Conspiracy Theories

[Mafiabob]

Richard Keogh was controlled remotely by an unknown entity for the last 5 minutes of the play off final so we would lose.... 

[MuespachRam]

9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing are 2 great conspiracy theories, well worth looking into... if you have time, download the "deep inside the rabbit hole" podcast...really funny and informative.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, StivePesley said:

But it is pointless! What does it achieve to get so het up about conspiracy theories?

im not saying get het up. but if people challenge the idea that someone or something isnt throwing a straight dice, it can get uncovered. nobody likes being made a mug of do they? . and using 9/11 as an example, something like 2500 people died in those buildings, the repercussions are still being felt by people who wernt connected in any way let alone the victims and thier families, so it int pointless for people to want to get to the bottom of something,to find some relative truth,  its f*cking well annoying getting lied to int it? what about the westminster peadophilia case? worth looking into is it not. not for me, its depressing, glad its not my job, but i hope they catch the villains involved.

 

[ramsbottom]

Most conspiracy theories are brought about because American's cannot contemplate the idea that a single individual (see JFK) or group of people (see 9/11) can't outwit their formidable combined security forces.  They find it easier to sleep at night thinking everyone is in on it, rather than one lone nutcase with a grudge...

Saying that, I don't buy the Bin Laden killing.  The excuse of martyrdom for there being not being any photos of his corpse don't wash, they either never got to him and he's died of natural causes or they have him holed up somewhere deep inside Guantomano.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to erase my hard drive before this post is flagged up at GCHQ.  They're always listening 

[Dr. Gonzo]

8 minutes ago, ramsbottom said:

Most conspiracy theories are brought about because American's cannot contemplate the idea that a single individual (see JFK) or group of people (see 9/11) can't outwit their formidable combined security forces.  They find it easier to sleep at night thinking everyone is in on it, rather than one lone nutcase with a grudge...

Saying that, I don't buy the Bin Laden killing.  The excuse of martyrdom for there being not being any photos of his corpse don't wash, they either never got to him and he's died of natural causes or they have him holed up somewhere deep inside Guantomano.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to erase my hard drive before this post is flagged up at GCHQ.  They're always listening 

you want to be careful, you dont want to end up "inside Guantomano" 

[uttoxram75]

3 hours ago, Mafiabob said:

Richard Keogh was controlled remotely by an unknown entity for the last 5 minutes of the play off final so we would lose.... 

Same one that did Jossy in '94

[eddie]

37 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

Same one that did Jossy in '94

Same alien force was controlling John Harkes too.

[Albert]

6 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l47D5ISemds   of course obsession is rarley healthy, but just because you cant be arsed doesnt make it pointless. 

 

You see, videos like this are the perfect example of how wildly misrepresenting the facts of a situation can create a decent sounding argument out of pretty much anything though. The problem is that when you actually fact check what they've tried to say, you notice that there's nothing actually there, and they, surprise surprise, create numerous strawmen arguments, followed circular logic and wildly misrepresented the facts of the situation. 

[uttoxram75]

If i really had to name one it would be David Kelly.

Summart well dodgy about that.

 

I remember years ago stories about the security forces supposingly plotting against an elected British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson.

It was all dismissed at the time but i think it came out some time ago that it was true.

[AndyinLiverpool]

I always liked the one about Israel knowing about the 9/11 attacks in advance and warned all the jews that worked in the twin towers not to go to work that morning.

 

On a topical note, there is a theory that spymaster Lord Cecil knew all about the Gunpowder plot (or even set it up) in order to make threats to the regime public and to be seen to be on the case of stopping that stuff.

[Albert]

3 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

If i really had to name one it would be David Kelly.

Summart well dodgy about that.

 

I remember years ago stories about the security forces supposingly plotting against an elected British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson.

It was all dismissed at the time but i think it came out some time ago that it was true.

There are plenty of plans that are made, and threats that are discussed and dismissed at the time. However, the massive overarching conspiracy theories that would require people involved to be in the thousands to hundreds of thousands at times (see the Moon Landing conspiracies), things are just getting a bit silly. What's worse is when they end up being these bizarre monstrosities of conflicting motives, methods and reasoning, where no physical evidence backs them, and they need to go on the offensive against top level institutions. 

