What is your favourite conspiracy theory?

[kyser_soze]

one of my current favourites

http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_875.shtml

I couldn't get past the appalling writing of the first paragraph...

 

[fela fan]

OK fela, back this up with some actual psychology and observation, not merely your opinions and judgements about Blair.

Oh fuck man, no. Not now. I'm busy drinking myself into early sleep so i can get up in the middle of the night to go watch arsenal beat real madrid.

But assuming i remember, i will. In a new thread.

 

[kyser_soze]

Oh fuck man, no. Not now. I'm busy drinking myself into early sleep so i can get up in the middle of the night to go watch arsenal beat real madrid.

But assuming i remember, i will. In a new thread.

 

[ruffneck23]

I couldn't get past the appalling writing of the first paragraph...

i think its done on purpose to keep it secret ........

 

[mauvais]

Where's me sodding piers? Explain that! They're inside the lizards, that's where! Invisible lizards

 

[fela fan]

Actually...as was linked to on the 'Should there be a conspiracy forum' thread there are some very specific elements and psychologies that go into a CT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

So no, it's not what polticians have done throughout history.

"Most people who have their theory or speculation labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial. Others use it in an attempt to evade an analysis of a subject."

That'll do me, especially the latter bit. And especially on the topic of 911 here on urban.

 

[pembrokestephen]

I`m sorry
I was only trying to help you understand where I was coming from. Its not my fault you don`t want to listen.

Once again, you`ve insulted me plenty of times..but I jokingly call you fuhrer and its personal abuse...Are you a lawyer or something?

Azrael, I'm going to try and be the voice of reason here.

Just supposing these various theories you are expounding WERE true, to some measure, and just supposing all of the sites you cite in support of them WERE regarded as at least authoritative, there's still a problem: these are very far-reaching theories, which make some pretty fundamental challenges to what most people accept as being the truth. That means that, if you seriously want to convince people of them - which it appears, with statements like "I was only trying to help you understand where I was coming from", you are - then you're going to have to try a bit harder.

What I see from you is bald assertions, often made with NO cites, which you then moderate, and/or subsequently post a slew of URLS with the instruction that we should read them. Any further scepticism of your point of view then gets met with hissy fits and abuse. This is NOT a good way of persuading people of things. Nor is your scattershot approach of posting many and various apparently wild claims all at once. Nor is your tendency to make very sweeping statements which you almost immediately have to back away from (eg the sonic cannons business) the moment anyone questions you or asks you to provide some facts.

Here are some facts:

No matter HOW much you believe something, it must be evident to you that the majority of people you're addressing don't.

People don't like having their intelligence insulted simply because they question your claims.

People have SEEN websites like prisonplanet before, and formed their own opinions about them: you suddenly appearing from nowhere and claiming them as authoritative isn't going to cause them to suddenly change their minds.

People don't like it when they're called names, especially when it's in response to their requests that YOU answer THEIR questions - which is, after all, exactly what you are generally demanding that they do when you start your claims.

 

[fela fan]

I've just had a mate put 100 quid on for me on his internet account at 14/1 to win the cup.

Is this a conspiracy theory that they can win it??

 

[mauvais]

Now you see it! http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/blackpool/m33.htm

Now you don't! http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=...=53.81101,-3.056946&spn=0.001641,0.004345&t=h

It's disap-pier-ed! and noone even cares!

 

[Blagsta]

Err, the link I posted up ages ago explained that it can be used to blare out clear voice messages to the crowd - e.g an order to disperse.

AFAIK, there is no evidence of the thing being used as a "weapon" against US citizens.

That link you posted does seem to be worded in such a way as to be hinting at its possible use as a weapon or crowd control device.

 

[kyser_soze]

"Most people who have their theory or speculation labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial. Others use it in an attempt to evade an analysis of a subject."

That'll do me, especially the latter bit. And especially on the topic of 911 here on urban.

So you reject everything else that's written there but happen to agree with this bit because it fits in your world view?

And you know my opinion on 9/11 - if someone comes up with actual forensic evidence of say, the demoloutoin theory (e.g. paperwork showing unusual work being carried out on the floors that supposedly had the explosives in them), but until then at most it's a LIHOP/cock-up theory event.

 

[Groucho]

That link you posted does seem to be worded in such a way as to be hinting at its possible use as a weapon or crowd control device.

Its primary use is crowd control in that it is designed to emit a painful and frightening targeted high piched sound to be aimed at crowds. It can also be used to blast instructions from a distance, but there would be cheaper ways f doing this. Apparently it sounds like a smoke alarm but much louder to the point of discomfort and disorientation and possible ear drum damage if in use for more than a few seconds at a time.

 

[Azrael23]

So you reject everything else that's written there but happen to agree with this bit because it fits in your world view?

And you know my opinion on 9/11 - if someone comes up with actual forensic evidence of say, the demoloutoin theory (e.g. paperwork showing unusual work being carried out on the floors that supposedly had the explosives in them), but until then at most it's a LIHOP/cock-up theory event.

The demolition theory is already proved. Its been proved mathematically. The building falls at freefall speed, there is only one explaination. Of course if you have another explaination we`re all ears my friend.

 

[fela fan]

So you reject everything else that's written there but happen to agree with this bit because it fits in your world view?

No, not at all. I only got as far as that bit. I liked it.

How did you reach the conclusion i'd rejected stuff just coz i didn't write about it?? Does that fit in with your experiences and world views eh mate?

I'm sure it doesn't, but my question is equally valid when compared to what you asked me.

