Conspiracy theories you think are probably true?

c_man

ScumLord wrote: »

...

Oh, so they pick'n'chose bits from some books (which you say originate all these theories, wow that's some claim), present them in a stupid manner, insert their own stuff. And then set that up as the basis for debunking the "theory"....

pjproby

This is a story from the truth in the news Daily Mail on the possibility of an advanced civilisation having lived here before and the likelihood that we will be wiped out in 2030-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4457530/Mini-Ice-Age-wiped-cvilisation-13-000-years-ago.html

Perfect for AH

And here is the opposing theory
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-there-wasnt-an-advanced-civilization-12-000-years-ago/

Gravelly

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And they did it 5 more times. Under the full gaze of the USSR and the world. Bringing back moon rocks which have been passed around the globe for research and study.

Including this bag of moon dust I wish I'd bought.

ScumLord

pjproby wrote: »

This is a story from the truth in the news Daily Mail on the possibility of an advanced civilisation having lived here before and the likelihood that we will be wiped out in 2030-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4457530/Mini-Ice-Age-wiped-cvilisation-13-000-years-ago.html

Perfect for AH

And here is the opposing theory
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-there-wasnt-an-advanced-civilization-12-000-years-ago/

Hancock was on Joe Rogan recently too, it was kind of painful to watch, Joe is a sucker for conspiracy theories. It got alright when Hancock shut up for a while and let the scientists talk about the possibility of the asteroid theory being true or not.

Dohnjoe

dont bother wrote: »

i have a couple of friends who are completely engrossed in all things conspiracy, so you hear them going on about it enough, and ye start believing it.

If you don't have any information to the contrary then it's likely to sound believable to you

Give me 15 mins with someone who doesn't know anything about 911 and I'll convince them a missile hit the Pentagon - even though I know it's complete nonsense. Why? because they don't have the information to counter my well prepared and convincing sounding misinformation.

ohnonotgmail

ScumLord wrote: »

Yeah, he's one of the masterminds. A convicted conman who got into writing.

Chariot of the Gods is a good read if you're 14.

DrumSteve

The recession was in some way designed to transfer Public funds in to private ownership.

The supply of new houses is being kept deliberately low to keep buyers out of the market and to keep houses for rental for big business.

ScumLord

DrumSteve wrote: »

The recession was in some way designed to transfer Public funds in to private ownership.

The supply of new houses is being kept deliberately low to keep buyers out of the market and to keep houses for rental for big business.

I don't think there needs to be a conspiracy for these two. Recessions happen and some people (mostly rich people) are in a position to take advantage of the recession. The end result is wealth moving into the hands of the already rich but to say they initiated it would be a bit like someone burning down the house to set a fire in the fire place.

The same happening here, the people with property are doing what they're supposed to do in the housing market, sell for as much as you can. So they're holding onto property because it's the smart financial thing to do.

I can't say whether our economies are just the crap we've ended up with after a few hundred years of deals and compromises and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, or the tool of nefarious people milking the worlds wealth. It's probably a little of both and just a mess in between.

The modern economy is certainly the worst things that's ever happened to planet earth and the most devastating thing to happen to life since the last major extinction event.

Dohnjoe

ScumLord wrote: »

I can't say whether our economies are just the crap we've ended up with after a few hundred years of deals and compromises and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, or the tool of nefarious people milking the worlds wealth. It's probably a little of both and just a mess in between.

It's the best (or least worst) system that functions in the real world. So far no one has come up with a workable alternative. As long as people demand mortgages, pensions, savings accounts, car loans, credit, high quality appliances/goods/services .. then it's pretty much not going to change dramatically (only be tweaked, refined)

To be devil's advocate, we had one of the most severe systemic crises possible in 2007/2008 and there weren't exactly bread queues. The US pulled out of it in 2 and a half years. Global poverty has been halved in 2 decades. We now have 6% unemployment in this country. It's easy to paint a negative picture of anything, but on the whole it's not so terrible (except on the environment) and it could be far worse (Venezuela, Cuba)

Okay, back to the conspiracies

sbsquarepants

Cortina_MK_IV wrote: »

What an absolute load of......

There is a resemblance but there's also resemblance to ed sheeran and worzel gummidge.
New conspiracy - Di had a threesome with ed sheeran and worzel gummidge!:D

Burial.

Moon landings were utter bollox. Everything from the astronauts going insane and turning to alcoholics while looking like their whole family was murdered in the press conference 'back in Earth' to the fact that the Van Allen radiation belts to the fact that the reels of telemetry data for one of the most important events ever suddenly disappeared. Russia And China to this day have no clue how to put a man up there. China put a rover up there a few years ago and they said there's no evidence of American moon landings.

I think any bit of research would make 9/11 look very fishy. Building 7 collapsed at free fall speed yet was never hit by a plane. High rise buildings have never collapsed due to fire or structural damage. There have been countless cases of much older high rise buildings burning for much longer than the Twin Towers, buildings built with much more modern methods and noted to withstand a hit from a Boeing 707, yet it collapsed after a few hours.

Wibbs

Burial. wrote: »

Moon landings were utter bollox. Everything from the astronauts going insane and turning to alcoholics while looking like their whole family was murdered in the press conference 'back in Earth' to the fact that the Van Allen radiation belts to the fact that the reels of telemetry data for one of the most important events ever suddenly disappeared. Russia And China to this day have no clue how to put a man up there. China put a rover up there a few years ago and they said there's no evidence of American moon landings.

1) Van Allen himself has dismissed this nonsense. I could expand on why, but I reckon it would be a waste of keystrokes.

2) They have "reels of telemetry data" on all five of the landing missions(and the one that didn't 13) and all the previous to the landings Apollo missions. You do realise it wasn't just one mission? Oh and that telemetry data doesn't just come from the Americans, a lot of nations were involved with tracking the missions and the Soviets were keeping an eye too. If the Russians had spotted even the sniff of a hoax they would have had a field day with it.

3) Russia knew exactly how to "put a man up there" and were in the race to do so. Here's their Lunar lander

One man ship. They faltered because of issues with their heavy lifting rocket and the death of their project leader.

4) I dunno where you heard about China claiming no US landings. Sounds like utter BS to me. You can see the landing sights from Lunar orbit.

5) alcoholic astronauts? Wut? The only one I can think of who went off the rails for a time was Buzz Aldrin. The other two from that mission went on to live perfectly fine lives. As did all the other "Moonmen".

ScumLord

Burial. wrote: »

Russia And China to this day have no clue how to put a man up there. China put a rover up there a few years ago and they said there's no evidence of American moon landings.

Unless they landed near the American site and could see it then the fact they can't find evidence means nothing. That fact they sent a rover to the moon shows they do know how to put a man on the moon they just haven't done it.

I think any bit of research would make 9/11 look very fishy. Building 7 collapsed at free fall speed yet was never hit by a plane.

What is that even supposed to mean? How many types of failing are there? Are you implying they defied gravity?

High rise buildings have never collapsed due to fire or structural damage.

Head over to youtube and search for "high rise building collapse" then watch videos of high rise buildings collapsing the top result is a video from Iran of a high rise building collapsing due to fire.

There have been countless cases of much older high rise buildings burning for much longer than the Twin Towers, buildings built with much more modern methods and noted to withstand a hit from a Boeing 707, yet it collapsed after a few hours.

Because it was hit by a plane!! You can't compare a fire to an airplane sticking the building and setting an entire floor on fire instantly.

Dohnjoe

Burial. wrote: »

Moon landings were utter bollox. Everything from the astronauts going insane and turning to alcoholics while looking like their whole family was murdered in the press conference 'back in Earth' to the fact that the Van Allen radiation belts to the fact that the reels of telemetry data for one of the most important events ever suddenly disappeared. Russia And China to this day have no clue how to put a man up there. China put a rover up there a few years ago and they said there's no evidence of American moon landings.

Except that none of the above is true or in context. It's debunked misinformation or taken out of context.

I think any bit of research would make 9/11 look very fishy. Building 7 collapsed at free fall speed yet was never hit by a plane. High rise buildings have never collapsed due to fire or structural damage. There have been countless cases of much older high rise buildings burning for much longer than the Twin Towers, buildings built with much more modern methods and noted to withstand a hit from a Boeing 707, yet it collapsed after a few hours.

The world's been waiting 15 years for a single plausible alternative theory.

"There's no way a building can weaken and fall due to unchecked uncontrolled fires - that's just impossible!"

"Secretly rigging some of the largest buildings in the world with silent explosives, synchronised with multiple airliners that have to hit their mark, involving treasonously killing thousands under the eyes of the national agencies, opposition party, international intelligence agencies, with no leaks, whistle-blowers, Snowden, with no supporting evidence, no suspects - plausible!"

If a counter-theory is more fantastical and has far less evidence than the one you don't believe - there may be a chance that logic and reason aren't being used

If there is no counter-theory, then forget it, might as well be - aliens did it

topper75

International financiers exert control on politicians to implement policies of year-on-year economic growth.

Constant growth is not necessary to the average Joe. If everybody had enough kids to replace themselves, it would all carry on tickety boo and sustainable. Especially considering the finite resources of the planet.

It is necessary though for those who charge interest to get their money back and get richer. So they won't let up.

Growth is presented as a good thing through the media. Stability or contraction are presented as the devil, though they would help the lot of the ordinary person.

Widdershins

None of them. They're all inane and often disrespectful.

DEFTLEFTHAND

US Air Force shot down the hijacked plane which crashed in Pennsylvania during 9/11.

ScumLord

topper75 wrote: »

International financiers exert control on politicians to implement policies of year-on-year economic growth.

Constant growth is not necessary to the average Joe. If everybody had enough kids to replace themselves, it would all carry on tickety boo and sustainable. Especially considering the finite resources of the planet.

It is necessary though for those who charge interest to get their money back and get richer. So they won't let up.

Growth is presented as a good thing through the media. Stability or contraction are presented as the devil, though they would help the lot of the ordinary person.

I think one of the major problems with modern capitalism is giant corporations. They can often assume the rights of an individual, they have the buying power of a nation, they can avoid laws and taxes as they see fit, they can often avoid accountability. They remove all moral obligations and replace it with blind profit chasing, then they lie about that fact and strip mine everything and turn it into junk that will break so we buy more. I think if we could put a leash on big corporations so they can't grow to monstrous sizes that many of the really negative side effects of capitalism would be drastically reduced. Giant corporations are like mindless planet destroyers, they are of no benefit to humanity.

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

If the Russians had spotted even the sniff of a hoax they would have had a field day with it.

This pretty much.

The Radiation Belts around the earth are dangerous to STAY in without shielding. Travelling at over 3 kilometres a second isn't anybody's definition of hanging around.

Sam Kade

C Montgomery Gurns II wrote: »

My hole it is.

I have researched, and researched heavily. Every single 9/11 conspriacy theory is utter nonsense. My only minor question is how 19 Arabs carried weapons aboard undetected, but even at that the knives they carried were, unbelievably, too short in the blade to be forbidden to be carried on flights. If 5 Arabs per flight were detected carrying technically legal blades in questionable circumstances, the security staff were probably worried that some piece of shyt liberal would pull them up for racial profiling.


People forget that George Bush Sr could have finished off Saddam in 1990, but instead halted his troops at the Iraq Kuwait border. If 9/11 was all to steal Iraq's oil and to make a profit off investments in arms companies, George Sr could have done it in 1990 but didn't bother. Why not?

The sheer number of regular Joe's it would have taken to allow 9/11 to go ahead is also ludicrous.

Whatever floats you boat but a jumbo jet flying through a building that was built to withstand such an occurrence and flown off course by pilots that had little flying experience and never flew a jumbo jet before. As soon as the planes went off course fighter jets would be scrambled immediately.

Sam Kade

tomwaterford wrote: »

Iirc some byildings had to be demolished afterwards because of damage from falling debris....and a good few needed significant repairs

Do you know how long it would take to set up explosives to bring down a building? It would take weeks rather than hours.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Kade wrote: »

Whatever floats you boat but a jumbo jet flying through a building that was built to withstand such an occurrence and flown off course by pilots that had little flying experience and never flew a jumbo jet before. As soon as the planes went off course fighter jets would be scrambled immediately.

The pilots had experience with flight sims, and these days commercial aircraft practically fly themselves.

Most countries don't keep fighters in the air, or have them with engines running on the ground, or have pilots sitting in the cockpit.

It takes time to recognise the threat, then alert the pilots, get them to the plane, get it started, take off and get to altitude / speed. Then and only then can you start intercepting. And even then a commercial line can go at Mach 0.85 so if your fighter can do twice that it's still going to take 20 minutes to catch up on a 10 minute head start.

Of course if the fighters aren't carrying weapons there are fewer options.

Sam Kade

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The pilots had experience with flight sims, and these days commercial aircraft practically fly themselves.

Most countries don't keep fighters in the air, or have them with engines running on the ground, or have pilots sitting in the cockpit.

It takes time to recognise the threat, then alert the pilots, get them to the plane, get it started, take off and get to altitude / speed. Then and only then can you start intercepting. And even then a commercial line can go at Mach 0.85 so if your fighter can do twice that it's still going to take 20 minutes to catch up on a 10 minute head start.

Of course if the fighters aren't carrying weapons there are fewer options.

Have you also an explaination as to how the planes flew through the buildings that were built to withstand exactly that?

Cortina_MK_IV

Sam Kade wrote: »

Have you also an explaination as to how the planes flew through the buildings that were built to withstand exactly that?

So was what the world seen that day an illusion?

Sam Kade

Cortina_MK_IV wrote: »

So was what the world seen that day an illusion?

They weren't any videos of planes hitting on that day it took a few days before that famous first video came out which isn't very convincing if you look at it closely.

Cortina_MK_IV

Sam Kade wrote: »

They weren't any videos of planes hitting on that day it took a few days before that famous first video came out which isn't very convincing if you look at it closely.

As in the live news reports as it happened.

Sam Kade

Cortina_MK_IV wrote: »

As in the live news reports as it happened.

As in planes hitting not the aftermath. Have a look at this, but then again I suppose you know better than pilots.

Cortina_MK_IV

Sam Kade wrote: »

As in planes hitting not the aftermath. Have a look at this, but then again I suppose you know better than pilots.

Did I claim to? I've been asking this question for nearly 10 years and never got an answer, maybe you can. In all this, who was ultimately responsible, where did the buck stop?

Samaris

Sam Kade wrote: »

Have you also an explaination as to how the planes flew through the buildings that were built to withstand exactly that?

Good gods, no skyscraper is built to withstand a fully-fuelled passenger plane ramming into it at high speed! Sure, it could probably survive a little biplane (and it still wouldn't do anyone with a window office any good at all), but I defy you to show me a skyscraper that can withstand a 767 ramming it halfway up, especially at speeds well-above the plane's recommended maximum speed.

Phoebas

Sam Kade wrote: »

As in planes hitting not the aftermath. Have a look at this, but then again I suppose you know better than pilots.

Why would you expect a pilot to know about what would happen if a plane is crashed into a building? In flight school they learn how to fly the things; not so much how to crash them.