Conspiracy Theories

[RedDragon94]

I think 9/11 may have been an inside job and the war on terror was a farce. But I won't go crusading for it because it just seems really far out for our government to do all this to the American people and lie about it.

 

[Parsimony]

I've little doubt that black operations of some kind continue to take place today, as they did take place in the past. Of what kind specifically, I cannot say.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Because of the available evidence..... Yet i don't have any beliefs outside of the evidence.

Not heard of that before, it is normally that Hollywood, and a lot of our media is owned by Zionist Jews....Again based on the evidence.

There are thousands of professional architects, and engineers, who have all stated the towers had to be demolished....

The facts are there for people to look; yet many believe what ever they're told to, without questioning.

Here is a main video that was put on numerous news channels globally:

The news are the outlets who use blurry images, as they did on the Charlie Hebdo attack, as there was no blood, bullets, etc....So they blurred it to cover the gore, when there was none.

I figured you would believe in such insanity.

The definition of "consipiracy theory" very frequently and very often includes the word "belief." When we have hard and concrete evidence, such as with War Plan Red, we do not call them conspiracy theories but facts. But when it's something like saying 9/11 was an insider job and that explosives were used to bring down the towers, we call these conspiracy theories because there is no evidence - indeed the evidence actually points to the contrary - of a government insider job, but people believe in it anyways.

Conspiracy theories are like a religion where believers spread "the truth" like some type of absurd gospel to all the unbelievers. Their enemies are "The Elite/shadow government/Illuminati" and their paid shills and mind control puppets.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Actually the 'Elite want to reduce the population' one isn't so far-fetched. It's immensely exaggerated, but not without truth.

For a while the Rothschild family (as well as others) have been interested in easing population growth and to this end they often lobby for a 'one child per family' policy for about the next one hundred years. So far as I can tell, however, they have no desire to actively reduce the population through any other means than this.

Reducing population growth is logical and a matter of open knowledge. It is not a conspiracy theory. Population reduction by genocide and other illegal means is however a conspiracy theory.

 

[RRex]

No conspiracies. All is well.

Running like a well-oiled machine.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually the 'Elite want to reduce the population' one isn't so far-fetched. It's immensely exaggerated, but not without truth.

Well, if you adjust it to the elite having population control as a byproduct of their behaviors, then you are on to truth. Whether it's dangerous chemicals used by corporations or wanting - and often using - bigger bombs than the other guy, their behaviors do have a population control effect, sometimes minimal, and sometimes significant.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Reducing population growth is logical and a matter of open knowledge. It is not a conspiracy theory. Population reduction by genocide and other illegal means is however a conspiracy theory.

The main problem with that theory is the biggest source of population loss isn't anything governments or corporations are doing, it's that people are having fewer children. And population control doesn't make any sense because a population is needed for additional control and wealth. With what we do for oil, just imagine what we'll do for water.
As for population control via genocide, the Nazis were rather quite successful in their efforts. Genocide is very often a means of political control.

 

[ThirtyThree]

The main problem with that theory is the biggest source of population loss isn't anything governments or corporations are doing, it's that people are having fewer children. And population control doesn't make any sense because a population is needed for additional control and wealth. With what we do for oil, just imagine what we'll do for water.
As for population control via genocide, the Nazis were rather quite successful in their efforts. Genocide is very often a means of political control.

Population reduction is not a conspiracy theory. Population reduction is about vaccinations and improving education in impoverished regions. I am certain there are other ways to effectively reduce the population though.

Now, before the home grown terrorists among us here go on about vaccinations. I will explain it as Bill Gates did. Vaccinations are a great form of population reduction in impoverished regions purely because they reduce child mortality rates. As those rates are reduced, the parents have fewer children as a result.

If you would like some great reading, I present the dreaded Agenda 21. It is one of my favorite publications from the United Nations, actually. I had to read it when I was debunking the world genocide conspiracy theory as well as other conspiracy theories which misquote and attempt to demonize the publication.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Population reduction is not a conspiracy theory. Population reduction is about vaccinations and improving education in impoverished regions. Now, before the home grown terrorists among us here go on about vaccinations. I will explain it as Bill Gates did. Vaccinations are a great form of population reduction in impoverished regions purely because they reduce child mortality rates. As those rates are reduced, the parents have fewer children as a result. It really is efficient.

If your goal is control, there is no gain in population reductions because it decreases the exploitable and expendable labor force. You need them to make more of themselves, not less, because the more people you have, the more willing someone will be to do the work for less.

 

[Nous]

This isn't the thread for it, but I can assure you all such conspiracy theories, including thermite, have been thoroughly debunked, and not by government agencies.

So apparently I just need to have faith of this debunking of the findings and conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper. Where can I buy that?

 

[ThirtyThree]

If your goal is control, there is no gain in population reductions because it decreases the exploitable and expendable labor force. You need them to make more of themselves, not less, because the more people you have, the more willing someone will be to do the work for less.

The problem is 7.5+ billion can not effectively be controlled by a centralized structure, now can it? Not without greater technological advancement than is currently available? Also, there is that every problematic issue of identification. I support human tracking systems or at the very least, microchips/digital tattoos for a universal health care plan as well as a digital currency. Also, there are still so many unemployed and a lot of garbage is produced that is just not needed. Then, the whole issue of 7.5+ billion humans living out of perpetual balance with nature. That is a major problem, no? I refer to greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and various other issues including the impending scarcity of drinkable water.

