Rise of the conspiracy theorists?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 40035
  • Start date
Horace Cope said:
Jet fuel can't melt steal beams. You could ask anyone on this disc and they'd tell you that basic fact
Click to expand...

True. Fortunately that wasn't the reason given. Part of the core of the building blown out, weakening the structure. Then aluminum exposed to ridiculous temperatures (research it) doing the rest.

Edit. Disc LOL
 
Last edited:


Its going to be difficult to keep this thread on topic - I'd rather we don't all start arguing about different theories.
 
niceonemarra said:
What do you think about 9/11 as maths and science suggest the official story isn’t truthful. I’ve seen a few others where maths and science debunk what is reported in the media. I’m not trying to push the conspiracy agenda or argue about what’s true and what isn’t I’d just like to know your thoughts on the subject.
Click to expand...

Some CT are spot in IMO e.g 9/11

However that flat earth bollocks is just stupid.

Even if it was true why would they hide it? What would be the point?

Are all sailors in on it too?

All pilots?

Every space agency around the globe in on it?

Why do they even bother having satellites on the other side of the earth working together if it's flat?

Canny waste of money if it's all bollocks...
 
BigPeter said:
Some CT are spot in IMO e.g 9/11

However that flat earth bollocks is just stupid.

Even if it was true why would they hide it? What would be the point?

Are all sailors in on it too?

All pilots?

Every space agency around the globe in on it?

Why do they even bother having satellites on the other side of the earth working together if it's flat?

Canny waste of money if it's all bollocks...
Click to expand...
I'd like to know which clown shoe actually thought up the flat earth theory, there's flat earthers everywhere these days and yes they actually believe it and don't mind telling everyone. Its no joke either. How did that happen all of a sudden? 20 years ago they didn't exist at all as far as I'm aware.
 
niceonemarra said:
I'd like to know which clown shoe actually thought up the flat earth theory, there's flat earthers everywhere these days and yes they actually believe it and don't mind telling everyone. Its no joke either. How did that happen all of a sudden? 20 years ago they didn't exist at all as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...
Most people were flat earthers centuries ago, I think a Monk even got burnt at the stake in this country for suggesting the world was round, if I remember rightly?
 
tunstall birdman said:
Most people were flat earthers centuries ago, I think a Monk even got burnt at the stake in this country for suggesting the world was round, if I remember rightly?
Click to expand...
I've heard that story but not sure if its true. I've also heard it was a myth that flat earthers existed all them years ago.
 
niceonemarra said:
I'd like to know which clown shoe actually thought up the flat earth theory, there's flat earthers everywhere these days and yes they actually believe it and don't mind telling everyone. Its no joke either. How did that happen all of a sudden? 20 years ago they didn't exist at all as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...

I always thought flat earthers were just people trying to make CTs look like idiots and to discredit them...

Now you actually get people who believe that shite :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
BigPeter said:
I always thought flat earthers were just people trying to make CTs look like idiots and to discredit them...

Now you actually get people who believe that shite :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...
Yes they absolutely 100% believe it. I thought it was just a big joke too marra at first.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Not entirely sure what exact shape it is. I'd say a sort of cell we live inside of, not outside of, such as a spinning ball in a nothingness. It makes zero logical sense.
However there's a topic in parsnip on this where I expand a bit further.
If that's how you want to read into it then there's little I can do about that. Just remember I included myself in what I said.

I don't claim anything against you. I don't even know you.
I'm saying that people can accept a story as a truth when they don't know the real truth of it.
If you say you know something for a fact then that's your mindset on what you personally know or believe you know as your truth.
If you can physically prove what you know in all aspects then you will feel you have enough ammo to blow any conspiracy theorist out of the water if they question what you know to be a fact.

But what you have to remember is, people have to take your word for it based on nothing other than face value, as it stands.

I don't think it's belittling at all. It's questioning and being sceptical.
You saying the heavens are there to be studied by all is fine for you. You say the maths works....but for what? What are you seeing that you can be sure is what is a reality in those heavens you observe?

You might take this as me having a go but from my side I simply do not believe what we see is what we're told. You do and that's fine by me.
You were given the maths and you were given all the explanations for what you see in the night sky and you accept them. I simply don't. whether I'm a nut for doing so or I'm backward or merely a contrarian to some people...it's my thoughts.
Some people likely despise me for having them and some will be wondering or intrigued. It's the nature of the beast to be fair.

Of course I can. I absolutely get it.
One persons truth can be another persons lie.
It's all about knowing what the truth is, physically as it is to know what a lie is and also to try and decipher the truth of any lie.

Debates start because people cannot show physical truths. It's a reliance on verbal understanding from each persons point of view.
A debate can only be shut down by plain reality showing.
This applies to everything.

In terms of conspiracies, let's take the JFK assassination.
Conspiracies abound.
Was he really assassinated?
Was he assassinated with an ice bullet?
Was he assassinated from the grassy knoll?
Was he assassinated from under a roadside kerb drain.
Was he assassinated by the driver of his car or someone in that car?
And of course, was he assassinated from the book depository by Oswald?

And so on.

Which one is correct?
Does anyone know the correct answer?

Now here's the key.
Ask most people who understand the assassination, who killed JFK and the likely answer will be Lee Harvey Oswald.
But is that the correct answer and should everything else just shut up or keep it to themselves if they believe something else was going on?

Is anyone who puts forward another possibility, a conspiracy nutcase?
Is it not just as easy for that person who is called the nutcase to simply react with, " well you're a sheep".......?

We all think we know the reality of a lot of things without actually knowing that to be a truth. It's basically an accepted truth....but without physical proof to rubber stamp it, it's up for debate and will be debated by all kinds of minds,from the sublime to the utter perceived ridiculous...but even the perceived ridiculous could potentially be the truth.
Yep, we've seen it all with all kinds of stuff from cornflakes giving you cancer to eggs causing salmonella to stress causing ulcers and drinking 2 or 3 beers a day can actually help you combat this or that or wine is good for you then it's bad and now beer is bad and a fried breakfast is now a death sentence on a plate and even formulas to make the best toast and tea and every other study, it seems.
And then we have theoretical scientists/physicists/astrophysicists that come up with all kinds of stuff that none of us can verify but yet we accept them.....Why?
Because it's simply just easier to do that and get on with what we do in life. Work, eat, drink and do not question authority.
The saying " you're paid to work not to think."
And then you have the few that are literally paid to think.


In that context that's fair enough but then again people are more than willing to accept that water in oceans and rivers, lakes and seas just curve around a ball and stay put.
Now that is not logical, at all.
Physical observation can easily show it's not logical.
However, we go back to the studies of earlier. The accepted studies by so called scientists of today and yesteryear telling us the reason for it is, gravity.
People them walk away and say " ahhh it's gravity, I knew there would be a good reason as to why these massive bodies of water stick to a spinning ball."
Then someone comes along as shows observable, testable and repeatable experiments to show that water doesn't stay on a ball and even worse when the ball is spinning.

Then the argument becomes more intense when someone is asked to prove gravity or even explain what it actually is.
Nobody knows what it is but most know what it's supposed to do in a way...but not why it works.

When someone spins a ball with water on and it flies off all over the place, those who believe it sticks to a spinning earth will generally use arguments like " yes but earth takes 24 hours to spin once on its axis so try turning that ball real slow over 24 hours and see what happens."

But then, in another argument will tell you the earth bulges because it spins so fast and that's why it's fatter at the equator than it is at the poles....and so on and so on.

Totally contradicting all the time because what supposedly fits for a spinning globe, does not make sense, logically but is accepted en masse because that's the way we were taught.
It becomes our sort of religion in a way or our lifetime sort of belief in a real santa where our logical minds may question if it's real but mass indoctrination and peer pressure ensures very few get to exercise that thought, because they know it's sort of, taboo. It carries a stigma and that stigma is generally generated by schools to colleges to universities alongside mainstream media.
Click to expand...
Word salad. Total word salad interspersed with non-facts.
 
niceonemarra said:
What do you think about 9/11 as maths and science suggest the official story isn’t truthful. I’ve seen a few others where maths and science debunk what is reported in the media. I’m not trying to push the conspiracy agenda or argue about what’s true and what isn’t I’d just like to know your thoughts on the subject.
Click to expand...
No idea, I have not read much into the conspiracy theories on that. Does the maths and science really debunk it? Has that been reported from a reliable source?

There is the question of motivation. It is 100% clear that two planes flew into the two towers, so I assume the conspiracy is about how they collapsed? If it were an inside job, how and why would they have flown two planes into the towers and then performed a pre-planned controlled explosion to finish them off? It seems an odd an elaborate thing just for reasons.
 
dangermows said:
True. Fortunately that wasn't the reason given. Part of the core of the building blown out, weakening the structure. Then aluminum exposed to ridiculous temperatures (research it) doing the rest.

Edit. Disc LOL
Click to expand...
This is new.
 
DaveH said:
I suppose there is a point there, for example I have not measured the mass of other planets. You can prove the maths from first principals but there is a level of trust on the raw data. For this particular case (and I have been trying not to make things specific so sorry for this example), you can get to a point where you say, the maths works, observational evidence backs up the standard model of the solar system, simulations using the accepted mass of planets matches observational data, so you either accept that is most likely the data you used is correct or....

you go down the conspiracy route and not just doubt the data, but doubt the entire model of the solar system and our place in it, coming up with something completely different that does not have the maths to back it up, that can not be simulated and does not match observational evidence. In my experience, the 'alternate' model by 'free thinkers who have broken their conditioning' ends up being incredibly complex to make it work. So complex you can't usually draw a diagram of how it works, where as a 7 year old can do a sketch of the solar system.

To me that is the crux of it and why I really don't understand the conspiracy theorists. I love learning and love to know how things work, and really like the maths and physics behind that. The process of this learning does throw up questions that I don't know the answer to but most things stand up to scrutiny. Conspiracy theorists come up with things that you can't just poke little holes in or say there is a gap here, they are usually something batshit crazy where there is a massive gulf in what they propose and reality. It is often difficult to find any common ground and when you question the answer usually is "I guess I'm just that level above you as you are just following what you are told, it took years for me to break free but now I know the truth and you are still following lies like a good sheep" - basically the smug attack with no basis. They come across as very needy.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, all conspiracy theorists tend to get lumped into one band in the same manner.
It's swings and roundabouts on this stuff.
BigPeter said:
Batshit crazy these flat earthers....

How deep is this flat earth that you go on about then?
Click to expand...
How deep is the global one that we get told about?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Like I said earlier, all conspiracy theorists tend to get lumped into one band in the same manner.
It's swings and roundabouts on this stuff.

How deep is the global one that we get told about?
Click to expand...
12,742km on average, not taking into account starting on mountains etc.
 
DaveH said:
No idea, I have not read much into the conspiracy theories on that. Does the maths and science really debunk it? Has that been reported from a reliable source?

There is the question of motivation. It is 100% clear that two planes flew into the two towers, so I assume the conspiracy is about how they collapsed? If it were an inside job, how and why would they have flown two planes into the towers and then performed a pre-planned controlled explosion to finish them off? It seems an odd an elaborate thing just for reasons.
Click to expand...
I couldn't possibly tell you mate you will have to see for yourself if you're really that bothered and make your own mind up.
DaveH said:
12,742km on average, not taking into account starting on mountains etc.
Click to expand...
🌍
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Back
Top