This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Do u like consiparcy therories or a crime story add it
- Princess of wales reveals cancer diagnosis
- French holocaust denier faces extradition from Scotland
- moon landing is fake
- Emotional abusive mother keeps asking me for money
- princess diana
- Is TSR a hotbed of conservative right conspiracy theorists?
- Advice for my English GCSE speaking presentation?Topics?
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- what's up with the mass psychosis on tiktok?
- UK professor suffered discrimination due to anti-Zionist beliefs, tribunal rules
- Grading international vs non-international
- I told my mum I am not her therapist
- Forensic Psychology research: Personality traits, conspiracy belief and deception
- 2024-2025 Oxford MSc in Social Data Science
- X files
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- Old tv series on kix!
- The Future of GP
- Are communists stupid?
Conspiracy Theories ???
Scroll to see replies
On the moon landings - theres no doubt that they have been to the moon several times is just they never went to the moon the first time they said they did. There is so much evidence against it including, why was the american flag moving like as if there was wind? Also why were the shadows formed from rocks in different directions when the only souce of light was from the sun and maybe one light from the craft?
Anyways as you've said about 9/11 there is a lot of evidence on the net (you just have to google) that it was done by the Americans to invade Iraq for the oil and Afganistan for he natural gas. You talk about the debt from the cost of war well the gain from Iraqs oil in terms of the stability of the American economy and businesses outweigh the cost of war easily. If you do any research on the markets you will soon find that energy(oil) is one of the major factors that affect them and securing the oil of Iraq is something America was forced to do with the economic rise of countries such as China, Russia and India.
The argument that America wouldnt kill its own to gain financially is laughable.(IMO)
Also i dont have any figures but their are theories out there that 9/11 was staged and there were a lot of gains for a lot of ppl on the markets as they knew there was gna be an attack and therefore gained a lot of money from transactions that were made a long time before 9/11 (just to make sure that they couldnt be linked and therfore caught).
One other thing is the way the towers both fell?????
They were made from steel frames - there is no way they could have come down the way they did just because a plane crashed into the top of them is there????
The only way they could have come down the way they did is from cntrolled explosions (much like a controlled demolition).
Anyways these are my opinions and are based on what i believe happened from information i have gathered from various websites and are not based on any concrete evidence OK. I say this because i have been banned from this site for talking about this issue b4.
Anyways as you've said about 9/11 there is a lot of evidence on the net (you just have to google) that it was done by the Americans to invade Iraq for the oil and Afganistan for he natural gas. You talk about the debt from the cost of war well the gain from Iraqs oil in terms of the stability of the American economy and businesses outweigh the cost of war easily. If you do any research on the markets you will soon find that energy(oil) is one of the major factors that affect them and securing the oil of Iraq is something America was forced to do with the economic rise of countries such as China, Russia and India.
The argument that America wouldnt kill its own to gain financially is laughable.(IMO)
Also i dont have any figures but their are theories out there that 9/11 was staged and there were a lot of gains for a lot of ppl on the markets as they knew there was gna be an attack and therefore gained a lot of money from transactions that were made a long time before 9/11 (just to make sure that they couldnt be linked and therfore caught).
One other thing is the way the towers both fell?????
They were made from steel frames - there is no way they could have come down the way they did just because a plane crashed into the top of them is there????
The only way they could have come down the way they did is from cntrolled explosions (much like a controlled demolition).
Anyways these are my opinions and are based on what i believe happened from information i have gathered from various websites and are not based on any concrete evidence OK. I say this because i have been banned from this site for talking about this issue b4.
Pocoyo
Anyways as you've said about 9/11 there is a lot of evidence on the net (you just have to google) that it was done by the Americans to invade Iraq for the oil and Afganistan for he natural gas. You talk about the debt from the cost of war well the gain from Iraqs oil in terms of the stability of the American economy and businesses outweigh the cost of war easily. If you do any research on the markets you will soon find that energy(oil) is one of the major factors that affect them and securing the oil of Iraq is something America was forced to do with the economic rise of countries such as China, Russia and India.
Whilst some people claim it was for oil, this is just a cover. There is something much bigger going on.
There is no such thing as peak oil, its a load of tosh (see my post in Peak Oil). America is being set up for a BIG fall, and when you have no economy anymore, its off too war!
Pocoyo
On the moon landings - theres no doubt that they have been to the moon several times is just they never went to the moon the first time they said they did. There is so much evidence against it including, why was the american flag moving like as if there was wind? Also why were the shadows formed from rocks in different directions when the only souce of light was from the sun and maybe one light from the craft?
Hello, science would like to have a word with you. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#flag
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#parallel
The only way they could have come down the way they did is from cntrolled explosions (much like a controlled demolition).
Why is it that the people who say this always tend to be the people with no idea how a controlled demolition actually works, or the efforts involved?
Pocoyo
On the moon landings - theres no doubt that they have been to the moon several times is just they never went to the moon the first time they said they did. There is so much evidence against it including, why was the american flag moving like as if there was wind? Also why were the shadows formed from rocks in different directions when the only souce of light was from the sun and maybe one light from the craft?
All of those points have been debunked multiple times.
The main point in the moon landing conspiracy IMO is the one to do with the electromagnetic shield that surrounds the earth. If you go past it, your going to expose yourself to cosmic radiation...
The whole moon landings thing was just the US vs Russia, and the US had to be seen as the dominant of the two nations. If that ment staging it, so be it.
Because it was a demolition, it had all the signatures of one, but beacuse the twin towers are so massive the way in which they were demolished was different to say WTC 7, which was a classic demolition.
Look at ground zero just after the collapse. Where is all the concrete?
If it did genuinely collapse, the majority of the concrete should remain. But that wasn't the case, the majority of it was turned into fine powder, a signature of a demolition. Not to mention all the steel being chopped into segments of the correct size to be loaded onto lorries, which is something Controlled Demolition Inc claims to be able to do, and who were involved in cleaning up ground zero, aswell as the Oklahoma bombing...
Its simple physics. Where is all the energy coming from to turn concrete to powder, to snap steel into segments, to create pools of molten steel...
A building collapsing doesn't do all that (and more). You can clearly hear explosions in unedited 9/11 videos just prior to collapse, which is backed up by witness statements, and from firefighters who were in the towers.
But again...jet fuel...steel losing integrity...total collapse...
Its plausable most certainly, but not realistic. It just depends on whether you trust the media/government more than your own judgement.
The whole moon landings thing was just the US vs Russia, and the US had to be seen as the dominant of the two nations. If that ment staging it, so be it.
Why is it that the people who say this always tend to be the people with no idea how a controlled demolition actually works, or the efforts involved?
Because it was a demolition, it had all the signatures of one, but beacuse the twin towers are so massive the way in which they were demolished was different to say WTC 7, which was a classic demolition.
Look at ground zero just after the collapse. Where is all the concrete?
If it did genuinely collapse, the majority of the concrete should remain. But that wasn't the case, the majority of it was turned into fine powder, a signature of a demolition. Not to mention all the steel being chopped into segments of the correct size to be loaded onto lorries, which is something Controlled Demolition Inc claims to be able to do, and who were involved in cleaning up ground zero, aswell as the Oklahoma bombing...
Its simple physics. Where is all the energy coming from to turn concrete to powder, to snap steel into segments, to create pools of molten steel...
A building collapsing doesn't do all that (and more). You can clearly hear explosions in unedited 9/11 videos just prior to collapse, which is backed up by witness statements, and from firefighters who were in the towers.
But again...jet fuel...steel losing integrity...total collapse...
Its plausable most certainly, but not realistic. It just depends on whether you trust the media/government more than your own judgement.
http://www.demolitiongroup.co.uk/common/phil.mov
Here we have a video of a pretty typical explosive demolition. Right before the building starts to fall, we see the blast, the outwards spray of debris from the detonation zones. It's the same for the three other's the company exhibits on their site.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=wtc
Around about 10-18 seconds into this, you see the moment of collapse. Close up on burning segment of tower, tower starts to fall, dust billows out. What do you not see here? Any sign of explosive activity in the seconds before the collapse. No blast, no spray.
Here we have a video of a pretty typical explosive demolition. Right before the building starts to fall, we see the blast, the outwards spray of debris from the detonation zones. It's the same for the three other's the company exhibits on their site.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=wtc
Around about 10-18 seconds into this, you see the moment of collapse. Close up on burning segment of tower, tower starts to fall, dust billows out. What do you not see here? Any sign of explosive activity in the seconds before the collapse. No blast, no spray.
Ferret_messiah
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=wtc
Around about 10-18 seconds into this, you see the moment of collapse. Close up on burning segment of tower, tower starts to fall, dust billows out. What do you not see here? Any sign of explosive activity in the seconds before the collapse. No blast, no spray.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=wtc
Around about 10-18 seconds into this, you see the moment of collapse. Close up on burning segment of tower, tower starts to fall, dust billows out. What do you not see here? Any sign of explosive activity in the seconds before the collapse. No blast, no spray.
Not suprising, since that is a very poor angle, and doesn't show the whole tower as it collapses.
If you see full view videos, you can see jets popping out of the building well below the collapse zone.
No blast? No spray? Are you blind?
Debry was being ejected further than the actual width of the tower! Tell me how thats possible without explosives.
It seems very obvious, but i don't think anyone has mentioned it;
If they did collapse, why is there a ton of debry and dust flying out of the buildings as it collapses at all?! The sheer volume of dust created is just implausible through a simple gravity collapse.
Again, the energy for that has to be coming from somewhere, and gravity certainly isn't capable of reducing 90%+ of the concrete to micron fine powder.
For the sake of argument, let's assume it was a conspiracy - lots of complicated planning involved, right? So how come they weren't able to predict that the plan would fail spectaculalry and the US would be dragged into an ongoing conflict, and oil production would DROP rather than rise?
Sorry, I just find it hard to believe that if they wanted an excuse to go to war they would do something like that - not because it's evil, I have no delusions and don't trust the US government at all - but that the conspiracy would be so easy to unearth ("So... we're all placing these explosives in the building, why?") - anyone involved could sink the government completely by revealing it unto the world. If caught, the consequences would be so enormous that they'd be absolutely insane to risk it. Surely, if the end product was for them to go to war, they could have tried something that put them at a lot less risk? It's just not in their interests to do that.
I've no doubt that there are stacks and stacks of things covered up by the governments of the world, I just don't see why it's so hard to believe that 9/11 really was the work of Fundementalist fanatical terrorists! It sounds a helluva lot more probable than anything else. Look at these happenings and believe what makes *sense*, rather than what would be cool to believe.
Sorry, I just find it hard to believe that if they wanted an excuse to go to war they would do something like that - not because it's evil, I have no delusions and don't trust the US government at all - but that the conspiracy would be so easy to unearth ("So... we're all placing these explosives in the building, why?") - anyone involved could sink the government completely by revealing it unto the world. If caught, the consequences would be so enormous that they'd be absolutely insane to risk it. Surely, if the end product was for them to go to war, they could have tried something that put them at a lot less risk? It's just not in their interests to do that.
I've no doubt that there are stacks and stacks of things covered up by the governments of the world, I just don't see why it's so hard to believe that 9/11 really was the work of Fundementalist fanatical terrorists! It sounds a helluva lot more probable than anything else. Look at these happenings and believe what makes *sense*, rather than what would be cool to believe.
Why do people think that if these people were smart enough to fake the whole thing, they wern't smart enough to make it convincing enough to convince a bunch of students on an internet forum?
croissantfever
Why do people think that if these people were smart enough to fake the whole thing, they wern't smart enough to make it convincing enough to convince a bunch of students on an internet forum?
(IMO)
word. America is facing economic difficulties and in order to maintain its position in world relations it needs to have the resources needed. it is making efforts to move the whole of the middle east toward capitalism and formal rationality... otherwise in ten years we'l have chinese and indian shows all over our tv screens etc.
i can very easily believe that they brought it down themselves. American business knows that war is money. just think, how long has america actually gone without a war since ww2? not very long.
Jimmy_TVU
(IMO) just think, how long has america actually gone without a war since ww2? not very long.
How long has Britain managed? Since 1648 there have been a grand total of 43 years where British soldiers weren't involved in combat somewhere, be it a major war, an internal conflict, or a peace keeping issue.
As they say, WAR I$ BUSINESS.
I can't remember who said this, but; "All sides are one before the battle commences", ie, there really is no 'us' vs 'them', we are all being manipulated too fight for a small number of peoples benefit.
As for 9/11 being too obvious for a conspiracy, just look at Kennedys assassination...
Back...and to the left....Back...and to the left...
Oswald could not possibly have killed Kennedy, given the way his head moved, and the bullet wound (big hole back, small entrance hole front).
Yet that has been with us for decades now, and many still think its suspicious, but no one seems to have cared, which is pathetic really, because it was so obvious.
I can't remember who said this, but; "All sides are one before the battle commences", ie, there really is no 'us' vs 'them', we are all being manipulated too fight for a small number of peoples benefit.
As for 9/11 being too obvious for a conspiracy, just look at Kennedys assassination...
Back...and to the left....Back...and to the left...
Oswald could not possibly have killed Kennedy, given the way his head moved, and the bullet wound (big hole back, small entrance hole front).
Yet that has been with us for decades now, and many still think its suspicious, but no one seems to have cared, which is pathetic really, because it was so obvious.
you for got the titanic conspiracy, and any UFO conspiracy
What I don't understand about all these 9/11 theorists is why exactly they seem to think they're better informed than the thousands of actual experts who have looked at this footage time and time again. People who actually know what they're talking about vouch for the accepted conclusion.People who have spent their whole lives studying skyscrapers, explosives, airliners, metals and other related topics agree with the government, so who are you to say "that couldn't have happened"?
FreedomtoFascism
As they say, WAR I$ BUSINESS.
I can't remember who said this, but; "All sides are one before the battle commences", ie, there really is no 'us' vs 'them', we are all being manipulated too fight for a small number of peoples benefit.
As for 9/11 being too obvious for a conspiracy, just look at Kennedys assassination...
Back...and to the left....Back...and to the left...
Oswald could not possibly have killed Kennedy, given the way his head moved, and the bullet wound (big hole back, small entrance hole front).
Yet that has been with us for decades now, and many still think its suspicious, but no one seems to have cared, which is pathetic really, because it was so obvious.
I can't remember who said this, but; "All sides are one before the battle commences", ie, there really is no 'us' vs 'them', we are all being manipulated too fight for a small number of peoples benefit.
As for 9/11 being too obvious for a conspiracy, just look at Kennedys assassination...
Back...and to the left....Back...and to the left...
Oswald could not possibly have killed Kennedy, given the way his head moved, and the bullet wound (big hole back, small entrance hole front).
Yet that has been with us for decades now, and many still think its suspicious, but no one seems to have cared, which is pathetic really, because it was so obvious.
And again, comments like that are just silly. How do you know? Are you a doctor? Did you examine Kennedy's body? Do you know what "really" happened? Thousands of experts have poured over the Zapruder film, a great many doctors have looked over the medical findings, and many firearms experts have created and re-created models of the situation, and the vast majority have come to the conclusion that Oswald did kill Kennedy, what earth-shattering conclusive evidence can you provide that he didn't?
I do agree though that there is something suspicious about Kennedy's death- Oswald did kill Kennedy, but IMO he was working for someone, most likely the CIA (it's no secret they hated him) or an international power (Cuba or the USSR).
The Clinton administartion couldn't keep a BJ secret between 2 people, yet the Bush government managed to keep this a secret between hundreds of people?
Please.
Please.
Pocoyo
There is so much evidence against it including, why was the american flag moving like as if there was wind?
If you'd bothered to look into it for a moment, or even applied what you should have been taught at GCSE science, you'd have realised how you debunk your own claims.
Apollo
What I don't understand about all these 9/11 theorists is why exactly they seem to think they're better informed than the thousands of actual experts who have looked at this footage time and time again. People who actually know what they're talking about vouch for the accepted conclusion.People who have spent their whole lives studying skyscrapers, explosives, airliners, metals and other related topics agree with the government, so who are you to say "that couldn't have happened"?
Maybe because they actually thought for themselves, rather than just taking the word of the so called "experts".
You must understand that an "expert" can be on either side of the argument, yet the so called "experts" are virtually all on the side of the official story. Does that not suggest there is an agenda to you? It certainly does to me.
But again, you don't actually need to be a rocket scientist to realise that the towers were demolished. There is just far too much evidence about 9/11 being conducted by a small number of people within the US government, secret services in the US, UK and Israel.
Apollo
And again, comments like that are just silly. How do you know? Are you a doctor? Did you examine Kennedy's body? Do you know what "really" happened? Thousands of experts have poured over the Zapruder film, a great many doctors have looked over the medical findings, and many firearms experts have created and re-created models of the situation, and the vast majority have come to the conclusion that Oswald did kill Kennedy, what earth-shattering conclusive evidence can you provide that he didn't?
