Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why do people insist everything is faked?


ali smack

Recommended Posts

That can easily be applied to people who spread CTs. Just because they don't have a government paycheck doesn't automatically make them a saint.

Unless you honestly believe all evil in the world is incarnated in authority.

Speaking only for myself, I was not considering sainthood or the inherent goodness in humans in this consideration.

I'm not judging the wickedness of any person, or its opposite, in observing that (for whatever reason) it does seem to be true that with many people they are quite reluctant to understand that they've been fooled.

You can see small and innocent demonstrations of that on the show Brain Games on H2. Humans ARE easily fooled, myself included. Call it physics associated with our perceptive processes, call it the dynamics of psychology, but we are easily misled. And many of us are somehow threatened to admit that we were fooled, but of course some are not.

And I suspect there is some truth to the old saying that power corrupts. The story of power corrupting individuals is quite old, and demonstrated throughout the ages. Consider the former governor of Virginia who was just convicted. More often than not, power corrupts, and that works on the individual level and on the social level.

Edited by Babe Ruth
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking only for myself, I was not considering sainthood or the inherent goodness in humans in this consideration.

I'm not judging the wickedness of any person, or its opposite, in observing that (for whatever reason) it does seem to be true that with many people they are quite reluctant to understand that they've been fooled.

You can see small and innocent demonstrations of that on the show Brain Games on H2. Humans ARE easily fooled, myself included. Call it physics associated with our perceptive processes, call it the dynamics of psychology, but we are easily misled. And many of us are somehow threatened to admit that we were fooled, but of course some are not.

You have been fooled on a number of occasions. Let's take a few examples.

* You've claimed that TWA 800 was shot down.

Fact: A story that a U.S. Navy vessel shot down TWA 800 missile, was a hoax. The perpetrator of that hoax eventually came forward and has admitted that he hoaxed the story but you had taken that hoaxed story and ran away with it.

* You have claimed that no Boeing crashed at Shanksville

Fact: Over 90% of the wreckage from United 93 was recovered from the crash site, which is where United Airlines announced the loss of United 93. In addition, radar tracked United 93 to the crash site and there were eyewitnesses who saw the airliner crash there. Passenger remains and some possessions were also recovered from the Shanksville crash site.

* You've claimed that no Boeing crashed at the Pentagon.

Fact: Wreckage recovered from inside and outside the Pentagon was identified as that of American 77, which was a Boeing 757. In addition, the conversion formulas provided by American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Co., pertained ONLY to the FDR of American 77 and no other aircraft. Altitude flight data also shows that at no time was the airliner flown under remote control.

* You've used William Rodriquez as a reference.

Fact: William Rodriquez was later found to be a fraud.

* You've claimed that cell phones cannot by used in flight and that is why the 9/11 phone calls were false

Fact: Most of the phone calls were from Airfones, not cell phones. Records released show that the two cell phone calls were made at an altitude of only 5000 feet, and nowhere near 30,000 feet.

* You've claimed that ACARS depicted an airliner airborne after its reported crash time

Fact: ACARS depicted no such thing and I personally had received expert information from the folks at ARINC, the ACARS experts. In addition, there were no radar tracks of any of the 9/11 airliners in the sky after they crashed.

* You've implied that MH-17 was shot down by a Su-25.

Fact: The Su-25, was incapable of reaching the alitude of MH-17. With a weapons load, the Su-25 can only reach 16,000 feet whereas, MH-17 was cruising at 33,000 feet. That is a 3-mile difference in altitude.

* You claimed that damage on the skin of MH-17 proved that it was shot down by 30mm rounds.

Fact: The damage distribution on the wreckage of MH-17 is evidence of shrapnel damage and nothing to do with 30mm rounds. Most of the punctures are much too small to have been made by 30mm rounds.

* You've claimed that damage on the wing of MH-17 depicts 30mm rounds fired from the rear of MH-17.

Fact: A close examination of the damaged wing shows that shrapnel came from below and forward of the wing, not from the rear.

* You've claimed that mini-nukes were used to demolish the WTC buildings.

Fact: The mini-nuke story was a hoax. In addition, none of the characteristics of a nuclear detonation was evident during nor after the collapse of the WTC buildings.

To sum it up, some people are gullible enough to accept any false report or a hoax.

