CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Conspiracy Theory Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Conspiracy Theory Thread

post #1 of 280
Thread Starter 

I don't want to be held responsible for any thread derailments. If you want to talk to me about my "silly" views here's the place. I'll kick it off by saying I don't feel we have genuine answers on why Tower 7 fell, it doesn't feel right that it came down and 2,000 people who are experts on architecture, structural engineering and so on are a part of a group saying the official story is inaccurate. Whatever you feel about any of the other theories doesn't building 7 make you wonder?

post #2 of 280
No.
post #3 of 280
I say it was aliens.

If only Fox Mulder were here!
post #4 of 280
What are you thoughts on the moon landing, GvR?
post #5 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

What are you thoughts on the moon landing, GvR?

 

I don't think it's beyond our government to fake something like that to pretend to beat the Soviets. I haven't investigated it, I'm  just open to the idea that our government is almost always full of shit.

post #6 of 280
What are your thoughts on the Mel Gibson movie, "Conspiracy Theory?"
post #7 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

What are your thoughts on the Mel Gibson movie, "Conspiracy Theory?"

 

It was a relatively fun movie and it does do a good service to the idea of being a conspiracy theorist, the idea that many of them when they come up with something that really is a conspiracy will get discredited as the boy who cried wolf, for instance. 

post #8 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera vs Rodan View Post
 

 

I don't think it's beyond our government to fake something like that to pretend to beat the Soviets.

 

Yes it was beyond them.  Putting a guy on the moon with a controlled explosion was in fact easier than jumping ahead decades in technology to convincingly fake microgravity with special effects.

post #9 of 280
Also: when has the government ever been able to keep a secret as well as these supposed NASA hoaxers have (let alone for forty-plus years?)
post #10 of 280

Also also: a faked broadcast wouldn't have taken eight fucking years to create.  If it was all a hoax they would have had it on the air within weeks of Kennedy's congressional address.

post #11 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zweit View Post
 

Also also: a faked broadcast wouldn't have taken eight fucking years to create.  If it was all a hoax they would have had it on the air within weeks of Kennedy's congressional address.

 

Well, it could be they genuinely tried to beat the Soviets and when they realized they couldn't they faked it. Also, in response to your other post most conspiracy theorists would argue the government constantly withholds technological advances from us that it uses for its own needs. 

post #12 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera vs Rodan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zweit View Post

Also, in response to your other post most conspiracy theorists would argue the government constantly withholds technological advances from us that it uses for its own needs.
And what, all the governments in the world do that? Because that's what it would take.
post #13 of 280
Thread Starter 

I'm not sure why all governments in the whole world would need to be involved but obviously the answer to that a conspiracy theorist would give you is kinda simple... The Illuminati. 

post #14 of 280

NASA invented photoreal CGI effects and kept it hidden for decades only to turn the tech over to ILM with a wink and a nod that they can use it so long as they keep it under their hat.

 

This is Metal Gear Solid quality writing.  The US Government is a Kojima production.

 

 

 

EDIT: Velcro was invented by Abraham Lincoln but was only revealed to the public during the space race to distract people from Kennedy's WEATHER DOMINATOR!

post #15 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera vs Rodan View Post

I'm not sure why all governments in the whole world would need to be involved but obviously the answer to that a conspiracy theorist would give you is kinda simple... The Illuminati.
Because if one of them lets their public have this restricted technology, the secret's out - unless the US government isolated the country from the rest of the free world Soviet Union-style, which it didn't.

But yes, of course, globe-spanning Illuminati conspiracies are the simpler explanation. Obviously.
post #16 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera vs Rodan View Post
 

I don't want to be held responsible for any thread derailments. If you want to talk to me about my "silly" views here's the place. I'll kick it off by saying I don't feel we have genuine answers on why Tower 7 fell, it doesn't feel right that it came down and 2,000 people who are experts on architecture, structural engineering and so on are a part of a group saying the official story is inaccurate. Whatever you feel about any of the other theories doesn't building 7 make you wonder?

 

From memory that group contains hardly any experts on structural engineering and architechture, but that might have changed.

But this is the old substitution of the generic for the specific;  secrets exist, governments lie etc  What about NISTs conclusions do you find problematic?  Big ol' hole, big ol' fire (with zero control).

It is a bit peculiar, but peculiar things happen all the time.  (Before it's mentioned,  yes they are a bit cagey about the nitty gritty details.  A world paranoid about terrorism is like that when it comes to information about how specific kinds of damage can bring down a whole building.)

post #17 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzman View Post
 

 

From memory that group contains hardly any experts on structural engineering and architechture, but that might have changed.

But this is the old substitution of the generic for the specific;  secrets exist, governments lie etc  What about NISTs conclusions do you find problematic?  Big ol' hole, big ol' fire (with zero control).

It is a bit peculiar, but peculiar things happen all the time.  (Before it's mentioned,  yes they are a bit cagey about the nitty gritty details.  A world paranoid about terrorism is like that when it comes to information about how specific kinds of damage can bring down a whole building.)

 

To be fair, as someone who isn't an expert hearing "furniture fires" caused it is really sketchy sounding. I'd expect the building to hold up. 

 

To the others, whatever, I know this is a thread for conspiracy theories but I'm not interested in defending every conspiracy theory ever conceived. 

post #18 of 280

Did the Ultimate Warrior die in the 1990s and get replaced by a fake?

post #19 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriweather View Post
 

Did the Ultimate Warrior die in the 1990s and get replaced by a fake?

 

lol, the guy we have now is definitely crazy, being a replacement for someone else could do that? :D

post #20 of 280
Something isn't right about 9-11, I heard on the local radio that yeah of course Oswald killed Kennedy but the question remains who sent him there , why was he there, and how come the federal reserve is doing exactly what Kennedy was trying to prevent , these are the questions that need answered
post #21 of 280
Thread Starter 

The Federal Reserve is awful, no doubt about that. 

post #22 of 280

I find two basic problems inherent in most large-scale conspiracy theories:

 

1.  They don't pass the common sense test.  In cases like faking the moon landings, "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center, FEMA Death-Camps, JFK assassination, the Birther conspiracy, etc.... there are simply too many people across too many disparate entities that would have to have been "in on it" for someone credible to not have come forward in one or more of these cases.  CTs like to claim "But really you don't need that many people to really "know"...but yeah, you really do.

 

2.  Either government is incompetent and can't get anything right...or if the conspiracy theorists are right, government is all-powerful and capable of doing whatever they want, and they're just fucking with us for the sake of fucking with us, which...really doesn't make much sense.  Sometimes the conspiracy theories even require the government to be both at once!  (The planners and executors being uber-competent while the government agencies that get involved in investigating after the fact being incompetent...because if the investigating agencies are privy to the cover-up then it falls back into #1 above).

 

As much strife and heartache as there is in the world, would not the all-powerful, all-knowing Conspiracy recognize that happy and content people are far easier to control than angry and discontented folks?  I mean, they're smart enough to rule the world without any of us knowing who "they" are, but not smart enough to understand the benefits of a contented populace?

 

The fact of the matter is that the world's a fucked-up place, and that's really all there is to it.  It's comforting for some to believe that some "invisible hand" is pulling strings to make all the bad things happen, because it gives people an "enemy" to focus on rather than accepting that a lot of stuff is basically just out of anyone's control.  By giving definition and identity to the "opposition" they give themselves the illusion of control (in that at least you can "fight against" people...not so much the confluence of random chance and basic human nature).

post #23 of 280
Thread Starter 

Well, let's examine 9/11... even if it wasn't in any way perpetrated by our government, even if they didn't know in advance and purposely do nothing... one thing is for sure: they used it to do everything they could to trample on our rights and attack the Middle East as much as possible for the past decade+ since. Every single thing they do that hurts us and the world can be done because of 9/11, their trump card. If they didn't plan it they certainly got lucky and are going to town with the blank check it gave them. 

post #24 of 280

post #25 of 280
Thread Starter 

I'm honestly not a big fan of the moon landing conspiracy theory, guys, I just felt like the onus was on me as thread creator to give you an idea of why people feel that way. 

post #26 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera vs Rodan View Post
 

Well, let's examine 9/11... even if it wasn't in any way perpetrated by our government, even if they didn't know in advance and purposely do nothing... one thing is for sure: they used it to do everything they could to trample on our rights and attack the Middle East as much as possible for the past decade+ since. Every single thing they do that hurts us and the world can be done because of 9/11, their trump card. If they didn't plan it they certainly got lucky and are going to town with the blank check it gave them. 

 

They're opportunists. Almost every government is.

post #27 of 280

post #28 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriweather View Post
 

 

They're opportunists. Almost every government is.

 

I wouldn't disagree. It's scary to think they created that opportunity, is all. 

post #29 of 280

Ooooh, 4-way. Sounds sexy.

post #30 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera vs Rodan View Post
 

 

I wouldn't disagree. It's scary to think they created that opportunity, is all. 

 

That wouldn't make them opportunists. That would make them Doctor Doom.

post #31 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriweather View Post
 

 

That wouldn't make them opportunists. That would make them Doctor Doom.

 

Like I said... a scary thought. 

post #32 of 280

It's a scary thought in the same way that it's scary to think "wow, what if the Moon one day falls out of the sky and lands on my house?".

post #33 of 280
Thread Starter 

but building 7!

post #34 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by skitzo24 View Post

Something isn't right about 9-11, I heard on the local radio that yeah of course Oswald killed Kennedy but the question remains who sent him there , why was he there,

 

He did.  He worked there.

post #35 of 280

Building 7 went down after Ursa, Non and Zod were returned there there once they had knocked down the twin towers. The force of shoving them back into the Phantom Zone led to dramatic structural weakening and eventual collapse.

post #36 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera vs Rodan View Post
 

 

To be fair, as someone who isn't an expert hearing "furniture fires" caused it is really sketchy sounding. I'd expect the building to hold up.

 

Big hole too don't forget.  Broke at least one support column from memory. (I'm no expert, but it reminds me a lot of learning about how pot bellied stoves work.  Not that anyone in the know has used that example that I'm aware of.) It's kind of a weird collapse.  But it was a weird day all round.  A lot of firsts and hopefully lasts.  One thing to consider is that there aren't any alternative theories that make much sense or people can drum up any evidence for either, really.

post #37 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriweather View Post
 

Did the Ultimate Warrior die in the 1990s and get replaced by a fake?

 

On a similar note, did Vince McMahon really send Hall, Nash and later Bret Hart as a ruse to kill WCW from the inside?

post #38 of 280

Was Montreal a work? Who raised the briefcase? Who drove the Hummer? WHO WAS BEHIND GTV?!

post #39 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Moonrocket View Post
 

 

On a similar note, did Vince McMahon really send Hall, Nash and later Bret Hart as a ruse to kill WCW from the inside?

 

If he did they weren't repaid too well for their service. 

post #40 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzman View Post
 

 

Big hole too don't forget.  Broke at least one support column from memory. (I'm no expert, but it reminds me a lot of learning about how pot bellied stoves work.  Not that anyone in the know has used that example that I'm aware of.) It's kind of a weird collapse.  But it was a weird day all round.  A lot of firsts and hopefully lasts.  One thing to consider is that there aren't any alternative theories that make much sense or people can drum up any evidence for either, really.

 

I was under the impression the best alternate theory was Satan herself caused all of it because the more blood we spill in the middle east the more likely we taint the holy ground of Jerusalem with enough innocent blood to bring about the apocalypse. Right, guys?

post #41 of 280

Building 7 collapsed because you once picked a dog up by the hind legs and pushed him round like a vacuum cleaner.

post #42 of 280

Wait, am I understanding this correctly?  There are people who think that the twin towers fell because Al Qaeda flew jets into them, but later that day the gov't knocked down Building 7 themselves because...?

post #43 of 280

Because Bill Clinton had been using it as a meeting place to hook up with chunky New York girls.

post #44 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

Wait, am I understanding this correctly?  There are people who think that the twin towers fell because Al Qaeda flew jets into them, but later that day the gov't knocked down Building 7 themselves because...?

 

Because there was a CIA office in B7 and all those secret mysterious documents that reveal Al Qaida's connections to CIA, FBI, DEA and MacDonald's were in that building. Pay attention, doofus.

post #45 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

Wait, am I understanding this correctly?  There are people who think that the twin towers fell because Al Qaeda flew jets into them, but later that day the gov't knocked down Building 7 themselves because...?

 

This kind of argument tactic is kinda like saying you can't acquit someone of murder without coming up with an alternate murderer who more believably could have committed the crime.

post #46 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera vs Rodan View Post
 

 

This kind of argument tactic is kinda like saying you can't acquit someone of murder without coming up with an alternate murderer who more believably could have committed the crime.

 

Funny, last time I checked you generally can't convict someone of murder without at least some credible evidence, either, and usually not without establishing motive to boot, and likewise, are (at least ideally) not supposed to convict someone of a crime if reasonable doubt exists that they did not commit it.

 

So in this case, you insinuate that "the murderer" (the US Government) "killed" (destroyed) "the victim" (Building 7), for the motive of....?

 

Do you believe there is no "reasonable doubt" that the United States Government destroyed Building 7?

post #47 of 280

They really just didn't like the design.

post #48 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera vs Rodan View Post
 

 

This kind of argument tactic is kinda like saying you can't acquit someone of murder without coming up with an alternate murderer who more believably could have committed the crime.

 

Might want to check that analogy, chief.   The burden would be on the prosecution to posit a plausible motive.  Who is the one making the accusation in this scenario?

post #49 of 280

Shwartz' point is bang-on. You can't believe that the government pulled WTC 7 without also believing they had a direct hand in the towers going down. They're part and parcel - there is zero motivation for them to covertly destroy that building without some fanciful larger conspiracy behind it.

post #50 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmacq1 View Post
 

 

Funny, last time I checked you generally can't convict someone of murder without at least some credible evidence, either, and usually not without establishing motive to boot, and likewise, are (at least ideally) not supposed to convict someone of a crime if reasonable doubt exists that they did not commit it.

 

So in this case, you insinuate that "the murderer" (the US Government) "killed" (destroyed) "the victim" (Building 7), for the motive of....?

 

Do you believe there is no "reasonable doubt" that the United States Government destroyed Building 7?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

Might want to check that analogy, chief.   The burden would be on the prosecution to posit a plausible motive.  Who is the one making the accusation in this scenario?

 

I didn't accuse anyone, I'm questioning the accusations already made. Our government said it was Osama Bin Laden without any proof to show for it, there is reasonable doubt that Bin Laden did it. That's why what I'm saying works, because I'm not a party to this idea that there's only one good answer besides terrorists which is our own government. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Conspiracy Theory Thread