General Conspiracy Theory Dump Store

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 

Alex Jones fronted a fair amount of the money for the 'documentary' Loose Change.

For that alone I wouldn't piss on him where he on fire.

Well, compared to any official explanation given, that documentary is a shining light of truth. Same with the Italian "Zero"

If you honestly believe 'loose change', I can only suggest that you read some of the point by point rebuttals of its nonsense. I recall there being an evidenced, minute by minute, breakdown of the film that is a very good resource.

If you do that, and still believe it... Well, let's leave it there.

 

I haven't watched loose change so can't pass comment on it's accuracy or not but I am aware of it's general content, but DanishVillian didn't actually say he believed 'loose change' just that compared to the official explanation of events it is a shining light of truth, It could probably be argued this is stretching things a bit far, However maybe he's referring that in the honesty of the intentions, integrity and beliefs of the makers that it is truthful, that it outshines the official take on events, but even in worst case scenario and it's full of untruths, half truths, misleading information and plain incorrect information and it was the intention of the makers for it to be so, it still would be as truthful and accurate as the official explanation with the same level of  integrity behind it.

[DanishVillan]

 

 

Alex Jones fronted a fair amount of the money for the 'documentary' Loose Change.

For that alone I wouldn't piss on him where he on fire.

Well, compared to any official explanation given, that documentary is a shining light of truth. Same with the Italian "Zero"

If you honestly believe 'loose change', I can only suggest that you read some of the point by point rebuttals of its nonsense. I recall there being an evidenced, minute by minute, breakdown of the film that is a very good resource.

If you do that, and still believe it... Well, let's leave it there.

 

Well I didn´t say I do. I said the official explanation is worse. Remember people who doesn´t believe in it is called "Truthers" not conspiracy-nutters.

Guess why. If you think fire and damage took down Building 7, in a way that makes demolition experts look like amateurs, then you are probably right we should leave it here.

Would love a link to your debunking 911myth film though. Almost as good as a proper investigation.

[Chindie]

Alex Jones fronted a fair amount of the money for the 'documentary' Loose Change.

For that alone I wouldn't piss on him where he on fire.

Well, compared to any official explanation given, that documentary is a shining light of truth. Same with the Italian "Zero"

If you honestly believe 'loose change', I can only suggest that you read some of the point by point rebuttals of its nonsense. I recall there being an evidenced, minute by minute, breakdown of the film that is a very good resource.

If you do that, and still believe it... Well, let's leave it there.

Well I didn´t say I do. I said the official explanation is worse. Remember people who doesn´t believe in it is called "Truthers" not conspiracy-nutters.

Guess why. If you think fire and damage took down Building 7, in a way that makes demolition experts look like amateurs, then you are probably right we should leave it here.

Would love a link to your debunking 911myth film though. Almost as good as a proper investigation.

The official explanation to my knowledge doesn't, for example, conclude that the tragic phonecalls of passengers aboard those flights to their loved ones were fakes created by a computer.

Nor does it claim, to hammer the point home, that the Pentagon wasn't struck by a passenger aircraft 'because these pictures don't show enough debris for it to be plane crash', when the film maker conveniently chose to show pictures containing very little debris, while other pictures they ignore show utter devastation and big bits of plane.

Ignoring your hyperbole about WTC7, the explanation of that building's collapse is well established and only ignored by those desperate to justify a fantasy. The building collapsed in a rather similar manner to the other towers - it suffered damage from the other buildings which weakened the structure and subsequent fire caused the internal structure to fail.

Your point about 'Truthers' is so absurd it barely deserves rebuttal. If I decide to call a chicken a pig... its still a chicken. 'Truthers' are conspiracy theorists, a particular sect if you will but conspiracy theorists all the same.

I will check if I can find you a link to the Loose Change rebuttal, though I shan't waste too much time as you've made your mind up already. Besides which, there's so much out there debunking this nonsense you could probably find rebuttals yourself.

[DanishVillan]

Yeah my mind is made up. I want a new investigation. With a commission that isn´t handpicked by the suspects. Same with just about all the groups of relatives to the victims, without whom, we wouldn´t have had any investigation.

