long time lurking Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Sofa for life in English Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Well, thank you - your first link was to the Royal Horticultural Society. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sPinwheel Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 So Suarez may well be totally innocent, and the Uraguayan football team were subject to an elaborate plot to dump them out the World Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Exactly. Ah, I get it. But will they fall for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 As I've mentioned here before, I have quite an interest in the McCann case. After some quite extensive reading my best guess is that it's a manufactured conspiracy for the internet age. This latest shenanigans with Malaysia airways has a similar vibe to it. After fairly detailed research, a mate of mine, and I too may have mentioned this before, genuinely believes that's what the Georgia Guidestones are all about, pure 100% Loonbait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 ...or whether people KNOW they happen. How do you know whether you know or whether you only think? Or come to that, whether you only think you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 After fairly detailed research, a mate of mine, and I too may have mentioned this before, genuinely believes that's what the Georgia Guidestones are all about, pure 100% Loonbait. The thing is, the word unbelievable is tossed around quite a bit but rarely used in a literal sense. But every rational adult has the right to say, even if only to themselves - I don't believe that, it defies belief - when presented with a narrative from even a supposedly "reliable" source. I think it's when you go all evangelical about it that you start looking like a nutter. Even if you are correct, alas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 After fairly detailed research, a mate of mine, and I too may have mentioned this before, genuinely believes that's what the Georgia Guidestones are all about, pure 100% Loonbait.Don't tell me. Some guy dug up a golden book and it told him to build them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Don't tell me. Some guy dug up a golden book and it told him to build them? Some rich man could have been having a laugh but doesn't anyone else think they are creepy? Maintain population under 500 million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cica Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. I know of COINTELPRO which surprised me a few year ago when I read into these things. Without being a primary witness you have to assign probabilities as to what you think happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I am probably a little evangelical (to use eight's phrase) when it comes to these matters, and I have discussed them as part of general political discussions with friends. None of them really took the bait, if that is the right word. But one evening last year, I was phoned by one of them who had just watched an episode of Oliver Stone's Secret History of America - I think that was what it was called. He seemed shocked, indeed said he was shocked, to find out that the Iraq incubators story of 1990 was a hoax, designed to whip up political support for Operation Desert Storm. I think that has made him more receptive to scepticism about some of the more infamous events of our time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I've read in the MSM that conspiracy theories weren't popular before the Internet and that people only entertain them because it's psychologically more comforting to believe that our destinies are the plaything of callous psychopaths as opposed to being the product of randomness and incompetence. Yes, really comforting. Presumably, in the light of one or two recent events, that standard MSM line is due for some revision, a wee respray maybe? Comforting in the fact that everyone these days seems to want someone to blame and can't accept that sometimes sh1t just happens. The weird thing I find about them is the less people trust governments the more competent (at doing what they want, not what they should) they assume them to be, at least when it comes down to doing dodgy stuff. Can't get a school built but can organise and carry out the most convoluted dodgy plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Comforting in the fact that everyone these days seems to want someone to blame and can't accept that sometimes sh1t just happens. The weird thing I find about them is the less people trust governments the more competent (at doing what they want, not what they should) they assume them to be, at least when it comes down to doing dodgy stuff. Can't get a school built but can organise and carry out the most convoluted dodgy plans. There's merit in what you say, and empirical evidence to demonstrate your point. US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt and their neocon colleagues at the US State Department pushed the February 22nd coup in Kiev, hoping to pull Ukraine into the western orbit. It failed, because Russia responded and grabbed Crimea and annexed it. There is now too, a civil war in the east which it is beyond Kiev's ability to win, so Novorossiya may eventually be absorbed into Russia. The best laid plans of mice and men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Whilst I don't believe most conspiracy theories I've no trouble at all believing all governments will quite happily jump on any event and try to spin it to suit their own ends, as well as be selective about what information they believe. That's just human nature. We see exactly the same thing on here every time there's a debate about anything