Conspiracy Theories

closet.cult said:

the same THEY as always.

the wealthy, industrial, capitalist scum fucks who rule the nation. THEY are one starting all the conspiracy theories to keep the conspiracy lovings nut jobs busy on fake facts instead of real ones.

Click to expand...

That is no better than the theories of the conspiracy theorists.

suicidesamurai said:

That is no better than the theories of the conspiracy theorists.

Click to expand...

that's my point!!! this one, that one and the other are all unprovable, waste of time. it's a step up from gossip. my idea is the the wealthy know they will be gossiped about and they simply plant the gossip to keep small minds busy and out of the real stories.

this idea is stupid, unprovable and a waste of time to pursue. ...just like all the other conspiracy theories.

if any of them are true, how would you really know?

Erniedytn said:

MARIJUANA is DANGEROUS. Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind. Marijuana does NOT pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations. Various big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people.

Read more here:Marijuana Conspiracy - by Dough Yurchey

Click to expand...

great read. i've read all this before but it's well written. i agree with one thing he said:

"The world is crazy...but that does not mean you have to join the insanity. Get together. Spread the news. Tell people, and that includes your children, the truth. Use hemp products. Eliminate the word 'marijuana.' Realize the history that created it. Make it politically incorrect to say or print the M-word. Fight against the propaganda (designed to favor the agenda of the super rich) and the bullshit. Hemp must be utilized in the future. We need a clean energy source to save our planet. INDUSTRIALIZE HEMP!"

hemp or cannabis is the legit word for me, and weed or pot is the slang. i've never really used the word marijuana anyway. using the M word was the tactic that helped get hemp prohibited.

closet.cult said:

how would you really know?

Click to expand...

I say this in reference to 9/11 only.....open your eyes, use common sense, look at the evidence.

Erniedytn said:

I say this in reference to 9/11 only.....open your eyes, use common sense, look at the evidence.

Click to expand...

I would suggest with 9/11 conspiracies that you take a shave with Occam's razor.

suicidesamurai said:

I would suggest with 9/11 conspiracies that you take a shave with Occam's razor.

Click to expand...

OK so I Googled this to find out WTF you are talking about and it says:

Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"):
“entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,”
which translates to:
“entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.”
This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity in scientific theories.

Click to expand...

This statement only further solidifies the claim it was an inside job:

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities.

Click to expand...

Now which is more probable...30 arabs clearing security at an airport with boxcutters in their pockets, hijacking these planes, being intelligent enough to actually pull something like this off, then flying these planes into the WTC and the Pentagon (of where no wreckage was found)

OR

The warmonger government doing the shit for an excuse to invade countries with heavy ties to oil supplies and oil routes?


HMMMMMMMM............

how about the last two elections? no fucking way that idiot bush won.

Erniedytn said:

OK so I Googled this to find out WTF you are talking about and it says:



This statement only further solidifies the claim it was an inside job:



Now which is more probable...30 arabs clearing security at an airport with boxcutters in their pockets, hijacking these planes, being intelligent enough to actually pull something like this off, then flying these planes into the WTC and the Pentagon (of where no wreckage was found)

OR

The warmonger government doing the shit for an excuse to invade countries with heavy ties to oil supplies and oil routes?


HMMMMMMMM............

Click to expand...

Food for thought aint it? the reality is scary and unbelievable, but plenty believe in Jesus and the Bible. Good post mate.

Erniedytn said:

OK so I Googled this to find out WTF you are talking about and it says:



This statement only further solidifies the claim it was an inside job:



Now which is more probable...30 arabs clearing security at an airport with boxcutters in their pockets, hijacking these planes, being intelligent enough to actually pull something like this off, then flying these planes into the WTC and the Pentagon (of where no wreckage was found)

OR

The warmonger government doing the shit for an excuse to invade countries with heavy ties to oil supplies and oil routes?


HMMMMMMMM............

Click to expand...

I'm sure they were rather intelligent since most of them were college graduates. Many planes have been hijacked in the past 30 years, and almost always by terrorists. It is far more plausible than the government orchestrating the largest conspiracy in history.

Read this again:

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities.

Click to expand...

I don't see how you could suggest it backs your theory. It does the opposite. With the "official story" about 9/11, assumptions don't need to be made, and there are few if any hypothetical entities. Your theory is almost entirely based on assumptions and hypothetical entities.

Here is some wreckage at the Pentagon. Was it planted there?