If there was some 9/11 conspiracy, it would have required one of the most ridiculously scaled conspiracies of all time, would have required a ridiculous number of people keeping quiet, and would have required the American government to be almost flawless in their execution, while making enough "mistakes" in subtle enough manners that people from the comfort of their own home could find "the smoking gun". This seems to be a common theme of such conspiracies though, the all power government agencies, which equally are meant to be so incompetent that they'd leave behind this silly smoking gun clues, which almost always turn out to be massive misunderstandings of the evidence or outright lies by the people pushing the conspiracies. 

The simple point of it all though is that the motives just don't make sense, if they wanted a false flag operation, there were a multitude of better ways to do it. That's why you see the conspiracy theories as wide and varied as "they purposely destroyed the buildings", to "they just didn't act, and let them do it to have an excuse" and even "there were no planes involved on 9/11". It's just the kind of thing that comes up after something unbelievable to them happening, tragedy in particular. Some people can't believe that such things could happen, and they come up with a narrative to how it couldn't have before they look at the evidence. It's reverse science, they're searching for the "evidence" after they already come up with their thesis. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

6 minutes ago, Albert said:

There are plenty of plans that are made, and threats that are discussed and dismissed at the time. However, the massive overarching conspiracy theories that would require people involved to be in the thousands to hundreds of thousands at times (see the Moon Landing conspiracies), things are just getting a bit silly. What's worse is when they end up being these bizarre monstrosities of conflicting motives, methods and reasoning, where no physical evidence backs them, and they need to go on the offensive against top level institutions. 

If there was some 9/11 conspiracy, it would have required one of the most ridiculously scaled conspiracies of all time, would have required a ridiculous number of people keeping quiet, and would have required the American government to be almost flawless in their execution, while making enough "mistakes" in subtle enough manners that people from the comfort of their own home could find "the smoking gun". This seems to be a common theme of such conspiracies though, the all power government agencies, which equally are meant to be so incompetent that they'd leave behind this silly smoking gun clues, which almost always turn out to be massive misunderstandings of the evidence or outright lies by the people pushing the conspiracies. 

The simple point of it all though is that the motives just don't make sense, if they wanted a false flag operation, there were a multitude of better ways to do it. That's why you see the conspiracy theories as wide and varied as "they purposely destroyed the buildings", to "they just didn't act, and let them do it to have an excuse" and even "there were no planes involved on 9/11". It's just the kind of thing that comes up after something unbelievable to them happening, tragedy in particular. Some people can't believe that such things could happen, and they come up with a narrative to how it couldn't have before they look at the evidence. It's reverse science, they're searching for the "evidence" after they already come up with their thesis. 

I read something recently where David Baddiel described conspiracy theories as a way for idiots to feel like intellectuals - that they are the ones in the know and the rest of us have been suckered.

And he was bang on.

[Duracell]

5 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

I read something recently where David Baddiel described conspiracy theories as a way for idiots to feel like intellectuals - that they are the ones in the know and the rest of us have been suckered.

And he was bang on.

Absolutely.

I asked a guy at work why he thought 9/11 was a conspiracy - he said so they could invade Iraq for oil.

Bloody hell, do these people not watch the news or keep up with current affairs!? There's already a conspiracy involving whether Blair and Bush really though Sadam had WMDs, and if they were willing to justify a war on such flimsy grounds, I don't get why they'd fly three planes into towers and buildings just to make sure?

[Dr. Gonzo]

19 minutes ago, Albert said:

There are plenty of plans that are made, and threats that are discussed and dismissed at the time. However, the massive overarching conspiracy theories that would require people involved to be in the thousands to hundreds of thousands at times (see the Moon Landing conspiracies), things are just getting a bit silly. What's worse is when they end up being these bizarre monstrosities of conflicting motives, methods and reasoning, where no physical evidence backs them, and they need to go on the offensive against top level institutions. 

