The Second Apocalypse

Miscellaneous Chatter => The Forum of Interesting Things => Topic started by: Royce on January 04, 2014, 03:58:23 pm

Title: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on January 04, 2014, 03:58:23 pm
What is your take on this? Do you think they exist? If yes, is there one or many?

People who are into this stuff, are often regarded as nuts or paranoid folks with to much time on their hands. Is that something
you agree with?

What is your favorite conspiracy(if you have one)?

I am in the middle of "The Illuminatus trilogy" and that inspired me to open the door for some discussion around this love/hate subject:)

Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Duskweaver on January 04, 2014, 09:39:49 pm
A close relative used to work for one of my country's intelligence services. So I have reason to know that what governments and the media present as the official story is often very far from reality. But most of the things people generally think of when you say "conspiracy theory" are just bunk.

As a general rule, the conspiracies that are some variation on "the CIA/MI6 assassinated a person who officially committed suicide/died in a tragic accident" are the ones I find the most plausible. The ones that propose some grand international, multigenerational conspiracy are rather less so, because the people involved just aren't that clever, frankly.

The best guide is probably to work out the minimum number of people that would be required to know about the conspiracy in order to make it work. If the answer is more than a handful, you're stretching credulity.

Assassinations require rather fewer people to know the truth than you'd think, though. Because you subcontract the initial hit to some random thugs, then have a second team (usually your true professionals) eliminate them. Obviously, you don't tell the second team why the first team have to be removed, and once they've done their work, nobody other than you is left alive who knows that the original subject was assassinated.

As the old saying goes: "Two people can keep a secret... if one of them is dead."
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Madness on January 05, 2014, 01:52:01 pm
And worse yet are that those small pockets of secrecy like Duskweaver describes are distributed exponentially across one of the most (the most) unaccountable black operations hierarchy in history. Too many people, making too many decisions about what constitutes extreme threat.

It's probably just a terrible version of spy vs. spy out there, with threats being other undercover operates from different organizational tentacles.

Lol - sometime, I'll regale you, Royce.

I like possibility and imagining the craziest extremes used to be a game of mine for some time. Astound people with alternative "knowledge." Most conspiracies are either exactly the devious ploys they conspire to be or just the super-complex tripping over each other humans do.

As the old saying goes: "Two people can keep a secret... if one of them is dead."

That was attributed to Benjamin Franklin, in The 33 Strategies of War by Robert Greene, which I just finished a week ago: "Three people can keep a secret... if one of them is dead."
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on January 05, 2014, 07:19:28 pm
Quote
A close relative used to work for one of my country's intelligence services. So I have reason to know that what governments and the media present as the official story is often very far from reality. But most of the things people generally think of when you say "conspiracy theory" are just bunk.

This is where I am at too. The famous JFK assassination is really confusing. Oswald killed, Ruby killed, Cubans, Russians, mafia and lots of other distractions. Obviously something other than the official story happened. A very attractive conspiracy theory:)

I was very fascinated by conspiracies about 10-12 years ago. I was so fed up with lying politicians, equally lying and annoying mass media, combined with the events at 9/11 and the Iraq war. So I nosedived in the opposite direction, falling right into the lap of the illuminati, annunaki aliens, masons, rosicrucians, the knight templars and so on. After a while I almost went nuts. One theory crazier than the other, and it just went deeper and deeper. Finally I climbed up to the surface again, and never looked back. It is frightening
when you realize first hand how easily humans can be fooled into believing almost anything. So I accepted that these theories are just as (un)likely as the official stories out there. what are we left with then? A crazy and fascinating
world full of contradictions and confusion.



Anyway, my favorite must be the "no planers". These guys says there were no planes hitting WTC. Just planted nukes, no planes.
The media fabricated the footage of the planes flying into the buildings. Plausible? I think not:) Come on, no fucking planes??

Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Duskweaver on January 06, 2014, 11:16:21 am
one of the most (the most) unaccountable black operations hierarchy in history. Too many people, making too many decisions about what constitutes extreme threat.
The sad thing is that this is probably the only way it can work. And forget oversight by elected representatives. There are some (many) things that have to be kept secret even (or especially) from them.

The only meaningful safeguard is to ensure, as far as possible, that the nuttiest ideologues are kept far away from the decision-making positions. The CIA has, of course, historically been really, really bad at that. MI6 seems to have done rather better at it (although that may just be my pro-UK/anti-US bias).

Quote
That was attributed to Benjamin Franklin
It certainly predates him. The 16th century writer George Cavendish (in his Thomas Wolsey, Late Cardinall, his Lyffe and Deathe) attributed a version (with slightly different wording) to Henry VIII.