There are 1000´s of architects, engineers, firefighters, pilots etc. who would agree. So it is not debunked, nor is it preying on the victims like you suggest.

 

What would you call the official explanation if not a conspiracy theory? a coincidence theory?

 

If Bush (and co) has got nothing to hide I would suggest he stopped acting guilty and gave the explanation under oath. Without Cheney at his side.

What went wrong with "Able Danger"? What went wrong with Norad? What is his relation to the Bin Laden family? etc.

 

Or, just release the footage from all the cameras around the most heavily defended building in the world. He could remove all this doubt in seconds if he is innocent.

[Chindie]

Well, you carry on with that line of thought.

[peterms]

If Bush (and co) has got nothing to hide I would suggest he stopped acting guilty and gave the explanation under oath. Without Cheney at his side.

I think he'd be happy to do so, but there are two problems.  First he has a bit of a bad back.  Second, being questioned about a traumatic event would make his brain uncomfortably warm.

 

Luckily, there's a solution, sometimes used by Mr Bush's employees.

 

First, he could have his back protected by having a rigid board placed firmly against it.  This is a well-known remedy for back problems.  For comfort, he could be strapped to it, so that he didn't cause himself any problem through chafing, for example.

 

Second, if the board were placed in a vertical position next to a large container full of cold water, then at any point when Mr Bush's brain seemed to be getting too warm, the board could be rotated on a pivot, allowing his head to be bathed in refreshing water.  The effect of tipping him upside down would also help with his circulation.

 

I'm sure there are many people who would be willing to help with the practical arrangements.

[AVFCforever1991]

[Mantis]

I can't believe some people actually still believe these 9/11 conspiracies. They've been debunked to hell and back and they ignore the simple fact that the US government is pretty bad at keeping things a secret. Do people honestly think that the same institution that couldn't keep a lid on Watergate or Iran-Contra would be able to carry out the largest terrorist attack in its history on its own soil, involving literally tens of thousands of people, and be able to keep it covered up for 12 years?

 

it distracts from the real issue as well, mainly the fact that they were so woefully prepared.

[DanishVillan]

And I can´t believe people think a terrorgroup who could pull an operation like that wouldn´t brag about it. 

Nothing has been debunked. Bush and co on the other hand has been proven to be liars after 9/11. (womd´s)

 

The Manhatten Projekt says hi.

[AVFCforever1991]

I wouldn't rule it out, you saw the on the last page 'operation northwoods' a false flag proposal put forward to the kennedy administration to carry out acts of terror including the possible assassination of Cuban emigres, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating terrorism in U.S. cities. These acts were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support in the US and support from the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro. This proposal was rejected by the Kennedy administration.

 

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

Edited August 30, 2013 by AVFCforever1991

[Mantis]

I wouldn't rule it out, you saw the on the last page 'operation northwoods' a false flag proposal put forward to the kennedy administration to carry out acts of terror including the possible assassination of Cuban emigres, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating terrorism in U.S. cities. These acts were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support in the US and support from the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro. This proposal was rejected by the Kennedy administration.

 

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

 

That's barely relevant at all, unless of course another part of this operation was to fly planes into a tall building and the Pentagon and then blame it on Islamic terrorists?

 

 

And I can´t believe people think a terrorgroup who could pull an operation like that wouldn´t brag about it. 

Nothing has been debunked. Bush and co on the other hand has been proven to be liars after 9/11. (womd´s)

 

The Manhatten Projekt says hi.

 

 

What do you mean, nothing has been debunked? Pretty much all of it has. All of the "questions" that have been asked by the so-called "truthers" have been answered extensively.

 

And the fact that they found no WMDs in Iraq doesn't fit in with the conspiracy either. Don't you think that if the Bush administration was able and willing to carry out a false flag attack of the size of 9/11 (flawlessly no less) then forging evidence of WMDs in Iraq would be child's play? The nationalities of the hijackers doesn't fit in either. If 9/11 was all planned from the start so that the US would have a pretext to invade Iraq, then how come none of the hijackers were Iraqi? Most of them were Saudis, which was rather inconvenient actually. Again, you'd think that if they were able to pull off something like that it wouldn't be hard to put in some forged evidence linking Iraq to the attacks.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Mantis

[LondonLax]

 Yes, bad things happen (like Saudi terrorists attacking New York) and politicians use this as an excuse to do things they wouldn't have been able to do (like having a second go at Iraq or introducing new surveillance powers).

