Best Conspiracy Thoeries

[colinz]

he visited a medium in brighton according to him,

personally i think from the way his theories are panning out he could have had a session with a potato and got better insight

Most of the theories which awoke David Icke, were already available in print decades before he had his awakening.

Such as "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen, & "Tragedy & Hope" by Carroll Quigley.

He's simply trying to be the top dog in this field, by stating that those at the apex who control world events, all have the same blood line etc.
As someone has already said, it sells a lot of books.

 

[colinz]

On 9/11 2001, one of the most silliest conspiracy theories is that a jet plane similar to the one pictured below, burrowed itself into the ground, & virtually disappeared.


sorry i dont understand your comment.

how do you virtually disappear?

you cant half ass that type of thing,it either disappeared completely with no evidence of any debris or it crashed with evidence of debris and eye witness accounts.

which one are you claiming

which are you claiming?

I'm claiming that a Boeing 757 cannot burrow itself into a paddock.

Killtown's: Did Flight 93 Crash in Shanksville? - Image Gallery

 

[pastafarian]

Most of the theories which awoke David Icke, were already available in print decades before he had his awakening.

Such as "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen, & "Tragedy & Hope" by Carroll Quigley.

He's simply trying to be the top dog in this field, by stating that those at the apex who control world events, all have the same blood line etc.
As someone has already said, it sells a lot of books.

so we are agree then,he is a cock!even if he is a well published one

 

[colinz]

so we are agree then,he is a cock!even if he is a well published one

I prefer the word opportunist.

 

[pastafarian]

I'm claiming that a Boeing 757 cannot burrow itself into a paddock.

Killtown's: Did Flight 93 Crash in Shanksville? - Image Gallery

your right any plane with burrowing capabilities would be rather silly.

just as moronic as the people who claim United 93 never crashed into a field.

 

[colinz]

your right any plane with burrowing capabilities would be rather silly.

just as moronic as the people who claim United 93 never crashed into a field.

Where's your proof UA93 crashed into a field ?

 

[pastafarian]

Where's your proof UA93 crashed into a field ?

well your first clues would be the debris found at the site along with the eyewitness accounts,but you dont have to be Sherlock Holmes for those to give you an inclining.

i doubt you will ever for as long as you can live be able to give proof that United 93 did not crash into a field,

no one has managed to do that yet,what makes you so "special" apart from the fact you are detached from reality?

 

[pastafarian]

I'm claiming that a Boeing 757 cannot burrow itself into a paddock.

Where's your proof UA93 crashed into a field ?

how do you sleep at night by the way?

 

[colinz]

I'm claiming that a Boeing 757 cannot burrow itself into a paddock.





how do you sleep at night by the way?

With my eyes closed, similar to your mind.

 

[beorhthelm]

well your first clues would be the debris found at the site along with the eyewitness accounts,but you dont have to be Sherlock Holmes for those to give you an inclining.

no, you're not allowed to use "eyewitness accounts" as they will all be either made up or government paid agents. evidence such as thousands of peices of debris aren't allowed either. you have to "do your own research" linking the event to something or someone otherwise non-obvious and that proves whatever you want to claim.

 

[Falmer]

no, you're not allowed to use "eyewitness accounts" as they will all be either made up or government paid agents. evidence such as thousands of peices of debris aren't allowed either. you have to "do your own research" linking the event to something or someone otherwise non-obvious and that proves whatever you want to claim.

It's sweet how you like to believe everything the TV feeds you.

 

[sten_super]

"do your own research" linking the event to something or someone otherwise non-obvious and that proves whatever you want to claim.

This will preferably consist of posting a YouTube video made by an American in his basement while wearing his tin hat to stop the government reading his mind. At least you know these kinds of people won't be subject to 'group think' or tainted by the MSM. Ideally the video should leap on one tiny inconsistency and extrapolate wildly from here, making assumption after assumption (and, as a point of principle, disavowing any claim made in the MSM).

Personally, I look forward to the day when I can bow down in reverence to our lizard overlords who orchestrated 9/11 and the financial crisis. I shall shake them by the hand/paw/claw.

 

[Falmer]

This will preferably consist of posting a YouTube video made by an American in his basement while wearing his tin hat to stop the government reading his mind. At least you know these kinds of people won't be subject to 'group think' or tainted by the MSM. Ideally the video should leap on one tiny inconsistency and extrapolate wildly from here, making assumption after assumption (and, as a point of principle, disavowing any claim made in the MSM).

Personally, I look forward to the day when I can bow down in reverence to our lizard overlords who orchestrated 9/11 and the financial crisis. I shall shake them by the hand/paw/claw.

So your saying it's madness to question any corruption played out by certain governments?

 

[sten_super]

So your saying it's madness to question any corruption played out by certain governments?

No, what I'm saying is that some common sense (and Occam's Razor, where appropriate) needs to be used. My personal suspicion is that Flight 93 was quite possibly blown up by US security sources. If true, can you blame them for covering it up? Does that make it 'corruption'?

There is (or at least should be) a difference between 'questioning government' and believing everything video you see on youtube. I find it ironic that 'conspiracy theorists' often accuse people that don't agree with them of being 'sheeple' or similar, when many of these people are seemingly very quick to believe whatever someone else tells them.

 

[colinz]

no, you're not allowed to use "eyewitness accounts" as they will all be either made up or government paid agents. evidence such as thousands of peices of debris aren't allowed either. you have to "do your own research" linking the event to something or someone otherwise non-obvious and that proves whatever you want to claim.

Yeah eye witness accounts like these 2

 

[Joey Deacon's Disco Suit]

This review of Zeitgeist, the 9/11 conspiracy theory film sums it up perfectly:

The film is an interesting object lesson on how conspiracy theories get to be so popular.... It's a driven, if uneven, piece of propaganda, a marvel of tight editing and fuzzy thinking. Its on-camera sources are mostly conspiracy theorists, co-mingled with selective eyewitness accounts, drawn from archival footage and often taken out of context. It derides the media as a pawn of the International Bankers, but produces media reports for credibility when convenient. The film ignores expert opinion, except the handful of experts who agree with it. And yet, it's compelling. It shamelessly ploughs forward, connecting dots with an earnest certainty that makes you want to give it an A for effort.

Got to say that Brunswick, Badfish, Falmer et al all fall under this description.

 

[slimes]

The Moon Landings were faked

people who think the moon landings were real!!

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Yep...the Earth is still flat!

 

[readingstockport]

I'm claiming that a Boeing 757 cannot burrow itself into a paddock.

stupid wingnut conspiracy link removed

And like all good wingnut sites that one has just tried to set about 50 cookies on my machine. Strange how all the wingnut sites that go on about how 'they' are tracking you and controlling your mind are always the ones that try to set the most number of the most invasive and privacy breaking tracking cookies isn't it?

 

[Falmer]

No, what I'm saying is that some common sense (and Occam's Razor, where appropriate) needs to be used. My personal suspicion is that Flight 93 was quite possibly blown up by US security sources. If true, can you blame them for covering it up? Does that make it 'corruption'?

There is (or at least should be) a difference between 'questioning government' and believing everything video you see on youtube. I find it ironic that 'conspiracy theorists' often accuse people that don't agree with them of being 'sheeple' or similar, when many of these people are seemingly very quick to believe whatever someone else tells them.

Yes but the ultimate question is who do you believe? what the Government feeds you (media) or what people tell you. You seem to take offence if someone mentions propaganda. The reason conspiracy theories now are bigger than ever are simply because the media is now the biggest weapon of them all for governments. They can control us with it. They tell us how poor and bad life is in other countries making us feel as if our countries doing great. I mean come on! H. Clinton only yestreday stated she believes The US needs to push gay rights in other countries (manly muslims countries) which she is claiming to be human rights. Anyone think this is all in aid of the Islamaphobia our governments are creating with the media.