Top Ten Conspiracy Theories

[tokyojoe]

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.

 

Translate that to the Rockefellas and the Rothschilds it'll be spot on.

[Cardie]

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

 

I just keep picturing George W with a massive airfix kit trying to disguise a missile as a plane.

[aws]

there's usually an actual conspiracy floating around in connection with most conspiracy theories. Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists it's usually nothing more than people colluding after the event to avoid getting the blame for something.

[JohnnyH]

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

 

Exactly. And break lampposts and damage cars.

[Big Ig]

Conspiracy theorist!

 

Wrong dude, I thought a 9/11 coverup was pure hokum til I watched that vid. Avoiding any ideaology or spin put on it, the basic evidence in there is pretty mad if true. I'll say it again, anyone dissmissing even the possibility of a conspiracy point blank (which was me a couple of days ago) need to watch the video posted by Snez1 (below) first, then come back to me with explanations of why it's wrong.

 

Films for Action - Zeit Geist: part II

[Cardie]

You changed your whole belief on the back of one video?

[Karl_b]

I'll go for Microsoft & Windings.

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

 

 

CONSPIRACY!

[snez1]

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

 

There we're no marks on the grass. The orgional story was that it skided on the ground then hit the building. That changed.

 

We'd all be a lot less sceptical if they just showed us a conclusive video. They have an estimated 80 odd of them so why not just fucking show the public?

 

People will argue about the twin towers and the science behind it till the cows come home but the pentagon will forever be a conspiracy unless they show us the hard evidence.

 

Building 7 is probably the most starteling of the lot to me. Moltern metal still burining under it weeks after despite no plane hitting it is very very strange and the official commision ignores this (and the moltern metal found under the twin towers by workers and NASA pictures) completely. The presence of moltern metal suggests the use of explosives as jet fuel or regular fires would not reach such levels of heat especially weeks after the fact.

How that building came down is too, extremely strange. On the BBC and one other US news channel (can't remember which one) they reported that building 7 had gone down and it was behind their fuckng reporter still standing! WTF is that about? How the hell did they get that info? There are many other facts around it's collapse that are doubtful and it just doesn't add up.

 

I don't know if i believe the US Govt. plotted the whole thing or even if they had a hand in it.

 

However, i do know that the official report was a fucking farce for numerous reasons and there are many unanswered questions.

Edited October 24, 2008 by snez1

[Cardie]

Building 7 is probably the most starteling of the lot to me. Moltern metal still burining under it weeks after despite no plane hitting it is very very strange

 

But their were diesel stores, and is it beyond the realms of posibility that a collapsed building with fuel and plenty of flamable material could re-create the conditions of a furnace insulated by the masses of concrete?

 

It's hardly a huge leap is it?

 

On the BBC and one other news channel they reported that building 7 had gone down and it was behind their fuckng reporter still standing! WTF is that about? How the hell did they get that info? There are many other facts around it's collapse that are doubtful and it just doesn't add up.

 

The same way most informaation comes out at the time of a major event?

 

Take a look at any of them and their will be information and rumour flying around. While it was happening I remember talk of car bombs in Washington that turned out to be false. The reports could have come about from something as innocent and people dealing with 7 saying it was about to collapse and as that flies up the food chaim it's imbelished and becomes collapsed.

[snez1]

YouTube - BBC reports the collapse of building 7 20 minutes early

 

Someone please explain this to me.

[snez1]

But their were diesel stores, and is it beyond the realms of posibility that a collapsed building with fuel and plenty of flamable material could re-create the conditions of a furnace insulated by the masses of concrete?

 

It's hardly a huge leap is it?

 

You could be right. I'm no scientist and i don't claim to know for sure if that's possible or not. However, when numerous experts say its impossible that was the case, i'd at least like it investigated, not ignored like the official 9/11 commision report did.

[Cardie]

I assume the idea that building 7 was ignored in the report comes from that zeitgast film?

[snez1]

But their were diesel stores, and is it beyond the realms of posibility that a collapsed building with fuel and plenty of flamable material could re-create the conditions of a furnace insulated by the masses of concrete?

 

It's hardly a huge leap is it?

 

 

 

The same way most informaation comes out at the time of a major event?

 

Take a look at any of them and their will be information and rumour flying around. While it was happening I remember talk of car bombs in Washington that turned out to be false. The reports could have come about from something as innocent and people dealing with 7 saying it was about to collapse and as that flies up the food chaim it's imbelished and becomes collapsed.

 

Whatever dude, you seem to have an answer for everything and are completely against the idea of anything untoward having gone on. That's fair enough, maybe in your mind there are sufficient answers and fair play.

 

However, when you slag people off for believing "one video" and dismiss shit out of hand straight away as bullshit you apear very ignorant.

 

I'm sure most people who watch these videos aren't sat there thinking "ooohh bush did it the cunt, he's behind it all", they just want an official explantion for what went on and why. Like it or not and believe it or not, there are a fucking massive amount of unanswered questions and inconsistencies in the official story. It's been laughed at and widely called a piece of shit that ignores any difficult questions, was edited by the white house, run by bush's mates and they didn't even get Bush to testify under oath, on the record or even alone (he demanded to be with Cheney for no logical reason and refused flat out to answer under oath or on the record). If one person on the commision objected to a piece of info going in it, it was dropped as they needed unnanimous approval. The will not sanction an independent investigation.

 

The thousands of people who are disgusted by this official report have every right to ask questions and, until they are answered, they are going to believe the US Govt. was involved/had a shit load of knowledge prior to the event.

 

These aren't just a few internet geeks who have cooked up some mad theory, they are friends and relatives of people who died that want answers to questions that experts have posed and the government have refused to answer.

 

 

I'll ask you one more question, why no conclusive video release of a plane hitting the pentagon? I'd like to know your water tight answer for that, because I think that by providing the public with that evidence, a lot of the doubters would fuck off or lose interest because an awful lot of the theories are based on the fact that a plane didn't hit the pentagon. It seems like an easy step for the government to take.

[Anny Road]

Im not a great believer in conspiracies but 9/11 skinks.

[Cardie]

Why do conspiracy theorists always get so arsy when people offer 'possible' answers that don't involve black hawk helicopters and secret plans?

 

I only asked if your idea that building 7 wasn't included in the official report was taken from the video because it's a line straight from that video.

 

It's something I haven't been able to work out about people who believe that stuff. The official report is available to anyone, yet if a video from a conspiracy nut tell's you something they don't think to look for themselves they just take it as read that they haven't been lied too (Building 7 is mentioned between pages 300 and 322 I think, quick google would confirm it).

[snez1]

Why do conspiracy theorists always get so arsy when people offer 'possible' answers that don't involve black hawk helicopters and secret plans?

 

I only asked if your idea that building 7 wasn't included in the official report was taken from the video because it's a line straight from that video.

 

It's something I haven't been able to work out about people who believe that stuff. The official report is available to anyone, yet if a video from a conspiracy nut tell's you something they don't think to look for themselves they just take it as read that they haven't been lied too (Building 7 is mentioned between pages 300 and 322 I think, quick google would confirm it).

 

Who's saying they believe this or that? I don't pretend to have the answers. Neither do most who have raised questions about 9/11. They simply want a conclusive report that answers all the unanswered questions. That's not much to ask for the biggest terrorist attack on American soil is it? I'm no scientist, i'm sure there are logical reasons for some of the questions posed by these theorist. But there is a fuck load of them and they need a proper report that conclisivley does this, not one that ignores so many things.

 

Until that happens people have the right to remain sceptical about the US Government and 9/11.

[Anny Road]

I tell you one thing I did not know watching that film was that the attacks on london took at the exact same time and in the exact same stations where an anti terrorist exercises against bombings where taking place. Thats fucking wierd is it not.

[Big Ig]

You changed your whole belief on the back of one video?

 

Watch the fucking thing first, is all I'm saying. Some compelling evidence there that I'd not previously seen. Changed my belief? It's hardly a belief, I didn't really have a strong opinion on 9/11 but am naturally as cynical about conspiracy theories as you seem to be; I never say that I'm now 100% convinced, just that there's a lot of really mad shit in that video that demands explanation and kinda blows the 'nothing to see here' view out of the water. Keep on spouting that line if you like, but you'd be daft not to watch it.

[Liquid football]

Conspiracy theorist!

 

Wrong dude, I thought a 9/11 coverup was pure hokum til I watched that vid. Avoiding any ideaology or spin put on it, the basic evidence in there is pretty mad if true. I'll say it again, anyone dissmissing even the possibility of a conspiracy point blank (which was me a couple of days ago) need to watch the video posted by Snez1 (below) first, then come back to me with explanations of why it's wrong.

 

Films for Action - Zeit Geist: part II

 

I was taking the piss mate! Not out of you though. My original post clears it up.

[Stu Monty]

" 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.

 

 

Mate, we've been here before with regards to free markets and how we dictate what a free market is. The idea of going over to Iraq and destroying trade barriers, decimating the state, eliminating tax (especially corporation tax) and others are very much from the free-trade playbook. The fact that they haven't managed to put in place the type of complete and unrestricted free trade that you are talking about doesn'y mean it wasn't a project that had a massive free-trade element to it. I'm happy to concede that it was more corporatism and cronyism that was driving a lot of the project but it featured some big free-trade plays. To ignore the family tree from Freedman to a lot of what the US has done in the past few decades and deny it has a free-market tint to it is to ignore the reality, in my opinion.

 

The comments on Klein are the same weak shit that gets thrown at anyone who leans towards socialism; they're weak and miss the point. If you have a book or are a writer you'll publicise it, hardly a crime, and if you do well out of that then you'll make money, again hardly a crime. I don't hear her maoning about paying a lot of tax on her earnings in between jetting around the world fighting for underdogs left, right and centre. I don't know where the "hates global brands" comes from either; I'd suggest that the omnipresence of branding was her major issue in No Logo and that you might want to dig a bit deeper and re-read, or read, it before missing the target like that.

[Bourbon]

Weren't there rumours going around that the Mafia nicked it for scrap? Bad taste or no, I actually found that hilarious.

 

Two main families at least were taxing Debris Removal firms for a good % of the take and increasing debris levels to prolong the job.

 

I believe in a fair chunk of the Illuminati stuff.

 

This market crash is designed to help push us down the route of a global currency and then that will beget a cashless society, operated by the verichip or an account card.

 

Scouse Tapas nailing the 9/11 stuff earlier, there. Marvellous tapas'ing.

[Ezekiel 25:17]

McDonalds

Coldplay

Grease

The Jews

O.J Simpson

[Cardie]

Watch the fucking thing first, is all I'm saying. Some compelling evidence there that I'd not previously seen. Changed my belief? It's hardly a belief, I didn't really have a strong opinion on 9/11 but am naturally as cynical about conspiracy theories as you seem to be; I never say that I'm now 100% convinced, just that there's a lot of really mad shit in that video that demands explanation and kinda blows the 'nothing to see here' view out of the water. Keep on spouting that line if you like, but you'd be daft not to watch it.

 

I pointed to a piece within the film.

 

If they can't get even the simple things right (like the contents of the 9/11 report) then you have to question the quality.

 

The first three minutes of the film touches on all the things I've mentioned.

 

Conspiracy theorists taking accounts from the day's/moments it happens to set the scene 'look at all these people who were there saying they heard explosions' and journalists saying 'the building came down like a controlled explosion'.

 

Are explosions solely the by-product of bombs?

[Cardie]

I'll ask you one more question, why no conclusive video release of a plane hitting the pentagon? I'd like to know your water tight answer for that, because I think that by providing the public with that evidence, a lot of the doubters would fuck off or lose interest because an awful lot of the theories are based on the fact that a plane didn't hit the pentagon. It seems like an easy step for the government to take.

 

If it was a missile why would they release ANY video?

 

What evidence is their for a missile other than the fact they've only released a few frames of video compared to numerous quotes from people who were their and pictures of the incident (including parts of a plane?)

[snez1]

If it was a missile why would they release ANY video?

 

What evidence is their for a missile other than the fact they've only released a few frames of video compared to numerous quotes from people who were their and pictures of the incident (including parts of a plane?)

 

Did i say it was a missile?

 

I asked why they haven't shown conclusive video footage. You can't make any judgement on the plane seen in that shitty vid they released. Suerely they have a duty to the American people to show this attack especially given the circumstances.