Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on December 08, 2006, 08:21:38 AM
-
Please define "Conspiracy Theory".
Is a conspiracy theory "something the govt says, that some people disagree with"?
If so, when Bush said we were winning in Iraq a month ago, was that a conspiracy theory?
Is a conspiracy theory "something that only a few people believe"?
A majority of Americans believe JFK was killed by a group other than Oswald.
Is it just "something different from what the govt says"?
Declassified documents show that all administrations lie very frequently about events to serve their agendas. It's declassified 40 or 60 years later when everyone is dead and no one cares.
So what is your definition, and please, since this will steer so much of this new board, don't be the assclown douchehat that starts slamming.
-
CT= Something that invovles 2 or more people who deliberatly do something that affects or changes and or is not what is or included in the "official" story.
-
By definintion, 9/11 should be labeled a conspiracy because those 19 men conspired together.
The fact that our good friend in the paki intelligence sent 100,000 to Atta a few days before the attack suddenly shows two GROUPS. this would def show a conspiracy.
The fact that the paki General's name was removed from all testinomy by the white house could show a conspiracy between the two nations.
I hear "Let's not hear 240's conspiracy theories" but I don't think the people who say that even know what a conspiracy is. They know to say that line and sing twilight zone music, but I am not sure they can even define what they're saying.
-
CT= Something that invovles 2 or more people who deliberatly do something that affects or changes and or is not what is or included in the "official" story.
and that hasn't been proved. That's the "theory" part.
-
and that hasn't been proved. That's the "theory" part.
This is true. I was just writing from the hip ;D
-
This is true. I was just writing from the hip ;D
I do that in like every post. ;D
-
CT = This board ;D!!
-
and that hasn't been proved. That's the "theory" part.
Has the 911 Official Story been "proven"?
Since they haven't told us how building #7 fell, is quesitoning how that fell currently, NOT a conspiracy theory? I mean, they told us nothing.
how about JFK? They absolutely never PROVED that JFK was killed by Oswald. Hell, a great deal of evidence points at quite the opposite. Plus, congress admitted in the late 70s that it was most likely a group effort. Plus, Pres Ford admitted to falsifying JFK's autopsy records.
Since even the govt tells us the official story on JFK has been disproven (official story said bullet hole in different spot than Ford wrote it, to intentionally mislead), doesn't this mean it is NO LONGER a conspiracy theory?
Kinda hard to define a conspiracy theory, isn't it? 80% of Americans believe JFK was killed by a group, congress admitted it was most likely, and a US Prez actually doctored autopsy results. The official story has been trounced. How can people who doubt oswald did it alone still be called conspiracy theorists? Hell, they've been proven correct by the govt itself! lol...
-
Has the 911 Official Story been "proven"?
Since they haven't told us how building #7 fell, is quesitoning how that fell currently, NOT a conspiracy theory? I mean, they told us nothing.
how about JFK? They absolutely never PROVED that JFK was killed by Oswald. Hell, a great deal of evidence points at quite the opposite. Plus, congress admitted in the late 70s that it was most likely a group effort. Plus, Pres Ford admitted to falsifying JFK's autopsy records.
Since even the govt tells us the official story on JFK has been disproven (official story said bullet hole in different spot than Ford wrote it, to intentionally mislead), doesn't this mean it is NO LONGER a conspiracy theory?
Kinda hard to define a conspiracy theory, isn't it? 80% of Americans believe JFK was killed by a group, congress admitted it was most likely, and a US Prez actually doctored autopsy results. The official story has been trounced. How can people who doubt oswald did it alone still be called conspiracy theorists? Hell, they've been proven correct by the govt itself! lol...
Yes the JFK conspiracy theory is still just that.
I'm open to conspiracy theories, I just tend to believe things are much simpler than you make them out to be. I've had discussions with conspiracy theorists and those who I've encountered tend to be pretty similar to you: they don't just have one conspiracy theory they focus on; they believe in lots of them.