There is only one true conspiracy, and it is written about in George Orwell's 1984.

The reason the governments do not like weed is because we are unreceptive to their subliminal messages that we are bombarded with through the media. They seek to control us. we were fine before they realised that our views were catching. In other words, ordinary people (meaning non-stoners, sorry about that, lol) open their ears to us as we inform of the true messages in the world.

In my country at the moment the media have people believing that one toke of a 'super-skunk' spliff and you'll develop some type of psychiatric problem. Trouble is, the majority of ignorant fucks out there take all this in, take it as fact.

They're trying to make anything above 8% thc a class A drug. I'm a revolutionist, given the right set of circumstances, and I'd join the fight. These fucks are starting to take the piss.

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities.

Click to expand...

The red part is where it backs up my theory.

suicidesamurai said:

I don't see how you could suggest it backs your theory. It does the opposite. With the "official story" about 9/11, assumptions don't need to be made, and there are few if any hypothetical entities. Your theory is almost entirely based on assumptions and hypothetical entities.

Here is some wreckage at the Pentagon. Was it planted there?

Click to expand...

I've highlighted the part where you hang yourself. You take what the government and media tell you as fact.....that's why you don't think they do any wrong.

And as far as that picture of the "wreckage" goes....gimme a break man, if that piece of metal came from a plane that had just smashed into the Pentagon, why does it look like I just cut it out of a scrapped plane with a set of metal snips...all shiny and new? There are obvious tool marks on that piece of metal. Where are the burn marks and scrapes in the paint? If that did come from the plane that hit the Pentagon, where are the others like it?

Erniedytn said:

The red part is where it backs up my theory.

Click to expand...

Your theory needs many assumptions. So I don't know what you mean.

Erniedytn said:

I've highlighted the part where you hang yourself. You take what the government and media tell you as fact.....that's why you don't think they do any wrong.

Click to expand...

I'd appreciate it if you would stop misinterpreting my views. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I'm "one of them". There are plenty of people and organizations not associated with the government or MSM that have taken on the (simple) task of refuting conspiracies related to 9/11.

Erniedytn said:

And as far as that picture of the "wreckage" goes....gimme a break man, if that piece of metal came from a plane that had just smashed into the Pentagon, why does it look like I just cut it out of a scrapped plane with a set of metal snips...all shiny and new? There are obvious tool marks on that piece of metal. Where are the burn marks and scrapes in the paint? If that did come from the plane that hit the Pentagon, where are the others like it?

Click to expand...

You couldn't determine whether or not there are "tool marks" on the object without observing it in person. Perhaps the reason it looks like it was cut with metal snips is because with explosions involving metal it rips apart and is left with jagged edges. Surely they would have the means to simply blow up a plane and use that material. I don't know what kind of distinguishing marks a piece of metal that has been in such an incident would have, but I'm sure it wouldn't have "burn marks" since you can't burn metal like you can a piece of wood. What I do know is that if the government were to plant evidence of a plane crash there, they would certainly know what it would look like, and make the pieces of metal look the way they needed to in order to fool everyone. It's amazing how people such as yourself blame the government for undertaking extraordinary conspiracies that require large amounts of planning and precision yet when something as simple as this is presented, you say they are evidently so retarded that they wouldn't know how to properly disguise evidence to look like it is what they say it is. Instead of addressing it and adding it to your mass of information to determine the truth, you manipulate it to conform to your preconceived notion of what happened.

suicidesamurai said:

Your theory needs many assumptions. So I don't know what you mean.

Click to expand...

So does the explanation of what "really happened".

suicidesamurai said:

You couldn't determine whether or not there are "tool marks" on the object without observing it in person. Perhaps the reason it looks like it was cut with metal snips is because with explosions involving metal it rips apart and is left with jagged edges. Surely they would have the means to simply blow up a plane and use that material. I don't know what kind of distinguishing marks a piece of metal that has been in such an incident would have, but I'm sure it wouldn't have "burn marks" since you can't burn metal like you can a piece of wood.

Click to expand...

I'm not blind and I know what a piece of metal looks like after it has been cut. If that shit was in an explosion it would be black...just because metal doesn't burn doesn't mean it doesn't discolor. Give it up man, you'll never convince me that the government didn't do that shit, and I could care less what you or anyone else thinks

The Lizard race rules our planet.
Tupac is alive and well (makaveli/machiavelli).


