|
twistedmentat posted:I do love the thermite theory, because its what I call "answer for everything". Explosives would take a lot, and it would be impossible to wire a building the size of one of WTC towers, let alone two, and the crew would have to be huge. Okay so it was termite, a material that melts metal very quickly. Oh that wouldn't even do it? It's microthermite then. Oh you say there isn't enough Microthermite in existence? Well of course they'd say that, that's just what the Lizard Illuminati wants you to think. I think the thermite theory is used because it fits 'neatly' with the debris. I mean, OF COURSE there'd be a lot of iron oxide at the site of a collapsed skyscraper.
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
Anyone have any good sources to share about birther-ism? I think it pretty much also qualifies as a conspiracy theory considering the massive amount of mental gymnastics one has to go through to convince oneself that they're after Obama's birth records because there's legit shadowy stuff about that guy and nope, it's not about anything else, honest.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Do we have any idea on the demographics of conspiracy theorists? Tying back to the earlier claim that being less in-control makes people more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, I wonder if socioeconomic status would also have something to do with it; that a rich person (with a lot more control as far as financial freedom) would be less likely to believe in these grand conspiracies than a person at the mercy of his paycheck.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
Are there survivors of incidents that are conspiracy theorists? I don't think anyone who walked away from 9/11 that day would believe that the planes were fake (though I suppose they might believe that the planes were empty or remotely-piloted or done by Bush), and on a more personal level I don't think they'd believe that anyone was a "crisis actor" if you saw someone you know get shot in front of you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 11:41
|
|
|
Are there any possible rebuttals to the HAARP array / microwave beam bullshit being touted about Typhoon Yolanda / Haiyan? I've been trying to counter with how this comes up every single time a disaster happens like the Japan earthquake or the Indian Ocean tsunami
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Great posts, Mr Funny Pants! I learned something today. I just want to chime in that JFK Reloaded was made specifically to show that the Lone Gunman theory was very possible
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
This thread is the most  honeypot for people who are actually in the conspiracy crowd.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Morphix posted:I havn't read all the pages, but in the first few pages I saw JFK stuff being thrown around with 9/11 and Lizard people poo poo. You really should, because the thread spends quite a bit of time discussing this very thing. Hell, I'm feeling generous, I'll even quote the most relevant posts: Mr. Funny Pants posted:It took almost ten months. Had the guy in that car been Joe Blow and all the other circumstances been the same, it would have been a slam dunk investigation, wouldn't have taken a week. Mr. Funny Pants posted:Thought I'd add a few bullet point answers to some common JFK issues. Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone? Of course he did Is it possible, even probable that there were forces in play beyond just Lee Harvey Oswald's motivations to kill JFK? Yes Granting the previous question, can we therefore jump straight to Cubans/FBI/CIA/Communists as being the ones really behind it? Nope!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
With regards to conspiracy theorists like David Icke and Alex Jones, etc. etc., do we know if any of them are just in it for the money, or if they really believe in all of this stuff?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Why do people think it's so hard to keep a conspiracy hidden? Because of all the "conspiracies" that we already do know of by now. Snowden was a guy that got turned off by all the poo poo the NSA was doing, and he managed to grab a bunch of files that he technically shouldn't have been able to access because IT security practice in the NSA was sloppy, just as it is sloppy in every other IT organization ever. If was easy to keep a conspiracy hidden, we wouldn't even be speculating about it - we just wouldn't know at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Yarbald posted:I just saw this on Facebook. I know that railing against the Fed is a common conspiracy theory thing, but that doesn't sound very conspiratorial at all? There's no suggestion that the Titanic was deliberately sunk in order to kill off opponents of the Federal Reserve. The tie-in to the Titan is also weird because it's a factoid that could stand all on its own.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
I was hosting a dinner party tonight when one of my friends used the casual mention of MH370 to segue into 9/11 trutherism: "Do you believe that MH370 was a conspiracy? No? Well how about 9/11? What do you think about that as a conspiracy? Because I've read a bunch of websites and seen some videos that explain this pretty well" and then he goes right into it: * Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. When I said that you don't need to melt steel to weaken it, he deflected with "oh but there was melted steel in the ruins!" as well as how there was 3000 degree thermal signatures inside the rubble six weeks after the incident * The buildings didn't topple over, they fell into their footprints as though it was a controlled demolition that was done via thermite planted all across the buildings. When I asked how the thermite got there in the first place, he said there was an elevator modernization program months before that served as a cover. * WTC 7 was the only building in the world that ever fell down just due to a fire burning, when some other building that burned for 9 hours straight didn't. It to be brought down because it was the command center of the demolitions team. * Those weren't airliners that hit the buildings, they were drones - they studied the profiles of whatever it was that hit the towers and it matches the drones perfectly. This also explains how there were no bodies recovered from the Pentagon site and how whatever it was that flew into the Pentagon did it from very low altitude and level flight rather than coming down from above And he capped it all off by saying that it was done to provide a pretext for the US to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. By this time I was extremely uncomfortable and wanted to get out of the subject so I just retorted by saying that it was so implausible for this massively orchestrated operation to only produce a tenuous link to Iraq/Afghanistan - if the US government pulled it off so well, why did it take many months and lots of debates and numerous doubting allies before the US went to war? Why couldn't they have done something that clearly and explicitly outed Iraq/Afghanistan as the perpetrators ... and then ended with "My god folks, this is way too heavy a discussion" and laughed it off. That seemed to shut him up and we moved on. I felt terrible being in that position because I couldn't really recall enough about the standard debunking points (besides that very last one) to fight him off well right then and there, I couldn't stand him proselytizing to the rest of my party and I couldn't come down on him too hard/angrily without looking worse off for it. I honestly just wanted it to stop.