Anyway, my favorite must be the "no planers". These guys says there were no planes hitting WTC. Just planted nukes, no planes.
The media fabricated the footage of the planes flying into the buildings. Plausible? I think not:) Come on, no fucking planes??
*Nods* It fails on two fronts. First, it would require a vast number of people to be in on the con. Second, it's just ridiculously more complicated and difficult to pull off than necessary. Inducing a bunch of religious fundamentalist whackadoos to steal a couple of planes and fly them into buildings is orders of magnitude simpler and easier than what the No Planers (and most other 9/11 Truthers) claim happened.

EDIT: This (http://www.businessinsider.com/true-government-conspiracies-2013-12#ixzz2pLiHc3eS) seems appropriate here.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Madness on January 06, 2014, 01:22:12 pm
one of the most (the most) unaccountable black operations hierarchy in history. Too many people, making too many decisions about what constitutes extreme threat.
The sad thing is that this is probably the only way it can work. And forget oversight by elected representatives. There are some (many) things that have to be kept secret even (or especially) from them.

The only meaningful safeguard is to ensure, as far as possible, that the nuttiest ideologues are kept far away from the decision-making positions. The CIA has, of course, historically been really, really bad at that. MI6 seems to have done rather better at it (although that may just be my pro-UK/anti-US bias).

Lol - and truth. I think there's some fundamental construction errors though - obviously, it seems to me, we should be working to take into account human heuristic and bias when we create our hierarchical conceptual structures.

Quote
That was attributed to Benjamin Franklin
It certainly predates him. The 16th century writer George Cavendish (in his Thomas Wolsey, Late Cardinall, his Lyffe and Deathe) attributed a version (with slightly different wording) to Henry VIII.

Very cool. It seems like one of those undying pieces of wisdom. But that means that two of us three are in trouble from our co-conspirators here ;).

Anyway, my favorite must be the "no planers". These guys says there were no planes hitting WTC. Just planted nukes, no planes.
The media fabricated the footage of the planes flying into the buildings. Plausible? I think not:) Come on, no fucking planes??
*Nods* It fails on two fronts. First, it would require a vast number of people to be in on the con. Second, it's just ridiculously more complicated and difficult to pull off than necessary. Inducing a bunch of religious fundamentalist whackadoos to steal a couple of planes and fly them into buildings is orders of magnitude simpler and easier than what the No Planers (and most other 9/11 Truthers) claim happened.

In the hope of being fair and balanced, there were instanced where news outlets in the UK started reporting building 7 collapsed before it did or, more topical, other outlets showing clips of "plane one hitting" and there is no plane in the clip.

And, personally, I don't actually think that controlled demolition is that far-fetched compared to the official story of "fire."

EDIT: This (http://www.businessinsider.com/true-government-conspiracies-2013-12#ixzz2pLiHc3eS) seems appropriate here.

Wow. I gave a speech in Grade 10 American History on Conspiracy Theories and MK Ultra was one of the first I went over. Also, the Tuskegee is fucking crazy awful. Some people need to give their moral compasses a smack.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on January 06, 2014, 11:09:17 pm
Quote
And, personally, I don't actually think that controlled demolition is that far-fetched compared to the official story of "fire."

Yeah, what is up with that building 7 anyway? That is super strange, just collapsing like that.
When you see videos of controlled demolition, and then see WTC collapse, you have to be kind of blind not to see that
it looks kind of similar:) But I am not an architect or into explosives, so my evidence lies in shaggy youtube videos and
Alex Jones:) One expert/scientist says this and another something else, so who do you believe?
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on January 07, 2014, 10:44:47 am
Maybe the system itself creates a lot of paranoia, leaving in its wake paranoid citizens?

Here is a passage from this fantastic Illuminatus book:)

"What would you think of a man who not only kept an arsenal in his home, but was collecting at enormous
financial sacrifice a second arsenal to protect the first one? What would you say if this man so frightened
his neighbors that they in turn were collecting weapons to protect themselves from him? What if this man
spent ten times as much money on his expensive weapons as he did on the education of his children? What
if one of his children criticized his hobby and he called that child a traitor and a bum and disowned it? And he
took another child who had obeyed him faithfully and armed that child and sent it out into the world to attack
neighbors? What would you say about a man who introduces poisons into the water he drinks and the air he
breathes? What if this man not only is feuding with the people on his block but involves himself in the quarrels
of others in distant parts of the city and even in the suburbs? Such a man would clearly be a paranoid
schizophrenic, with homicidal tendencies. This is the man who should be on trial, though under our modern,
enlightened system of jurisprudence we would attempt to cure and rehabilitate him rather than merely punish."
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Madness on January 07, 2014, 12:37:27 pm
One expert/scientist says this and another something else, so who do you believe?

