World's Biggest Comspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True

[Silent Member]

One common conspiracy theory the US government likes to push on us now is that we as Americans are actually in physical danger from the 'organization' Al Qaeda or terrorism in general, that it is a threat that is large enough and organized enough that we must actually change our laws to protect ourselves. Its actually a pretty hilarious conspiracy theory any way you slice it.

Yes, this annoys me to no end, especially all the ridiculous countermeasures that are implemented globally to "keep the public safe". It's not just an american thing

[skotosa]

Religion?

[awepittance]

coincidentally yesterday the Daily Mail released tapes where Jackie O says out-loud she thinks that LBJ was in on the JFK assassination. These were released early by the Kennedy family in trade for i think the History Channel to stop the airing of the Kennedy TV special they were planning.

[KovalainenFanBoy]

Put a lot of newmasonry, new order paranoia on your essay.

[triachus]

crazy conspiracy theories that actually happened

 

http://www.cracked.c...y-happened.html

 

 

part 2

 

http://www.cracked.c...appened_p2.html

[Entorwellian]

I also wish for a copy of this essay after it's done. It sounds like an interesting read.

[Silent Member]

Is it ok to point out the comspiracy in the thread title now, or is that just rude? I'm not sure if it's intentional. Comspiracy sounds like a tabloid term for internet conspiracy theories, I think I like it.

 

[triachus]

there was this thread some time ago cant remember which and in this thread there were these cool smileys wearing sunglasses being posted and one of those smileys posted is currently sups avatar and someone said "i like how this smiley is all "sup" it would be cool if the smiley had an account here" and the next moment an account named sup was created and quoted the post saying "sup" but there is claim he is no dupe and hes totally 14 and now hes doing a thing on conspiracies COINCIDENCE????

 

 

remember dj hardcode he claimed to be new here in that one thread but he already had a whole bunch of posts under his name and if you looked a bit you could find threads and posts of a previously banned member so this member was unbanned and given a new name for some reason instead of a new account it is very odd COINCIDENCE???

 

 

troon COINCIDENCE???

 

 

 

i am on to you New Dupes Order

 

Dupeliminaty

 

Freedupesons

 

 

dupe/conspiracy puns needed

[Guest couch]

The Patriot Act

 

Awepittance covered some of it briefly.

 

 

Yes we'll protect you by violating your privacy. There's nothing terrorist-like about that at all.

[Soloman Tump]

All mobile phone calls ever made have been logged.

 

They are not just randomly listening in when certain words / calls are made, they hear everything.

[eugene]

america and some of yuropp was the cause of death of hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east in the last decade and you consider yourselves safe from physical harm coming from that direction ? are you fucking stupid ?

[Guest dese manz hatin]

sup is ET.

[Dragon]

well 9/11 by the way the government explained it to us, is actually one of the wildest and most perfectly executed conspiracies in modern times. 19 hijackers with boxcutters completely defeated the CIA, NSA, FBI, NORAD, the FAA and the laws of phyics to kill 3,000 people and make 3 steel framed buildings fall completely to the ground in under 10 seconds. the alternate theory, the 'conspiracy theory' as people call it simply says that it's impossible that such a wild far fetched conspiracy could have taken place as i described above.

 

It took a lot longer than that for the buildings to actually collapse. The north and south towers took 102 minutes and 56 minutes to fall, respectively.

 

I don't see how the attacks defy the laws of physics. It's very simple: if you crash an aeroplane into a building, it will collapse. A tower designed in such a way as the World Trade Center is particularly vulnerable to this kind of damage. The risk of the towers collapsing, given such unlikely circumstances, was always latent.

[huzur]

well 9/11 by the way the government explained it to us, is actually one of the wildest and most perfectly executed conspiracies in modern times. 19 hijackers with boxcutters completely defeated the CIA, NSA, FBI, NORAD, the FAA and the laws of phyics to kill 3,000 people and make 3 steel framed buildings fall completely to the ground in under 10 seconds. the alternate theory, the 'conspiracy theory' as people call it simply says that it's impossible that such a wild far fetched conspiracy could have taken place as i described above.

 

It took a lot longer than that for the buildings to actually collapse. The north and south towers took 102 minutes and 56 minutes to fall, respectively.

 

I don't see how the attacks defy the laws of physics. It's very simple: if you crash an aeroplane into a building, it will collapse. A tower designed in such a way as the World Trade Center is particularly vulnerable to this kind of damage. The risk of the towers collapsing, given such unlikely circumstances, was always latent.

 

they got you too....

[eugene]

he meant that the collapse itself took less than 10 seconds, but anyway:

[mcbpete]

• comspiracy
  
• speach
  
• argueing
  

 

Must try harder ....