Edited by skyeagle409
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks skyeagle409!

How do you KNOW these things are 'FACTS' other than you've been told they are and you've accepted that version of events.

Do you have access to the raw data & the ability to interpret and verify these conclusions from it?

It still requires an 'act of faith' to unquestioningly accept 'official' versions of events & interpretation of data (however probable) given various Govt. agencies' historical track record on such things.

Have you personally conducted 'a close examination of the damaged wing' and concluded from your own relevant expertise in the field that 'this shows that shrapnel came from below and forward of the wing, not from the rear' or have you just been told this and accepted it?

Most of us are in no position to establish what is or isn't 'true' in these circumstances - we just have to decide which version of events we 'believe'.

People who believe other alternative or opposing narratives are no more or less gullible than those who unquestioningly accept Govt. sanctioned 'FACTS', despite having no means of verifying the 'truth' in either case.

This is in addition to the numerous historical cases of Govts. later confessing to 'lying to the public' about various activities.

In the case of 'MK Ultra' it was eventually accepted this was an unbelievable lunatic 'conspiracy theory' with absolutely no credible evidence Govts pursued such 'fantastic' projects. (This was of course prior to the US Govt. eventually confessing such projects were indeed real & President Clinton officially apologising for their unethical [& largely unbelievable!] activities - hey, thanx Bill!)

'TRUTH' is always the first casualty of war, be it conventional or covert - i.e. the largely invisible and imaginary 'War' on 'Terror' (otherwise known as the 'Unverifiable Justification for a Surveillance State...')

'Go Home America - your Govt. has figured it out for you, so you don't have to! Go Home America & Remember: We Are Free! - To Think & Do as We Are Told...' - Bill Hicks

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks skyeagle409!

How do you KNOW these things are 'FACTS' other than you've been told they are and you've accepted that version of events.

For one thing, my Wing commander was in the Pentagon when American 77 struck.

Do you have access to the raw data & the ability to interpret and verify these conclusions from it?

I had certain access because I was working for the Air Force at the time as a defense contractor at Travis AFB. In fact, the Air Force comes to me for advice and assistance and the Air Force and Raytheon Aerospace sent me to Pensacola, Florida to develop a new technical manual for the TF-39C, which is used to power the Air Force's C-5 transport. I also develped the new pressure flapper valves for the C-5 as well, which the Air Force paid me $450.00.

It still requires an 'act of faith' to unquestioningly accept 'official' versions of events & interpretation of data (however probable) given various Govt. agencies' historical track record on such things.

I don't depend on what the government says. I read reports from the Boeing Aircraft Co., American Airlines,United Airlines, demolition and structural experts and look at other evidence. I am a pilot with 45 years experience and an airframe technician with 46 years experience, which is why I eventually became an airframe supervisor and inspector for the Air Force and defense contractors after my Air Force retirement.

I've developed special tools, equipment and components for the Air Force and special jigs and tools for the U.S. Army's Black Hawk helicopter at the Corpus Christ Army Depot in Texas. I even worked for the U.S. Navy as a civilian on nuclear submarines for 18 months at Mare Island shipyard, Vallejo, CA., which is where I attended and completed nuclear school. I became employed with the Navy after completing 4 years active duty in the Air Force. After leaving the Navy, I accepted a position as an Air Force Air Reserve Technician (ART) which is a combined civilian/military position. In addition to my duties as mentioned, I also became a DCC aboard the Air Force's C-5 transport and was a member of the flight crew that flew recovery gear from Cubi Point, Philippines to Japan in support of recovery efforts in regard to the downing of KAL 007. I was also on the flight crew that flew Army rangers, helicopters and other equipment to Barbados during the Grenada operation.

Have you personally conducted 'a close examination of the damaged wing' and concluded from your own relevant expertise in the field that 'this shows that shrapnel came from below and forward of the wing, not from the rear' or have you just been told this and accepted it?

With that kind of experience, I know what to look for, and one of my jobs as an airframe technician, was to conduct detailed damage.evaluations.

.

Most of us are in no position to establish what is or isn't 'true' in these circumstances - we just have to decide which version of events we 'believe'.

Why go to the government for details when you should be asking the companies that built the airframes, engines, and time-sensitive equipment in addition to companies that own and operate the aircraft? Those are the people you should forward your questions to, not the government.