If there was some 9/11 conspiracy, it would have required one of the most ridiculously scaled conspiracies of all time, would have required a ridiculous number of people keeping quiet, and would have required the American government to be almost flawless in their execution, while making enough "mistakes" in subtle enough manners that people from the comfort of their own home could find "the smoking gun". This seems to be a common theme of such conspiracies though, the all power government agencies, which equally are meant to be so incompetent that they'd leave behind this silly smoking gun clues, which almost always turn out to be massive misunderstandings of the evidence or outright lies by the people pushing the conspiracies. 

The simple point of it all though is that the motives just don't make sense, if they wanted a false flag operation, there were a multitude of better ways to do it. .....

SUCH AS?

 

 

That's why you see the conspiracy theories as wide and varied as "they purposely destroyed the buildings", to "they just didn't act, and let them do it to have an excuse" and even "there were no planes involved on 9/11". It's just the kind of thing that comes up after something unbelievable to them happening, tragedy in particular. Some people can't believe that such things could happen, and they come up with a narrative to how it couldn't have before they look at the evidence.   

You are doing the same thing here...

It's reverse science, they're searching for the "evidence" after they already come up with their thesis. 

Arguably,regarding 9/11 at least, most of the evidence is confidential and held by the beneficiaries of said events, or again arguably destroyed by the same beneficiaries. and likely the same people who own more or less everything over there,the 1% you hear about, from insurance, to media, to construction companies, to weopon makers, to education the lot, lots of fingers in every pie. i mean i get your point but not everyone who smells a rat is also wearing a tin foil hat.  

[davenportram]

21 hours ago, Mostyn6 said:

possibly a good one for me was the theory that the Titanic didn't sink, it was the sister ship, the Olimpia (or was it Britannia) anyway, like most good conspiracies, the motivation is money, more pertinently, insurance money.

 

don't buy that. With all the advances in science since then, there's no way someone wouldn't have gone back.

it was the Olympic that was supposedly sunk after a collision with another ship. Titanics other sister ship the "Britainic" was torpedoed in the war. There was a Nurse that sailed on all three and was on board when all three either sank or had an accident. I blame her.

[Albert]

33 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Arguably,regarding 9/11 at least, most of the evidence is confidential and held by the beneficiaries of said events, or again arguably destroyed by the same beneficiaries. and likely the same people who own more or less everything over there,the 1% you hear about, from insurance, to media, to construction companies, to weopon makers, to education the lot, lots of fingers in every pie. i mean i get your point but not everyone who smells a rat is also wearing a tin foil hat.  

Have you ever actually read the reports about what happened by chance? You say a lot of things about "the evidence is confidential", but have you ever actually read through the reports. There were a lot of "truthers" who when the actual reports were made, they were simply unhappy that they didn't agree with them, and as such just began attacking them, the people making them and such. Particularly the reports of how the buildings went down seems to be a target for the "truther" loonies, which I honestly find quite odd as it's the one area they can't hide behind all the "confidential information" argument, as the evidence of how the buildings went down was quite clear.

As for other methods, look through the history of false flag operations, notice anything? 

[Dr. Gonzo]

35 minutes ago, Duracell said:

Absolutely.

I asked a guy at work why he thought 9/11 was a conspiracy - he said so they could invade Iraq for oil.

Bloody hell, do these people not watch the news or keep up with current affairs!? There's already a conspiracy involving whether Blair and Bush really though Sadam had WMDs, and if they were willing to justify a war on such flimsy grounds, I don't get why they'd fly three planes into towers and buildings just to make sure?

maybe you shouldn't get your information from a guy at work. But the destabilisation of the middle east does in fact crumble down to resourses, namely oil. which "news" and/or "current affairs" do you mean by the way? 

[Duracell]

20 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

maybe you shouldn't get your information from a guy at work. But the destabilisation of the middle east does in fact crumble down to resourses, namely oil. which "news" and/or "current affairs" do you mean by the way? 

That's not a secret though, or a particularly saucy revelation. That much is obvious to anyone with an interest in the history of the region.

Whether the destabilisation of the Middle East is entirely fabricated is up for debate, as personally, I think that gives Western powers more credit than they deserve in suggesting they actually know what they're doing in the region - even if they do, often, benefit from the consequences.