It doesn't mean the first event was dreamed up and executed by the US government. I'm sure if it had been then information about that is one of the first things Assange or Snowden (or probably a number of others!) would have loved to have released.

[DanishVillan]

 

I wouldn't rule it out, you saw the on the last page 'operation northwoods' a false flag proposal put forward to the kennedy administration to carry out acts of terror including the possible assassination of Cuban emigres, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating terrorism in U.S. cities. These acts were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support in the US and support from the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro. This proposal was rejected by the Kennedy administration.

 

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

 

That's barely relevant at all, unless of course another part of this operation was to fly planes into a tall building and the Pentagon and then blame it on Islamic terrorists?

 

 

And I can´t believe people think a terrorgroup who could pull an operation like that wouldn´t brag about it. 

Nothing has been debunked. Bush and co on the other hand has been proven to be liars after 9/11. (womd´s)

 

The Manhatten Projekt says hi.

 

 

What do you mean, nothing has been debunked? Pretty much all of it has. All of the "questions" that have been asked by the so-called "truthers" have been answered extensively.

 

And the fact that they found no WMDs in Iraq doesn't fit in with the conspiracy either. Don't you think that if the Bush administration was able and willing to carry out a false flag attack of the size of 9/11 (flawlessly no less) then forging evidence of WMDs in Iraq would be child's play? The nationalities of the hijackers doesn't fit in either. If 9/11 was all planned from the start so that the US would have a pretext to invade Iraq, then how come none of the hijackers were Iraqi? Most of them were Saudis, which was rather inconvenient actually. Again, you'd think that if they were able to pull off something like that it wouldn't be hard to put in some forged evidence linking Iraq to the attacks.

 

Well, they are on their 3rd attempt at explaining WTC7. Were you a "truther" before that, or did you believe as much in the previous 2 explanations.

The current explanation (inward bowing due to fire and damage) is 100% computerbased and they wont show what variables were used. The same report claims that fire had a very low possibility of causing this. (Considering it had never happened before 9/11)

 

Free-fall speed is difficult to explain without explosives and they didn´t look for that. Others did though and found plenty of traces.

 

Good question about the WMDs. No idea how they managed to mess that up. We should ask them at the warcrime tribunal. 

9/11 was not for invading Iraq but for the global war on terror. Would have been solved too quick if it was just one country that had been bombed few years earlier. 

 

Lecture from 2011 by a Swiss historian from Basel University.

 

[Mantis]

I've never been a "truther" as I'm not into believing far-fetched conspiracy theories. The WTC7 argument doesn't really make much sense. Why would they just blow up an unremarkable office building severals hours after the attacks when nobody was in them? There'd be absolutely no benefit for them and all it would do is make people more suspicious.

 

Ah, so the same people that were able to flawlessly carry out a false flag attack the size of 9/11 were unable to forge evidence of Iraqi WMDs?

 

This is the ridiculous thing about the conspiracy theories. They claim that it was all one big false flag operation (meaning that they could shape the "evidence" as they saw fit) yet none of the hijackers were from countries particularly hostile to the US (e.g. Iraq or Iran) and there was no real evidence implicating Iraqi involvement. You'd think that if they were planning to invade Iraq further down the line they'd at least manufacture some evidence linking them to the attacks so as to drum up more support for said war in the future.

[peterms]

so they've arrested the brother today in the Alps killing case ..... on suspicion of conspiracy to commit murder

 

 

so do the conspiracy theorists have anything to say on the matter 

 

Some more statements by the prosecutors a year after the event.

 

 

“Zaid  should not at all be regarded as the number one suspect,” Mr Maillaud said yesterday. “He had a motive in the sense that he was in a serious conflict with his brother but there is not the shadow of an element pointing to his guilt which could justify keeping him in custody.”...

 

The prosecutor – who is no longer leading the investigation but remains its chief spokesman -  said the “family quarrel” was only one of three “equally strong” lines of inquiry. Mr Maillaud revealed that Saad al-Hilli had kept at his home in Claygate, Surrey, an “unusual” amount of documents from his work on weather-forecasting and crop-watching micro-satellites.