People who believe other alternative or opposing narratives are no more or less gullible than those who unquestioningly accept Govt. sanctioned 'FACTS', despite having no means of verifying the 'truth' in either case.

Once again, why go to the government? The government did not build nor operate the four aircraft involved.

This is in addition to the numerous historical cases of Govts. later confessing to 'lying to the public' about various activities.

Let's take another approach. Amierican Airlines is not a government agency, yet the airline announced the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon and confirmed that American 11 struck WTC 1. United Airlines announced the loss of United 93 at the Shanksville crash site and the loss of United 175 after it struck WTC 2, and United Airlines is not a government agency either, so why depend upon the government for answers when you should be asking the owners and operators of those aircraft.

The Boeing Aircraft Co. has said that the B-757 and the B-767 were not built to fly under remote control, which is correct because those aircraft do not have fly-by-wire (FBW) controls, and the airlines would not have grounded those aircraft for many, many months in order to have them undergo extensive and illegal modifications that would somehow be overlooked by technicians and inspectors of the owner/operators... As I have said on other threads, such extensive modifications would have left paper trails from Washington State to Washington D.C. and not to mention Rolls-Royce and would have involved hundreds of technicians, engineers and other support folks.

And, there was no way you can switch aircraft and I can reveal a switched aircraft in 30 minutes or less because no two aircraft are alike, even among aircraft of the same models. Each aircraft have their own personality and their maintenane and flight records are as unique as DNA. CT folks are not aware of those facts, which is why they have concocted unfounded conspiracy theories and out of shear ignorance of the way we do things in the real world of aviation.

In the case of 'MK Ultra' it was eventually accepted this was an unbelievable lunatic 'conspiracy theory' with absolutely no credible evidence Govts pursued such 'fantastic' projects. (This was of course prior to the US Govt. eventually confessing such projects were indeed real & President Clinton officially apologising for their unethical [& largely unbelievable!] activities - hey, thanx Bill!)

The government does not consist of a group of angels as evident by the Watergate scandal, however, there are cases for which it is not practical to ask the government for answers.

'TRUTH' is always the first casualty of war, be it conventional or covert - i.e. the largely invisible and imaginary 'War' on 'Terror' (otherwise known as the 'Unverifiable Justification for a Surveillance State...')

I can safely say that the world is largely unaware of the full scope of the 'War on Terror'.

'Go Home America - your Govt. has figured it out for you, so you don't have to! Go Home America & Remember: We Are Free! - To Think & Do as We Are Told...' - Bill Hicks

How many more innocent people would have been slaughtered if America did not lead efforts to stop the atrocities in the Balkans as thousands of Muslims were being slaughtered by the Serbs?

How many people would have been slaughtered by Saddam's troops in the Middle East if America did not step in to stop the atrocities in Kuwait?

How many more innocent people would have been slaughtered if America did not step forward to rescue innocent people on that mountain top with humanitarian aid and airstrikes against ISIS?

What would have happened if ISIS blew up the Mosul dam if America did not come to the rescue in time?

There is a time when our backs cannot be turned from those who are crying out for help.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a trust issue. Many people who have trust issues and especially distrust of governmental authorities automatically distrust the "official" story. This provokes people to search for the "real story" because whatever the government said couldn't be true. In the modern world of internet and the desire to publish stories first, facts are not necessarily checked, and so when stories come out with contradictions, it's a confirmation bias issue and AHA! moment, when the conspiracy theorist thinks that they've caught the government out in a lie.

I read a study some time ago (possibly on UM, actually, though I can't recall) about the mindset of conspiracy theories, and it noted that it's not necessarily that they favour one story over another but as long as it is not the official story then it's good, for example, many who believe that MI6 assassinated Princess Diana also wanted to suggest that Diana faked her own death, with no real care as to which was true, as long as it wasn't the official story, because they knew that had to be a lie. Some even believed both accounts despite the contradiction of Diana faking her own death AND being assassinated.

It's not necessarily logical, but mistrust doesn't always lead to logical thinking.

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a trust issue. Many people who have trust issues and especially distrust of governmental authorities automatically distrust the "official" story. This provokes people to search for the "real story" because whatever the government said couldn't be true. In the modern world of internet and the desire to publish stories first, facts are not necessarily checked, and so when stories come out with contradictions, it's a confirmation bias issue and AHA! moment, when the conspiracy theorist thinks that they've caught the government out in a lie.

I read a study some time ago (possibly on UM, actually, though I can't recall) about the mindset of conspiracy theories, and it noted that it's not necessarily that they favour one story over another but as long as it is not the official story then it's good, for example, many who believe that MI6 assassinated Princess Diana also wanted to suggest that Diana faked her own death, with no real care as to which was true, as long as it wasn't the official story, because they knew that had to be a lie. Some even believed both accounts despite the contradiction of Diana faking her own death AND being assassinated.

It's not necessarily logical, but mistrust doesn't always lead to logical thinking.

I've never met anyone on any site or in person who believes contradicting theories. We just want the truth. Who wastes time on theories, except Evolutionist's of course.

It's true that the government lie's to suit it's own purposes. I believe this is why few trust them and that anybody that doesn't see and admit this is blind and/or in denial. Or working for them from the start.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it's actually a pretty simple concept. Some people believe certain things very, very strongly. Anything (regardless of quality/validity) that supports their belief is "real". Anything that does not support their belief is "faked" (regardless of quality/validity).

What they believe is all that matters and any evidence to the contrary will be discounted/twisted/declared fake.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have access to the raw data & the ability to interpret and verify these conclusions from it?

It still requires an 'act of faith' to unquestioningly accept 'official' versions of events & interpretation of data (however probable) given various Govt. agencies' historical track record on such things.

When you do not have the personal ability to verify something then the next best option is to look at the experts who DO have such abilities, see what they say then go with the clear majority opinion. If there is not a clear majority then you have to do the best you can and decide which you believe,,, but acknowledge that the other side might also be right.

When there is a clear majority it does not mean it is absolutely correct; even experts can get it wrong... however on the balance of probability they are most likely correct.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When there is a clear majority it does not mean it is absolutely correct; even experts can get it wrong... however on the balance of probability they are most likely correct.

Most people are quite willing to accept this concept in most situations. Example: If you're having chest pains most people (least wise the sane ones) will favour the opinion of a medical doctor over let's say, a plumber. But, put this concept into something more 'conspiracy friendly' and the outcome can be very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a trust issue. Many people who have trust issues and especially distrust of governmental authorities automatically distrust the "official" story. This provokes people to search for the "real story" because whatever the government said couldn't be true. In the modern world of internet and the desire to publish stories first, facts are not necessarily checked, and so when stories come out with contradictions, it's a confirmation bias issue and AHA! moment, when the conspiracy theorist thinks that they've caught the government out in a lie.

I read a study some time ago (possibly on UM, actually, though I can't recall) about the mindset of conspiracy theories, and it noted that it's not necessarily that they favour one story over another but as long as it is not the official story then it's good, for example, many who believe that MI6 assassinated Princess Diana also wanted to suggest that Diana faked her own death, with no real care as to which was true, as long as it wasn't the official story, because they knew that had to be a lie. Some even believed both accounts despite the contradiction of Diana faking her own death AND being assassinated.

It's not necessarily logical, but mistrust doesn't always lead to logical thinking.

The trust issue is a very large part of the equation, and the big problem is that government is so often caught lying, even under oath in the halls of congress. Like it or not, and I'm certainly not happy about this, the government seems to fabricate stories and cover up other stories, much more than it gives a truthful accounting. So much is classified, and even in a fairly innocent case such as Reynolds v. US, way back in 1953, the classification is invoked to hide government malfeasance and dishonesty.

So it is that believing the statements of known liars is somehow considered to be rational, when the opposite of that is true.

If the government has nothing to hide, why is it hiding so much? Why does it lie to SCOTUS? Why does it lie to Congress?

Do you suppose it is lying to the people? We are in the court of public opinion here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trust issue is a very large part of the equation, and the big problem is that government is so often caught lying, even under oath in the halls of congress. Like it or not, and I'm certainly not happy about this, the government seems to fabricate stories and cover up other stories, much more than it gives a truthful accounting. So much is classified, and even in a fairly innocent case such as Reynolds v. US, way back in 1953, the classification is invoked to hide government malfeasance and dishonesty.

So it is that believing the statements of known liars is somehow considered to be rational, when the opposite of that is true.

If the government has nothing to hide, why is it hiding so much? Why does it lie to SCOTUS? Why does it lie to Congress?

Do you suppose it is lying to the people? We are in the court of public opinion here.

If you are that upset about government lying, why do you continue to use references from CT websites that are well-known for lying, distorting the facts and for spreading disinformation?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you do not have the personal ability to verify something then the next best option is to look at the experts who DO have such abilities, see what they say then go with the clear majority opinion. If there is not a clear majority then you have to do the best you can and decide which you believe,,, but acknowledge that the other side might also be right.

When there is a clear majority it does not mean it is absolutely correct; even experts can get it wrong... however on the balance of probability they are most likely correct.

Hit the target bulls-eye. Overwhelming probability I would say, to the extent that most of the theories going against them are fringe at best and sometimes insane. The problem is discerning accurately what the experts think, since there are lot of people claiming to be experts who aren't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never met anyone on any site or in person who believes contradicting theories. We just want the truth. Who wastes time on theories, except Evolutionist's of course.

Most CTers I have known do NOT want the truth. Once the truth comes out the fun is over. What they really want is for the official line to be false. The truth seems to be fairly irrelevant.

Note this is not aimed at you as I don't know you.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most CTers I have known do NOT want the truth. Once the truth comes out the fun is over. What they really want is for the official line to be false. The truth seems to be fairly irrelevant.

Note this is not aimed at you as I don't know you.

I think largely there is just such a perverse streak in CTers. They seem to fall on the side of the official line being false all the time. It is perhaps why so many believe so many things -- they suspend skepticism in favor of what they want to be true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you ever stand in front of a full length mirror and wonder on which side of it you were actually on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most CTers I have known do NOT want the truth. Once the truth comes out the fun is over. What they really want is for the official line to be false. The truth seems to be fairly irrelevant.

Note this is not aimed at you as I don't know you.

I know it's not aimed at me either, as you don't know me AND the description is inaccurate--for me the truth IS relevant.

In fact, my bet is that your statement that most CT you have known do NOT want the truth to be utter bull****. It is something you threw out there from ignorance.

Most likely, I know far more CT than you do, and I cannot think of ONE that does not seek the truth.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most likely, I know far more CT than you do, and I cannot think of ONE that does not seek the truth.

I disagree because I've caught quite a few CT'ers deliberately posting false and misleading information and clouding the Internet with disinformation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's not aimed at me either, as you don't know me AND the description is inaccurate--for me the truth IS relevant.

In fact, my bet is that your statement that most CT you have known do NOT want the truth to be utter bull****. It is something you threw out there from ignorance.

Most likely, I know far more CT than you do, and I cannot think of ONE that does not seek the truth.

Well you would lose your bet.

Interestingly I made sure that I was not offensive to the poster I quoted and you made sure that you were offensive. The accusation of ignorance and the assumption that you know more CTers than I, when you have no idea of this in reality, is a rather mean spirited and petty minded comment. You have obviously taken my comment as a personal criticism which says a great deal about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At my age I avoid mirrors of all sorts except the rear-view in my car.

Whats in my mirrors is not important ! ,rips mirror off race car ,and spits ! "Whats behind me dosnt matter" Grand Prix ! :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but when the people in charge can't tell the truth, why should they be trusted? If they want people to stop conspiring, they can start being more honest. But it's probably too late now. They have lied so much that, if you put a completely honest politician in front of the conspiracy theorists, they'd still show some skepticism.

Edited by UFO_Monster
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most CTers I have known do NOT want the truth. Once the truth comes out the fun is over. What they really want is for the official line to be false. The truth seems to be fairly irrelevant.

Note this is not aimed at you as I don't know you.

Greetings, Border.

Humbly, what you detail in your post is not my personal experience. For example, the 9/11 Truther's are called such for a reason. They are aware 9/11 is a cover-up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are aware 9/11 is a cover-up.

Actually not. 9/11 Truthers were duped into believing that fantasy.

I have had to correct 9/11 Truthers on many occasions because they were making false claims in regard to the 9/11 airliners flying under remote control, which was impossible and not depicted in the flight data, They made flalse claims that ACARS depicted the aircraft airborne after their reported crash times and made that claim despite the fact that radar contact was lost at the time of their reported crash times, which should have told them that ACARS depicted on such thing, and of course, their claim that tampering with the transponder will render an aircraft invisible to radar. Even stealth aircraft are not totally invisible on radar, even without a transponder, so what made CT'ers think the B-757 and B-757 were invisible on radar? Remember, the B-757 and B-767 are not stealth aircraft.

CT'ers were also concocting false stories that the 9/11 airliners were switched. You cannot switch airliners because each aircraft have their own flight, maintenance and data records that cannot be switched, and each aircraft have their own ID numbers as well as each engine, and to further add, each engine have their have flight and maintenance records. The reason why CT'ers pushed those false claims is because they were unaware of the way we do business in the real world of aviation, hence my statement that claims of CT'ers are based on ignorance.

Another case in point, CT'ers have claimed that United 93 landed at Cleveland airport and dispatched its passengers, but when the facts came rolling in, it was determined that the CT'ers had confused Delta 1989, which was a B-767, with United 93, which was a B-757. At not time did ATC clear United 93 to land at Cleveland and in fact, radar did not track United 93 to Cleveland airport, because radar tracked United 93 to the Shanksville crash site and that is radar contact was lost. The passengers that CT'ers confused as those of United 93, were actually scientist that disembarked from a KC-135, which is an older four-engine aircraft.

Just a few examples of how CT'er have made a mockery of themselves over the years. Another example of how they made themselves look silly is where they accepted a hoaxed video of WTC 7 collapsing, which was laced with faked detonations and even a UFO was added along with very small words that the video was a hoax. They've claimed that the detonations (which were added by the hoaxer) was evidence of demolition explosions. In fact, the CT'ers failed to noticed that the video was actually a reversed image of WTC 7. which should have told them the WTC 7 was a hoax.

Considering there is no sound of explosions nor are explosions seen on video as the WTC buildings collapse, explains why seismic monitors in the local area did not detect signals that would have been associated with demolition explosives.

Add to the fact that shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attack, al-Qaeda released its martyr videos of the hijackers, which also explains why a number of countries around the world issued warnings before 9/11 that al-Qaeda was in the final stages of carrying out their attack on America using aircraft. In fact, the Philippines in 1995 had revealed terrorist plans to fly an aircraft into CIA headquarters.

To sum it up, the CT'ers have made themselves look silly as they concocted false claims in light of undeniable evidence in order to go far out of their way to blame the United States for an attack that was clearly carried out by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

.

Edited by skyeagle409
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the truth is sometimes inconvenient for them. We live in a culture these days that automatically has to assign blame for things and people will put the blame on people and institutions that they do not trust themselves or feel that have an nefarious motive for certain events. It's why 9/11 has so many "truthers" and other things. Some people cannot comprehend that a bunch of organized and determined individuals with an extremist view about what is considered to be an affront to their God exploited lax security measures aboard aircraft and used them as weapons against thousands of innocent people. To me, they cannot comprehend that mass murder can be committed by lone individuals but by those who have (apparent) agendas and reasons for doing so.

You look at the conspiracies that have popped up around MH17 for example. A number of people do not believe that it was an accidental shootdown by some inexperienced soldiers. Russia is busy absolving itself of any blame (perceived or otherwise) because no one wants blood on their hands. Russia has already pretty much turned the world against itself for what happened in Crimea and it doesn't want the deaths of nearly 300 innocent people on their hands. And to do this, they produce "alternate" theories for Russian nationalists and people who believe that "the West" is somehow evil and it's "mass media" are lying to us all.

Truth is sometimes strange. It's sometimes hard for some people to accept , that is of course whatever the truth happens to be , at whatever time it may be . Not everyone accepts that truth of matter of whatever matter it may be .

I really can't determine whether or not anyone will ever know the real truth behind some of the things that have happened where conspiracy is concerned .

I think that there's real truth in saying that there's real cause for concern regarding a lot of things going on in the world. I really do wish that the borders of my country was secured , and I wish that no one can come here unless they come here in the lawful way .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you would lose your bet.

Interestingly I made sure that I was not offensive to the poster I quoted and you made sure that you were offensive. The accusation of ignorance and the assumption that you know more CTers than I, when you have no idea of this in reality, is a rather mean spirited and petty minded comment. You have obviously taken my comment as a personal criticism which says a great deal about you.

You are offended by men placing bets? Yikes! :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.