I don't have a world view. I have ideas that are open for questioning every single minute of my life. If i were politician in britian i'd've been sacked ages ago for any number of u-turns.

I'm right until i'm proved wrong. Then i correct myself and i'm right again. Easy. Now, that sleep time has arrived...

 

[kyser_soze]

Fair play - read the rest of it tho and you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[Groucho]

The demolition theory is already proved. Its been proved mathematically. The building falls at freefall speed, there is only one explaination. Of course if you have another explaination we`re all ears my friend.

No, it bloody well has not been 'proved' mathematically or otherwise. It is fanciful and there aint a shred of real evidence.

 

[Blagsta]

The demolition theory is already proved. Its been proved mathematically. The building falls at freefall speed, there is only one explaination. Of course if you have another explaination we`re all ears my friend.

I think you have a different definition of the word "proved" to everyone else.
You might want to look at this
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

 

[kyser_soze]

Thanks for quoting Azreal since I have it on ignore.

At present there is one, single academic study into the physics of the towers collapsing that has yet to be peer reviewed by a chap called Steven Jones

Following pressure from technical experts, industry leaders and families of victims, the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a three year $24 million investigation into the structural failure and progressive collapse of several WTC complex structures. [18] The study included in-house technical expertise and drew upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions for aid to include:

Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)
Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE)
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH)
Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY)
Opponents of the demolition theory cite this government report which presented evidence on how and why the buildings collapsed. The report also noted that "NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."[19]. Though this report said there was no such evidence, physicist Steven E. Jones(Professor of Physics, Brigham-Young University), as well as others, continue to say that it did not address any of the specific analysis arguing for the demolition hypothesis.[20] Critics question Jones' credibility on the subject by pointing out that he does not have a structural engineering background. [21]

Soz for the long cnp...

 

[Blagsta]

I don't have a world view.

 

[Azrael23]

Heres an interesting link,

http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html

Also when I say mathematically i`m also talking about the fact that steel does not melt at the temperatures present in the fires we saw that day.
The official line for 9/11 has been disproved a million and one ways. I don`t mind going into it at all.

 

[Blagsta]

Heres an interesting link,

http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html

Also when I say mathematically i`m also talking about the fact that steel does not melt at the temperatures present in the fires we saw that day.
The official line for 9/11 has been disproved a million and one ways. I don`t mind going into it at all.

Sorry, how does that prove anything?

 

[Azrael23]

http://www.reopen911.org/heller.htm

Well how do you explain the falling of the towers?

 

[Blagsta]

http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_temperature.html

 

[Azrael23]

http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_temperature.html

*edit

I was gonna say truss theory was already disproved but i need to find one of my books first...

 

[Blagsta]

you didn't read it did you?

 

[Azrael23]

you didn't read it did you?

Course I did....I`ve read up on truss theory already. Thankyou.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/trusstheory.html

I`ve done my research on 9/11. I`ve got enough books to sink a ship and plenty of docu`s as well. Like any real citizen should have.

 

[Wolfie]

is this thread just going to be e re-run of all the old 11/9 conspiracy arguments?
If so I don't think it serves any useful purpose - this subject has already been done to death after all ...

 

[Pingu]

http://www.reopen911.org/heller.htm

Well how do you explain the falling of the towers?

I guess surviving two jumbo jets being crashed into them wasnt really in the design spec...

 

[Azrael23]

I guess surviving two jumbo jets being crashed into them wasnt really in the design spec...

Not true

It was, as were earthquakes and fire.

You think anyone spends god knows how much on a building without designing it to withstand common threats to skyscrapers?

Hence the massive central steel pillars. Which at first didn`t exist and then apparently melted....which is beyond the laws of physics.

 

[William of Walworth]

We don`t need a 200 word explaination of why its my fault you wouldn`t believe me.

Well you clearly haven't read it and digested it.

I don't see why not, anyway. You seem incapable of andy insight or understanding about the TRUE reasons why so many of your posts are geting such a poor reception here. Not just from me, either.

Suggest you think about that a bit more.

ETA :And about what pembrokestephen says, becuase he speaks truth.

Azrael, I'm going to try and be the voice of reason here.

Just supposing these various theories you are expounding WERE true, to some measure, and just supposing all of the sites you cite in support of them WERE regarded as at least authoritative, there's still a problem: these are very far-reaching theories, which make some pretty fundamental challenges to what most people accept as being the truth. That means that, if you seriously want to convince people of them - which it appears, with statements like "I was only trying to help you understand where I was coming from", you are - then you're going to have to try a bit harder.

What I see from you is bald assertions, often made with NO cites, which you then moderate, and/or subsequently post a slew of URLS with the instruction that we should read them. Any further scepticism of your point of view then gets met with hissy fits and abuse. This is NOT a good way of persuading people of things. Nor is your scattershot approach of posting many and various apparently wild claims all at once. Nor is your tendency to make very sweeping statements which you almost immediately have to back away from (eg the sonic cannons business) the moment anyone questions you or asks you to provide some facts.

Here are some facts:

No matter HOW much you believe something, it must be evident to you that the majority of people you're addressing don't.

People don't like having their intelligence insulted simply because they question your claims.

People have SEEN websites like prisonplanet before, and formed their own opinions about them: you suddenly appearing from nowhere and claiming them as authoritative isn't going to cause them to suddenly change their minds.

People don't like it when they're called names, especially when it's in response to their requests that YOU answer THEIR questions - which is, after all, exactly what you are generally demanding that they do when you start your claims.