Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Conspiracy Theories


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#35 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1414 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 03:43 AM

Do any of your previous links deal with many Americans bowing to authority figures? It seems that if it's a General saying something, it must be true.

 

You asked: "Would people in the USA think that their government or secret services would deliberately promote a terrorist organisation and then allow a terrorist attack by said terrorists in the USA and then cover up any links. Or even if a president was doing something the security services or "cabal" disapproved of would have the President shot by a single magic bullet 3 times."

 

It's a double barreled or triple barreled question that I can't answer. I'll take a stab at answered the first barrel.

 

No,  the American people wouldn't promote a terrorist organisation. It's more likely they would be thinking of how much beef they're getting on their Bigmacs. Or maybe wondering where Loblaws hides the machines that make all that beef?

 

From a Canadian POV, the US government would use the 911 revenge attacks to promote a war with Iraq, and then get caught doing it.

 

In my experience in America people do bow down to people with uniforms, and do as they are told. People in uniforms are not used to people disbelieving them or questioning them, even more amusing is not to do as you are asked!

 

The question was meant to cause a reaction :) 

 

I too dont eat fast food, although I did go into a Mc Donalds in america for a drink. Is that stuff even edible?

 

The average person in any country in the world do not promote terrorist activity. To harm other people deliberately takes a particular obsession. Obsession and hatred could be placed in the same bag for the sake of this discussion.

 

What motive could a country have for over throwing another countries leadership. I referenced the Iraq war which has a lot of oil, and got no bites. Why would anyone assinate a president of a poorer country with oil. https://www.telesure...90522-0022.html The US and Intelligence agencies and apparently Mossad were implicated in the killing of the Ecuadorian President. The motive could have been someone didnt like his Politics or perhaps wanted to control ecuadors oil. 

 

What self interest could governments or other intelligence agencies have to legitimize messing with other countries internal politics. Do you think it is done altruistically, out of the goodness of their hearts. :) why would Putin have helped Trump get elected :) https://en.wikipedia...tates_elections https://www.nytimes....-democrats.html

 

It seems Trump is trailing in the Popularity polls against almost everyone :) https://projects.fiv...ight.com/polls/



#36 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1414 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 03:50 AM

Posted by @Thoth101 https://www.thelasta...attacking-iraq/ What reason beyond the lies did they have to invade Iraq.



#37 montgomery

montgomery

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 10:51 AM

Flummoxed, you wrote:

 

"The average person in any country in the world do not promote terrorist activity. To harm other people deliberately takes a particular obsession. Obsession and hatred could be placed in the same bag for the sake of this discussion."

 

That would have a lot to do with how you think of and define terrorism. We would have to consider terrorists vs. freedom fighters and also terrorists as in Al Qaida vs. terrorists in uniform who are recognized as an army. From a moral POV there may be no difference. And so the people of America developed a hatred and obsession for the people of the country that was responsible for 911. And the country's people who were responsible for 911 would be rejoicing and cheering as the twin towers came down, because they saw it as a revenge attack. I'm speaking of the 'average' person.

(the parties involved in my explanation are just examples) (the Iraq war and the Iraqi people?)

 

 

 

"

What motive could a country have for over throwing another countries leadership. I referenced the Iraq war which has a lot of oil, and got no bites."

 

I must have missed it because that's something I would have bit on. So in this particular example, I would first suggest that the reason for the first Gulf war on Iraq and the next one  were the same. It simply has everything to do with the world's oil resources. The US moved on Iraq when Russia was weak and before China became a major player. Now the big three (as well as other interested parties) are intent on establishing their control over Iraq's and the ME's oil resources. And what a coincidence that the same is true for Venezuela! It's not about Venezuela's huge fall cabbage crop.

 

 

 

Why would anyone assinate a president of a poorer country with oil. https://www.telesure...90522-0022.html The US and Intelligence agencies and apparently Mossad were implicated in the killing of the Ecuadorian President. The motive could have been someone didnt like his Politics or perhaps wanted to control ecuadors oil.

 

My explanation above answers this question for the Iraq example. Plus, add in the fact that Saddam wasn't cooperative with US interests. 

I sense that you're interested in exploring the question in general and not for any particular country. (if that's wrong then please elaborate)

 

 

 

What self interest could governments or other intelligence agencies have to legitimize messing with other countries internal politics. Do you think it is done altruistically, out of the goodness of their hearts.  :) why would Putin have helped Trump get elected  :) https://en.wikipedia...tates_elections https://www.nytimes....-democrats.html

 

Definitely not altruistically on the part of the US, Russia, or China! Trump is the preferred candidate for president from Putin's POV. Many reasons perhaps but stupidity would be at the top of my list. Although I would say that the US has taken control of Trump now and relegated him to a figurehead on important foreign relations.

 

 

 

It seems Trump is trailing in the Popularity polls against almost everyone  :) https://projects.fiv...ight.com/polls/

 

The latest on the accusation against Russia on the bounties is pretty scary and so from a Canadian POV, I'm not so sure that I (we) want to see Trump defeated. The Dem party is using that to demonize Russia because of Trump's doing business with, colluding with, cooperating with, whatever, with Putin.

They're stirring up the hate for Russia in American heads which is already at a fever pitch. America could be arrogant enough to actually start a hot war with Russia, and Trump's would be less likely to do it.

Of course it's all hype and would be expected of Russia on account of US actions that kill Russia's military personnell. And so for world peace, maybe Trump is the best choice for outsiers' POV?


It seems Trump is trailing in the Popularity polls against almost everyone  :) https://projects.fiv...ight.com/polls/


Edited by montgomery, 29 June 2020 - 10:55 AM.


#38 montgomery

montgomery

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 11:00 AM

Posted by @Thoth101 https://www.thelasta...attacking-iraq/ What reason beyond the lies did they have to invade Iraq.

The link's right on the money! It's interesting that the US tried to do the same thing for a war against Syria. Obama presented his red line speech and Putin and Assad gleefully complied immediately to eliminate all of Syria's chem/bio WMD's. And it was done!

 

Obama was too smart to sell out his country's opportunity for war in my opinion, and so it's my opinion that his red line speech was purposeful. And now Russia is in Syria to stay and can lay claim to Syria. Quite simple really! 


  • Thoth101 likes this

#39 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1414 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 01:52 PM

 

Definitely not altruistically on the part of the US, Russia, or China! Trump is the preferred candidate for president from Putin's POV. Many reasons perhaps but stupidity would be at the top of my list. Although I would say that the US has taken control of Trump now and relegated him to a figurehead on important foreign relations.

 

It seems Trump is trailing in the Popularity polls against almost everyone  :) https://projects.fiv...ight.com/polls/

 

Are you suggesting, they are all trying to build an empire, (make the world england), or fighting over control of the worlds resources, or trying to gain political influence, or all 3. 

 

Most of the developed world needs fuel, and might like to have it a low price. Having the oil producing states in the middleast fighting each other stops them from pulling together and controlling the price of oil. 

China is none expansionist as far as I am aware. They appear to be just interested in trade and political influence, through the likes of the G12

Russia and America are different in that both are prepared to place their armies any where they are able in the world, effectively policing each other. A game of cat and mouse. China does not have a track record of using its military strength outside its own borders, although they do make the odd threat.

 

 

The link's right on the money! It's interesting that the US tried to do the same thing for a war against Syria. Obama presented his red line speech and Putin and Assad gleefully complied immediately to eliminate all of Syria's chem/bio WMD's. And it was done!

 

Obama was too smart to sell out his country's opportunity for war in my opinion, and so it's my opinion that his red line speech was purposeful. And now Russia is in Syria to stay and can lay claim to Syria. Quite simple really! 

 

Why would Trump pull out of Syria, was he tricked by the Russians (or is he under their control) https://www.spectato...syrian-betrayal

Trump is so far behind in the Polls now might the his friends the Russians come to his aid, by giving him some minor victory somewhere in the world to improve his ratings ??  



#40 montgomery

montgomery

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 02:29 PM

Flummoxed, you asked:

Are you suggesting, they are all trying to build an empire, (make the world england), or fighting over control of the worlds resources, or trying to gain political influence, or all 3.

 

I don't know how you or I would see gaining political influence. I would say that they're fighting over the world's resources and particulaly oil. My knowledge of other resources doesn't evtend that far, except for some specific resource that would need to be  proposed.

 

With control over the world's oil resources comes empire. Currently the US is accusing China of the same and rightfully so in my opiniion.

 

Most of the developed world needs fuel, and might like to have it a low price. Having the oil producing states in the middleast fighting each other stops them from pulling together and controlling the price of oil.

 

That could be a point worth mentioning but almost all exaamples have been similar to Iraq in which Saddam nationalized his oil resources and thus gained some control over the flow of oil and the price.

 

 

China is none expansionist as far as I am aware. They appear to be just interested in trade and political influence, through the likes of the G12

 

Yes, but China needs oil and is actively involved in getting it's name on it too. They are the US's biggest competitor and thus the Cold war relations that are developing.

 

Russia and America are different in that both are prepared to place their armies any where they are able in the world, effectively policing each other

 

Russia hasn't exapanded it's occupation of world countries to anywhere near that which the US has. I would suggest that Russia isn't actively on the offense,but is acting defensively.

 

. A game of cat and mouse. China does not have a track record of using its military strength outside its own borders, although they do make the odd threat.

 

So far mostly just in reaction to US expanionism, except for isolated cases such as Tibet which could have been mostly against India's interests.

 

Why would Trump pull out of Syria, was he tricked by the Russians (or is he under their control) https://www.spectato...syrian-betrayal

 

I'll have to look at your link to understand your question. For now I'll just say that the US realized that Syria was lost to Russia and US involvement was being seen by the world as doing nothing but contributing to the violence and civilian deaths.

 

Trump is so far behind in the Polls now might the his friends the Russians come to his aid, by giving him some minor victory somewhere in the world to improve his ratings ??

 

I don't understand what you are suggesting? Maybe you can suggest some minor victory?



#41 montgomery

montgomery

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 02:34 PM

Flummoxed, your link Why would Trump pull out of Syria, was he tricked by the Russians (or is he under their control) https://www.spectato...syrian-betrayal

This is widely seen as a gift to Turkey.

I suspect that Trump didn't make the decison but it was presented that way for some political gain. The US would have made the decision but couldn't be credited with it because of it being a betrayal of the Kurds.



#42 Thoth101

Thoth101

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 11:30 PM

I think there's a problem with the low intelligence conspiracy theorists in that the explanation for why their theory is wrong is too complicated for them to understand.

One conspiracy theorist suggested that the proof for 911 being an inside job is in there being wingtips found from one of the planes. When it was suggested that the wingtips found hadn't contacted the building (s), he was unable to accept that as a logical answer.

Is there another explanation for not being able to accept that answer?

Your explanation for Thoth's behaviour could be another partial answer at least?

 

My remarks aren't meant to lead this discussion into a 911 debate, just to use it as an example.

That is why they are called theories. There is nothing wrong with having theories. In fact most of science is mostly theories. Like I have said before it was the CIA that used propaganda for anybody to ask questions to be labeled a conspiracy theorist. I am not sure why that is so hard for people to understand. That is another conspiracy within itself. Why are people so naïve and gullible when it is "officials" or "experts" telling them the "official" story? That is what is called a "coincidental theorist" when you believe everything the main stream media, governments and officials tell you.

 

The MSM want to make you believe that conspiracy theories harm entities in anyway. The only harm it does is to entities that are actually perpetrating these conspiracies.