Indeed. There's architects both ways, I'd guess. Someone in the Conspiracy Squad thought destroying a bunch of papers in WTC 7 was a sellable idea.

Welcome to the world of synchronicity. It is in this world, at whatever threshold of coincidence, a special narrative emerges.

And to me, my threshold of coincidence is somewhere around the "running the same" war-games; I don't know what the frequency of "ok, girls and boys, today we're pretending terrorists are capturing planes to use as bombs" but the statistical chances minimize with every correspondence.

People probably have a pretty low threshold for meaningful coincidences. As evident by the sheer variation of conspiracy theories, I've been exposed to in my life.

Maybe the system itself creates a lot of paranoia, leaving in its wake paranoid citizens?

Here is a passage from this fantastic Illuminatus book:)

Lol, even the lowest of hierarchies have wisdom to offer, Royce. They need not even realize what they're saying.

Personally, my issue is their lack of any attempt at a coordinated, community action. They do give symposiums, etc, but they aren't putting themselves out there, they're surrounding themselves with people who are mostly favourable then neutral towards their system of thought.

Yes, the system itself inherently creates a lot of paranoids but...

Can you solely describe one group of <insert conspiracy organization> that can possible mediate all other circumstances of why we've allowed a sort of tribal regression to set into the Western Empire? I mean, I'm sure such organizations would want to actively instill that kind of plebletariot but we could all go a long way to stop being paranoid and alone by adopting an actual sense of community, rather than the illusion of one.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on January 07, 2014, 01:56:53 pm
Quote
Can you solely describe one group of <insert conspiracy organization> that can possible mediate all other circumstances of why we've allowed a sort of tribal regression to set into the Western Empire? I mean, I'm sure such organizations would want to actively instill that kind of plebletariot but we could all go a long way to stop being paranoid and alone by adopting an actual sense of community, rather than the illusion of one.

No I can not(If I could I would be DEAD!:))

It is impossible to "control" everything. No one knows what will happen from one moment to the next. I do think that
there are plenty of people trying though.

To conspire is a very natural thing,we all do it. We conspire against our parents,our friends,girlfriends and so on.
We do it to achieve something we would rather not say directly to people. I have no problem to accept that this occurs
on a grander scale put into system, by using all kinds of authorities.

I do not believe that this is a one horse race, where there are "evil" people all over the place trying to control every
little thing to achieve their goals, whatever they are. There are just as many who want the opposite(I hope), so as you say it is up to us to not be paranoid.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Duskweaver on January 07, 2014, 02:42:09 pm
"What would you think of a man..."
...who doesn't understand the differences between states and individuals? ...who relies on analogies stretched to the point of absurdity to make his arguments? :P

I liked the Illuminatus trilogy as entertainment. It was a fun read. I didn't find it especially thought-provoking or intellectually stimulating, though.

I do agree that there are those who stand to benefit from encouraging the masses to be permanently paranoid. As well as ensuring there are plenty of truly nutty conspiracy theories around to distract from and discredit the few that might just possibly have some truth to them.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on January 07, 2014, 03:31:38 pm
Quote
...who doesn't understand the differences between states and individuals? ...who relies on analogies stretched to the point of absurdity to make his arguments? :P

Lol. The "state" is just an abstract concept made up by individuals. This is not my argument anyway.
Maybe you noticed the question mark in the first sentence in that post? It was there so you could express your
opinion on that passage:)

Quote
I liked the Illuminatus trilogy as entertainment. It was a fun read. I didn't find it especially thought-provoking or intellectually stimulating, though.

I agree, very entertaining. I do not think they meant it to be very thought provoking, although that depends on the
reader of course.They present one idea, just to discredit it 10 pages later, they do not seem to take any paricular
stance either way. I have only read half of it yet, so that may change though.

Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Inraus Ghost on January 28, 2014, 04:39:23 am
My "favorite" has to be the annunaki. A planet in an orbit like a comet that takes it into the inner solar system once every 5000 years that can somehow support life beyond the microscopic. And it is undetectable. The idea people can find that believable is priceless.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Somnambulist on January 28, 2014, 04:50:17 am
My "favorite" has to be the annunaki. A planet in an orbit like a comet that takes it into the inner solar system once every 5000 years that can somehow support life beyond the microscopic. And it is undetectable. The idea people can find that believable is priceless.

But it's all the gold suspended in the atmosphere that makes it possible!  Totally believable...  where's the sarcasm face? ::)  Roll eyes will have to do
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on January 28, 2014, 11:38:26 am
Not any worse than anything else really. That a male god with beard hovers above us, showering us with gifts of forgiveness and love, and at the same time judges you and fill your being with hate, is just as priceless:)
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Inraus Ghost on January 28, 2014, 11:53:54 am
Not any worse than anything else really. That a male god with beard hovers above us, showering us with gifts of forgiveness and love, and at the same time judges you and fill your being with hate, is just as priceless:)
I'm no religionist, but the lack of gods is not provable. The theory I mentioned is a provable impossibility. Just the action of it's atmosphere freezing and thawing as it passed thru it's orbit makes it so. Never mind the fact that we'd have seen it, or it's occlusion of bodies behind it or it's gravitational effects on other bodies in our solar system long before that git wrote his silly books. All you need is a little basic knowledge of astronomy and it sinks like the Titanic.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on January 28, 2014, 12:28:57 pm
Quote
I'm no religionist, but the lack of gods is not provable. The theory I mentioned is a provable impossibility. Just the action of it's atmosphere freezing and thawing as it passed thru it's orbit makes it so. Never mind the fact that we'd have seen it, or it's occlusion of bodies behind it or it's gravitational effects on other bodies in our solar system long before that git wrote his silly books. All you need is a little basic knowledge of astronomy and it sinks like the Titanic.

The existence of  them is also not provable, so we are left with faith I guess.

As to the anunaki, they might be working in mysterious ways my friend, their actions might work despite our petty means of proving them wrong! Their intellect might be so much greater than ours that we are left unable to prove their workings on the planet.
This is what the fans of anunaki I have talked to say:) Can`t say I agree though.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Inraus Ghost on January 28, 2014, 01:18:05 pm
Indeed they are not.

Yeah, folks like that hurt my mind.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Madness on January 28, 2014, 10:24:59 pm
My "favorite" has to be the annunaki. A planet in an orbit like a comet that takes it into the inner solar system once every 5000 years that can somehow support life beyond the microscopic. And it is undetectable. The idea people can find that believable is priceless.

Lol - Ah, Nibiru.

But it's all the gold suspended in the atmosphere that makes it possible!  Totally believable...  where's the sarcasm face? ::)  Roll eyes will have to do

And covered with intelligent reptiles ready to enslave us :D.

Wilshire and I were just talking about the dearth of emoticons yesterday. However am I to properly express myself Misters Sapir and Whorf?

Indeed they are not.

Yeah, folks like that hurt my mind.

I don't think this thread was intended with a shred of skepticism ;).

And they're still individuals who exist in our sociocultural ecosystems. They affect us with their ignorance. Best to find ways to communicate (though, I will mention, your patiently explaining the realities of basic knowledge can be both the best - sometimes only - and worst tactic).
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: themerchant on February 05, 2014, 10:40:43 pm
the problem with trying to parse what happened with the buildings brought down by aeroplanes and the WTC7 is all the material has been shipped away, so that horse has bolted anyway.

A lot of the 9/11 truthers seem to buy into nonsense like "pods" "no planes" missle hit the pentagon. The people were swapped out at an airforce base etc etc.

Now if the attack was planned, then of course you saturate the market with dis-information anyway.

The fact that both american and israeli security forces said that they observed Mohammed Atta in a meeting in Prague getting anthrax (the anthrax that was sent to the senators and killed some folk), this was then used to start justifing attacking Iraq. However much later on the anthrax was actually shown to come from an american lab, the Ames strain it was called.

therefore Atta didn't meet with anyone in Prague to get Iraqi anthrax. That was made up. The anthrax was also mailed from the same places as the hijackers were living. I sincerely doubt the terrorists got into a secured american weapons facility and stole the Ames strain of the virus.

So someone else knew where the hijackers were living and mailed it from there.

Hard to tell what really happened.

Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: themerchant on February 05, 2014, 10:44:53 pm
One expert/scientist says this and another something else, so who do you believe?



And to me, my threshold of coincidence is somewhere around the "running the same" war-games; I don't know what the frequency of "ok, girls and boys, today we're pretending terrorists are capturing planes to use as bombs" but the statistical chances minimize with every correspondence.



Same with the 7/7 bombings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKvkhe3rqtc
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Callan S. on February 06, 2014, 02:25:51 am
Anyway, my favorite must be the "no planers". These guys says there were no planes hitting WTC. Just planted nukes, no planes.
The media fabricated the footage of the planes flying into the buildings. Plausible? I think not:) Come on, no fucking planes??
Just begs to be topped!

