Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

1212224262774

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    So according to Firefighter Pete Morbito...."all the elevators" fell. All had their cables severed, the brake shoes failed AND the emergency safety governors also failed and they all plunged down. Correct?
    Maybe the plane crashes might have had something to do with this?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    you are still talking absolute nonsense. lifts in a lift shaft are in no way airtight.


    Are you referring to me or to DJ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Now you're putting words into my mouth and reaching out to others for support.


    You said that I decided that "the facts" were wrong because I don't believe them.


    You're the one who talks about "facts" and that they aren't to be questioned or disputed or doubted.


    Just because YOU say something is a fact and is indisputable or undeniable or unquestionable, doesn't make it a fact, I'm sorry to inform you.

    Whataboutery

    You claim passports didn't survive the impacts based on one thing, that you "cant believe it". This is directly contradicted by the physical evidence that they did survive, something you haven't disputed

    Likewise, elevators created secondary explosions and sounds like explosions. Truthers claim these other reports of explosions were actually "controlled demolitions" going off at the event. You've decided that didn't happened because, again, you "can't believe it". Witnesses to the event contradict your incredulity.

    You've made no attempt to explain otherwise and you've labelled posters who disagree with you as "shills".


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Whataboutery

    You claim passports didn't survive the impacts based on one thing, that you "cant believe it". This is directly contradicted by the physical evidence that they did survive, something you haven't disputed

    Likewise, elevators created secondary explosions and sounds like explosions. Truthers claim these other reports of explosions were actually "controlled demolitions" going off at the event. You've decided that didn't happened because, again, you "can't believe it". Witnesses to the event contradict your incredulity.

    You've made no attempt to explain otherwise and you've labelled posters who disagree with you as "shills".


    I don't believe that a passport can survive a fireball. You believe it can. That's where we differ. And your belief is cemented by the report that a passport was found in the street before the towers came down.



    That's very similar to stamping your feet and insisting that Jesus existed and miracles can happen because the Shroud of Turin as there as plain as day for all to see. It's all the evidence that's needed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    I don't believe that a passport can survive a fireball. You believe it can. That's where we differ. And your belief is cemented by the report that a passport was found in the street before the towers came down.

    Incorrect.

    For the umpteenth time it's not your belief vs someone else's belief. It's your belief vs fact.

    Your belief: you can't believe a passport survived a fireball
    Fact: The passport did survive the fireball, as evidenced by the fact that it physically exists. You can't explain this.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,716 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    I didn't say they moved in a vacuum. How would they ascend in an evacuated chamber?

    so lifts don't move in a vacuum, yet somehow the air in a lift shaft would stop a lift from falling to the ground as it gets compressed by the falling lift????


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Incorrect.

    For the umpteenth time it's not your belief vs someone else's belief. It's your belief vs fact.

    Your belief: you can't believe a passport survived a fireball
    Fact: The passport did survive the fireball, as evidenced by the fact that it physically exists. You can't explain this.


    And as has been explained to you umpteen times using the "suicide" victim analogy


    My belief: I can't believe that the victim took his own life by shooting himself 3 times in the back of the head.


    Fact: He did just that as evidenced by the fact that his body is lying right there in the street.

    The Shroud of Turin exists ergo Jesus's image magically transfixed itself onto the fabric. That's the logic you're going by.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    And as has been explained to you umpteen times using the "suicide" victim analogy

    My belief: I can't believe that the victim took his own life by shooting himself 3 times in the back of the head.


    Fact: He did just that as evidenced by the fact that his body is lying right there in the street.

    Another silly analogy demonstrating you still don't understand any of this.

    After the airliners struck the buildings, perishable items belonging to people on those flights were recovered. Meaning those items survived the impacts.

    You've never explained how these items survived, you've never provided a plausible counter-explanation, all you've done is engage in incredulity "I can't believe it", which isn't an argument against it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Another silly analogy demonstrating you still don't understand any of this.

    After the airliners struck the buildings, perishable items belonging to people on those flights were recovered. Meaning those items survived the impacts.

