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

damn for a second i thought sup got unbanned

  On 11/17/2013 at 2:49 AM, Lane Visitor said:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/16/us/jfk-assassination-conspiracy-theories-debunked/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

funny that they don't address a single one of the credible provable theories that contradict the warren report.

Yeah, it's a lol how they're trying hard to put that to bed again. Like that show the the last couple of weeks that dragged out some guy who has never discussed it since the day of the shooting, who says that he heard the gunfire coming from the book depository. This is despite all the people that ran towards the grassy knoll because that was where they heard the gunshots coming from and the fact that sound could have reflected of the book depository (if the guy wasn't some plant in the first place, or deluded by the media blitz of the time).

nwae, it was so obviously more than the official line. Maybe they think that if we still believe the JFK thing that we'll start doubting 9/11 and where will that lead. heh.

why was sup banned. that was a bug of design comspiricy

Especially for the 911 truthers:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/noam-chomsky-911-truther_n_4345829.html

I can't wait until the day where I live in a world without Truthers.

That theory makes about as much sense as the one about Bin Laden still being alive.

Lol

So, what was the truth? Ignorance is strength?

I think thats the whole point of the video.

I personally find it pretty strange that if even one aspect of the 9/11 commission ruling is questioned, they are immediately branded a truther.

I'm not saying Bush or space aliens did it, and im not going to argue about steel melting at x temperature but I sure as hell take the official story with a shaker full of salt.

Hmmm, I honestly don't think that anyone questioning the 911commission is called a truther automatically. Someone is called a truther by pulling ' proof' out of some sort of source and making the claim it's a truer truth than the one the commission made, imo.

Calling everyone who is critical a truther is ignorance by itself, if you ask me.

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:03 AM, SR4 said:

I think thats the whole point of the video.

 

 

I personally find it pretty strange that if even one aspect of the 9/11 commission ruling is questioned, they are immediately branded a truther.

 

 

I'm not saying Bush or space aliens did it, and im not going to argue about steel melting at x temperature but I sure as hell take the official story with a shaker full of salt.

Well I'm talking about a specific type of Truther: someone who believes Bush Admin was behind the attacks and Building 7 was the result of controlled demolition.

I am very skeptical of the US Gov't. They are corrupt and violent and have a well-documented history of lying to the public. But regardless, peculiarities and unanswered questions are not evidence. One should withhold belief until there is good reason for it.

edit: yeah what Godel said

well i am certainly withholding belief in the traditional 9/11 narrative

I like how noam states this

  Quote

“There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the internet and think they know a lot physics, but it doesn’t work like that,” he added, taking a jab at conspiracy theorists. “There’s a reason there are graduate schools in these departments.”

Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth are more than qualified to comment, hence the immense value of that group in combating official propaganda on 9/11. Chomsky is proving that he either has skin in the game, or because he can't read declassified documents on the matter from official sources, he is unable to see the forest for the clear felled, processed into paper and written up as several official sources that was probably shredded and shipped to china to be used as compost for the their campaign to stabilize their desert areas with, trees.

edit: Oh yeah, and what a giant douche.

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:26 AM, delet... said:

I like how noam states this

 

 

 

  Quote

“There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the internet and think they know a lot physics, but it doesn’t work like that,” he added, taking a jab at conspiracy theorists. “There’s a reason there are graduate schools in these departments.”

 

Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth are more than qualified to comment, hence the immense value of that group in combating official propaganda on 9/11. Chomsky is proving that he either has skin in the game, or because he can't read declassified documents on the matter from official sources, he is unable to see the forest for the clear felled, processed into paper and written up as several official sources that was probably shredded and shipped to china to be used as compost for the their campaign to stabilize their desert areas with, trees.

 

edit: Oh yeah, and what a giant douche.

I read a youtube comment under that video that said something to the effect of "obviously the NSA has the dirt on Chomsky since he's so scared to speak out."

Chomsky also made the very pertinent point that those architects and engineers should do what scientists do when they think they've discovered something, and that is to publish and subject their findings to peer review. That is how good science works.

  On 11/27/2013 at 7:06 AM, LimpyLoo said:

I can't wait until the day where I live in a world without Truthers.

 

 

That theory makes about as much sense as the one about Bin Laden still being alive.

when you say 'that theory' what do you mean exactly? I would consider myself a 'truther' . I'm sorry you have to spend time in the same world as me

it's too bad that guy approached Noam with one of the most over-played 9/11 conspiracy talking points. I'd like to see how Noam handles a question about the Bush administration being on Cipro, the anthrax vaccine 7 days before the anthrax letters were sent through the mail. Notice how he says 'why would they stage 9/11 if it wasn't what got us into iraq'. He's not stupid, he knows the fear levels from 9/11 allowed for the open door that was Iraq, but what he fails to mention and I wish this guy would have asked him this, is that the anthrax attacks which immediately followed 9/11 and killed 5 people are actually what GOT us into Iraq if you actually follow the thread of propaganda. The us government had an incredible amount of foreknowledge about not just one but two deadly 'terrorist' attacks. Luckily though because this 'truther' guy asked him the same thing he already has a built in ridicule laced response for, he's going to look out coming good. I'd love to see Noam talk about the anthrax attacks, I don't know if he'd be able to this easily deflect it

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:39 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 7:06 AM, LimpyLoo said:

I can't wait until the day where I live in a world without Truthers.

 

 

That theory makes about as much sense as the one about Bin Laden still being alive.

when you say 'that theory' what do you mean exactly? I would consider myself a 'truther' . I'm sorry you have to spend time in the same world as me

 

Well first off I was being severely, violently, Britishly hyperbolic. I'm honestly happy to share this planet with anyone as long as they're friendly, regardless of what they believe or how they're different from me.

Secondly I'm only really talking about people who are certain that Bush did it and that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

it's EXTREMELY unfortunate that people who don't like 'truthers' can very easily strawman any of them by bringing up controlled demolition theories, when much more credible anomalies such as the stock put options, pakistani and saudia arabian involvement in 9/11, the obstruction of an investigation for over 2 years, Bush and Cheney refusing to testify under oath or on record about the attacks, instead being the only ones who were allowed to do it in private off the record. None of this stuff ever gets touched by Debunker types either because it's truly unexplainable in the face of what the 9/11 commission claims happened.

Noams point can be used as a response to any conspiracy theory?

Also, did he say 'why would they stage 9/11 if it wasn't what got us into iraq', or did he say something like, "why do a 911 with saudis if you want to attack iraq"? If it was a setup, they'd obviously iraqi's. That was basically his argument.

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:44 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

Secondly I'm only really talking about people who are certain that Bush did it and that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

 

fair enough, but If you have any questions about it feel free to ask. I've read plenty about WTC7, but I think it's far from the strongest piece of evidence.

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:42 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

I'd like to see how Noam handles a question about the Bush administration being on Cipro, the anthrax vaccine 7 days before the anthrax letters were sent through the mail.

Well most likely he would point out how that simply isn't evidence. It is two dots that one can connect if one is so inclined, but like I said before (referring to such dot-connecting): peculiarities and unanswered questions simply aren't evidence.

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:34 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:26 AM, delet... said:

I like how noam states this

 

 

 

  Quote

“There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the internet and think they know a lot physics, but it doesn’t work like that,” he added, taking a jab at conspiracy theorists. “There’s a reason there are graduate schools in these departments.”

 

Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth are more than qualified to comment, hence the immense value of that group in combating official propaganda on 9/11. Chomsky is proving that he either has skin in the game, or because he can't read declassified documents on the matter from official sources, he is unable to see the forest for the clear felled, processed into paper and written up as several official sources that was probably shredded and shipped to china to be used as compost for the their campaign to stabilize their desert areas with, trees.

 

edit: Oh yeah, and what a giant douche.

 

I read a youtube comment under that video that said something to the effect of "obviously the NSA has the dirt on Chomsky since he's so scared to speak out."

 

Chomsky also made the very pertinent point that those architects and engineers should do what scientists do when they think they've discovered something, and that is to publish and subject their findings to peer review. That is how good science works.

 

-sie- .. They have had things peer reviewed. The problem is not with the truthers, it's with the cognitive bias, establishment worshipping, always bull-headed, stubborn anti-truthers.

It took me a few seconds on google to find a chomsky rebuttal, if not the most eloquent, but surely link filled. Chomsky Manufactures 911 Consent

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:47 AM, goDel said:

Noams point can be used as a response to any conspiracy theory?

 

Also, did he say 'why would they stage 9/11 if it wasn't what got us into iraq', or did he say something like, "why do a 911 with saudis if you want to attack iraq"? If it was a setup, they'd obviously iraqi's. That was basically his argument.

i got that part, I just know the guy's not dumb and he's obviously aware COlin Powell held up a vial of anthrax to sell the war to the UN. If it wasn't for the anthrax the idea of a biological or chemical attack would have seemed purely made up and a fear reaction to 9/11, but it was based an actual attack on the US senate and members of the mainstream press.

but my point was that people like Chomsky Chris Hedges and other prominent figures in this area of the left have pre-programmed talking points to deflect 9/11 conspiracy theory questions. I honestly don't blame them, since as we see in this video most of the people who approach them are clearly not very bright people. They just don't bring up anything that would throw chomsky for a loop, instead they basically pitched him a home run

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:49 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:42 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

I'd like to see how Noam handles a question about the Bush administration being on Cipro, the anthrax vaccine 7 days before the anthrax letters were sent through the mail.

 

Well most likely he would point out how that simply isn't evidence. It is two dots that one can connect if one is so inclined, but like I said before (referring to such dot-connecting): peculiarities and unanswered questions simply aren't evidence.

 

simply isn't evidence of what? It's at the very least evidence of foreknowledge that there would be the extremely rare event of someone using weaponized anthrax on a mass scale. I mean don't you find that odd?

I get that you find it stupid that people would be absolutely 100% sure that WTC7 is a controlled demolition, but can you honestly tell me with a straight face that it doesn't seem even the slightest bit odd to you? That not just 2 but 3 entire buildings completely collapsed?

being sure of anything you cannot prove is not a good idea, but asking questions and expecting proper investigations, forensics, declassified documents that show saudi arabian intelligence involvement, things like that seems pretty reasonable to me.

Tower 7 taken as an whole is hugely strong. What was stored there? People were witness to explosions below it before it later went down. In an interview it's lease holder said that it was going to be pulled. All towers had new insurance policies taken out of them some months before the incident. Who took over tower 7 security shortly before the incident? It drops in free fall. It looks like a standard building demolition (as do the other two). No other tower building other than the other two had been felled by fire, and this one wasn't even hit by a plane and was constructed differently. and on and on.

Don't give in to them awe. Always keep the global picture sure. But don't ever concede key points, of which there are probably hundreds. heh.