I do agree though that there is something suspicious about Kennedy's death- Oswald did kill Kennedy, but IMO he was working for someone, most likely the CIA (it's no secret they hated him) or an international power (Cuba or the USSR).
I do agree though that there is something suspicious about Kennedy's death- Oswald did kill Kennedy, but IMO he was working for someone, most likely the CIA (it's no secret they hated him) or an international power (Cuba or the USSR).
Earth shattering evidence? You really need to sit down and look through ALL the evidence YOURSELF. You need to stop taking the word of other people, and come to your own conclusions, because its no wonder you think all these conspiracies are "rubbish", since if you take the "experts" line, of course thats the conclusion your going to come too. Start thinking for yourself dude, seriously :'(
Kennedys assassination is simple. A headshot leaves a small entrance wound, and a massive exit wound (because the bullet fragments+skull). Yet, Kennedys head wounds were in the opposite direction from where Oswald was. The "magic bullet" theory tried to claim that one bullet caused all the wounds on JFK and the guy infront of him. This was obviously bull, yet thats what we were told for some time.
And just like with 9/11, there is other smaller, yet significant evidence;
Where was his protection? As soon as the car entered the plaza, his body guards were ordered to stand down. He should have had guys riding on the back of the car at all times, especially when driving so slowly.
Why did the driver speed up ONLY when he had turned around to see that JFK was already dead? If you hear gunshots, and your driving the President, wouldnt you speed up?...Oh, and the driver killing JFK...thats just an illusion, and IS bull.
Oswald worked for the CIA. He was setup, a patsy if you will, to take the blaim and detract attention away from the real culprits. Do you not think it was suspicious that Oswald was later shot himself?? He obviously knew he had been setup, and shooting him was the only way to prevent him from coming forward, presenting conflicting evidence.
I suggest you watch this video; http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2928756561478705121&q=JFK
Then come back and give your conclusions.
It's an hour and a half long! No bloody way.
OK, answer me this. Supposing for the moment that the conspiracy theorists are right, what good is spreading the "truth" going to do?
OK, answer me this. Supposing for the moment that the conspiracy theorists are right, what good is spreading the "truth" going to do?
FreedomtoFascism
Maybe because they actually thought for themselves, rather than just taking the word of the so called "experts".
Yes, teenagers on an internet forum are much better qualified to understand what goes on, with the added help of some unclassified government documents and civilian-filmed TV footage. I'd trust their judgment over thousands of qualified individuals with no particular reason to side with the Bush administration.
I mean cmon, seriously!
Related discussions
- Do u like consiparcy therories or a crime story add it
- Princess of wales reveals cancer diagnosis
- French holocaust denier faces extradition from Scotland
- moon landing is fake
- Emotional abusive mother keeps asking me for money
- princess diana
- Is TSR a hotbed of conservative right conspiracy theorists?
- Advice for my English GCSE speaking presentation?Topics?
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- what's up with the mass psychosis on tiktok?
- UK professor suffered discrimination due to anti-Zionist beliefs, tribunal rules
- Grading international vs non-international
- I told my mum I am not her therapist
- Forensic Psychology research: Personality traits, conspiracy belief and deception
- 2024-2025 Oxford MSc in Social Data Science
- X files
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- Old tv series on kix!
- The Future of GP
- Are communists stupid?
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 minute ago
Turner and Townsend Degree Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
NICS Staff Officer and Deputy Principal recruitment 2022 2023Last reply 4 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 5 minutes ago
Google level 4 software development apprenticeshipLast reply 5 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 7 minutes ago
Stressed about exams? Here are tips to minimise stress and maximise productivityLast reply 7 minutes ago
Woodhouse College applicants 2024Last reply 8 minutes ago
Can you apply for more than one student f?inance loan??Last reply 13 minutes ago
Official: University of Aberdeen A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 15 minutes ago
Name a girl's name which starts with the last letter of the above nameForum games
4616
Last reply 16 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryPosted 17 minutes ago
Do I still need maths in the future even if my university course doesn’t require it?Chat
0
Last reply 19 minutes ago
Manchester computer science foundation year academic assessmentLast reply 23 minutes ago
ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024Last reply 24 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2931
Trending
Last reply 19 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 22 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 19 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 22 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