    You've never explained how these items survived, you've never provided a plausible counter-explanation, all you've done is engage in incredulity "I can't believe it", which isn't an argument against it.
    It's not only that he hasn't been able to provide a counter example, it's that he's actively gone out of his way to pretend that point has even been brought up.
    He has not once acknowledged the other items existing.

    He knows they exist. He knows they can and did survive the plane crashes.
    But if he acknowledges them, then it's an issue for the conspiracy theory that might cause doubt in the believe. This is of course not allowed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,116 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    139753408_10101750308654743_2785088036947277547_o.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=2&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=cjj5e148VPsAX-WkHaY&_nc_ht=scontent-mia3-1.xx&oh=d54b2c7345135d91d3e8315361503575&oe=602885C0


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Actually pretty accurate


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I'm not so much a fan of that diagram. A lot of these conspiracies exist on a spectrum by themselves, and any of them could span the whole way up.

    And then there's stuff that sticks out as being in the wrong place like the bohemian grove and Denver airport. The explanations of these would require belief in the New World Order/illuminati, which are all right at the top.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    so lifts don't move in a vacuum, yet somehow the air in a lift shaft would stop a lift from falling to the ground as it gets compressed by the falling lift????


    If there is air in a lift shaft then it's not a vacuum.



    ( ??? )


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Another silly analogy demonstrating you still don't understand any of this.

    After the airliners struck the buildings, perishable items belonging to people on those flights were recovered. Meaning those items survived the impacts.

    You've never explained how these items survived, you've never provided a plausible counter-explanation, all you've done is engage in incredulity "I can't believe it", which isn't an argument against it.


    You're the one who hasn't explained how these effects came to be on the ground.


    A paper passport is on the ground. Did it exit the plane at the point of entry or the point of exit when the aircraft struck the tower?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Another silly analogy demonstrating you still don't understand any of this.

    After the airliners struck the buildings, perishable items belonging to people on those flights were recovered. Meaning those items survived the impacts.

    You've never explained how these items survived, you've never provided a plausible counter-explanation, all you've done is engage in incredulity "I can't believe it", which isn't an argument against it.


    At what point did those items go from being inside the plane to being outside the plane and ultimately on the ground? The passport will do.

    You say "items were recovered" but you're conveniently avoiding the very simple question of how they went from being inside an airplane that crashed into a building, burst into flames, and landed nearly intact in the streets below.

    Stamping your feet and saying "THEY WERE FOUND" doesn't cut it. If you are so adamant about how they went from the inside of a plane/fireball to the ground then surely you can parlay that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    At what point did those items go from being inside the plane to being outside the plane and ultimately on the ground? The passport will do.

    You say "items were recovered" but you're conveniently avoiding the very simple question of how they went from being inside an airplane that crashed into a building, burst into flames, and landed nearly intact in the streets below.

    Stamping your feet and saying "THEY WERE FOUND" doesn't cut it. If you are so adamant about how they went from the inside of a plane/fireball to the ground then surely you can parlay that.
    How else could they have survived the crash?

    The items exist. They were recovered.
    So they evidently did get from inside the plane to outside.
    The specific centimetre by centimetre path they took is a bit irrelevant.

    Other conspiracy theorists make similar arguments as you to show the planes didn't really exist and were actually holograms.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,716 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    If there is air in a lift shaft then it's not a vacuum.



    ( ??? )

    Great. Finally we're getting somewhere, considering you mentioned vacuums in post 669. So we can now disregard vacuums, as lift shafts are NOT vacuums, by your own admission.

    Now, does the falling lift compress the air to such a level that it prevents it from crashing to the ground?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Great. Finally we're getting somewhere, considering you mentioned vacuums in post 669. So we can now disregard vacuums, as lift shafts are NOT vacuums, by your own admission.

    Now, does the falling lift compress the air to such a level that it prevents it from crashing to the ground?


    I'm not going to go any further with you. I mentioned vacuums and compression in my post. I never said that lifts operate in a vacuum that you tried to allege I DID say.


    Don't waste my time with your games.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,716 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    I'm not going to go any further with you. I mentioned vacuums and compression in my post. I never said that lifts operate in a vacuum that you tried to allege I DID say.