Edited by Thoth101, 29 June 2020 - 11:31 PM.


#43 Thoth101

Thoth101

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 11:45 PM

Posted by @Thoth101 https://www.thelasta...attacking-iraq/ What reason beyond the lies did they have to invade Iraq.

There was a whole plan drawn out for taking over the middle east. There are many reasons why and even books written about it. Think about this: How would you get the people to go along with invading other countries? If your nation is attacked the people will go along with anything. It is a very clever psyops in which even Hitler did to his own people to start the war machine moving. The American people were so hungry for revenge that they were willing to go along with anything and invade any country if they get those entitles that knocked over the towers.

 

Then they used very clever propaganda in saying Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. And many other uses of MSM to manipulate the people into war and for being for the wars. And don't forget the biggest boogey man who was actually trained by the CIA in the 1980's in Texas. Oh yes, Bin Laden. Don't you find it peculiar the Bin Laden family was flown out of the US by the Bush administration during 911?
 



#44 Thoth101

Thoth101

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 11:51 PM

 

The Pentagon story was dodgy, passports that survived the inferno which melted the plane debris. I have not heard of suicides of witnesses.

https://www.youtube....h?v=suQitX2GmTU Jump to 6:19, it's quite spooky.

There was also a really good five minute video of an ex US intelligence general saying there's no way it could have been a plane that hit the pentagon, but..."This video has been removed for violating YouTube's policy on hate speech. Learn more about combating hate speech in your country." :)

 

Like I said, dodgy AF. JFK is 100% a cover up, and anyone who thinks it isn't belongs in a looney bin!

 

I see they are starting to label everything hate speech that the MSM don't agree with or is covering up. Total censorship much like China is what many of these social media giants are becoming. The "New Normal". :lol: It's so in front of our faces now though I think people will just discontinue using these platforms and either develop others are use ones that aren't censored.



#45 Thoth101

Thoth101

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 30 June 2020 - 01:11 AM

Even law enforcement agencies need evidence to support their theories in a prosecution, otherwise the result is either not proven (scotish law) or not guilty.

 

Developing a scenario helps us learn, by giving a starting point on a learning curve. When no provable facts support the theory, the theory is nonsense or as you say outlandish, if some but not enough facts exist to support a theory in its entirety it could be said to be not proven. There might even be a smoking gun :)

 

Once questions have been answered, and a theory is shown to have no credible supporting evidence, only someone with a religious nut mentality would persue it.

 

I notice you have not mentioned your suspicions about 5G, or Bill Gates, in your responses. Why not? Did you question your claims then change your mind?

 

As for the bilderberg group you might have a point :)

 

 

 

Really now, I have not poked fun at you (much). I have humored more than most on this forum, against my better judgement.

 

Unbiased research completely ignoring reality, is worthless time wasting research. 

 

Propaganda. Whose the mushroom here, fed on **** and kept in the dark.  

 

Which officials or experts do you think I listen to, that might have influenced me.

 

David Icke is not one of them. PS I still want to know wtf you think a god head is???????? 

 

 

 

Of coarse they are falsifiable, why ask the question?

 

 

 

Not one of the links in this post suggest that any of the conspiracy theories you have highlighted have any support ie bill gates and 5g, corona virus, ruling cabal, lizard people etc. Its another strawman response to deflect attention from your pet conspiracy theories.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

9/11 and the Pentagon attack as A-Wal pointed out is suspicious. Tower 7 collapse distracted me from the alleged pentagon attack.

 

JFK's assination is also suspect with the magical bullet explanation and subsequent apparent cover up. 

 

People who do not understand how the world works, but have a theory of how it might without any facts to explain it, have a unprovable theory. Not unlike Roger Penroses multiverses. Or perhaps Fred Hoyles Steady State universe. Big Bang theory is just a mathematical model, curve fit, it is not based on known physics, but makes a reasonable curve fit, and claims after many modifications that the CMBR supports the model. Would you regard these theories in the same league as your conspiracy theories ref Bill Gates, 5G, Corona Virus?

Go to my WIFI and 5G threads. I think it is pretty reasonable what I said in it with much information from scientific sources. If you don't think 5G is going to effect you in any way I think you may have lot to learn about energy and frequencies.

http://www.sciencefo...o-human-health/

 

http://www.sciencefo...on-and-coverup/

 

If you are not suspicious about Bill Gates you really must do some more research on him and his family. You can find a lot of good information on the Corbett Report about Bill Gates. And if your skin don't crawl about this there is something wrong with you
http://www.sciencefo...spite-his-past/

 

Also see:

http://www.sciencefo...al-development/

 

I am not sure what you mean. I have been doing research on things like this for 15 years. None of this is new to me. And you can see exactly how these things come together when you look at it long enough. You seem to be the one with the problem doing any kind of research on matters of these things. You just want to go around and label anybody a conspiracy theorist that don't agree with your world view. When you go around labeling people as conspiracy theorist that just shows how much you have fallen for the propaganda. In fact it was the CIA who made it popular to label people that ask questions as conspiracy theorist. Do you not see that? And the MSM is still doing it 50 years later. because the program still works on people. Such as yourself.


Edited by Thoth101, 30 June 2020 - 04:48 AM.


#46 montgomery

montgomery

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 30 June 2020 - 09:34 AM

I see they are starting to label everything hate speech that the MSM don't agree with or is covering up. Total censorship much like China is what many of these social media giants are becoming. The "New Normal". :lol: It's so in front of our faces now though I think people will just discontinue using these platforms and either develop others are use ones that aren't censored.

Bush2 and Blaim probably planned to invade Iraq and Bush tried to use 911 to justify it, but none of it had anything to do with Iraq. 

Are you trying to say that 911 was an inside job?

 

What's your theory on the Pentagon attack? Who did it and what did they use to do it?


Edited by montgomery, 30 June 2020 - 09:43 AM.


#47 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1414 posts

Posted 30 June 2020 - 12:28 PM

Flummoxed, your link Why would Trump pull out of Syria, was he tricked by the Russians (or is he under their control) https://www.spectato...syrian-betrayal

This is widely seen as a gift to Turkey.

I suspect that Trump didn't make the decison but it was presented that way for some political gain. The US would have made the decision but couldn't be credited with it because of it being a betrayal of the Kurds.

 

I was pondering if it is the elected political leaders that decide which external countries to destabilize, or is it the intelligence services.  

 

My thinking for a consistent policy, dealing with dodgy operations a newly elected politician might not have a clue what is going on, and likely takes advise from the intelligence services. The degree of advise a politician might accept, might vary. Who runs a countries foreign policies towards other countries recommending wars etc. The dumb politician or the intelligence services, who is in charge? 

 

If a politician tried to take over intelligence operations abroad, or do something not in the national interests, would they come to a sticky end?  



#48 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1414 posts

Posted 30 June 2020 - 12:30 PM

I see they are starting to label everything hate speech that the MSM don't agree with or is covering up. Total censorship much like China is what many of these social media giants are becoming. The "New Normal". :lol: It's so in front of our faces now though I think people will just discontinue using these platforms and either develop others are use ones that aren't censored.

 

China has always sensored what its citizens can view on the internet. A concern with the Corona virus especially in the likes of Hong Kong is that the Chinese likely will use it to control the protests. To a lesser degree the Covid-19 is being used to control demonstrations and social gatherings. 


  • Thoth101 likes this

#49 montgomery

montgomery

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 30 June 2020 - 12:58 PM

Flummoxed:

 I was pondering if it is the elected political leaders that decide which external countries to destabilize, or is it the intelligence services.

 

Well, I would say that US foreign policy is first led by military leaders and then is approved by the president or their congress. Mostly their president but they will say it's not.

 

 
My thinking for a consistent policy, dealing with dodgy operations a newly elected politician might not have a clue what is going on, and likely takes advise from the intelligence services. The degree of advise a politician might accept, might vary. Who runs a countries foreign policies towards other countries recommending wars etc. The dumb politician or the intelligence services, who is in charge?

 

No American politician is dumb, strictly speaking. Their heads are already filled with being able to accept the propagandizing that is necessary for them to be approving of all their wars. (with few exceptions) 

 

Then too the opposite can be true where the WH and military leaders work up an excuse for a war they consider necessary for national interests. 

Maybe consider how they needed a war with Iraq and then how they spun lies to bring the people onside with blaming Iraq for 911. Did you see how Colin Powell sat and lied to the UN with his little bottle of something (water probably) for a stage prop to suggest chem/bio WMD's?

 

And then there's John Bolton, the superhawk who would likely push for a nuclear war and take the chance that M.A.D. wouldn't get them. His falling out with Trump would have been mainly on Trump not being hawkish enough for his agenda as he wished. And any cooperation Trump had going with Putin would have drove Bolton batsh-t crazy!

I was pondering if it is the elected political leaders that decide which external countries to destabilize, or is it the intelligence services.  



#50 Thoth101

Thoth101

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 01 July 2020 - 12:18 AM

Bush2 and Blaim probably planned to invade Iraq and Bush tried to use 911 to justify it, but none of it had anything to do with Iraq. 

Are you trying to say that 911 was an inside job?

 

What's your theory on the Pentagon attack? Who did it and what did they use to do it?

In my opinion and through my own research 911 was either an inside job or they knew the attacks were going to happen and let it happen. Saudi Arabia may have been involved also. And in actuality during 911 the military at the same time were doing drills on almost the same exact scenarios. Which is why radar got confused because they thought it was just the drills going on. So what are the chance of the drills going on at the same time that it is actually happening? You tell me. It is no doubt in my mind it was a planned event by who exactly, we may never know. And it goes far higher then the Bushes. Although if you remember Daddy puppet Bush was head of the CIA in the 80's.

 

The Pentagon was hit with either missiles or bombs. There is no way a plane hit it. There was no wreckage and most of the cameras were confiscated that could have seen a plane hit the Pentagon. The perpetrators were rich an powerful individuals who wanted to go into the Middle East with the war machine. Who exactly it was we may never know. Start with some of the richest entities in the world and follow the money trail. It's always the same ones showing up. Who funds all sides of war? The bankers. Who are the global elite? There are 13 families who pretty much control the world.........

 

Oddly enough I just stumbled on this on CIA website and it actually breaks down the 13 families. It seems to have a Christian religious overtone but I think there may be some legit information on this paper. I literally never saw this before myself. I have never even heard of the author before.

 

According to this author it is as follows: The Astors, Bundys, Collins, DuPonts, Freemans, Kennedy’s,
Li’s, Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Russells,Onassis, Van Duyn and Merovingian.

 

https://www.cia.gov/...lluminati.R.pdf
 


Edited by Thoth101, 01 July 2020 - 02:48 AM.


#51 Thoth101

Thoth101

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 01 July 2020 - 12:25 AM

China has always sensored what its citizens can view on the internet. A concern with the Corona virus especially in the likes of Hong Kong is that the Chinese likely will use it to control the protests. To a lesser degree the Covid-19 is being used to control demonstrations and social gatherings. 

I am glad we can agree on something. :lol:

 

America is not much different anymore with it's censorship then China. Even the US president gets censored by the "Political Correct" police. :lol: Well.... it is more of these big tech technocrats of these big corporations that are doing the censorship now and it's not only in America. Anybody who goes on YouTube or Facebook or Twitter is getting censored that don't agree with the technocrats and this Technotric nightmare that is being created on the whole world. Welcome to your new normal. :lol: