Conspiracy Theorists

[beorhthelm]

in case anyone is missing out on the full range of conspiracy theory, have a wander over to David Icke Forum for an all you can eat buffet.

 

[brakespear]

it's probably only going to get worse on the CT front, with money to be made out of it by the likes of Alex Jones, Mike Cernovich and others. Although I think with Alex Jones he doesn't believe his theories himself, just tries to sell them to the endlessly gullible.

 

[beorhthelm]

That's a fair point you make, perhaps not fair of me to point to a podcast and simply say "it's over there". The main reason, which won't surprise people, is oil. Invading Afghanistan and then Iraq was crucial in this aspect (see here for a good article). This article unwraps the difficulty the US govt had initially in linking Bin-Laden directly to the attacks which was necessary in terms of invading Afghanistan.

There's also the argument that Afghanistan represented a huge opportunity for the US strategically (not just oil, well, sort of)

Anyway, hopefully these will either inform your arguments either way.

appreciate the links however they dont address the question. the claim you made was "The uncomfortable truth is that there was a huge political appetite for the US to invade Afghanistan/Iraq", and i challenge what evidence there is for this relating to Afghanistan. The links are all written a decade later and project hindsight onto the event.

The Foreign Policy Journal asserts the US were intent on a pipeline and a threat from Bush when talks stalled, but there's nothing to back that up. at the time, even conspiracy land didn't make the assertions, a few year later the theory started around that it was to control opium (with the brilliantly engineered graph to show increase production post invasion as proof - starting the series in 2001, ignoring previous production). then there was the pipeline and than the access to minerals, with all sorts of claims to there being more such and such than the rest of the world. in each case, nothing to back up and as i say the US has not benefited from invasion there, no pipeline, little mineral rights.

if there was clear foreign, military or commercial benefits to controlling Afghan or calling for invasion, circulating before 9/11, they should be easy enough to reference (like Iraq, about which is no contention). i found a article about Taliban cutting poppy trade, makes reference to $43 aid for drought relief. only other thing going on was they were under UN sanctions for harbouring Osama, wanted due to his connections to previous bombings. so the conclusion could be drawn thats the reason they invaded Afghanistan.

 

[Triggaaar]

Too many unanswered questions, look back at the thousands of cover ups and atrocities around the world, it's not that mad to think it could've been set up

I agree that it's not mad to think that there may have been some sort of cover up. There may be unanswered questions, but that's simply because any one of us can ask as many questions as we like, so there are thousands of questions, and there's no onus on the authorities to answer them all.

There's also videos of experts proving explosives were used

Can you provide a link to one of those, and I'll explain why it's wrong. I also explained why it's obvious explosives weren't used in post #15, can you respond to those points?

 

[dingodan]

appreciate the links however they dont address the question. the claim you made was "The uncomfortable truth is that there was a huge political appetite for the US to invade Afghanistan/Iraq", and i challenge what evidence there is for this relating to Afghanistan. The links are all written a decade later and project hindsight onto the event.

The Foreign Policy Journal asserts the US were intent on a pipeline and a threat from Bush when talks stalled, but there's nothing to back that up. at the time, even conspiracy land didn't make the assertions, a few year later the theory started around that it was to control opium (with the brilliantly engineered graph to show increase production post invasion as proof - starting the series in 2001, ignoring previous production). then there was the pipeline and than the access to minerals, with all sorts of claims to there being more such and such than the rest of the world. in each case, nothing to back up and as i say the US has not benefited from invasion there, no pipeline, little mineral rights.

if there was clear foreign, military or commercial benefits to controlling Afghan or calling for invasion, circulating before 9/11, they should be easy enough to reference (like Iraq, about which is no contention). i found a article about Taliban cutting poppy trade, makes reference to $43 aid for drought relief. only other thing going on was they were under UN sanctions for harbouring Osama, wanted due to his connections to previous bombings. so the conclusion could be drawn thats the reason they invaded Afghanistan.

I can reference this for you, I don't want to get into a discussion, but I can help with a reference here going back to 1998. (If I have understood your conversation correctly!)

The document you want is: House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Committee on International Relations, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1998.

The relevant quote:

"The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company."

This is in the "STATEMENT OF JOHN J. MARESCA, VICE PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Unocal CORPORATION".

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.HTM

 

[looney]

it's probably only going to get worse on the CT front, with money to be made out of it by the likes of Alex Jones, Mike Cernovich and others. Although I think with Alex Jones he doesn't believe his theories himself, just tries to sell them to the endlessly gullible.

Jones runs with them untill debunked, if they are, then moves on sometimes apologising. He at least isn't churning stuff thats been debunked over a decade ago or more.


Oh and Im a member of flt earth groups, its fun to try to work out who the trolls are and who is serious. Ever so often I change sides to see if anyone notices, flerther to globehead and back again, so far no one has.

 

[beorhthelm]

Oh and Im a member of flt earth groups, its fun to try to work out who the trolls are and who is serious. Ever so often I change sides to see if anyone notices, flerther to globehead and back again, so far no one has.

dont have a picture to hand, but the standard model for Flat Earth (!) has the southern hemisphere extending onwards until it hits a many mile high ice wall in the antarctic region. the obvious problem that this means longitude and distances would all be messed up as you go further south is utterly lost on them. then again, Australia is a very big place, and why did we protect Falklands so much....

 

[looney]

dont have a picture to hand, but the standard model for Flat Earth (!) has the southern hemisphere extending onwards until it hits a many mile high ice wall in the antarctic region. the obvious problem that this means longitude and distances would all be messed up as you go further south is utterly lost on them. then again, Australia is a very big place, and why did we protect Falklands so much....

Australia doesn't exist according to a lot of flerthers, apart from the ones in Australia who get upset at being called part of a hoax.

 

[Buzzer]

Yeah apart from building 7 that was clearly brought down with explosives.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Just think about that for a minute. From your reply it looks like you're happy to accept that Towers 1 and 2 weren't brought down by explosives and they clearly weren't. Multiple footage from the film 102 Days That Shook America show Tower 2 falling on 102 minutes and Tower 1 falling on 126 minutes and both buildings collapsing from the top. Firstly, buildings are blown up from the bottom up and secondly there were no detonations to see at the point of collapse at the top. So I think it's pretty irrefutable that they weren't detonated.

But you claim building 7 was detonated.

There's so many questions from this:

• Why bother with building 7 when it was the Twin Towers that was the important target?
• How did the explosives manage not to detonate in the heat when prior to the collapse there's footage of metal buckling in the building? Ever see a fire in a fireworks factory?
• Why undertake such a risky venture that has so many potentials for being found out? It relies on 2 planes crashing into two other buildings but enough debris and fuel to fall from them to make a detonated building look like collateral damage.
• Why was no evidence of explosives found afterwards? If you claim that it was because of the intense fires then I refer you back to the previous question about risks of discovery.
• Why was it only detonated at 5.21pm when the Towers fell 7 hours before then? Blowing it up so long after the main event would surely make it far more noticeable and once again increases the risk of discovery. Surely, common sense dictates that you'd blow it up very shortly after the 2nd Tower fell so that no-one is around to watch it and the explosion gets lost in the panic and chaos.
• Why use aeroplanes when lorries rigged with explosives would be much simpler as in Oklahoma and very nearly succeeding in the first WTC attack in 1993?

The whole project is so implausible, so risky, so over-engineered that I honestly can't see how a rational person could believe that it was blown up yet you and Megazone are puffing your chests on this thread, calling everyone sheep and gullible. I go with Occam's Razor.

 

[The_NitramJohn]

Knew someone who was heavily into Conspiracy Theories.

From my experience, they fall into the same category, as people who believe in God!

Personally, have no real issues in believing what they like - if you believe the Earth is flat - fine by me!

However, like the religious, they really seem to get upset if you don't automatically agree with their beliefs or tell them your not particularly interested.

Then you get subjected to rants about being closed minded & being gullible enough to believe everything the government tells you [emoji15]

Ironic, they appear quite happy to automatically believe any crap written on a web page [emoji848]

Better, I find, to nod your head & ignore them!


If genuinely interested, Better to look up the info yourself!

 

[Triggaaar]

Just think about that for a minute.

 

[chippy nick 1]

YEP your just another sheep on the the subject, where would you like me to start there are soooo many obvious facts that it was an inside job but the biggest one of all is planes and heat dont bring down state of the art structures .FACT!!! O and i did not see any wreckage at the pentagon ?? did it melt or just evaporate into thin air

 

[Wrong-Direction]

YEP your just another sheep on the the subject, where would you like me to start there are soooo many obvious facts that it was an inside job but the biggest one of all is planes and heat dont bring down state of the art structures .FACT!!! O and i did not see any wreckage at the pentagon ?? did it melt or just evaporate into thin air [emoji23]

You're arguing with people that can't think for themselves

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Buzzer]

YEP your just another sheep on the the subject, where would you like me to start there are soooo many obvious facts that it was an inside job but the biggest one of all is planes and heat dont bring down state of the art structures .FACT!!! O and i did not see any wreckage at the pentagon ?? did it melt or just evaporate into thin air

State of the art? The Twin Towers were built in 1973. Is this where I type the word "fact" in capitals? You ask where I'd like you to start; answer my questions in the previous post.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

They did know it was going to happen.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Have you got the munchies yet?

 

[brighton fella]

YEP your just another sheep on the the subject, where would you like me to start there are soooo many obvious facts that it was an inside job but the biggest one of all is planes and heat dont bring down state of the art structures .FACT!!! O and i did not see any wreckage at the pentagon ?? did it melt or just evaporate into thin air

.One things a certainty the bomb proof passports didn't ..... found fully intact the following day would you believe.

 

[SeagullDubai]

Is his surname Trump

 

[brighton fella]

erm, eh hmmm, ahhh errr... tinfoil hatter!

Forgive me for butting in but do you realize how pathetic you sound ? why not answer the bloke instead of using childish remarks.
Tin foil hatter ..what a pathetic excuse of a word that is.

 

[Megazone]

Forgive me for butting in but do you realize how pathetic you sound ? why not answer the bloke instead of using childish remarks.
Tin foil hatter ..what a pathetic excuse of a word that is.

Why is 'Tinfoil hatter' pathetic?

 

[brighton fella]

Why is 'Tinfoil hatter' pathetic?

Because it is, answer the blokes question you plum. he came back with a good response and you shirked it.