78 replies to this topic

[tyrant lizard]

It seems to be that there are certain types of people who thrive on the conspiracy thing, and who sometimes, just because it's a conspiracy, tend to believe it?

Im talking about the guys who think America crashed planes into their own sky scrapers, Princess Diana was killed by the MI5, the world is run by a secret society of Devil worshippers, JFK was killed by the CIA the KGB or the Mafia, the Moon landings were faked... etc etc.

Is it because life is too mundane and they (or you, as the case may be) get bored easily and would like to spice things up?

My brother is one of these types of people, and when I say "Bin Laden planned 9/11" or "Diana was killed becasue her driver was drunk and was being chased by the paps" he goes mental saying I'm a fool and I believe in everything I hear. To which I reply, "Who told you all these amazing facts then, and how come you beleive them?"

I suppose this kind of goes with a lot of the other sub forums on here. I was watching Finding Bigfoot the other day and, after being told by an eye witness the figure that he saw was seven foot tall, the expert said "what's the chances of a seven guy being around here? no. That was a bigfoot." But I was thinking, "the chances of it being a seven foot man are higher than it being a creature that has never been proven to exsist. I get some folk are like Moulder - they want to believe.

[notoverrated]

good points except for the last part about bigfoot, of course its more likly that a seven foot tall guy is walking around but the odds are low so it makes you wonder hmm well wtf would a seven foot tall guy be doing and maybe it wasnt a human its all just speculating. and to answer your op i think people want there to be a mystery or at least "solve" it but hey maybe some of them are real who knows i just let people have fun (kinda like those group murder mystery games people pay for)

[tyrant lizard]

I'm sure some of them might be real.

What worries me is the vehemence that some of these guys defend the conspiracies, as if there can be no doubt whatsoever and anyone who can't see that is a total dullard. I'm open to all possibilities on most things - but I'm 100% on almost nothing regarding the issues on UM.

[mrbusdriver]

The whole idea of conspiracies has been so clogged with noise that real conspiracies go pretty much unnoticed, lost in the noise. They may not be as spectacular as 9/11 etc, but they are real.

[ouija ouija]

I'm not sure there are people who actually need conspiracies. Everyone is different, thank goodness, and I for one think it's a good thing that some people delve into conspiracy theories and really root around for the facts.

To take your first example of 9/11, there are still a lot of unanswered questions surrounding that. I haven't heard the one about the world being run by a secret society of Devil worshippers.

Sometimes, I think conspiracy theorists have a sort of sixth sense about their pet theory. They know that the official line doesn't ring true, they just can't prove why ........ yet!

[St. Jimmy]

There are some things which are beyond us and our perception. And until I know the real truth as it is, I'm open to every possible explanation. Which automatically doesn't mean that I believe in it too... I just take them into account.

[unit]

...what can you say to someone who questions the existance of bigfoot but believes in magic bullets?

[OverSword]

The reason why you perceive that some people need conspiracies is that we are lied to so often.  As far as your brother being a truther or whatever, although I don't hold with alot of the 911 conpiracies it's tough to deny that the BBC in London reported WTC 7 collapsed a full half hour before the event occured, and it's hard to deny the cell phone recording of the owner, who had just taken out a new more comprehensive insurance policy on the building, order it to be "taken down" which begs the question, why were there explosives already in the building to take it down?  Compound all of this with the near total lack of reporting of these facts by the so called reliable news agencies and what choice does a reasonable person have but to scream "CONSPIRACY!!!!!" ?

Two weeks before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR was given a report stating that the future of naval warfare was air craft carriers and submarines, and that the day of the battleship was ending.  Shortly before the attack the secretary of the navy ordered all carriers and subs out of Pearl Harbor on exercises, leaving the battleships to be torpedoed and bombed.  This was the trigger which got the USA into WWII, something FDR had been pushing for but the public had been dead set against.  Pretty convenient trigger to shift public opinion don't you think?  Of course this was never proven, so it's just a theory.  In my opinion a theory that anyone would be foolish to wave off as ridiculous.

[tyrant lizard]

unit, on 15 August 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

...what can you say to someone who questions the existance of bigfoot but believes in magic bullets?

Not much - neither have been proved or disproved.

[tyrant lizard]

OverSword, on 15 August 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

The reason why you perceive that some people need conspiracies is that we are lied to so often.  As far as your brother being a truther or whatever, although I don't hold with alot of the 911 conpiracies it's tough to deny that the BBC in London reported WTC 7 collapsed a full half hour before the event occured, and it's hard to deny the cell phone recording of the owner, who had just taken out a new more comprehensive insurance policy on the building, order it to be "taken down" which begs the question, why were there explosives already in the building to take it down?  Compound all of this with the near total lack of reporting of these facts by the so called reliable news agencies and what choice does a reasonable person have but to scream "CONSPIRACY!!!!!" ?

Two weeks before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR was given a report stating that the future of naval warfare was air craft carriers and submarines, and that the day of the battleship was ending.  Shortly before the attack the secretary of the navy ordered all carriers and subs out of Pearl Harbor on exercises, leaving the battleships to be torpedoed and bombed.  This was the trigger which got the USA into WWII, something FDR had been pushing for but the public had been dead set against.  Pretty convenient trigger to shift public opinion don't you think?  Of course this was never proven, so it's just a theory.  In my opinion a theory that anyone would be foolish to wave off as ridiculous.

Ok so there is some weird stuff regarding 9/11 but explanations have been given for almost every theory out there - maybe something odd was happening, but that don't mean it was an inside job.

[mrbusdriver]

OverSword, on 15 August 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

order it to be "taken down" which begs the question, why were there explosives already in the building to take it down?  .

It seems you need a conspiracy...where in the heck did you find this complete distortion? Let me guess...a conspiracy site. He didn't order anything "taken down", he suggested that maybe they should "pull it", "it" being the firefighting effort at WTC7, as the building was heavy with fire, and many folks had already died in the WTC fire and rescue efforts. The conspiracy folks glommed all over that, putting their interpretation into Mr Silversteins mouth.
And there were no explosives in WTC7, except the imaginary ones the CTs put there to support their conspiracy/CD storyline...

[Babe Ruth]

Lizard

Nice thread.

Care to work with a few definitions?

For example, would you be interested in defining "conspiracy"?

[OverSword]

mrbusdriver, on 15 August 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

It seems you need a conspiracy...where in the heck did you find this complete distortion? Let me guess...a conspiracy site. He didn't order anything "taken down", he suggested that maybe they should "pull it", "it" being the firefighting effort at WTC7, as the building was heavy with fire, and many folks had already died in the WTC fire and rescue efforts. The conspiracy folks glommed all over that, putting their interpretation into Mr Silversteins mouth.
And there were no explosives in WTC7, except the imaginary ones the CTs put there to support their conspiracy/CD storyline...

OK so I got the terminology wrong, take it down, pull it, whatever.  So since when does the civilian owner of a building get to have any kind of input on a fire fighting effort?  Never, that's when.  Pull your head out, and ask instead of only listen.

Also, since you not only remembered the exact phrase, but even the douche bags name who said it, you obviously are much more concerned with this than the average person.  I wonder why?

Edited by OverSword, 15 August 2012 - 07:04 PM.

[Little Fish]

mrbusdriver, on 15 August 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

he suggested that maybe they should "pull it", "it" being the firefighting effort at WTC7.

"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building"
http://web.archive.o...ero-sept-shame/

[mrbusdriver]

OverSword, on 15 August 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

OK so I got the terminology wrong, take it down, pull it, whatever.  So since when does the civilian owner of a building get to have any kind of input on a fire fighting effort?  Never, that's when.  Pull your head out, and ask instead of only listen.

Also, since you not only remembered the exact phrase, but even the douche bags name who said it, you obviously are much more concerned with this than the average person.  I wonder why?

The owner of a significant structure, which he owns, can say anything he wants. No, he's not in the FDNY chain, but there's nothing preventing him from expressing concern about the danger and possible further loss of life.
That I remember his name is because he is THE key figure in YOUR CT about WTC7...I'm surprised you didn't know the name of the man who you were accusing.