controversial, people posting tons of links supporting their position and ignoring or dismissing any that contradict it. The reliability of the information in that link usually seems of little concern to the poster. Some are worse than others, and governments are full of the "worse" type of people; no-one gets into government by being capable of making accurate judgments about the quality and reliability of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Comforting in the fact that everyone these days seems to want someone to blame and can't accept that sometimes sh1t just happens. The weird thing I find about them is the less people trust governments the more competent (at doing what they want, not what they should) they assume them to be, at least when it comes down to doing dodgy stuff. Can't get a school built but can organise and carry out the most convoluted dodgy plans. It depends on what you're talking about If it's, say, a tendency by some to blame every natural weather catastrophe on secret weather modification programmes then, yes, it's not much different to the motivation to believe that God, or witches are responsible. On the other hand, if we're talking about evidenced events that are within the wit of Man, say, the creation of the Federal Reserve system or vested interests recruiting and arming psychopaths to run around tearing up the Middle East, no, it's a cop out that's either dishonest or plain wrong. In those cases the people seeking comfort are the ones wheeling out the psycho-babble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 DOMINIC LAWSON: Conspiracy theories and the useful idiots who are happy to believe Putin's lies The media organs of the Russian state are concocting alternative accounts of why 298 men, women and children were blown out of the skies above Eastern Ukraine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 DOMINIC LAWSON: Conspiracy theories and the useful idiots who are happy to believe Putin's liesrefuse to listen The media organs of the Russian British state are concocting alternative fantastically improbable accounts of why 298 men, women and children were blown out of the skies above Eastern Ukraine. Corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 How do you know whether you know or whether you only think? Or come to that, whether you only think you know? As you've probably observed, I always know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC1 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Comforting in the fact that everyone these days seems to want someone to blame and can't accept that sometimes sh1t just happens. My personal view is that of course shit happens sometimes, but whether it involved a dark hand or not, there will ALWAYS be dodgy media trying to spin stories one way or another to suit the agenda of powerful vested interests. I don't even consider this view to be a conspiracy theory, just fact. 'News' is always partial, always partisan, never neutral or objective. Most often it is safe to assume that you are being fed at least some bullsh1t. Thus, when big events like 9/11 happen, or a Malaysian airliner disappears or is blown down, many people will (rightly) question the MSM. Many times they will subsequently get lost down multiple dead-end rabbit holes of misdirection, lies and downright stupidity. But it has become all too easy to disbelieve what you are told by 'official' and supposedly trustworthy sources these days, because it is becoming increasingly easy in this internet age to discover and document for posterity lies perpetuated by governments and other powerful agents through compliant (paid for?) media mouthpieces. This thread should not become about 9/11, but as an example, it is my firm belief that 9/11 was an inside job, made to look like a "terrorist" atrocity. Why? Because the laws of physics did not go on holiday that day, and I have seen enough expert testimony to understand that it is a physical impossibility for them to have collapsed in the way that they did from the effects of fire alone. Now, as to who planned and executed this plan, I do not know. And many of the more fanciful aspects surrounding alternative explanations (e.g. the planes were not actually there, they were holographically disguised cruise missiles etc) I do have difficulty believing, and can easily see that such stories might be intended as disinformation to muddy the real issues and make for easier discrediting of 9/11 "deniers" (the use of language is always very insightful!). I also find myself sitting on the fence as to exactly what transpired that day: was it mini-nukes, nano-thermite, Star Wars weaponry fired from space?! I really don't have enough confidence to have an opinion. But this doesn't change the important fact that.... WE ARE CONSISTENTLY BEING LIED TO. (there, I just came out and said it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turned Out Nice Again Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 for the conspiracy doubters: when did you first hear of the illegal Iran-Contra operation? how long had it been running before that? and how many personnel were involved in running it and didn't squeal? and that's comparatively small beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC1 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 for the conspiracy doubters: when did you first hear of the illegal Iran-Contra operation? how long had it been running before that? and how many personnel were involved in running it and didn't squeal? and that's comparatively small beer. I would imagine that most people would have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, such is the ability to sweep heinous crimes like this under the carpet. It's quite depressing really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 This thread should not become about 9/11, but as an example, it is my firm belief that 9/11 was an inside job, made to look like a "terrorist" atrocity. Why? Because the laws of physics did not go on holiday that day, and I have seen enough expert testimony to understand that it is a physical impossibility for them to have collapsed in the way that they did from the effects of fire alone. If I could somehow prove to you, to your satisfaction, that the towers really were hit by a couple of airliners hi-jacked by 19 genuine nutcases and that they got 'lucky' and WTC1, 2 & 7 really did collapse as a consequence of those impacts, would you then believe the rest of the official narrative of 9/11? What about the alleged inside trades and other suggestions of foreknowledge, the alleged command and control failures, all the rest of it? A lot of other peculiar stuff went on that day that doesn't require an engineering degree to identify as being iffy. The obsession with focusing on, and endlessly arguing the toss over, technical issues that are beyond the debaters' competence level to assess is a common weakness of committed conspiranoids impo. There's a character in the US called Jim Fetzer who's specialized for years in fudging up defensible doubts in official narratives by introducing or endorsing fantastical, borderline magical, hypotheses. Space beams, holograms, crisis actors, HAARP moving Japan sideways nine feet, batsh1t interpretations of the Zapruder film, Jim's always on hand to give it all a plug. Those who follow the way of Fetzer rather than say, David Ray Griffin are heading to disappear up someone's rear end; Fetzer's, their own, someone's. Speaking for myself, I can watch WTC7 dropping on a video loop all day and still not be 100% sure that it might not really, somehow have fallen down like that (without explosives). I am neither an architect nor an engineer. I watch Larry Silverstein doing what appears to be a comedy sketch about not being at WTC that morning, like so many other CEOs, because his wife booked a surprise dermatologist appointment and I think, yup, maybe there was some foreknowledge doing the rounds that day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turned Out Nice Again Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 How many people know that NIST have officially abandoned the pancake (truss failure) theory for the WTC collapses? How did fires cause the symmetrical collapse of WTC7? and why has nothing like that ever happened before? Why were all those NY CEOs attending a Warren Buffet-hosted breakfast meeting on the morning of 9/11 at Offut Air base (where Airforce 1 landed later that day)? etc. etc. (no comment) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC1 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Wow, that video. Pure comedy gold indeed. If I could somehow prove to you, to your satisfaction, that the towers really were hit by a couple of airliners hi-jacked by 19 genuine nutcases and that they got 'lucky' and WTC1, 2 & 7 really did collapse as a consequence of those impacts, would you then believe the rest of the official narrative of 9/11? What about the alleged inside trades and other suggestions of foreknowledge, the alleged command and control failures, all the rest of it? No, because as I said before, I come from a presumption that I am probably being spoon-fed at least some bullsh1t, and it is up to me to try to decide how much of the presented information I am going to disregard, accept into my worldview, or (as is often the case) put into the 'maybe' pile. To be honest, I appealed to the first principles of physics, because it's the one area where I feel that the conspiracy-theorist bashers (who like to be the 'rational' ones) find it more difficult to label you as a crackpot and dismiss your ideas out of hand. Of course, my opinion has been formed with reference to all those strange inconsistencies and all-too-convenient coincidences you mention too. It's just that their validity is that much more open to being ridiculed, and I did not wish to be drawn into long tit-for-tat exchanges where I need to justify my distrust of our great benevolent world leaders, thank you very much! The thing is, there are far too many question marks over the events of that day to really know which of them you can reliably hang your hat on and hold up as "evidence" that the whole thing was a false flag or whatever. There is so much disinformation and misdirection that the whole thing will quickly lead to madness if you do not try to stick to what can and cannot ever be known about a thing that has occurred in the past. I take your point about most of us not having the expertise to know about the physics of steel core skyscrapers and fire damage, but there is at least a kernal of truth therein that, if it cannot quite be reached by consensus, we can at least get close by careful digestion of the opinions of those whose specialist qualifications make them difficult to ignore. The fact that you or I might think that Larry Silverstein is a lying liar (and not a very convincing one at that) is neither here nor there in the scheme of "proof", so I don't often refer to such things as examples of why the whole thing stinks. Did someone mention space beams?! Now, of the fruitier theories, there are still some odd phenomenon that demand further enquiry, in my humble opinion. The "toasted cars" being one of them. But then, just because I ask the question, it does not mean that I necessarily subscribe to the view that the towers were demolished by some kind of highly sophisticated black-op beam weapon fired from near space.... Although I wouldn't necessarily dismiss it off out of hand either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.