Jump to content

OT : Conspirationists

Poker99

By Poker99
in Amps

Recommended Posts

  • Members
Das Booty Newbie

Das Booty

Posted
  • Members
Posted

Ever noticed how they are SURE they are 100% right?


And then, when you question their own conclusions, they say you have to learn to THINK and open your mind?


:facepalm:

 

Funny, i find that same ignorance in people that believe no conspiracies can exist, and balk and yell "tin hat" whenever the word is mentioned, even if just by someone questioning individual facts of the case and sometimes not even insinuating a conspiracy.

 

 

These people are the most dangerous, for they create the perfect environment for conspiracies to exist.

 

For example, there are a lot of nutjob theorists about 9/11 out there. That aside, if you believe the official report from our government is 100% correct, you're just not paying attention or one of the people I mentioned above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
Valtiel Newbie

Valtiel

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

Funny, i find that same ignorance in people that believe no conspiracies can exist, and balk and yell "tin hat" whenever the word is mentioned, even if just by someone questioning individual facts of the case and sometimes not even insinuating a conspiracy.



These people are the most dangerous, for they create the perfect environment for conspiracies to exist.


For example, there are a lot of nutjob theorists about 9/11 out there. That aside, if you believe the official report from our government is 100% correct, you're just not paying attention or one of the people I mentioned above.

 

 

Those are two extremes though, and more often than not the "tin foil" side are the ones off their rocker. I've never heard someone called a whackjob when they simply questioned what was presented to them (in your example, the governments report on 9/11). That is reserved for the ones that insist that either Bush himself was piloting BOTH planes or that it was the product of our favorite space lasers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
paul88lx Newbie

paul88lx

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

Funny, i find that same ignorance in people that believe no conspiracies can exist, and balk and yell "tin hat" whenever the word is mentioned, even if just by someone questioning individual facts of the case and sometimes not even insinuating a conspiracy.



These people are the most dangerous, for they create the perfect environment for conspiracies to exist.


For example, there are a lot of nutjob theorists about 9/11 out there. That aside, if you believe the official report from our government is 100% correct, you're just not paying attention or one of the people I mentioned above.

 

 

That about sums up how I feel about it. You can't ignore it or not acknowledge it. But you also can't let yourself be consumed by it. Like some of the people I see on Facebook who post any and every paranoid conspiracy link they find as if it is the gospel truth.

 

Of course, it usually leads to them passing computer viruses around.

 

Which is why I refuse to click on any of it.

 

But really, if you want to scare yourself, get a hold of the book, Behold A Pale Horse. By William Cooper. It was published in 1990, and basically predicted almost everything that is happening in the world today. Of course there is a lot of super fantastic unbelievable stuff in the book. Which he acknowledges that probably isn't true. But when you start reading about coming drug wars with Mexico and the chapter about FEMA. You will take a pause and think dark scary thoughts.

 

He also basically predicted 9/11 a couple of months before it happened.

 

But I'll let you folks do your own research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
MetalHed Newbie

MetalHed

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

ummm....have you read the book?

 

I seriously doubt that he did, seeing as the world we live in really doesn't resemble the picture painted by the book at all......there might be a few things from the book that parallel today's reality, but the majority of it is significantly different from the world we all live in......

 

If Communist Russia hadn't crumbled, you might be able to point to them as being similar to the situation in the book, but since that regime imploded about twenty year ago, it's pretty far fetched to say that everything in 1984 came true......

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
Brick Newbie

Brick

Posted
  • Members
Posted

Funny, i find that same ignorance in people that believe no conspiracies can exist, and balk and yell "tin hat" whenever the word is mentioned, even if just by someone questioning individual facts of the case and sometimes not even insinuating a conspiracy.



These people are the most dangerous, for they create the perfect environment for conspiracies to exist.


For example, there are a lot of nutjob theorists about 9/11 out there. That aside, if you believe the official report from our government is 100% correct, you're just not paying attention or one of the people I mentioned above.

 

Without a doubt, the report we received was not 100% factual. Someone I know was very near and dear to a lot of what happened. And I'm not usually a tin foil hat kinda guy :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
Cropduster Newbie

Cropduster

Posted
  • Members
Posted

OK, I'll play. I have been writing a novel this year and I did some conspiracy research for ideas. I bought a bunch of these books. Some, like the alien/ufo stuff is wacky and some of the historical views, in many cases, are not so wacky. I have gotten pretty good at this topic.

 

Lets take three conspiracies and look at both sides:

 

1) JFK - I was all about LH Oswald being the lone gunman and read Vincent Bugliosi's book which is about 1300 pages proving Oswald hatching this whole thing. A couple of points that I can't get around - bringing the gun that morning to the Texas Book Depository that morning and being in the 6th floor ready to go for the shot. Problem: the route was not supposed to go by the building and was changed that morning by the local law enforcement. How would Oswald have known that and be up there ready for a shot below when, up until that morning, the route would not have taken JFK by his bldg. I can rationalize that maybe he took the gun to go to the old parade route but found out that morning they would be coming by the book depository in which Oswald goes "Yay!".

The other point I wanted to make was how his head does the old "back and to the left thing". I know they did shots on the discovery channel where the dummy head popped back but I came across an article by a book called "Head Shot" by G. Paul Chambers who is a physicist for the US Navy.

He said one thing that really hooked me and it was this little tid bit "In the Zapruder film, Kennedy's head clearly and distinctly recoils backward and sidewars, at about a 45-degree angle with respect to the axis of the vehicle, due to the impact of the final, fatal round as depicted in frames Z313 to Z323 of the filem. Because Kennedy's head recoils backward at the moment of impact, it is reasonable to conclude, based on the law of conservation of momentum, that the bullet that struck him arrived from the fromt side of his head, remained trapped inside, and never exited". In other words, the discovery channel passed off the "snap back" to a tripping of the nerves causing the action. But Chambers says the snap is instantaneous with the tearing of the flesh in the head and if was nerves, it would take several milliseconds for the snap to occur.

Lastly, if you look at a clear copy of the Zapruder film, right before the fatal shot you will see an almost invisible impact on the crown of his head that is not mentioned in the Warren Commission. This corresponds to another shot being taken.

 

2) 911 - When taken at the face of it, no problem with the official version but dig a bit deeper and several things don't jive well. Things like - the 8 mile scatter of wreckage in PA where that one plane went down. If it did crash like the official version said because of the "Lets Roll guys", then there would be no way parts bounced 8 miles apart. A possible explanation was that it was shot down by us. Guess what, I'd have ordered it shot down also knowing what the other planes did. But the official version was the "Lets Roll" heros wrestling the plane from the hijackers.

Another thing is obviously Building 7's collapse. If you will look at the footage, the building goes straight down at free-fall speed as if there is no resistance to the fall what so ever. How would that happen? Realize that all of the steel supports and weld joints would have had to go at once to make a free-fall scenario happen. That building would have had to been burning like a mutha for those supports to have even begun to sag. My rational brain says "well, it did have some damage and the building gave away". The conspiracy side of me goes "no {censored}ing way that a building came down that easily". If a building can do that then we have a more serious problem across the world and that is faulty construction techniques. But I also don't believe there could have been people planting explosives in the building either. I have worked in construction on a sky scraper project and have seen one being wired for demo. No way that was done on the building IMO. But something is {censored}ed up about that day that will never be explained adequately.

 

3) NWO - Lots of talk about a small group of Elites going for a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. My problem with this is that there are too many good people in government that would put a stop to this crap before they lost their personal freedoms as well. The other side of the coin is this. Early 20th century publications are full of references to this. A great book is Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope". He was a Harvard/Georgetown professor of history who was Bill Clinton's mentor. He was the one responsible for getting him the Rhodes Scholarship (if you look into Cecil Rhodes you will get a lot of info about NWO {censored} as well). I purchased 3 of Quigley's books, the other two being "The Anglo American Establishment", which was supposedly blocked from publication, and "The Evolution of Civilizations". Now again, I have my reservations of a NWO conspiracy but was reading the forward of "The Evolution of Civilizations" written by Harry J. Hogan, one of Quigley's college friends. He talked about the "failure of Western Civilization to establish a World Government". And spoke of this in other places in "Tradegy and Hope". So it seems that there has been an effort to establish this NWO thing-a-ma-jig.

 

Point I'm making is this. I can sit on either side of the fence and rationalize each. Problem really comes down to how you are wired. Athiest/Christian, Republican/Democrat, Main Stream Media/Conspiracy Theorist.

 

Its too big a world to know, really. Unfortunately, there are too many people that have a world view and can not, for the life of them, open their minds to any alternative. I can railroad any scoffer of conspiracy by simply asking them if they have studied BOTH sides of the issue. Never once have I found someone that did both that was the cocky. Close minded people are the majority. I take neither side because I will never absolutely know the facts. But if anyone out there ever thinks that their government or media has never lied to them then I really feel sorry for you. Your naive. Read "Propaganda" by Jacques Ellul written in 1964 (he's a frenchman) to see a more historical analysis of this or just read Machiavelli. :wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...