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Yeah, that list was pretty retarded. In the end nothing you said would have done anything. When their questions are answered and "theories"* debunked, they'll just stop listening, hit the reset button, and restate everything again later or just start going around in circles with you. I really don't understand the need to do such, I can only compare it to the fundamentalists of religion because they absolutely, completely, unquestioningly need to be right. Yeah exactly. I didn't really know what I could have done. Should I have whipped out my phone and googled for Pentagon bodies right then and there? It's not so much trying to prove him wrong and more on how do I get him to stop talking about it because I don't want him spreading it around to anyone and who wants to talk about that poo poo over dinner.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
That 3 men could make it to the Moon and back using 60s technology can inspire disbelief in the same way that a group of terrorists could bypass national security and orchestrate an attack that leveled the WTC. I don't see a particular agenda to it, just that the sheer scale and scope of the achievement makes it difficult to believe.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Hahaha, I was in a Facebook comment argument and someone linked Globalresearch.ca. When I called them on it, they linked a loving PressTV article as backup. For people who rail about government lies all the time, conspiracy theorists sure are willing to drink them up when it's a government saying a lie they want to be true. Oh poo poo globalresearch isn't on the level? Because my dad just emailed me these: http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-tests-u-s-nuclear-defenses-to-prepare-for-war/5395157 http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/07/30/pers-j30.html Along with a comment "just sharing this fine article. Can you say Cuban missile crisis?"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Like with JFK. Seems like Oswald was the only shooter and there was no action on the grassy knoll, but no way in hell will most people accept it. Even if they did it's also never Oswald acting on his own - he was being paid off/brainwashed/etc by the Soviets or the Cubans or the Mafia or something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Does anyone have some good sources (and conversational approaches) on discrediting globalresearch.ca and/or natural news? http://www.globalresearch.ca/mind-altering-drugs-are-statins-the-cause-of-widespread-brain-dysfunction/5423383 My dad found that article and now he doesn't want to take his heart medicine and that's the last goddamn straw. He can be a truther all he likes but I draw the line at him endangering his own health.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
I was in the back seat of a car, telling a friend about a Call of Cthulhu campaign to stop a Nazi plot to manufacture large amounts of Chlorine Triflouride. I get to describing how "that stuff burns hotter than thermite, it can even burn through concrete and gravel" when the driver suddenly calls out "thermite? you mean the stuff they used to bring down the World Trade Center?" I was caught so off-guard I just kinda went "uhh" and changed the subject.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Tias posted:But didn't the planes exploding melt or at least weaken some of the steel enough for it to give? That seems likely, though I just read articles about steel so what do I know? How many of these people have been exposed to the stereotype of the old-timey blacksmith hammering a piece of hot, but not molten, metal, in order to shape it into a horseshoe?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
People are going to be outraged all right - they're just not going to be outraged in the "oh so it really was an inside job!" sense that they're all expecting to be.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:You reckon? Being rich and powerful doesn't mean you're not as prone as anyone else to stupid mistakes. Hilary Clinton used a personal email for official business. Sonys email got hacked, although that could well have been an inside job. All these people got their phones hacked in a fairly simple way http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/29/leveson-inquiry-list-victims-phone-hacking It was my understanding that Clinton used personal email partly because it was supposed to be more secure than the official government systems, and that this personal email was never compromised, only that people found out that she was doing so.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Quite an endorsement of the government email system! To be clear, I agree with your assertion that being rich/powerful has no direct correlation to the strength of your IT security, I was just questioning your specific example of Hillary Clinton's private email use as being included in that point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
I've actually had chikungunya, and gently caress anyone who doesn't take it seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
It sounds like it's a classic case of "gangstalking" except there was just this perfect storm of the guy being killed under suspicious circumstances just when he was "supposed" to, and it's blinding a bunch of people who'd otherwise not care or be able to pick out that it's gangstalking otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Even the nutbaggiest conspiracy theorists don't deny that two airliners actually hit the towers. Actually, one spiel I've heard from my dad is: Hollywood CGI is a couple of years behind what the government is capable of. What actually happened is that the gov't has the ability to generate CGI in real-time, and insert it into news feeds live. The planes didn't exist, and nothing ever hit the towers - you just saw the NSA or whatever create a pixel-perfect image (for the resolution of TV at that time) of what a plane flying into the WTC would have looked like.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 14:30
|
|