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

So disparalssant, you buy the government story on FEMA death camps?

Brainwashed sheeple you failed logic 101 It's a medium-sized conspiracy not a large conspiracy

'If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.'

Move along now, nothing to see.

You're right, I was unclear there. Chomksy's main reason for believing the official story is that a conspiracy would be too large to possibly cover up, making it a priori false.

He is correct that a large conspiracy involving hundreds or thousands of insiders is not believable.

But is is incorrect to infer that this rules out a conspiracy at all, because a conspiracy might be very small, on the order of 1-10 people (which 9/11 was). So there's an invalid step in Chomsky's argument. (At least this is the argument I've heard him use before).

  On 12/8/2013 at 12:52 AM, Joseph said:

You're right, I was unclear there. Chomksy's main reason for believing the official story is that a conspiracy would be too large to possibly cover up, making it a priori false.

 

He is correct that a large conspiracy involving hundreds or thousands of insiders is not believable.

 

But is is incorrect to infer that this rules out a conspiracy at all, because a conspiracy might be very small, on the order of 1-10 people (which 9/11 was). So there's an invalid step in Chomsky's argument. (At least this is the argument I've heard him use before).

Absolutely false. When did he ever once say that? Point me towards that piece of footage or print.

Please mate do your research before saying someone failed Logic 101 because irony and shit.

  On 12/8/2013 at 12:55 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 12/8/2013 at 12:52 AM, Joseph said:

You're right, I was unclear there. Chomksy's main reason for believing the official story is that a conspiracy would be too large to possibly cover up, making it a priori false.

 

He is correct that a large conspiracy involving hundreds or thousands of insiders is not believable.

 

But is is incorrect to infer that this rules out a conspiracy at all, because a conspiracy might be very small, on the order of 1-10 people (which 9/11 was). So there's an invalid step in Chomsky's argument. (At least this is the argument I've heard him use before).

 

Absolutely false. When did he ever once say that? Point me towards that piece of footage or print.

 

Please mate do your research before saying someone failed Logic 101 because irony and shit.

 

I've seen it in several places, but who knows, he may have changed his tune. It was several years ago. I won't look it up, because I don't give a shit what he or any other authority figure thinks. I only care about evidence.

If anyone did say that, which I know many people do, then they would also fail Logic 101.

Actually 9/11 only took 3 people to coordinate. I'd tell you who the other two were but I'd have to kill you.

In equally important news: My butt sometimes smells like scented semi sweet charred black chocolate. Pretty sweet self sufficiant lifestyle innit.

just realized this thread is typo'd toplel

  On 12/8/2013 at 12:58 AM, Joseph said:

I won't look it up, because I don't give a shit what he or any other authority figure thinks. I only care about evidence.

 

Maybe Limpy shouldn't have taken that!tone with you, but you can't pretend that saying this one after the other makes sense.

  On 12/8/2013 at 7:52 AM, A/D said:

 

  On 12/8/2013 at 12:58 AM, Joseph said:

I won't look it up, because I don't give a shit what he or any other authority figure thinks. I only care about evidence.

 

Maybe Limpy shouldn't have taken that!tone with you, but you can't pretend that saying this one after the other makes sense.

Yeah it's pretty lol to say "I only care about evidence" right after making a claim for which there is no evidence, and for which you coyly seem to concede there is no evidence (essentially saying "we'll he didn't actually say that but if he HAD said that he'd be wrong"), or at best you refuse to even try to supply evidence.

So what is you take on 9/11, Joseph? You have said that anyone who believes the government story is either brainwashed or "a mentally-deficient dipshit like Chomsky." Keep in mind when you share your beliefs about 9/11 that you have explicitly stated that you "only care about evidence."

And please try not to just randomly make shit up.

Lol

Thats logic 101 alright.

Haven't heard Chomsky saying he believes anything the government says. Perhaps he's saying there's no hard evidence for other conspiracy theories on 911. But says something about the way he deals with theories. Not about his beliefs in what the government says. Until convincing proof, any theory is just that. A theory. But you know, some people just want to believe and they are convinced somewhat quicker than others. Shit happens. Desire controls perception.

Obviously, I meant "evidence pertaining to what happened on 9/11" there, and not "evidence" about who said what, which I don't particularly worry about.

Limpy, I have already explained how 9/11 happened in the BMB thread, about 6 months ago (I'm pretty sure you were part of the discussion). I won't repeat everything here but you can visit that thread to read about it, and most of the evidence which supports it. I'll summarize the important points here:

The way the buildings fall is itself enough to give 99% certainty that the 9/11 commission report is false. They fall at essentially free-fall, it's impossible for that to happen without a precise demolition. This is enough to trash the official story, but it gets much more interesting.

Another independent reason for 99% certainty is the fact that the phone calls from the airplanes (across multiple airlines) were made from special microcells installed in advance (and which were nonfunctional on all other planes). So at least one conspirator presumably needed a moderate-to-high level of executive power to accomplish this.

Another independent reason for 99% certainty is the coincidental air-force drills which were occurring simultaneously all over the country, allowing the real airliners to be shot down and replaced with drones.

This last fact, by the way, crucially explains how the whole thing may be executed by a small amount of people. Someone with high security clearance organizes the drills in the way they want, using the explanation that a highjacking-style attack is imminent (this was widely rumored, apparently without evidence, in the intelligence community as early as summer '01), and they contact WTC officials explaining that pre-installing thermite is necessary so that if the attack actually happens, the building can be safely taken down to prevent it toppling on other buildings, or some similar reason). In fact you can check that the WTC had an "elevator modernization" during summer of 2001.

When exercise day comes, have pilots shoot down the airliners (under the impression that they are just drones, which is possible because the drills involved partially or disabling radar), then replace the airliners with large drones, and crash them into the WTC.

The only people who know the entire story are the organizer (likely Cheney or someone similarly powerful) and the drone pilots. You can count them on one hand, and everyone else who plays a part -- the air force, the demolitions experts, the president, law enforcement, -- does so without knowing that they are enabling a false flag attack. They think they're doing a drill, or taking precautions in case of a real terrorist attack, etc. So they only see part of the story. This means that essentially no cover-up is required per se, in the sense of silencing people, just obscuring the investigation.

So Cheney was in direct contact with those drone pilots?

...sorry, please don't respond. just fucking around. sorry sorry sorry

  On 12/8/2013 at 4:58 PM, goDel said:

So Cheney was in direct contact with those drone pilots?

 

...sorry, please don't respond. just fucking around. sorry sorry sorry

I love life.

*breathes in fresh morning air*

  On 12/8/2013 at 4:58 PM, goDel said:

So Cheney was in direct contact with those drone pilots?

 

...sorry, please don't respond. just fucking around. sorry sorry sorry

Does docking count as direct contact?

o god yes!

haha sexual

  On 12/9/2013 at 7:48 PM, LimpyLoo said:

haha sexual

You misspelled homo.

  On 12/9/2013 at 8:30 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 12/9/2013 at 7:48 PM, LimpyLoo said:

haha sexual

You misspelled homo.

 

haha sexual

  On 12/9/2013 at 8:50 PM, LimpyLoo said:

  On 12/9/2013 at 8:30 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 12/9/2013 at 7:48 PM, LimpyLoo said:

haha sexual

You misspelled homo.

 

haha sexual

#richieballs

what do you guys make of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGI4jfwOmOk

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275258/Phillip-Marshall-Former-airline-pilot-conspiracy-theorist-shot-dead-teenage-children-dog-turning-gun-himself.html

didnt know about this.

What's in the video? I read Lindauer's book, it was interesting but also revealed that she didn't know any specifics about how 9/11 was actually executed.

  On 1/6/2014 at 2:55 AM, Pennywise said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275258/Phillip-Marshall-Former-airline-pilot-conspiracy-theorist-shot-dead-teenage-children-dog-turning-gun-himself.html

 

didnt know about this.

That is weird. The confounding thing is that live in a world where both a) corrupt governments assassinate people, and b) people with mental health issues are drawn to conspiracy theories.

  On 1/6/2014 at 2:20 AM, Pennywise said:

what do you guys make of this?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGI4jfwOmOk

Is there any corroboration that she was involved with the CIA? While it could be a gov't smear campaign, it appears she has a history of mental health issues.

But anyway, I'll check out the video in an hour or so.