    Don't waste my time with your games.

    Ah yes... the last refuge of the CT'er when confronted with that nasty thing called logic.

    Imagine my disappointment. It shouldn't be hard for someone with your imagination :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    At what point did those items go from being inside the plane to being outside the plane and ultimately on the ground? The passport will do.

    They survived the impact
    You say "items were recovered" but you're conveniently avoiding the very simple question of how they went from being inside an airplane that crashed into a building, burst into flames, and landed nearly intact in the streets below.

    They obviously got blown out during the impact. To underscore this, perishable passenger and hijacker effects were found at all sites.

    Both airliners crashing into the Twin Towers, Flight 93 diving near vertically into the ground in Shanksville and Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

    saying "THEY WERE FOUND" doesn't cut it.

    Yes it does. This the part you don't seem to get. The fact that they were found is evidence they survived the impact

    What is your alternative explanation? if you have none then you have no point and no argument.

    You have to address the above question, if you don't, you are just going round and round on a hamster wheel of incredulity. "I can't believe it, so it didn't happen".


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    If only some people realised that not understanding something is ok. Here is an example....I don’t understand quantum physics, or why toddlers throw tantrums even when getting what they want.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,348 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    You're the one who hasn't explained how these effects came to be on the ground.


    A paper passport is on the ground. Did it exit the plane at the point of entry or the point of exit when the aircraft struck the tower?

    OK, it's obvious that you have never been near an explosion as you would understand why these items survived.

    When something explodes the shock wave is ahead of the fire traveling around 5/7000 MPS, This shock wave will carry debris with it, depending in where items where when the explosion took place they would have been pushed out of the buildings ahead of the fireball and onto the streets, hence this is how a simple paper passport and many other items survived intact.

    If that doesn't explain it for you then I don't know what else to say because its as simplified as possible.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,243 ✭✭✭Fabio


    Modern theories perhaps have more going for them than older top10 historical ones, thanks to media, communications and access of information.

    Everything about the most recent significant one: (Epstien) stinks. From his decades of evasion, leniency of sentancing, right up to the time/method he popped his clogs, not to mention his partner in crime chillaxing in NH for months without disturbance, unti very recently. Herself now with documents/videos that might never see daylight.

    Before this one we had COVID, but only in regards to it's source. This is still a mystery and relies on 'probability/guesswork' that it was a fluke of nature', even though nearby WuhanL4 lab might well have been studying it, tinkering with it, or something very similar.



    Most of the more extreme silly ones (flat earth), might be put out there for lols, and to reduce the case value of any more potential genuine ones.
    Historical ones that are very fishy include Diana's car crash in Paris and JFK.

    Top 10
    The JFK Assassination
    9/11 Cover-Up
    Area 51 and the Aliens
    Paul Is Dead
    Secret Societies Control the World
    The Moon Landings Were Faked
    Jesus and Mary Magdalene
    Holocaust Revisionism
    The CIA and AIDS
    The Reptilian Elite

    Top 100 or so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories
    1 Aviation:
    1.1 Black helicopters 1.2 Chemtrails 1.3 Korean Air Lines Flight 007 1.4 Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 1.5 Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17
    2 Business and industry:
    2.1 Deepwater Horizon 2.2 New Coke
    3 Deaths and disappearances
    4 Economics and society
    4.1 New World Order 4.2 Denver Airport 4.3 George Soros 4.4 Freemasonry 4.5 Üst akıl
    5 Espionage:
    5.1 Israel animal spying 5.2 Harold Wilson 5.3 Malala Yousafzai
    6 Ethnicity, race and religion:
    6.1 Antisemitism 6.2 Anti-Armenianism 6.3 Anti-Baha'ism 6.4 Anti-Catholicism 6.5 Antichrist 6.6 Bible and Jesus 6.7 Islam 6.8 Anti-Islamic 6.9 Racism
    7 Extraterrestrials and UFOs
    8 Government, politics and conflict:
    8.1 Illuminati
    8.2 False flag operations 8.3 9/11 8.4 Sandy Hook 8.5 Clintons 8.6 Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories 8.7 FEMA 8.8 African National Congress 8.9 Barack Obama 8.10 Cultural Marxism
    8.11 Deep state 8.12 Sutherland Springs 8.13 Trump and Ukraine 8.14 October Surprise Conspiracy Theory
    9 Medicine:
    9.1 Alternative therapy suppression 9.2 Artificial diseases 9.3 Fluoridation 9.4 Vaccination 9.5 COVID-19 pandemic
    10 Science and technology:
    10.1 Global warming 10.2 Weather and earthquake control projects 10.3 MKUltra 10.4 Flat Earth 10.5 Technology suppression 10.6 Weaponry 10.7 Targeted Individuals 10.8 False history
    11 Space agencies
    12 Sports
    12.1 Boxing 12.2 Shergar 12.3 Rigged selection processes 12.4 1984 Pepsi 400 12.5 Ronaldo and the 1998 World Cup Final 12.6 New England Patriots