 

“His company worked for many foreign states,” Mr Maillaud said. “Any mention of foreign countries and industrial espionage inevitably raises the possibility of the involvement of secret intelligence agencies.”

“This is a very complex part of the inquiry… but investigations are far from being closed on this subject.”...

 

Mail:

 

 

Detectives trying to unlock the Alps murders case believe a deal involving a 'transfer of technologies' could be a key line of inquiry, it has emerged.

 

Investigators remain baffled as to why three members of a British-Iraqi family were shot dead close to Lake Annecy, in eastern France, a year ago.

 

But at a joint Anglo-French press briefing they said 'industrial espionage could also indicate the involvement of secret services'.

 

The officer leading the investigation also said that Saad Al-Hilli, a 50-year-old engineer from Surrey who was among the victims, kept ‘meticulous recordings’ of all of his conversations up until the massacre.

 

Annecy prosecutor Eric Maillaud, who is leading the inquiry, said a bitter inheritance dispute between Saad and his brother Zaid Al-Hilli, 54, was an important line in the investigation.

Mr Maillaud said: ‘The victim recorded all his telephone conversations. We therefore have some very precise details.’

 

The prosecutor said Saad 'had in his possession a lot more material than his job would justify', The Mirror has reported.

 

Mr Maillaud said: 'The theory that this relates to foreign countries and industrial espionage could also indicate the involvement of secret services...

[peterms]

Another "conspiracy theory" proven correct: yes, it was a conspiracy, denied over decades, specifically including accusations that people putting forward this idea were "conspiracy theorists".

 

You have to wonder how people can use the term with a straight face.  Or perhaps they're just having a laugh.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/12/police-blacklist-construction-workers-watchdog

[snowychap]

Sorry to just pick part of that story out:

Sean Curran, a solicitor representing 69 victims in the high court, said he cautiously welcomed the announcement but raised concerns over the involvement of the unions, which are also suspected of providing information to the blacklist operation in some cases. He said: "We note that there has been reference to the consultation of Ucatt and Unite in the formulation of the proposed compensation scheme. We express serious concern about the involvement of those organisations.

"We have seen evidence that implicates Amicus (which evolved into Unite) and Ucatt officials in the supply of negative commentary about the suitability of their members for employment. That commentary frequently made its way onto the Consulting Association database and was no doubt one of the factors that led to denials of employment.

"It is also worthy of note that those unions refused to support their members in bringing a High Court claim so that they could seek redress for the hardship that they suffered. Many of those that we represent are firm that they object to Unite or Ucatt playing any part in negotiations with the relevant companies for these reasons."

I find that really grim reading. Poor form from those people in the unions making that decision. If unions aren't there to represent each of their members then they dig their own graves.

[peterms]

I find that really grim reading. Poor form from those people in the unions making that decision. If unions aren't there to represent each of their members then they dig their own graves.

I agree.  But then some of the unions have long had a problem representing all of their members.  Last in first out; attitudes towards women in the workplace; hostility towards black workers are  unattractive features of some aspects of union history.  And Ucatt and Amicus were never leading lights in progressive thinking, with their regular battles against radicals in their own ranks.

[Wainy316]

I was reading about the MK Ultra programmes carried out by the CIA, (with the help of pardoned Nazi scientists).  They were slipping people LSD and other drugs to see how effective they can be in mind control and as an interrogation aid.

It stopped in about 1964 and they destroyed loads of the files.

 

Anyway all of the above did actually happen.  Then I go on to read loads of crazy shit about how most modern day celebrities are mind controlled by the Illuminati and fed multiple personalities.  they are dramatically abused throughout their lives (sexually and physically) to keep them under control.  These celebrities often double up as sex slaves and their videos and photo's have subtle hints (dog collars, black and white stripes(?)) that inform the 'elite' that they are available as slaves.

 

After Britney Spears breakdown she was apparently carted off to a centre and reprogrammed.  It's crazy.

 

 

Here's the 'proof' she is under mind control:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLgXPagNzug

[coda]

Eh?