 

[Nous]

Your so-called "peer-reviewed article" probably isn't.

I didn't see where anyone did call it "peer-reviewed". Of course, if findings and conclusions are untrue or unreliable just because they are not peer-reviewed, then the whole of the NIST report is untrue or unreliable.

In any case, what Harrit et al. did in their examination and chemical and structural characterization of the red/gray chips in the dust samples was not complicated in any way. I would think and hope that most any competent high school graduate should be able to understand their experimentation methods and assess the validity of their conclusions. Are you not able to determine whether their conclusions from their findings are valid? That’s what I asked about.

For instance, is there any problem with the authors’ interpretation of the slightly narrower and more energetic exotherm of the ignited Mackinlay red/gray chip compared to the Xerogel super-thermite?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.

Thermite is rust (iron oxide) and aluminum (variants exist, of course, but they are just as elementary and common as rust and aluminum). To say that something "contains the ingredients of thermite" is to say nothing more than that something contains rusty pipes and aluminum foil (and is, fyi, incapable of ignition without something like magnesium strips and oxyacetylene torches or some equivalent pyrotechnics).

So, this "finding" that the elements of thermite were found is as meaningful as saying that the evidence reveals what can be found in virtually every kitchen in the Western world (not to mention every toolshed). It's like concluding the presence of glycerin in a grocery store should be taken to indicate the presence of nitroglycerin used by comic book supervillains in possession of dynamite.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I didn't see where anyone did call it "peer-reviewed". Of course, if findings and conclusions are untrue or unreliable just because they are not peer-reviewed, then the whole of the NIST report is untrue or unreliable.

In any case, what Harrit et al. did in their examination and chemical and structural characterization of the red/gray chips in the dust samples was not complicated in any way. I would think and hope that most any competent high school graduate should be able to understand their experimentation methods and assess the validity of their conclusions. Are you not able to determine whether their conclusions from their findings are valid? That’s what I asked about.

For instance, is there any problem with the authors’ interpretation of the slightly narrower and more energetic exotherm of the ignited Mackinlay red/gray chip compared to the Xerogel super-thermite?

The PUBLISHER calls it peer-reviewed. And yes, any decent analyst suspects EVERY source, whether reviewed by qualified peers and published in a reputable journal, or published in a "vanity" outlet, such as this article, and needs to check the data, methods, analysis and conclusions very closely, especially when someone is making the claim that the whole attack was orchestrated by the US government--extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not saying that this article is "untrue or unreliable," I'm saying that its methods and conclusions are suspect, more suspect than the NIST report which was written by reputable professionals in the field and use what certainly appear to be the standard and appropriate methods.

Right, sure: "most any competent high school graduate should be able to understand their experimentation methods and assess the validity of their conclusions" should be able to tell you if "there any problem with the authors’ interpretation of the slightly narrower and more energetic exotherm of the ignited Mackinlay red/gray chip compared to the Xerogel super-thermite?" Yeah, right. Sorry, very few high school students learn proper research methodology, and even my college chemistry didn't get into problems such as how to differentiate possible ignition sources, etc., for different kinds of flammable and explosive materials. That would be more for people in the field of chemical engineering.

However, methodologically, the authors do not consider nor eliminate alternative methods for the chemicals to get there, since they are all common in a large building and a situation including a large fire would cause many chemical changes throughout the setting, but structure their analysis to find evidence of thermite. Their analysis has not been validated by others in the reputable peer literature, and so should remain suspect until further independent evidence is found.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So apparently I just need to have faith of this debunking of the findings and conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper. Where can I buy that?

If you want to start a thread, I can use it as a depository for things that debunk 9/11 conspiracies.

The problem is 7.5+ billion can not effectively be controlled by a centralized structure, now can it?

No one is controlling 7.5 billion people.

 

[ThirtyThree]

No one is controlling 7.5 billion people.

No, not yet. However, for any type of one world government of a centralized type to function, the means to govern that amount of Citizens must be developed. That or the population must be reduced.

My point with all this is, the conspiracy theory of The New World Order, (not the economic new world order) is ridiculous. The means are simply not yet available.

 

[Revoltingest]

No commercial landlord would ever buy into the inside job theory.
To place thermite or other charges in the building would be noticed
by the landlord, maintenance staff, & tenants. A ruckus would ensue.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My point with all this is, the conspiracy theory of The New World Order, (not the economic new world order) is ridiculous. The means are simply not yet available.

If you ask me, the post nation-state will be member-states, as we see already with entities such as the League of Nations, UN, EU, and NATO. This would be a "one world government" of sorts, but nothing like the conspiracies would have us believe.

 

[ThirtyThree]

If you ask me, the post nation-state will be member-states, as we see already with entities such as the League of Nations, UN, EU, and NATO. This would be a "one world government" of sorts, but nothing like the conspiracies would have us believe.

Exactly and I support an UN run "nwo".

 

[McBell]

No commercial landlord would ever buy into the inside job theory.
To place thermite or other charges in the building would be noticed
by the landlord, maintenance staff, & tenants. A ruckus would ensue.

not if it was imaginary thermite