Conspiracy Theories

[Revoltingest]

not if it was imaginary thermite

That only works if there are imaginary landlords, staff & tenants.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

not if it was imaginary thermite

Or invisible, placed by invisible operatives.

 

[McBell]

That only works if there are imaginary landlords, staff & tenants.

There aren't?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Please state any conspiracy theories you believe in and why you believe in them, or why you do not. Feel free to debate as well.

I just got to say right now is from what I Know about the American Government, I would not be at all surprised if these theories are true.

A couple of them threw me though....to be cont.

 

[Desert Snake]

You forgot the moon landing hoax conspiracy

 

[Desert Snake]

I just got to say right now is from what I Know about the American Government, I would not be at all surprised if these theories are true.

A couple of them threw me though....to be cont.

Any conspiracy theories that your currently entertaining?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Any conspiracy theories that your currently entertaining?

These thew me off guard:

The Hollywood Elite are all satanists/luciferian
The Elite have underground cities

The way I see hollywood starts potray "satanist" symbols, if one likes, it sounds more they are doing it for publicity and more money. Whatever the entertaiment audience wants to see they show. If it is true, what is wrong with satanism? No one sacrifices people.....legally......

The Elite want to reduce the world population to 1 billion or under 500 million

I have no clue.

Most terrorist attacks are false flag operation

I doubt it. America is just delluted. We see wars in other countries but think "oh this cant happen over here." I wouldnt be surprised if the military wanted to speak their mind about stuff they know without all the I will call it politics surrounding it.

Obama is from Kenya

Id have to look. What does it matter?

Black operations include mind control experiments carried out on civilians

haha,. i had to laugh at this. what is a "black operation"?

I do believe there is a political undercurrent when it comes to power and killing etc. We are still Romans.

 

[Yerda]

It doesn't seem to be much of a secret that the big accounting firms, big finance, their lobbyists and our politicians often conspire to write bills that serve only the interests of those involved. I guess I'm a dullard, but I'd much rather hear people speak about the banal corruption of our public institutions than whether the US government is hiding ET.

 

[Parsimony]

We agree. The 9/11 conspiracy "theory" uses blurry photos and video in order to seek true.

According to this blurry video, the Earth is flat and surrounded by a massive unbreakable glass dome!

Convenient how so many other spacecraft never encounter any dome when they try to exist the atmosphere. I guess someone must have installed that dome only recently.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You forgot the moon landing hoax conspiracy

Was that the one where they claimed "first man on the moon" but the camera already on the moon prooved he was probably second?

 

[Desert Snake]

Was that the one where they claimed "first man on the moon" but the camera already on the moon prooved he was probably second?

I haven't encountered that one. The one/s/ I'm familiar with, state that the moon landing or landings, were hoaxed /faked/.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I haven't encountered that one. The one/s/ I'm familiar with, state that the moon landing or landings, were hoaxed /faked/.

All of them?

 

[Desert Snake]

All of them?

I think it varies..by theory

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It doesn't seem to be much of a secret that the big accounting firms, big finance, their lobbyists and our politicians often conspire to write bills that serve only the interests of those involved. I guess I'm a dullard, but I'd much rather hear people speak about the banal corruption of our public institutions than whether the US government is hiding ET.

The thing is, that does happen. Governments often to very terrible and horrible things, to themselves and each other. But we have proof and hard evidence when it happens. We did get evidence of things like Tuskegee and Iran-Contra, and even a plan to invade Canada. But somehow this evidence was never produced for 9/11 - we know MKUltra happened, but yet things like 9/11 and FEMA death camps remain elusive. It's like Stephen Hawking said, even an alien conspiracy cover up is doubtful because the governments have not proven themselves competent enough in keeping secrets to keep alien contact secret. In the past there were the Pentagon Papers and Deep Throat, but during an age of unparalled digital record and communications, and especially with Wikileaks, Chelsae Manning, and Edward Snowden doing what they did, but yet there is nothing to prove just about any of the most common ones. But yet when you can produce undeniable evidence to the contrary, people who believe in conspiracy theories still believe them. I read one article awhile ago that suggested people who believe them often have very little control in their lives. IDK, but I really do wonder how people can believe some of the things they do. Even the existence god is far more plausible than many conspiracy theories I've come across.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Most people seem concerned about government doing things, but government is not some monolithic organization that has a single individual or small group at the helm. In the short term, governments (and here I mean democratic governments, not despots who can have entire populations liquidated and communications controlled to conceal things) can, at times, be quite effective in hiding plots and plans for short periods, especially in times of war. I'm far more concerned about large businesses and the upper socio-economic classes, who have both profit and power motives, and a desire to protect both their influence and their wealth. But even most of the conspiracy theories about them strain credibility. We complain about government being "Big Brother," but every time you use the internet, someone, somewhere is recording your actions and preferences, if not your actual words, and trying to use that information--and it isn't the government.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We complain about government being "Big Brother," but every time you use the internet, someone, somewhere is recording your actions and preferences, if not your actual words, and trying to use that information--and it isn't the government.

