If you get someone who seems to have some sort of power in their relative field to defend a conspiracy you can convince someone of anything. I'd love to know those who believe 9/11 was a controlled explosion for example, what experience they have in the controlled detonation of a skyscraper is supposed to look like. The only reason people believe this is because someone said so on a documentary on youtube.
Whenever a big event event happens their is always going to be someone saying 'x' caused just to push their agenda.
Conspiracy Theorists have the very unusual advantage in that spurious claims and massive leaps of logic seem to make a theory MORE credible instead of less... A bit like referees now I think about it.
i am convinced that this thread does not really exist and has just been put together by the US government to cover up the truth that Henry Irving is really a palace fan
i am convinced that this thread does not really exist and has just been put together by the US government to cover up the truth that Henry Irving is really a palace fan
hmmm, cardigans, Bromley, it's all starting to make sense now.
If you get someone who seems to have some sort of power in their relative field to defend a conspiracy you can convince someone of anything. I'd love to know those who believe 9/11 was a controlled explosion for example, what experience they have in the controlled detonation of a skyscraper is supposed to look like. The only reason people believe this is because someone said so on a documentary on youtube.
Whenever a big event event happens their is always going to be someone saying 'x' caused just to push their agenda.
Indeed it is easy to convince people, especially when science is on the side of the conspiracy theory. Most scientist (and journalists) will however be reluctant to investigate 9/11 as it would be a really bad career choice. And no, i am not a controlled demolition expert, but i do know a few things about it. Also i do not claim to know the truth, i claim to know what is not the truth. There is more truth to be found on youtube than in main stream media. Granted you have to cut through a lot of BS. It is not because MSM repeats the official story 10000 times that this suddenly becomes the unquestionable truth.
Not trusting proven liars without evidence seems common sense to me.
How anyone believes that any western government has the resources, intelligence and resolve to risk committing mass genocide when hundreds of conspirators needed to effect the illusions and create false realities would have to be relied on forever to keep their mouths shut defies belief. Does anyone really believe we would not by now have had some individual involved in setting up the twin towers "conspiracy" to have broken rank having become so eaten up with guilt having killed 3,000 of his citizens. Theorists focus mainly on hypotheses based on negatives which by definition cannot be proven. They regard every positive, provable piece of evidence as fabricated, and any cock up that can support a theory, as a deliberate piece of planning. If it was a conspiracy why do the authorities commission investigations that uncover the "facts" that might blow the cover of the "conspiracy". If it was Russia or China yes it might happen because there would be no investigations, no independent experts let loose and no information to counter the official line would emerge. Then we would have justification to have some conspiracy theories in the absence of any attempt to state the objective facts.
Got bored with the wannabe-moon-landing-debunker video, but first bit about no dust on the moon - could it be that the dust not visible after landing was because you can see the ruddy stuff being blown away as the module landed, as can be seen from the on board landing sequence. Why would they have created the illusion of a landing with dust being blown all over the place and forgot to recreate the dust when it took off?
With low gravity the dust would have been blown away within a radius of a mile without trace from the 10,000 lbs of thrust the old codger tells us the module had. As for pictures of a moon mock up - could it be that they wanted to create a realistic practice environment before they did the real thing? Conspiracy theorists think they are so fooking clever when they know jack shit apart from what they are fed by nerds with nothing better to do, it irritates me beyond belief.
i am convinced that this thread does not really exist and has just been put together by the US government to cover up the truth that Henry Irving is really a palace fan
Think about how many would need to be in on a government conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Centre. Tens of thousands. Yet...not one person has let slip? Incredible.
You can't keep anything that big a secret. I can't even keep a secret from my housemates for more than a week and there's only 4 of us.
No idea how many would be in the know for a conspiracy like 9/11 but 10000 seems a very high estimation.
All i know is: - official story defies the laws of physics - there was no investigation to why the WTC collapsed, only a very extensive one on everything that happened just before
Thread could have been interesting but that lad was, ahem, a little too intense.
I don't believe any of the theories associated with the terrorist attacks. Mainly because I think firm evidence would have become available in this information age we live in.
I do question the moon landings. Reason number 1 is how can you do something in 1969 that you can't do in 2014. Reason number 2 being that it would have been pretty easy to fool the watching world at the time. But I would defer to someone who watched it at the time
course the best theories are from former Goalie David Ickye. Lizard people...quality
Comments
Whenever a big event event happens their is always going to be someone saying 'x' caused just to push their agenda.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698820/Murdered-Crimewatch-presenter-Jill-Dando-tried-bosses-investigate-alleged-paeodphile-ring-inside-BBC-no-one-wanted-know.html
There is more truth to be found on youtube than in main stream media. Granted you have to cut through a lot of BS. It is not because MSM repeats the official story 10000 times that this suddenly becomes the unquestionable truth.
Not trusting proven liars without evidence seems common sense to me.
Got bored with the wannabe-moon-landing-debunker video, but first bit about no dust on the moon - could it be that the dust not visible after landing was because you can see the ruddy stuff being blown away as the module landed, as can be seen from the on board landing sequence. Why would they have created the illusion of a landing with dust being blown all over the place and forgot to recreate the dust when it took off?
With low gravity the dust would have been blown away within a radius of a mile without trace from the 10,000 lbs of thrust the old codger tells us the module had. As for pictures of a moon mock up - could it be that they wanted to create a realistic practice environment before they did the real thing? Conspiracy theorists think they are so fooking clever when they know jack shit apart from what they are fed by nerds with nothing better to do, it irritates me beyond belief.
You can't keep anything that big a secret. I can't even keep a secret from my housemates for more than a week and there's only 4 of us.
All the evidence you could ever need is right here
All i know is:
- official story defies the laws of physics
- there was no investigation to why the WTC collapsed, only a very extensive one on everything that happened just before
I don't believe any of the theories associated with the terrorist attacks. Mainly because I think firm evidence would have become available in this information age we live in.
I do question the moon landings. Reason number 1 is how can you do something in 1969 that you can't do in 2014. Reason number 2 being that it would have been pretty easy to fool the watching world at the time. But I would defer to someone who watched it at the time
course the best theories are from former Goalie David Ickye. Lizard people...quality