I came here to talk about conspiracy theories (no matter how ridiculous some of them may be in other people's eyes) because they're sort of fun to think about and discuss with other people and the thread went all annoying because one person disagreed with somebody's point of view. Mature.

Erniedytn said:

So does the explanation of what "really happened".

Click to expand...

Really? Like what?

Erniedytn said:

I'm not blind and I know what a piece of metal looks like after it has been cut. If that shit was in an explosion it would be black...just because metal doesn't burn doesn't mean it doesn't discolor. Give it up man, you'll never convince me that the government didn't do that shit, and I could care less what you or anyone else thinks

Click to expand...

You've seen many downed planes in your life, have you? My neighbor used to be a rescue diver, he has seen much crash debris in his life. I'll ask him if it all turns black. If you expose metal to high heat and fire for some time, it will stain black with residue. But of course if that piece was where it was, it obviously was taken there by the force of the crash when it broke off and was not exposed to the heat and fire.

Is it your contention that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, right?

suicidesamurai said:

Is it your contention that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, right?

Click to expand...

That is correct

professavanessa said:

The Lizard race rules our planet.
Tupac is alive and well (makaveli/machiavelli).


I came here to talk about conspiracy theories (no matter how ridiculous some of them may be in other people's eyes) because they're sort of fun to think about and discuss with other people and the thread went all annoying because one person disagreed with somebody's point of view. Mature.

Click to expand...

Good...someone new...welcome

professavanessa said:

The Lizard race rules our planet.
Tupac is alive and well (makaveli/machiavelli).


I came here to talk about conspiracy theories (no matter how ridiculous some of them may be in other people's eyes) because they're sort of fun to think about and discuss with other people and the thread went all annoying because one person disagreed with somebody's point of view. Mature.

Click to expand...

talk about them then, instead of whinging like a little girl. And that doesn't mean flying like a bird.

suicidesamurai said:

Really? Like what?




You've seen many downed planes in your life, have you? My neighbor used to be a rescue diver, he has seen much crash debris in his life. I'll ask him if it all turns black. If you expose metal to high heat and fire for some time, it will stain black with residue. But of course if that piece was where it was, it obviously was taken there by the force of the crash when it broke off and was not exposed to the heat and fire.

Is it your contention that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, right?

Click to expand...

This is actually the only conspiracy I believe in. I'm not saying that what happened didn't happen. I know that in all likelyhood everything happened as they said it did. What I'm saying is that 'they' allowed it to happen. They may have even set it up.

Think about it, terrorists are notoriously hard to catch. A clever country would set up it's own terrorist organisation. Maybe a big country could organise and run the biggest terror group in the world. This is how we know their every move, land on them whenever we want to. We run the show.

Our Governments use fear to control us. Make us believe that harsher security measures are needed. We live in a virtual police state at the moment, yet everyone is so scared that they're blinded to what is really going on. CONTROL.

This is also why they're coming down hard on cannabis in my country at the moment. Smoking weed frees the mind, our minds are harder to close down.

Don't let them win. The New World Order is where the majority of mankind become robots.

skunkushybrid said:

This is actually the only conspiracy I believe in. I'm not saying that what happened didn't happen. I know that in all likelyhood everything happened as they said it did. What I'm saying is that 'they' allowed it to happen. They may have even set it up.

Think about it, terrorists are notoriously hard to catch. A clever country would set up it's own terrorist organisation. Maybe a big country could organise and run the biggest terror group in the world. This is how we know their every move, land on them whenever we want to. We run the show.

Our Governments use fear to control us. Make us believe that harsher security measures are needed. We live in a virtual police state at the moment, yet everyone is so scared that they're blinded to what is really going on. CONTROL.

This is also why they're coming down hard on cannabis in my country at the moment. Smoking weed frees the mind, our minds are harder to close down.

Don't let them win. The New World Order is where the majority of mankind become robots.

Click to expand...

I have yet to read it myself, but that is a strategy that is spoken of in the ancient book Art Of War. Is says something along the lines of... If you know your going to be attacked, you let it happen, even facilitate it. That way you gain the support out of your frightened ppl to do whatever you want.

mexiblunt said:

I have yet to read it myself, but that is a strategy that is spoken of in the ancient book Art Of War. Is says something along the lines of... If you know your going to be attacked, you let it happen, even facilitate it. That way you gain the support out of your frightened ppl to do whatever you want.

Click to expand...

It is our duty to read all great books. I have yet to read it myself yet. Thanks for reminding me.