How about - the buildings were never actually destroyed! Just by an elaborate set of mirrors and public assumptions, they hide in the one spot no one looks!

Lol!

On the 'controlled demolition' it'd be interesting if the attack simply by hapchance set off some other kind of plan that was unrelated and unknown by the suicidal pilots.

That's not good enough for the conspiracy people, but one bad event inadvertantly triggering another thing seems more plausible to me.

Why would you set a building to be easily demolished? Could even just be some regular wack job who was in a position to make the building so and set it up that way just because. Arsonists just set fire to stuff to feel powerful, maybe someone enjoyed the idea of being able to kill hundreds at a button press any time they wanted?

Bah, my conspiracies are so banal - just jerks who do stuff hidden a bit just to get some jollies. No wonder I write so little!
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: themerchant on February 06, 2014, 11:08:10 am
It does work as disinformation, the tendency is to group them as conspiracy people, even though they will believe different things, so you just need a useful idiot like jones to drone on about illuminati bavarian death cults or particle beam weapons or no planes. It poisons the well. Good luck anyone trying to get any information about 9/11 now, so many crazy kooky videos about it.

The Anthrax letters are extremely dodgy, they were written out to look like they were sent by arab terorists, the security services claimed they had seen Atta get the Anthrax from Iraqi agents in Prague. this was used to show that Iraq helped al Qeada and they had chemical weapons making capability.

However once the actual science got involved turns out it was weaponised American Anthrax from Fort Dettrick, specifically the Ames strain. So it wasn't sent by Atta, but it was sent from where the narrative said the hijackers were living. So someone knew they were living there and sent the anthrax.

The put options that indicate insider trading on 9/11 as well. the main problem is i'm not educated enough to be able to fully critically assess a lot of this information, probably most of it.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1588523

Allen M Poteshman: “Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001″, published in The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, 2006, Vol 79, Edition 4, page 1703-1726.

Conclusion from Poteshman “Examination of the option trading leading up to September 11 reveals that there was an unusually high level of put buying. This finding is consistent with informed investors having traded options in advance of the attacks.”

Marc Chesney, Remo Crameri and Loriano Mancini: “Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Option Markets”, University of Zurich, April 2010, www.bf.uzh.ch/publikationen/pdf/publ_2098.pdf
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Madness on February 06, 2014, 11:38:04 am
Now if the attack was planned, then of course you saturate the market with dis-information anyway.

The fact that both american and israeli security forces said that they observed Mohammed Atta in a meeting in Prague getting anthrax (the anthrax that was sent to the senators and killed some folk), this was then used to start justifing attacking Iraq. However much later on the anthrax was actually shown to come from an american lab, the Ames strain it was called.

therefore Atta didn't meet with anyone in Prague to get Iraqi anthrax. That was made up. The anthrax was also mailed from the same places as the hijackers were living. I sincerely doubt the terrorists got into a secured american weapons facility and stole the Ames strain of the virus.

It's an argument - these are all just pieces of justification. "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before," right? For whatever reason, people with power still need or are required to appear as needing the sanction of people.

Same with the 7/7 bombings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKvkhe3rqtc

Indeed. I've heard this. Strange, right?

...

Cool stuff, themerchant.

Have you checked out Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/)?
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: themerchant on February 06, 2014, 12:33:29 pm
Aye i'm aware of it. I first became interested (in the veracity of official naratives) because of the Lockerbie bombing, i live not to far from there, small community, and most people i know don't even think Libya did it let alone El-Megahari who was sent to prison for it.

I don't read as much it can be very overwhelming. Thinking you're falling down the old rabbit hole.

We have our independence vote this year, the press coverage is incredibly biased , even an academic report showed the state broadcaster was being biased towards the status quo. which the BBC responded to by complaining to his boss at the university. Which in turn just made the whole mess blow up and instead of suppressing the report loads of folk who wouldn't have heard about it subsequently heard about it.

So my energies at the moment are reading about the varying consequences ofg independence.

Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Madness on February 06, 2014, 12:43:55 pm
Aye i'm aware of it. I first became interested (in the veracity of official naratives) because of the Lockerbie bombing, i live not to far from there, small community, and most people i know don't even think Libya did it let alone El-Megahari who was sent to prison for it.

I remember that as I heard about this instance I came to the realization of things like this being an ongoing occurence, not something "new and heinous."

I don't read as much it can be very overwhelming. Thinking you're falling down the old rabbit hole.

I know this feeling well.

We have our independence vote this year, the press coverage is incredibly biased , even an academic report showed the state broadcaster was being biased towards the status quo. which the BBC responded to by complaining to his boss at the university. Which in turn just made the whole mess blow up and instead of suppressing the report loads of folk who wouldn't have heard about it subsequently heard about it.