Definitely. The direction we're going in is definitely one that will get us involved in a 90's corporate dystopia type of world. We won't we be plugged in because the government forced us in, while be plugged in because the corporations subdued us.

 

[Jumi]

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.

Yep being familiar with a place or person who people make into a conspiracy theory or a person who creates a conspiracy theory tend to make more skeptical than it being some distant guy or place.

 

[Nous]

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).

Presumably the informativeness of that sentence in the paper's conclusions (item #6) was not intended to stand in isolation from the information in the rest of the paper, which, in a variety of ways, makes clear that the source of the elemental aluminum and iron oxide of the red/gray chips in the WTC dust was not and could not have been rusty pipes and aluminum foil.

 

[Nous]

The PUBLISHER calls it peer-reviewed.

(1) In fact, there is no reason to doubt that the paper was peer-reviewed.

Bentham Science publishes more than 100 journals, each with their own editorial boards. The Open Chemical Physics Journal, in which the Harrit et al. paper was published, was not the one found to have offered to publish the nonsense paper. At least one other Bentham Science journal (the Open Software Engineering Journal) had earlier rejected a paper submitted by the same hoaxer (Philip Davis) after peer-review. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal/ Thus, to claim or assume that the Harrit et al. paper was not peer-reviewed is to engage in guilt by association.

(2) Physicist Steven Jones, one of the authors of the paper on the discovery of active thermitic material in the 9/11 dust, said that the “paper was reviewed prior to publication by the Physics dept. chair at BYU--and he approved it for publication.” The BYU Physics department Chair at that time was Ross L. Spencer. If you do not believe professor Jones, then you should ask professor Spencer: [email protected]

(3) A study and the published paper on it should be assessed on the merits of the study, not according to whether one believes the paper was peer-reviewed. After all, as already noted, the NIST reports on the collapse of the WTC buildings were not 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.

The Harrit et al. paper makes no such claim.

I'm not saying that this article is "untrue or unreliable," I'm saying that its methods and conclusions are suspect

Exactly what methods and conclusions are "suspect"? Quote them, and show that they are false, unreliable, unsound, or unscientific.

more suspect than the NIST report

Why? The authors of the non-peer-reviewed NIST reports were well paid to conduct a $20 million investigation in which they did not even comply with standard scientific guidelines specified in the National Fire Protection Association Manual when confronted with “high order damage” to 3 buildings, and in the end were unable to account for the destruction of these 3 buildings on the basis of empirically derived assumptions. In contrast, Harrit et al. had nothing to gain and everything to lose from conducting the study and publishing their results, apparently paid for conducting the study from their own pockets, paid to have the results published, and made an essential contribution to understanding the destruction of those buildings (at least for people who are unafraid of the truth).

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.

So you're saying that you can't assess whether their methods or conclusions are "suspect"--i.e., are false, unreliable, unsound or unscientific.

However, methodologically, the authors do not consider nor eliminate alternative methods for the chemicals to get there

What the hell are you talking about? Whatever "methods" you are referring to by which "the chemicals" got somewhere was not a question they authors attempted to answer.

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.

I have no idea what any of that is supposed to mean. If you believe that the authors wrongly found "evidence of thermite," then show that your claims are true rather than just babbling.

 

[Nous]

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

It seems it would be so easy to just point out the falsehoods in the paper that you claim you already identified. Surely the OPer et al. will not object to you doing so. Here again is the paper: http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf