By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Views on Conspiracy Theories?

sethnintendo said:
HappySqurriel said:


Conspiracy theories that involve thousands of participants are strictly the domain of fiction ...

Unless those people don't really know the full picture.  Take for instance the building of the tank during WW1.  It was so secretive that most people that helped build it didn't really have a clue what the final product was going to be. 

I would argue that those people were used by but not part of the conspiracy ...

When you deal with something like the 9/11 truther conspiracies, where multiple military teams planted bombs in the twin towers and took over the planes to crash them, multiple organizations worked together to hide information, and the media aided the cover-up, there are just too many people involved to hide the conspiracy.



Around the Network
SamuelRSmith said:
haxxiy said:
I think the belief on conspiracy theories mostly boils down, like someone said once and I can't remember who, to people who believe the government and such is made up of supremely competent people with bad intentions, while it's mostly incompetent people with good intentions.

Among the few ones who have a chance of being real, in my view, are Kennedy's death and the WT7 collapse.


I haven't really read into 9/11 conspiracy theories, though I do have a question: how can you accept that the Twin tower collapse was an act of terrorism, but WT7 was a conspiracy? Clearly the Gov't would have had to have known about the terrorist plot to co-ordinate the WT7 collapse? Or was it just a coincidence?

Assuming the conspiracy is true I'd say we're looking at a case of hastily making the most out of the situation.

Immobiliary speculation, disappearing with the evidence of something shady, even the government willing to make the terrorist attack a bit worse before the day ended. I don't know. I'm just weighting the raw possibility of such a sturdy building collapsing like that against it being deliberate and making assumptions over the whole thing. Like there was a 3% chance they would opt for imploding it versus 1% chance it would collapse on its own.

Of course in the end of the day they could be hiding only something as mundane as imploding it soon instead of having to go through all the red tape. 



 

 

 

 

 

haxxiy said:
SamuelRSmith said:
haxxiy said:
I think the belief on conspiracy theories mostly boils down, like someone said once and I can't remember who, to people who believe the government and such is made up of supremely competent people with bad intentions, while it's mostly incompetent people with good intentions.

Among the few ones who have a chance of being real, in my view, are Kennedy's death and the WT7 collapse.


I haven't really read into 9/11 conspiracy theories, though I do have a question: how can you accept that the Twin tower collapse was an act of terrorism, but WT7 was a conspiracy? Clearly the Gov't would have had to have known about the terrorist plot to co-ordinate the WT7 collapse? Or was it just a coincidence?

Assuming the conspiracy is true I'd say we're looking at a case of hastily making the most out of the situation.

Immobiliary speculation, disappearing with the evidence of something shady, even the government willing to make the terrorist attack a bit worse before the day ended. I don't know. I'm just weighting the raw possibility of such a sturdy building collapsing like that against it being deliberate and making assumptions over the whole thing. Like there was a 3% chance they would opt for imploding it versus 1% chance it would collapse on its own.

Of course in the end of the day they could be hiding only something as mundane as imploding it soon instead of having to go through all the red tape. 

One thing i like about you is you're teaching me new vocabulary.

Immobiliary, this time. Never heard of that.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:

One thing i like about you is you're teaching me new vocabulary.

Immobiliary, this time. Never heard of that.

Ops. Forget about that one, I kind of failed. English indeed borrowed the root from latin with a similar acception, but the right term would be "immovable property". The property of a building on itself as opposed to the land and its natural resources. 



 

 

 

 

 

The two main conspiracies I believe in (or sort of believe might be true) off the top of my head are:

A) I think the US government had involvement in 9/11 but to which extent I'm not sure. I doubt they helped plan attacks or whatever, but I could fully see them having known in advance and still "allowing attacks to happen" to use it as an excuse for revenge. And I do think the twin towers and the other buildings were blown up by explosives, not the planes/fire. And the entire pentagon situation is shady.

B) There is a conspiracy that the four US presidents that have been assassinated were killed by bankers after changing or attempting to change monetary policy in some way that would cost private banks a ton of money and bring control back to the government. I haven't done much research on how this fit in with the first three presidents...but I can see how it relates to JFK since he was killed soon after executive order 11110 which gave the government power once again to create currency (that happened to be backed by silver) which obviously the Federal Reserve would be against...and thus perhaps they financed JFK's assassination. Lincoln and the other two fuckers whose name's escape me also were fiddling around with currency when they were killed. Could just be a big coincedence (how many presidents fiddled with currency and weren't assassinated?) but it makes sense...if I'm a rich ass banker about to be cost millions/billions I'd be happy to throw an assassin a few mill to take out Mr President and keep things teh way they are. 



Around the Network

don't believe in them one bit.
Why? It's a slippery slope.



Almost all government conspiracies are complete bull. People just love to make this stuff up. The moon landing conspiricy is one of the few that actually makes sense for the gov to do instead of third parties. Faking the fisrt moon landing would be moral for the few people involved and help America feel strong again. Killing three thousand people just to start a war isn't something the gov would do.

Instead 911 would have to have been the result of an independent third party. There is actual evidence saying the buildings didn't collapse just from the planes but not much more. WTC 7 is a prime example. If the attack was more complex then just planes I'd suspect bombs planted the nights before to assist in the terrorist attack. But many "theories" are crazy!

Like the news altering the feed and digitally adding smoke and planes? Hahaha totally. Or that holograms were used. Those people should learn what a hologram is first.

One strange thing though is the theory that the victims were faked. A simple youtube search of this shows lots of solid evidence that would prove the government did it. However this "evidence has to be taken with a grain of salt.


But again most conspiracies are bull! I recently was in a debate against a person saying boy scouts are being trained by the gov for when martial law is put into affect. She showed me all these facts and reports supporting her claim. When my logic couldn't persuade her she was wrong I used my kill card; I'm an eagle scout. Basically I'm the highest rank possible so if scouts were up to something I'd know.

Which brings me to my last point. I don't believe in conspiracies like the 1% are all members of the Illuminati because it is very easy to become the 1%. Do you really think a lotto winner is suddenly contacted by a secret organization and sworn a member?



JoeTheBro said:
Almost all government conspiracies are complete bull. People just love to make this stuff up. The moon landing conspiricy is one of the few that actually makes sense for the gov to do instead of third parties. Faking the fisrt moon landing would be moral for the few people involved and help America feel strong again. Killing three thousand people just to start a war isn't something the gov would do.

Instead 911 would have to have been the result of an independent third party. There is actual evidence saying the buildings didn't collapse just from the planes but not much more. WTC 7 is a prime example. If the attack was more complex then just planes I'd suspect bombs planted the nights before to assist in the terrorist attack. But many "theories" are crazy!

Like the news altering the feed and digitally adding smoke and planes? Hahaha totally. Or that holograms were used. Those people should learn what a hologram is first.

One strange thing though is the theory that the victims were faked. A simple youtube search of this shows lots of solid evidence that would prove the government did it. However this "evidence has to be taken with a grain of salt.


But again most conspiracies are bull! I recently was in a debate against a person saying boy scouts are being trained by the gov for when martial law is put into affect. She showed me all these facts and reports supporting her claim. When my logic couldn't persuade her she was wrong I used my kill card; I'm an eagle scout. Basically I'm the highest rank possible so if scouts were up to something I'd know.

Which brings me to my last point. I don't believe in conspiracies like the 1% are all members of the Illuminati because it is very easy to become the 1%. Do you really think a lotto winner is suddenly contacted by a secret organization and sworn a member?

That's the problem with conspiracy theories, they make sense. THey're intended to, otherwise they wouldn't be conspiracy theories.

Moon Landing, 9/11...sure the hoax theories are believeable, but so is what happened. It takes a particular kind of person who would choose the conspiratorial explanation over the simple explanation, given the choice between two rational scenarios.



Kasz216 said:
Conspiracy theories I believe may be true.

1) Michael Jordan quit basketball for a couple years because the NBA found out he bet on NBA Games.

Michael Jordan, is universally seen as the best basketball player by something like 97% of people who pay attention to basketball. There really to my knowledge isn't another sport in which there is one person so dominantly considered the best.

Today, Michael Jordan acts as if nobody thinks he's the best, he seems bitter, used his hall of fame speech to belittle people who dismissed him... in HIGHSCHOOL and he's made it clear that he'd be playing TODAY if his body could handle it. He also came back out of retirement before despite being richer then hell.

I'm supposed to believe this guy said in the middle of his prime... "nope, i'm good, i've proven everything."

Michael Jordan is the kind of guy who's never satisfied.


Wow, that theory is insane. He said on many occasions during his career that his father wanted him to play professional baseball and he did try to go after that when he retired. His father was murdered and how he handled that seemed rather... human. I cannot believe people buy into that theory.

Although I do believe he did things to manipulate thee outcome of basketball games (shooting free throws with his eyes closed or left-handed at thee end of games to probably cover a spread), I do not believe this was the reason he left basketball. I think his father was murdered and he wanted to say, "I did this for you, dad" more than anything else. I probably would have reacted somewhere along the same lines.

 

I believe 9/11 was an inside job. That one seems such a sure bet that I hardly consider it a, "theory" at all.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000