[awepittance]

well 9/11 by the way the government explained it to us, is actually one of the wildest and most perfectly executed conspiracies in modern times. 19 hijackers with boxcutters completely defeated the CIA, NSA, FBI, NORAD, the FAA and the laws of phyics to kill 3,000 people and make 3 steel framed buildings fall completely to the ground in under 10 seconds. the alternate theory, the 'conspiracy theory' as people call it simply says that it's impossible that such a wild far fetched conspiracy could have taken place as i described above.

 

It took a lot longer than that for the buildings to actually collapse. The north and south towers took 102 minutes and 56 minutes to fall, respectively.

 

I don't see how the attacks defy the laws of physics. It's very simple: if you crash an aeroplane into a building, it will collapse. A tower designed in such a way as the World Trade Center is particularly vulnerable to this kind of damage. The risk of the towers collapsing, given such unlikely circumstances, was always latent.

 

so we should then expect anytime a building of that magnitude is hit by an airplane it would collapse correct? we shall see about the future of that assumption the next time it happens

Also the tower from the beginning of collapse took under 10 seconds, i think you know that's what i meant but instead decided to do a mini strawman.

Another tidbit is that building 7, was never hit by a plane. It was hit by falling debris that caused fires yet it collapsed at the exact same rate of speed as either tower. NIST actually had to invent a new concept in building physics called 'thermal expansion' to explain how WTc7 actually imploded similarly to how it would if rigged for demolition.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q74MiBSqm78

 

the architects and designers of the tower knew that since the buildings were the tallest in the world at the time the likelihood a plane could crash into it accidentally was on their radar, enough so that they took into account in it's construction. But yeah we can all poo poo the designers of the building and say they fucked up because they had to fall from the planes, but that would be a circular argument. Another 'greatest hits' of 9/11 debunkers is by trying to emphasize the extreme difference in size between a 707 Vs a 757 (after they move the goal posts) when in fact the size is relatively speaking, the same.

 

he meant that the collapse itself took less than 10 seconds, but anyway:

 

[awepittance]

america and some of yuropp was the cause of death of hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east in the last decade and you consider yourselves safe from physical harm coming from that direction ? are you fucking stupid ?

 

it's all relative, what you perceive as 'safe' is a matter of statistical liklihood.

 

or maybe you think 'it doesn't matter how statistically likely something is, it's the magnitude and destruction that should be taken seriously no matter how unlikely'

 

ok lets play that game for a second, if this is how you feel since it is less likely to be attacked from a terrorist in the united states than it is from suffocating in your bed sheets (proven math) then you should be terrified of nuclear power fallout? I mean if you are being sensible about it you should be far more terrified of a nuclear disaster than you should be of terrorism

 

if i could offer one suggestion. You only make your arguments weaker by adding 'are you fucking stupid' to the end of them, especially since (assumption) i dont think most people in this forum are afraid of terrorism to the level which you seem to be.

[lumpenprol]

Awepittance with all due respect every time I hear you opine on 9-11 you seem to be searching for a middle ground - "well, perhaps the US govt. didn't actively participate but they allowed it to happen" - and yet when you talk about the suspicious nature of the collapses it seems you take the position that it was a controlled demolition...or am I missing something?

 

I've never been swayed over to the conspiracy theory's camp on this one. I agree there are a lot of interesting anomalies, like building 7, but when you come down to it I don't think there's a whole lot of room for middle ground. I think the idea that there were some sort of charges that hastened or precipitated the collapse is too far fetched - who would they have been planted by? and how long ago? How could nobody notice? etc.

 

Also bottom line is I have too much respect for the common sense of the thousands of structural engineers out there who I imagine would be up in arms if it was patently a set-up.

 

so...maybe some faction of the govt knew the terrorists were gonna get on those planes and did nothing. I think that's possible. But controlled demolitions? Doubt it. Another thing is I think even if the towers hadn't collapsed, the attack still would have been sufficient to royally piss off the American people. So the collapse wasn't really necessary, from a "riling up the masses" pov.

[jules]

what rate of speed should a building collapse at?

[awepittance]

Awepittance with all due respect every time I hear you opine on 9-11 you seem to be searching for a middle ground - "well, perhaps the US govt. didn't actively participate but they allowed it to happen" - and yet when you talk about the suspicious nature of the collapses it seems you take the position that it was a controlled demolition...or am I missing something?

 

I've never been swayed over to the conspiracy theory's camp on this one. I agree there are a lot of interesting anomalies, like building 7, but when you come down to it I don't think there's a whole lot of room for middle ground. I think the idea that there were some sort of charges that hastened or precipitated the collapse is too far fetched - who would they have been planted by? and how long ago? How could nobody notice? etc.

 

Also bottom line is I have too much respect for the common sense of the thousands of structural engineers out there who I imagine would be up in arms if it was patently a set-up.

 

so...maybe some faction of the govt knew the terrorists were gonna get on those planes and did nothing. I think that's possible. But controlled demolitions? Doubt it. Another thing is I think even if the towers hadn't collapsed, the attack still would have been sufficient to royally piss off the American people. So the collapse wasn't really necessary, from a "riling up the masses" pov.

 

all good points you make, let me try to address them in order

 

you aren't missing something, i sense you are expecting my beliefs on the way the buildings fell to be in line with how i feel about the other facets of 9/11. When i get into that kind of territory all i can do is speculate about what happened, which i prefer not to do. Instead i like to lead people to their own conclusions about what happened that day. I also agree with your 'no middle ground' theory personally, but i have heard people try to form one by saying that 'maybe the buildings were rigged to explode for safety reasons' , especially on building 7 which more often than not seems to be a very direct and persuasive way of leading people down this rabbit hole.

 

as you can see here how easy it is to lead somebody even an expert who owns a controlled demolition company down this rabbit hole, simply by showing them a clip of video

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

 

 

 

 

when you ask about details i can't answer any of those questions about who did it,etc. I would be speculating.

 

structural engineers would be up and arms if it was a set up? i highly doubt this. Why would someone who probably makes a very comfortable salary want to put their career in jeopardy by openly voicing such a controversial and 'offensive' opinion? because like you bring up above, these lead people to really extreme conclusions ie: our government killed 3,000 of it's own people in the middle of Manhattan. there have been a lot of architects who have spoken out about it but the majority of them are completely dismissed.

 

To address your "So the collapse wasn't really necessary, from a "riling up the masses" pov. " point, i think if you really wanted to get ultra evil and Machiavellian about it why not push the number at least up to the thousands so you can perhaps guarantee a suitable amount of outrage only comparable to pearl harbor (enough to cause a supposedly isolationist nation to go to war thousands of miles away ). It was actually the people behind PNAC's 'rebuilding america's defenses' who first speculated about the amount of death needed to motivate the american public to increase it's empire.

from the document itself

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some

catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

 

so to sum it up, i prefer not to argue or debate about controlled demolition because it is as you say a very far fetched subject, i'll admit that. The reason i even mentioned it is because of how effective it is of piquing people's curiosity. It's probably best left out of the discussion though

[jules]

I'm not sure what I believe either about the collapse but the freefall speed is always brought up in the discussion of collapse. how else would floor after floor fall though? im just not sure that I don't get how the momentum of the building collapsing would be anything other than freefall speed.

[essines]

america and some of yuropp was the cause of death of hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east in the last decade and you consider yourselves safe from physical harm coming from that direction ? are you fucking stupid ?

You kill me. There is a point... an ideal that you represent that i want to get behind and embrace but i can't.

 

You do it so well without tact or grace and just make me upset. Your heart seems to be in the right place but your brain eludes me. Good luck.

[eugene]

america and some of yuropp was the cause of death of hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east in the last decade and you consider yourselves safe from physical harm coming from that direction ? are you fucking stupid ?

 

it's all relative, what you perceive as 'safe' is a matter of statistical liklihood.

 

or maybe you think 'it doesn't matter how statistically likely something is, it's the magnitude and destruction that should be taken seriously no matter how unlikely'

 

ok lets play that game for a second, if this is how you feel since it is less likely to be attacked from a terrorist in the united states than it is from suffocating in your bed sheets (proven math) then you should be terrified of nuclear power fallout? I mean if you are being sensible about it you should be far more terrified of a nuclear disaster than you should be of terrorism

 

if i could offer one suggestion. You only make your arguments weaker by adding 'are you fucking stupid' to the end of them, especially since (assumption) i dont think most people in this forum are afraid of terrorism to the level which you seem to be.

 

nah, im not talking about magnitude

is it unreasonable to assume that this probability has been increased drastically in the recent decade ? and that it would be pretty damn irresponsible of the government to ignore it ?

thinking about it purely in statistical terms is wrong, did you just divide the number of deaths by suffocating by time and did the same with victims of terror attacks ? i mean there is probably some kind of pattern in death by suffocation but how can you say that about terrorism ? statistics can't help you disprove there is another plane bombing in the making, for example

 

besides, plainly comparing terrorist acts to other causes of death is also kinda off, the scary thing about terrorism imo is that it's very random and unpredictable, not the actual number of casualties as compared to traffic accidents or whatev

 

it's actually surprising that there haven't been more islamic terrorism in u.s, but then even the terror acts in israel are rarely domestic, i'll give you that..

don't assume about my fear or whatnot that easily, the frequency of terror in israel doesn't make it scarier, quite the opposite i think, it's became more embraceable, understandable and containable, people learn how to deal with it over time.

 

the way you brush the whole thing off is just too naive, i'd bet it is probably a result of your oversensitivity to policies that take off liberties for the sake of security

[eugene]

america and some of yuropp was the cause of death of hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east in the last decade and you consider yourselves safe from physical harm coming from that direction ? are you fucking stupid ?

You kill me. There is a point... an ideal that you represent that i want to get behind and embrace but i can't. You do it so well without tact or grace and just make me upset. Your heart seems to be in the right place but your brain eludes me. Good luck.

 

i don't know what are you talking about

but i really don't represent anything..knowingly at least