So my energies at the moment are reading about the varying consequences ofg independence.

Very interesting. I wish you luck in your endeavors and please feel free to make a thread and share/crowdsource research.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on February 06, 2014, 08:09:36 pm
Quote
How about - the buildings were never actually destroyed! Just by an elaborate set of mirrors and public assumptions, they hide in the one spot no one looks!

Lol. I think I will present this to one of my wackier friends as an actual theory:)

Quote
I don't read as much it can be very overwhelming. Thinking you're falling down the old rabbit hole.

Yes, there are so many traps to fall into when you first start to engage yourself, surfing around, watching all these dodgy videos out there, never knowing which "expert" is the right one, and the media is all over the place.(long sentence I know).

My point is that it gets very confusing, so I just landed on the conclusion that this is a very tricky and dense topic to really grasp the "truth" of what is going on.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: themerchant on February 06, 2014, 08:25:37 pm
Quote
How about - the buildings were never actually destroyed! Just by an elaborate set of mirrors and public assumptions, they hide in the one spot no one looks!

Lol. I think I will present this to one of my wackier friends as an actual theory:)

Quote
I don't read as much it can be very overwhelming. Thinking you're falling down the old rabbit hole.

Yes, there are so many traps to fall into when you first start to engage yourself, surfing around, watching all these dodgy videos out there, never knowing which "expert" is the right one, and the media is all over the place.(long sentence I know).

My point is that it gets very confusing, so I just landed on the conclusion that this is a very tricky and dense topic to really grasp the "truth" of what is going on.

Indeed for example i have "read" all three of the papers i listed above, but looking at it myself i have no idea what it shows, i can only trust in the expertise and consensus of the academics.

It's my favourite subject in much the same way as running your tongue over a loose tooth becomes your favourite action.

I tend to read books about past subjects now, and there has been a para-political magazine in the UK for 30 odd years now. IT is published about twice a year, called Lobster magazine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster_%28magazine%29 .

My biggest "conspiracy theory" was Lance Armstrong though i talked about that for a dozen years or so. So i'll take false security of being correct in that one, means i'm not totally kooky for believing there is dodgy other events.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on February 07, 2014, 11:37:32 am
Quote
the problem with trying to parse what happened with the buildings brought down by aeroplanes and the WTC7 is all the material has been shipped away, so that horse has bolted anyway

What do you think is the most plausible explanation to the collapse of building 7?
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Madness on February 07, 2014, 12:25:45 pm
That a bunch of people loaded the building with documents (as it served as a filing cabinet for different organizations) and they used the event (premeditated or opportunistic) to burn some evidence.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: themerchant on February 07, 2014, 03:27:32 pm
Quote
the problem with trying to parse what happened with the buildings brought down by aeroplanes and the WTC7 is all the material has been shipped away, so that horse has bolted anyway

What do you think is the most plausible explanation to the collapse of building 7?

Well despite what some folk say(loose change) there was some serious fires raging in WTC7 and structural damage. The problem i have saying my own theory is, then i leave it open to challenege and it will require me to go get videos with time stamps, and a lot of the supporting evidence will take time to gather. I used to debate this often years ago and i'm not sure if i want to start.

But anyway i'll state what i think happened.

I think Flight 93 was meant to hit WTC7 , if you go back and listen to some reports they actually announce another explosion is heard (this is the problem i would have to go and source all these videos again, get time stamps to show when things were said) at around the time the flight if it hadn't crashed would be coming into New York. It can sorta "explain" why 3 buildings fell with 2 aeroplanes.

So i'd imagine that Building 7 came down the same way as the two towers came down, minus the aeroplane. Probably through some structural weakening from pre-planted explosives.

Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on February 08, 2014, 04:28:17 pm
Quote
That a bunch of people loaded the building with documents (as it served as a filing cabinet for different organizations) and they used the event (premeditated or opportunistic) to burn some evidence.

Now that sounds like a conspiracy:) That they(whoever it is) can get away with it, without the media jumping all over what actually happened with that building, kind of says it all IMO.

Quote
Well despite what some folk say(loose change) there was some serious fires raging in WTC7 and structural damage. The problem i have saying my own theory is, then i leave it open to challenege and it will require me to go get videos with time stamps, and a lot of the supporting evidence will take time to gather. I used to debate this often years ago and i'm not sure if i want to start.