By news and current affairs, I mean pretty much any really. My point is, you don't need all these elaborate conspiracy theories to realise that the West's actions in many geographical areas is nothing short of reprehensible, and only a fool would believe we have honest intentions even half the time. You don't need spooky stories about governments flying planes into towers to realise that.

[Dr. Gonzo]

 

7 minutes ago, Duracell said:

42 minutes ago, Albert said:

 

i'm really not that interested in 9/11 as a conspiracy theory, it was just an example. i think in the end, it comes down to trust, i personally sympathise with some peoples mistrust and disbelief toward the information the media feedsus  because i feel there is always an agenda behind it. it might well sound paranoid, but im reallly not saying i believe in this conspiracy or that truth, the main point is to be open enough to ask questions if they need asking.not by me individually, but the poeple that are involved in that, or feel there is some discrepancy.this is why we have more and more whistle blowers, the wool is being pulled over eyes in some case. the extentof surveillance was a conspiracy, peados in westminster was a conspiracy, f*ck!  wiki leaks is pulling them out daily, but no Albert, i havent read the reports yet. mainly because theres flipping millions of them. and i get what your saying duracell. im not saying we need them, but they are a result of all this bulltripe and mistrust. 

[Albert]

35 minutes ago, Duracell said:

That's not a secret though, or a particularly saucy revelation. That much is obvious to anyone with an interest in the history of the region.

Whether the destabilisation of the Middle East is entirely fabricated is up for debate, as personally, I think that gives Western powers more credit than they deserve in suggesting they actually know what they're doing in the region - even if they do, often, benefit from the consequences.

By news and current affairs, I mean pretty much any really. My point is, you don't need all these elaborate conspiracy theories to realise that the West's actions in many geographical areas is nothing short of reprehensible, and only a fool would believe we have honest intentions even half the time. You don't need spooky stories about governments flying planes into towers to realise that.

 

11 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

 

i'm really not that interested in 9/11 as a conspiracy theory, it was just an example. i think in the end, it comes down to trust, i personally sympathise with some peoples mistrust and disbelief toward the information the media feedsus  because i feel there is always an agenda behind it. it might well sound paranoid, but im reallly not saying i believe in this conspiracy or that truth, the main point is to be open enough to ask questions if they need asking.not by me individually, but the poeple that are involved in that, or feel there is some discrepancy.this is why we have more and more whistle blowers, the wool is being pulled over eyes in some case. the extentof surveillance was a conspiracy, peados in westminster was a conspiracy, f*ck!  wiki leaks is pulling them out daily, but no Albert, i havent read the reports yet. mainly because theres flipping millions of them. and i get what your saying duracell. im not saying we need them, but they are a result of all this bulltripe and mistrust. 

...and there is the centre of the point. There are many reprehensible actions that have actually been demonstrated to have happened, and aren't even up for question, i.e. the US's actions in Central and South America in the last 60+ years, pretty much anything involving by the US and Soviets during the cold war, what's happening right now in Eastern Europe and even in America right now with the revelations of the PRISM program. 

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they do nothing to question the actions of the leaders, they're just ridiculously silly and lead to people actually not looking into things which have actually happened. You're entirely right that people Dr Gonzo that people need to question their government's actions at some level, but at the same time they need some sanity about it. The ironic things about things like the 9/11 "truther" movement is that it actually leads to less mistrust in the government, and spreads an idea that questioning the government makes you a nutter, because it's arguments are so silly and easily defeated. It's like the whole "Moon Landing conspiracy" which is so ridiculous on every level that it leads to people writing many "conspiracy" theories off as utter nonsense. 

What people need is a level head on things, and to understand the difference between keeping their eye out on actions by their government and going completely looney tunes on one specific point. There are plenty of decent conspiracy theories floating about these days that are in that lovely grey area where it's hard to really judge (i.e. where the PRISM scheme was before Snowden's revelations), but the 9/11 "truther" movement isn't one of them.

I don't know, I guess the point to take away from such things is to never whole heartedly endorse one, but to keep an open mind until things can be demonstrated one way or another. Also, silly YouTube videos that usually start with a strawman argument aren't a good way of conveying information.