    Can someone explain why the "Paul is Dead" theory is considered to be credible?

    Surprised to see the RFK assasination isn't mentioned here.

    I wouldn't consider myself a conspiracy theorist but that's about the only one which I'd take a second look at.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Fabio wrote: »
    Can someone explain why the "Paul is Dead" theory is considered to be credible?

    Surprised to see the RFK assasination isn't mentioned here.

    I wouldn't consider myself a conspiracy theorist but that's about the only one which I'd take a second look at.


    What's the Paul Is Dead thing?


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,401 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Fabio wrote: »
    Can someone explain why the "Paul is Dead" theory is considered to be credible?

    Its not but a lot of people believed it. Wearing the black rose in Magical Mystery tour, turning his back on Pepper, "28IF" (he was 27 at the time) on the Beatle on the Abbey Road cover, not wearing shoes on the same cover etc.

    Its very silly but shows how mad the world was for the band.
    Fabio wrote: »
    Surprised to see the RFK assasination isn't mentioned here.

    I wouldn't consider myself a conspiracy theorist but that's about the only one which I'd take a second look at.

    I've read a lot about it and don't see anything there. The Manchurian Candidate theory is the main one put forward. Sirhan Sirhan killed him because he was a bit mental and because of RFKs support for Israel. Just like Oswald killed JFK (partly) because of his opposition to Castro.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,243 ✭✭✭Fabio


    What's the Paul Is Dead thing?

    Paul McCartney died and was replaced by a look-a-like.

    Yep. Seriously.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,243 ✭✭✭Fabio


    The Nal wrote: »
    I've read a lot about it and don't see anything there. The Manchurian Candidate theory is the main one put forward. Sirhan Sirhan killed him because he was a bit mental and because of RFKs support for Israel. Just like Oswald killed JFK (partly) because of his opposition to Castro.

    Ever listen to the RFK Tapes Podcast? Really interesting podcast where the host eventually comes to the conclusion that it was, indeed Sirhan. The co-host Bill Klaber, has other ideas though and is sure there was a second gunman. He gives a lot of evidence in support of that but, if I had to choose, I'd probably say it was just Sirhan.

    Podcast is worth a listen though, you get both sides.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,401 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Fabio wrote: »
    Ever listen to the RFK Tapes Podcast? Really interesting podcast where the host eventually comes to the conclusion that it was, indeed Sirhan. The co-host Bill Klaber, has other ideas though and is sure there was a second gunman. He gives a lot of evidence in support of that but, if I had to choose, I'd probably say it was just Sirhan.

    Podcast is worth a listen though, you get both sides.

    Cheers will give it a listen.

    I know a couple of people who were there swear there was a 2nd gunman. John Pilger for one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,243 ✭✭✭Fabio


    The Nal wrote: »
    Cheers will give it a listen.

    I know a couple of people who were there swear there was a 2nd gunman. John Pilger for one.

    He might be in it actually. Enjoy it!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Fabio wrote: »
    Paul McCartney died and was replaced by a look-a-like.

    Yep. Seriously.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead


    Well that's pretty fcuked.


Advertisement