I believe in the conspiracies of silence that are part of some professions, e.g., the "blue code" with cops and in the medical community. Our government has lied in the past to cover up misdeeds, e.g., Agent Orange, the Philadelphia Experiment. But the massive, international, intergovernmental, media, intergalactic, etc. conspiracies simply don't make any sense.
-
Yes the JFK conspiracy theory is still just that.
I'm open to conspiracy theories, I just tend to believe things are much simpler than you make them out to be. I've had discussions with conspiracy theorists and those who I've encountered tend to be pretty similar to you: they don't just have one conspiracy theory they focus on; they believe in lots of them.
I believe in the conspiracies of silence that are part of some professions, e.g., the "blue code" with cops and in the medical community. Our government has lied in the past to cover up misdeeds, e.g., Agent Orange, the Philadelphia Experiment. But the massive, international, intergovernmental, media, intergalactic, etc. conspiracies simply don't make any sense.
What you did here is defend the official JFK position, attack other people you've met, and justified crimes by those in office. That's cool if you feel that way, but you still haven't answered the question this thread asked:
BB, can you please clearly define "conspiracy theory"?
-
What you did here is defend the official JFK position, attack other people you've met, and justified crimes by those in office. That's cool if you feel that way, but you still haven't answered the question this thread asked:
BB, can you please clearly define "conspiracy theory"?
See Ozmo's previous post and my response to his post.
-
See Ozmo's previous post and my response to his post.
You agreed with his method of shoting from the hip?? Way to blur a potentially good thread with obscufication of the issue, repeated references to yourself, and stilll no direct definition by you. Exactly what I expected from you.
-
You agreed with his method of shoting from the hip?? Way to blur a potentially good thread with obscufication of the issue, repeated references to yourself, and stilll no direct definition by you. Exactly what I expected from you.
???
::)
-
This is a political board, about political topics, for those bold enough to express their opinions and intelligently argue their positions using facts, history, and theory.
This is not a place for you to vicariously live through the courage of others, then playfully roll your eyes whenever you're confronted with a serious, direct question.
Face facts. You're in your mid-to-late 40s. You've lived thru many events in history. You probably watched on tv when Congress declared there was a conspiracy in the JFK case. you've seen the birth of Al-Quida and the Iran hostage and contra lies and deceptions.
For you to mock those with the courage to speak on it is offensive. Most men your age have the moral integrity to be honest about what they've seen, or at the very least possess the audacity to NOT mock someone 15 years younger with the balls you don't have. Everytime you roll your eyes, you show yourself to be a low-grade American.
-
This is a political board, about political topics, for those bold enough to express their opinions and intelligently argue their positions using facts, history, and theory.
This is not a place for you to vicariously live through the courage of others, then playfully roll your eyes whenever you're confronted with a serious, direct question.
Face facts. You're in your mid-to-late 40s. You've lived thru many events in history. You probably watched on tv when Congress declared there was a conspiracy in the JFK case. you've seen the birth of Al-Quida and the Iran hostage and contra lies and deceptions.
For you to mock those with the courage to speak on it is offensive. Most men your age have the moral integrity to be honest about what they've seen, or at the very least possess the audacity to NOT mock someone 15 years younger with the balls you don't have. Everytime you roll your eyes, you show yourself to be a low-grade American.
::)
-
no one here can define it, because you can disprove that definition. it's a phrase used to discredit people.
and it's about damn time this board came around.
-
Hello all,
A political board. I love it!
Great job in explaining and defining your postion on the political climate 240.
I may agree or disagree with some of your points, but you do come across concisely.
Sandra
-
240,
Conspiracy theory is just a deep analyzation of thinking. Some people scoff at it, some people don't. But what's wrong with investigating and asking questions?
-
A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
Hope this helps
-
Which would you consider to be a more reliable source.
1) Donald Rumsfeld, or
2) A thorough investigation by a team of scientists, federal investigators, and others?
For the 9/11 Pentagon attacks, reporters hounded Rumsfeld for days with "Where is the plane? We see no plane". HIS WORD is all we have to believe a plane hit there. If you trust him to be honest, that's cool. I don't. I would prefer a full investigation. I find it weird that ANYONE would trust the word of any one man over a thorough investigation.
-
A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
Hope this helps
I agree with this too.
-
Which would you consider to be a more reliable source.
1) Donald Rumsfeld, or
2) A thorough investigation by a team of scientists, federal investigators, and others?
For the 9/11 Pentagon attacks, reporters hounded Rumsfeld for days with "Where is the plane? We see no plane". HIS WORD is all we have to believe a plane hit there. If you trust him to be honest, that's cool. I don't. I would prefer a full investigation. I find it weird that ANYONE would trust the word of any one man over a thorough investigation.
obviously the latter is more reliable. I don;t understand...are you inferring no one saw the plane hit the pentagon? or that an investigation found no evidence of a plane hitting the building? what do you mean
-
obviously the latter is more reliable. I don;t understand...are you inferring no one saw the plane hit the pentagon? or that an investigation found no evidence of a plane hitting the building? what do you mean
There were witness statements which said both things - some got a crystal clear description of the jet - even somehow describing the terrified faces of passengers (of a plane travelling 500 mph, eh?). But there were dozens of people who saw a very small plane or glider. Eyewitness testimony is VERY unreliable here - because it happened quickly, people like to be involved as witnesses, and if it was shady at any level, you don't know who is just plain lying. And it's very possible there was a big plane (AWACS filmed afterwards) with a small glider JDAM head globalhawk glider floating under it.
Now VIDEOTAPED evidence could answer every question very easily. There were about 80 cameras (which could be spotted) which would have recorded the impact. This kind of evidence is irrefutable, and undeniable. Yet they won't release any of it. You get 9 fiery frames, and that was only released because the French was releasing a book called "The big Lie". yes, they *found* those frames just in time.
The evidence at the plane crash - physical evidence - was very lacking. I mean, it could have been put there by a pickup truck - that is how little remained. it's mcuh easier to plant 500 pounds of debris, than it is to make 125 TONS of steel, engines, etc, DISAPPEAR.
We know something hit. But the lack pf plane debris, all removed camera angles, and multiple conflicting statements are certainly not even NEAR conclusive. If anyone but a govt person tried selling this story, no one would believe it. But since we're conditioned to trust those in power, we don't even quesiton which is actually a story lacking any real evidence.
-
Even the journalists reported a helicopter that morning.
It climbed and fired then landed.
They had the white B2 full of operators do the flyover.
Then they had the explosion.
Then they lied to America and you suckers bought it.
You wanted them, you got them. Then you re-elected them. Dumb shits.
-
that whole pentagon mess is a clusterfuck.
all the clocks stopped at 9:32 AM. What was that? I give up. taking a break from this shit.
-
wouldnt it be much easier for whomever was behind it to just crash a plane into it, just like the twin towers? or were they making it as complicated as possible to make it harder for the general public to listen to CT'ers?
-
wouldnt it be much easier for whomever was behind it to just crash a plane into it, just like the twin towers? or were they making it as complicated as possible to make it harder for the general public to listen to CT'ers?
Cavalier,
The plane angle is nearly impossible, even for a computer to achieve. The Flight Data Recorder tells us the plane only dropped as low as 180 feet. it's never been explained why it didn't say "2 feet" like the 911 COmmission report says.
I like science. Show us a flight data recorder that says 180 feet, then tell us the plane was 18 inches off the Earth? Huh?
Show us the approach path at 530 mph, and tell us that even though it was just 3 feet above cars on the highway, none of them were flipped over by the incredibly huge jet engines at full blast? Huh?
Facts are facts. One real piece of evidence - video, or debris, would sell it. Instead, we get "witness statements", many of which happen to be people employed by USA today at strategic locations - i mean, they all had identical stories including same keywords, stationed at one-block intervals, it's almost comical how that one worked out.
Show us some evidence. The FDR box says 180 feet at impact. Huh?