unfastened Coins: Titanic Conspiracy

[Cardie]

Or try pausing this at exactly 1.28 this is the official release of the plane on cam hitting the pentagon.There is no way that is a 757.

 

 

Isn't putting a landing gear on a missile a pointless exercise?

[Catch22]

The CIA knew of a lot of the people who took part in the events and the planning. The CIA aren't permitted to follow the leads that they have or act on them because they lead to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia controls the price of oil on the planet for the foreseable future; and is a considerable backer to each and every president that sits in the Whitehouse too. There was a similar situation recently where a rogue scientist from Pakistan was let off the leash by the CIA after orders...the money trail involves Saudi Arabia again.

 

 

 

See above. The CIA are not permitted to act in these cases, the boat is not to be rocked.

 

 

 

I'm not on-board with the idea that the US overall objective was to occupy the whole of the middle-east Neil, in fact I think it's a pretty wild extrapolation of the facts. They had objectives for Iraq and a few of them have been achieved. I wouldn't say it's been a success though as their utopian free-market, that would finally prove the Chicago boys were right, has collapsed into ruins and the major oil companies got in the way of a lot of their plans for the oil. It's feathered the boys' nests though.

 

" I wouldn't say it's been a success though as their utopian free-market, that would finally prove the Chicago boys were right, has collapsed into ruins and the major oil companies got in the way of a lot of their plans for the oil."

 

Sorry but this is just nonsense: There was absolutely nothing free-market about the plans behind the invasion of Iraq.

The idea behind it were expressed in a Project for a New American Century. Their website is here:

Welcome to the Project for the New American Century

Can you find any legitimate economics in that? No, because it is an international relations project, even if it turned out to be nonsense.

 

Indeed one of the most famous critics of the war was Krugman, who rightly has just been given the Nobel prize for economics.

He is a very respected free market economist: he made his name on international trade of which he wants more & more; he argues (correctly) that 'sweat shop' 3rd world jobs from trade are still better for those countries than no jobs & he advocates a significant switch from income tax to indirect tax on pollution,water use, oil use etc. so the market can solve those resource problems.

All of those positions (rightly or wrongly) are free market ones & which you probably (again you may be right or wrong) disagree with.

 

Naomi Klein is a self-publicising, hypocrital (she hates global brands but has become one; she hates wealth inequality but is now fantastically rich because of the success of her books) columnist. She has no more intellectual weight than Richard Littlejohn or Polly Townbee to use 2 idiots from both sides of the political spectrum here & her linking free market economics to Iraq is as absurd as Littlejohn claiming that the banking crisis is caused by single mother immigrants.

 

"It's feathered the boys' nests though" I'll give you that; Bush's whole regime has been corporatism at best, naked cronyism to make Suharto's Indonesia look clean, at worse.

[Fugitive]

I doubt a missile would skid along the grass and leave mark like the one's that were left either.