Conspiracy theories

Sambostar

The popular one circling within some scientific circles that the world is just a higher level computer programme akin to the matrix gets me.  It's almost as bad as the popular thinking that the world was flat in 10,000BC because no one had much travelled and planes hadn't been invented.  People so wrapped up in modern philosophy, man made tech and popularist introverted thinking that they don't even see the irony of their theories.

Mind you, everyone lives by their conspiracy theories, you could say that the man who reads the Daily Mail and believes a person can easily live a comfortable life on a £13k salary is just as bad.

I suppose I should just be thankful that I am of the bloodline of the long lost 13th branch of the Illuminati.

Jalapeno

Drew_fx said:

I do like miso soup. And gin.

Sounds like an awful martini recipie

Jalapeno

Phil_aka_Pip said:

goldtop said:

Some conspiracy theories are intriguing, most are laughable.

But I feel distinctly unhappy with the sorty that David Kelly's death was suicide.

That's 'cos it wasn't. Nobody seriously believes it was.

Thing is, it doesn't matter. Either Blair/Campbell ordered it; or if it was suicide, Blair/Campbell have a huge share in the blame for the way he was treated.

I think it probably was suicide, and those two heartless spin doctors have blood all over their hands.

Myranda

Evilmags said:

Myranda;1067753" said:

Worked with someone who thought that not just the moonlanding was faked, but ALL space travel... because according to him the technology didn't exist at the time... I suspect this means that "invention" is new to him ... 

The technology was developed by the huns in WW2. My gran spent the war in London. The V2s and V1s were quite real.

Not the rocket part... the rubber seals around the door part... because no one has ever wanted to keep air in a contained space... 

Oh, and that as soon as you leave the atmosphere you instantly die of mega radiation... 

There was another thing I think...

Col_Decker

The singer in my old band is a total conspiracy nut, even got his own Facebook page with 1000+ followers (called Truth and Dare - we dare to ask the questions). He believes ALL of them. Lizards, 911, secret Mars base, wars in space from Mars, intergalactic peado ring, illuminati, Planet X, tesla's 'free energy', cancer cure, chemtrails, evolution is a lie, etc.

What is most staggering though is his level of arrogance that goes with it. If you challenge or disagree with him you're branded a 'sheeple' and need to WAKE UP!!!! . The best bit is when he argues that his 'research' (from YouTube) is worth more than the PhD the guy he's arguing with is.

quarky

Chalky said:

Debris no, fire yes. No accelerants AFAIK

Garthy

Myranda said:

Evilmags said:

Myranda;1067753" said:

Worked with someone who thought that not just the moonlanding was faked, but ALL space travel... because according to him the technology didn't exist at the time... I suspect this means that "invention" is new to him ... 

The technology was developed by the huns in WW2. My gran spent the war in London. The V2s and V1s were quite real.

Not the rocket part... the rubber seals around the door part... because no one has ever wanted to keep air in a contained space... 

Oh, and that as soon as you leave the atmosphere you instantly die of mega radiation... 

There was another thing I think...

1 bar of pressure? The tyres of the car you two were traveling had to cope with over double that.

David Kelly is just about the only one I think has weight.

WTC7- a lot of people forget that building housed the generators and enormous diesel fuel tank for the entire complex, it's part of the reason why that building burned for 7 hours.

blueskunk

Religion ?

Chalky

ICBM;1067840" said:

Chalky said:

The nature of the collapse of WTC7 is extremely difficult to explain. Unless it was the most badly built steel structured 47 storey building that the world has ever known.





It *looks* somewhat like a controlled demolition, yes. But unless you can work out how a team of demolition experts got in after the workers left without anyone seeing them, and had enough time to rig the whole building with explosives, then it's far simpler and more logical to assume that it did collapse due to an uncontrolled fire weakening the lower floor structure badly enough that it collapsed as a single unit once it reached a critical point.

The WTC *was* built badly, anyway - the reason the Twin Towers collapsed is fundamentally because the floor beams weren't actually tied to the uprights, if I remember correctly. I'm not a structural engineer, but I've seen a good explanation of how the fire weakened the beams and one after another fell away until the framework was essentially a house of cards. The slightest sideways wobble and the whole thing came down. If WTC7 was built the same way, it would have collapsed the same way.

The problem with all the theories other than the obvious one is that they're vastly more complicated and require a chain of logistics and organisation that couldn't be guaranteed to even be possible to carry out, or work. The same is true of almost every other major conspiracy theory.

Other than really simple ones like bumping off a troublesome old man who was about to cause very serious political damage to the government...

I didn't say it was demolished. I just said it was extremely difficult to explain. The idea that a fire in a typical office building could generate enough heat to weaken the size of steel supports in the lower floor of a 47 storey building is, well, er, extremely difficult to explain - the physics of converting the small amount of office materials into the necessary amount of heat just doesn't add up.

Sambostar

There is one conspiracy theory I  believe in. 

You know that prior to Thatcher becoming Prime Minister, Lord Mountbatten was all set up to become acting Head of State after a US backed military coup of the UK should the Communist Unions take control of the country or bring the UK to it's knees. 

We were and still are after all a nation with nuclear weapons. An unstable or communist affiliated nation with nuclear weapons to boot could not be tolerated by the US.

So Thatcher came to power, banks were deregulated and the USA investment banks invited in with the UK on a plate, Mountbatten was conviently bunked off  blown by the IRA, live, uncensored field journalism in war zones during the Falklands was essentially banned and the rest is history

TheMarlin

I beloved The McCanns killed their daughter Madeleine (may well have been an accident), stored her body for a few days while getting the story straight, then concocted cock-and-bull story that she was taken....and disposed of her corpse.

Lots of evidence to back this up.

Chemtrails. When I was a kid, I used to watch the vapour trails as they disappeared/vaporised once the aircraft had passed. Now, they persisting over tremendous distances, and spread out.

The sky above my house looks like a game of giant noughts and crossed most days...
Is it a spray? Are they metal powders? No idea. Don't have the capability to test this. I just know it's wildly different to what happened in the sky during the 70's and 80's.

Marlin

quarky

We have a winner

(No offence TheMarlin!)

Sambostar

They did actually spray Los Angeles in the '70's with something to see what effect it had on the people.  I think Chemtrails originated from that.

It the war museum in Hanoi, OK take it with a pinch of salt, but it's interesting to see the vast array of experimental airborne weapons the US used on the place in the last years of the war.

Ever since Thatcher we have had no real choice in political parties and plenty of illegal wars to boot with all mainstream reporting sided with the political agenda of the day.  This never used to be the case.

Of course the biggest conspiracy is that a republican party cannot by law sit in the Houses of Parliament and therefore cannot represent the people.  The biggest conspiracy is the Monarchy and the feudal class system which still exists in this country to date and has it all sewn up.

Reverend

I'm pretty sure that the WTC was not built to survive the impacts of passenger jets. Any person that uses the term sheeple seriously is likely to more gullible that than the people they are insulting. Any website with the word truth in its name can be treated as suspect.

Sambostar

I didn't realise until relative recently that aviation fuel is basically diesel rather than high octane petrol, so to end @TheMarlin does have a point.  Erm, do jet turbines have particulate filters on the exhausts?

And the government have just thrown another load of cash for a further police investigation for the McCanns.  Bloody disgusting.

Col_Decker

I'm with Marlin on the McCann's.

Sambostar

Why we, the taxpayer should continually pay, let alone have sympathy for their mistake that they left an underage child alone if bloody outrageous if you ask me.  Especially given that a single mum from a Council estate who leaves a kid in a car for 30 seconds is demonized as unfit to be a mother and faces losing custody.

Myranda

Chalky said:

ICBM;1067840" said:

Chalky said:

The nature of the collapse of WTC7 is extremely difficult to explain. Unless it was the most badly built steel structured 47 storey building that the world has ever known.





It *looks* somewhat like a controlled demolition, yes. But unless you can work out how a team of demolition experts got in after the workers left without anyone seeing them, and had enough time to rig the whole building with explosives, then it's far simpler and more logical to assume that it did collapse due to an uncontrolled fire weakening the lower floor structure badly enough that it collapsed as a single unit once it reached a critical point.

The WTC *was* built badly, anyway - the reason the Twin Towers collapsed is fundamentally because the floor beams weren't actually tied to the uprights, if I remember correctly. I'm not a structural engineer, but I've seen a good explanation of how the fire weakened the beams and one after another fell away until the framework was essentially a house of cards. The slightest sideways wobble and the whole thing came down. If WTC7 was built the same way, it would have collapsed the same way.

The problem with all the theories other than the obvious one is that they're vastly more complicated and require a chain of logistics and organisation that couldn't be guaranteed to even be possible to carry out, or work. The same is true of almost every other major conspiracy theory.

Other than really simple ones like bumping off a troublesome old man who was about to cause very serious political damage to the government...

I didn't say it was demolished. I just said it was extremely difficult to explain. The idea that a fire in a typical office building could generate enough heat to weaken the size of steel supports in the lower floor of a 47 storey building is, well, er, extremely difficult to explain - the physics of converting the small amount of office materials into the necessary amount of heat just doesn't add up.

Nope.

A square mile of concrete floor is ridiculously heavy... steel begins to soften well below the combustion temperature of jet fuel. Doesn't have to melt - it will soften enough. now... when a square mile of concrete and steel floor begins to fall you need an awful lot of stuff in the way to stop it moving - the floor above and below the fire will have softened enough for it to move.

As for "controlled" demolition... you do those from the bottom of a building - not from 90 stories up, one miscalculation or mistake and you end up with half a building still standing and half a building falling next to the building you want to take down.

There were reports that the fire retarding materials sprayed onto the floor supports were in need of replacing or refreshing as there were patches that weren't covered... then there's the fact that an airliner flew at near full speed into the floors.

And "typical office buildings" don't have a burning jet liner full of fuel (filled up for a cross country 1000 mile plus flight)... ALL of the products found in the typical office likely have a significantly lower combustion temperature than jet fuel

Here are some pretty good explanations of most of the stuff people talk about.. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/ it's got the temperatures in farenheit because it's american... but no one's perfect. It's from the site Popular Mechanics - which would be a bad place to post lies on this, as many of the readers could be in a position to refute any technical claims...

Drew_TNBD

Jalapeno said:

Drew_fx said:

I do like miso soup. And gin.

Sounds like an awful martini recipie

Not together of course.

One is before sex, and one is after sex.

Drew_TNBD

Chalky said:

ICBM;1067840" said:

Chalky said:

The nature of the collapse of WTC7 is extremely difficult to explain. Unless it was the most badly built steel structured 47 storey building that the world has ever known.





It *looks* somewhat like a controlled demolition, yes. But unless you can work out how a team of demolition experts got in after the workers left without anyone seeing them, and had enough time to rig the whole building with explosives, then it's far simpler and more logical to assume that it did collapse due to an uncontrolled fire weakening the lower floor structure badly enough that it collapsed as a single unit once it reached a critical point.

The WTC *was* built badly, anyway - the reason the Twin Towers collapsed is fundamentally because the floor beams weren't actually tied to the uprights, if I remember correctly. I'm not a structural engineer, but I've seen a good explanation of how the fire weakened the beams and one after another fell away until the framework was essentially a house of cards. The slightest sideways wobble and the whole thing came down. If WTC7 was built the same way, it would have collapsed the same way.

The problem with all the theories other than the obvious one is that they're vastly more complicated and require a chain of logistics and organisation that couldn't be guaranteed to even be possible to carry out, or work. The same is true of almost every other major conspiracy theory.

Other than really simple ones like bumping off a troublesome old man who was about to cause very serious political damage to the government...

I didn't say it was demolished. I just said it was extremely difficult to explain. The idea that a fire in a typical office building could generate enough heat to weaken the size of steel supports in the lower floor of a 47 storey building is, well, er, extremely difficult to explain - the physics of converting the small amount of office materials into the necessary amount of heat just doesn't add up.

It's not that it doesn't add up, it's that you don't science very well.