I know what you mean, and I am not sure either if I want you to start the debate:) Spent a silly amount of time trying to wrap my head around this crazy incident. I am as you pretty convinced there where explosives involved.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Madness on February 09, 2014, 01:40:34 am
Quote
That a bunch of people loaded the building with documents (as it served as a filing cabinet for different organizations) and they used the event (premeditated or opportunistic) to burn some evidence.

Now that sounds like a conspiracy:) That they(whoever it is) can get away with it, without the media jumping all over what actually happened with that building, kind of says it all IMO.

Yeah - and technically this is the function of the media, to be a watchdog? So it concisely highlights that failure ;).
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on February 10, 2014, 10:58:15 am
Yeah they are an incompetent watchdog who know very well who they can bark at and not.

There is a brilliant TV show called Newswipe with Charlie Brooker, which you guys should check out.
This guy also has a show called Screenwipe, which is about Television in general. A television show about why you should not watch television is a rather conflicting idea though:) Why would a television channel accept a show that encourages viewers to push the OFF button? There might be a huge marked there I suppose. The psychology in the TV business today seem to be that people in general like to feel smart(hence all these "reality" shows), so more and more of the shows are just plain dumb. The dumber it gets, the more people feel smart by watching. So the "smart" shows hits home to those who see through this trick. Is there a conspiracy hidden in these words? There might be. Is television lucifers dreambox?
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Madness on February 10, 2014, 01:15:16 pm
I will look into this.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: themerchant on February 10, 2014, 03:21:43 pm
Yeah i know Charlie Brooker, his show is more for comedy than actually delving into the issues. It is very funny and Brooker is smarter than me that's for sure.

I don't watch TV anymore, beyond watching some shows later on, or sporting events live.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Madness on February 10, 2014, 08:18:29 pm
So I am definitely going to watch Screenwipe, Newswipe and Gamewipe.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on February 10, 2014, 08:20:08 pm
Quote
I don't watch TV anymore, beyond watching some shows later on, or sporting events live.

Me neither, but I do indulge in a show now and again. But the activity of sitting down and just flipping through channels is something I have never quite gotten into.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on February 10, 2014, 09:27:14 pm
Quote
So I am definitely going to watch Screenwipe, Newswipe and Gamewipe

Yes. Doug Stanhope has these brilliant rants in many of the shows too:)
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: sciborg2 on February 12, 2014, 12:08:27 am
I prefer justified paranoia with no conspiracy.

No WMDs in Iraq, but Bush gets reelected?

The banks fuck up the world economy, pay some meager fines, and go after pensions as the new resource they want to gamble away.

People know about the injustices of conflict minerals and sweat shop labor.


All this is open information.

So why is there a need for conspiracy?
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Callan S. on February 12, 2014, 02:02:16 am
That a bunch of people loaded the building with documents (as it served as a filing cabinet for different organizations) and they used the event (premeditated or opportunistic) to burn some evidence.
Not bad! Say there were some demolition materials built in so one day they could call in a bomb threat, evacuate it and then destroy the evidence on demand! A bit clumsy and imperfect, but a clumsy trump card is better than no trump card!
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: themerchant on February 12, 2014, 11:56:50 am
I prefer justified paranoia with no conspiracy.

No WMDs in Iraq, but Bush gets reelected?

The banks fuck up the world economy, pay some meager fines, and go after pensions as the new resource they want to gamble away.

People know about the injustices of conflict minerals and sweat shop labor.


All this is open information.

So why is there a need for conspiracy?

there is no need for a conspiracy.

They do happen though, for instance Iran-Contra (in America) over here we have the deliberate suppresion of the McCrone report, plus many many more.

However the banking collapse had banks knowingly mis-sell toxic debt, that another arm of the bank had categorised as triple A for them, then bet short on it. The LIBOR rate was being manipulated as well, there is no need for a conspiracy, but if there is one it should be dealt with.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on February 12, 2014, 11:57:51 am
Quote
All this is open information.

So why is there a need for conspiracy?

Good question. I am not sure "need" is the right word here. You have to at least acknowledge that conspiracies have actually happened? Look at the link Duskweaver posted earlier in this tread.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Callan S. on February 12, 2014, 11:11:53 pm
Well I thought they basically consist of criminal activity, as viewed by various countries laws.

The 'conspiracy' part is mostly a sexy new rebranding of criminal activity?

I thought it was just sexy hyperbole - is 'conspiracy' supposed to be more than that?
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on February 13, 2014, 07:32:35 am
This is true, but I am not sure I see your point. Does it matter which term you use? In a broad sense it is all criminal yes, but when you conspire it may not be so easy to spot the real criminals maybe?
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Royce on May 14, 2014, 11:04:26 am
If anyone need more fodder to your dystopian view of the future, watch this:

http://metanoia-films.org/counter-intelligence/

I also recommend "Mirage men". A documentary about UFO myths being created by government to cloud the real thing, namely experiments with advanced technology/weapons. Anyone who saw weird lights behaving in a strange way in the eighties might have witnessed what we today know as drones.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: sciborg2 on June 14, 2014, 05:07:03 pm
 As per my previous statement that conspiracies are unnecessary when punishment is lax to nonexistent:

The Financial Crisis: Why Have No High-Level Executives Been Prosecuted? (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/jan/09/financial-crisis-why-no-executive-prosecutions/)

Quote
If it was the former—if the recession was due, at worst, to a lack of caution—then the criminal law has no role to play in the aftermath. For in all but a few circumstances (not here relevant), the fierce and fiery weapon called criminal prosecution is directed at intentional misconduct, and nothing less. If the Great Recession was in no part the handiwork of intentionally fraudulent practices by high-level executives, then to prosecute such executives criminally would be “scapegoating” of the most shallow and despicable kind.

But if, by contrast, the Great Recession was in material part the product of intentional fraud, the failure to prosecute those responsible must be judged one of the more egregious failures of the criminal justice system in many years. Indeed, it would stand in striking contrast to the increased success that federal prosecutors have had over the past fifty years or so in bringing to justice even the highest-level figures who orchestrated mammoth frauds. Thus, in the 1970s, in the aftermath of the “junk bond” bubble that, in many ways, was a precursor of the more recent bubble in mortgage-backed securities, the progenitors of the fraud were all successfully prosecuted, right up to Michael Milken.

Again, in the 1980s, the so-called savings-and-loan crisis, which again had some eerie parallels to more recent events, resulted in the successful criminal prosecution of more than eight hundred individuals, right up to Charles Keating. And again, the widespread accounting frauds of the 1990s, most vividly represented by Enron and WorldCom, led directly to the successful prosecution of such previously respected CEOs as Jeffrey Skilling and Bernie Ebbers.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: mrganondorf on December 18, 2014, 11:48:54 am
http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-know-its-crazy-but-some-days-i-feel-like-everybo,11572/
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: geoint on December 31, 2014, 07:46:46 am
Anything done by establishment (career) politicians of either party is a conspiracy, by those in power to maintain power.  And the only people who want to seriously change the status quo in Washington DC, the Tea Party are reviled as the vilest forms of life in this country, somewhere between a KKK member and Satan himself, by members of the media and anyone dumb enough to believe the very biased news on CNN OR FOX. 


I dont look to silly novels for my conspiracy theories.  If you have half a brain and you follow politics, its easy to see whats going on right here in the real world. 
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Madness on November 21, 2017, 03:16:19 pm
For Those Who Don’t ‘Believe’ In ‘Conspiracies’ Here Are 58 Admitted False Flag Attacks (http://educateinspirechange.org/alternative-news/dont-believe-conspiracies-58-admitted-false-flag-attacks/)
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: TaoHorror on November 21, 2017, 06:54:36 pm
I wouldn't say I "believe" in conspiracies - if I were aware of them, then they didn't do a good job of obfuscation as I'm not privy to any inside info on anything. That all said, I find it more fun to think in terms of conspiracy, so I enjoy hearing about them.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: TLEILAXU on November 21, 2017, 07:54:16 pm
Conspirary is kind of a spectrum. On one end you've most likely true stuff like the US knowing Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction and basically making up shit all along, then you start going into new-age-tinfoil territory with stuff like "big pharma has the cure for cancer but won't release it because le m0niez" and on the deep end you've got full-retard stuff like "Reptilians are putting fluoride in the water in order to calcify our pineal glands and prevent us from spiritual awakening"
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: TaoHorror on November 22, 2017, 08:41:44 pm
Reptilians are putting fluoride in the water in order to calcify our pineal glands and prevent us from spiritual awakening

Wait, what?! That's not true?!
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Madness on December 20, 2017, 04:17:56 pm
The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721417718261)
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Knee that Bends on December 28, 2017, 02:16:54 am
interesting article, Madness. thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: Redeagl on December 28, 2017, 02:07:43 pm
Reptilians are putting fluoride in the water in order to calcify our pineal glands and prevent us from spiritual awakening

Wait, what?! That's not true?!
I am too shocked.  :o
Title: Re: Conspiracy or paranoia?
Post by: themerchant on January 02, 2018, 10:51:40 am
 Freemasons are blocking reform, says Police Federation leader

Steve White, stepping down as chair, says the society is thwarting progress of women and BAME people


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/31/freemasons-blocking-reform-police-federation-leader