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

"Conspiracy Theory"

Options
  • 20-01-2014 9:14pm
    #1
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭


    As far as I know the term was forced into the popular discourse by the CIA and was used to discredit the legitimate debate about the findings of the Warren Commission.

    I just wanted to start a discussion on issues that are considered "conspiracy theory" that probably should be considered valid for mainstream discussion. The moving of the thread on the Fed is what got me thinking. Other topics along the same lines IMO would be Fluoride in the water, vaccinations, issues relating to the covert actions of the "deep state" and any deviations from the official Holocaust narrative.

    I'd be interested if anyone has anymore.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    9/11

    Official story still is full of holes using pseudo science


  • Options
    #3
    Torakx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    Good luck with the 9/11 one, that is the modern day flagship for the mainstream view of conspiracy theories.


  • Options
    #4
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    It amuses me when the likes of Cameron /Kenny and the rest of the so called world leaders call the opposition conspiracy theorists
    Must make all the skeptics feel all cosy and safe when the government loses an election and the opposition (nutters) get into power

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFimNLwjczQ


    As far as I know the term was forced into the popular discourse by the CIA and was used to discredit the legitimate debate about the findings of the Warren Commission.

    wasnt aware of that but it fits nicely


  • Options
    #5
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    As far as I know the term was forced into the popular discourse by the CIA and was used to discredit the legitimate debate about the findings of the Warren Commission.
    You know wrong. The phrase goes back to the early 20th C, at the latest
    I just wanted to start a discussion on issues that are considered "conspiracy theory" that probably should be considered valid for mainstream discussion
    So you're asking a group of conspiracy theorists as to which of their pet theories are actually worth discussing? That will be fruitful

    Although I'm curious as to how someone distinguishes between, say, a massive and secretive US plot to blow up the Twin Towers and a massive and secretive Soviet plot to undermine America via people's precious bodily fluids. What distinguishes those "valid for mainstream discussion" from the merely crackpot?
    ...any deviations from the official Holocaust narrative.
    Is that the new euphemism for denialism? If it is then you're doing well to even be allowed to discuss it in the CT forum


  • Options
    #6
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Reekwind wrote: »
    You know wrong. The phrase goes back to the early 20th C, at the latest

    Would be nice to quote wher you got that info from.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

    Reekwind wrote: »
    So you're asking a group of conspiracy theorists as to which of their pet theories are actually worth discussing? That will be fruitful

    Isn't that what a discussion forum should provide (the ability to discuss)
    Reekwind wrote: »
    Although I'm curious as to how someone distinguishes between, say, a massive and secretive US plot to blow up the Twin Towers and a massive and secretive Soviet plot to undermine America via people's precious bodily fluids. What distinguishes those "valid for mainstream discussion" from the merely crackpot?

    For 9/11 there were many imo ridiculous claims and there are more valid theories, i think your own judgement and input from others could determine if it would be valid for mainstream discussion. space lasers is a crackpot theory regarding 9/11 imo
    Reekwind wrote: »
    Is that the new euphemism for denialism? If it is then you're doing well to even be allowed to discuss it in the CT forum

    Why do we only see you when Israel or the word Jew is involved ?

    But i Think theories denying the Holocoust happened are not allowed here. (and i would not accept a topic like that either)

    And it wouldn't be a mainstream theory anyway


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    weisses wrote: »
    For 9/11 there were many imo ridiculous claims and there are more valid theories, i think your own judgement and input from others could determine if it would be valid for mainstream discussion. space lasers is a crackpot theory regarding 9/11 imo
    What I am curious about is what criteria people here will use for this incredibly subjective exercise and whether there's an acknowledgement that the remainder conspiracy theories are outlandish nonsense

    Ultimately I suspect that we'll see a very long list of conspiracy theories that are deserving of "mainstream discussion" as everyone adds their pet favourite
    Why do we only see you when Israel or the word Jew is involved ?
    You've rumbled me. I'm in the pay of a cabal of Jewish financiers bent on world domination

    The question still stands to the OP, BTW


  • Options
    #8
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Reekwind wrote: »
    You've rumbled me. I'm in the pay of a cabal of Jewish financiers bent on world domination

    Money any good ?


  • Options
    #9
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Reekwind wrote: »
    You know wrong. The phrase goes back to the early 20th C, at the latest
    You sure about that?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm3Z-cKRMN4

    Reekwind wrote: »
    So you're asking a group of conspiracy theorists as to which of their pet theories are actually worth discussing? That will be fruitful
    No, I am putting forward a topic of debate to all which I understood to be the point of this website.
    Reekwind wrote: »
    Although I'm curious as to how someone distinguishes between, say, a massive and secretive US plot to blow up the Twin Towers and a massive and secretive Soviet plot to undermine America via people's precious bodily fluids. What distinguishes those "valid for mainstream discussion" from the merely crackpot?
    The facts.
    Reekwind wrote: »
    Is that the new euphemism for denialism? If it is then you're doing well to even be allowed to discuss it in the CT forum
    Why is that?


Advertisement