Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

What is your favourite conspiracy theory?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wolfie said:
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 ...

I`ll not discuss 9/11 on this thread again.

BTW in what format am I allowed to post 10 serious questions on 9/11?

I understand i`m not allowed to cut and paste but am I not allowed to ask similar questions myself?! I don`t understand! :confused: :D
 
my favourite conspiracy theory - actually on the decline in recent weeks - is the 'lynch mob' theory which claims that if more than two people disagree vehemently with an opinion expressed then one or all of the following apply:

1) they are in the urban monothought clique
2) they are the editor's stooges / toadies / bumboys
3) they have been PMing other members of this apparent lynchmob to drum up support.
4) etc.
 
Azrael23 said:
.....
BTW in what format am I allowed to post 10 serious questions on 9/11?


I very much doubt you are capable of posting any serious questions on 11/9 myself ..
 
Azrael23 said:
BTW in what format am I allowed to post 10 serious questions on 9/11?
Unless you have ones that nobody, anywhere, has ever seen before - none.

If you want to test that, try posting them as a thread. If you get banned they weren't. Fairly simple.

Or, alternatively, don't bother.
 
FridgeMagnet said:
Unless you have ones that nobody, anywhere, has ever seen before - none.

If you want to test whether your "10 serious questions" are acceptable, try posting them as a thread. If you get banned they weren't. Fairly simple.


seems sensible :)
 
Dubversion said:
my favourite conspiracy theory - actually on the decline in recent weeks - is the 'lynch mob' theory which claims that if more than two people disagree vehemently with an opinion expressed then one or all of the following apply:

1) they are in the urban monothought clique
2) they are the editor's stooges / toadies / bumboys
3) they have been PMing other members of this apparent lynchmob to drum up support.
4) etc.

No comment!!! ;) :D :p
 
Dubversion said:
yes you are, FM said as much. there are caveats, sure, but hey - carpe diem, azrael. in the name of truth, like :)

But I did so and the thread was binned. I just wanted to know what format i`m supposed to use.
 
FridgeMagnet said:
no they haven't

Google Inc, Bans Australian-based Military Space News Website


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Gerroa, Australia (SPX) Feb 24, 2006

Google Inc. has banned SPACEWAR.COM, a news site covering military space. Reasons for the ban by Google are unclear. The company did not communicate with Space.TV Corp., the owner of SPACEWAR.COM, prior to its action, and Google representatives did not respond to requests for comment.


<MASSIVE chunk of cut and paste removed: editor>
 
not even doing the simplest bit of research, i.e. even simply going to the fucking site, just makes you look like an arse, and an arse not worth listening to, I'm afraid

and we've already had a thread about it
 
Azrael23 said:
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. :)
Eh?

Quite apart from my doubts as to what you mean by "freefall speed", how else is a building going to fall, and how does this prove that it's been demolished or not?
 
fractionMan said:
Ah, now I see. They were cheating the pagerank and broke the google guidelines at http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html. Then they tried to create a stink about china and other bullshit.

Fair enough IF thats the case.

BTW,

I was just pointing out a case...

I am allowed to be wrong. I never said I was ALWAYS right, i`d be a fool to believe such a thing.

I`ll go and see what the previous threads conclusion was....
 
Azrael23 said:
Google Inc, Bans Australian-based Military Space News Website
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Gerroa, Australia (SPX) Feb 24, 2006
Haven't you already been warned about posting up reams of cut and paste?

It's even sadder than you haven't bothered to take note of what the FAQ says about checking to see if a thread has already been posted - this was discussed - at length - weeks ago.

And there's the matter of the subject - a load of wank that has already been laughed off these boards.

I'm running out of reasons why you should be allowed to keep breaking the FAQ here.
 
I can't be arsed to read the whole thread. Has anybody else said "moon landing was faked" yet? Somebody did that soon after I arrived on Urban75 and it was amazing (well, to a newcomer) how many people would complain about how science proved that they must have been faked and then go on to show how they knew nothing about science. ("How could it take off from the moon so easily when it needed huge rockets to escape the Earth" was a favourite.)
 
Donna Ferentes said:
I can't be arsed to read the whole thread. Has anybody else said "moon landing was faked" yet? Somebody did that soon after I arrived on Urban75 and it was amazing (well, to a newcomer) how many people would complain about how science proved that they must have been faked and then go on to show how they knew nothing about science. ("How could it take off from the moon so easily when it needed huge rockets to escape the Earth" was a favourite.)

No no ones mentioned it. I don`t really see it as that important tbh.

Couple of masons went to the moon...or...US govt faked the moon landing as a propaganda tool.
Besides just because the pictures are fake thats not to say the whole thing was a hoax.
 
I also liked people saying "look, look, the flag could never fly on the Moon because there's practically no atmosphere, so the photos must have been faked!" without pausing for a second to ask themselves whether NASA might have known that there was no atmosphere on the Moon and therefore made their flag rather more stiff than one would do if flying it down here on Earth. Priceless.

Of course, the same people never asked themselves how come this huge operation had all been faked and nobody of the thousands involved had ever said so. Plus ca change.
 
Donna Ferentes said:
I can't be arsed to read the whole thread. Has anybody else said "moon landing was faked" yet? Somebody did that soon after I arrived on Urban75 and it was amazing (well, to a newcomer) how many people would complain about how science proved that they must have been faked and then go on to show how they knew nothing about science. ("How could it take off from the moon so easily when it needed huge rockets to escape the Earth" was a favourite.)

My favourite piece of moon hoax 'evidence' is that supposedly the little cross marks on the photgraphs taken on the moon's surface were cunningly faked. None of the hoax theorists have ever explained why.
 
Azrael23 said:
You think anyone spends god knows how much on a building without designing it to withstand common threats to skyscrapers?

Prior to 9/11, how many planes had been flown into skyscrapers?
 
I`m saying it was built with such threats in mind, its not made of glass. Its a monolith of steel and concrete.

You can blow chunks out of it but its not going to fall in on itself....perfectly. Its certainly not going to melt inside....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom