Conspiracy Theories That You Actually Believe

Options
123578

Comments

  • brown321
    brown321 Members Posts: 1,439 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    Theodis wrote: »
    brown321 wrote: »
    Columbine: I never understood how 2 kids could set up pipe bombs all over a school out getting caught.

    cause it was the 90's... and security wasn't as intense. you could actually be on school grounds after dark and not look suspicious.

    Not here in Florida. My city isn't crime central but schools had people living on campus to make sure people didn't break in.

    Somebody had to see something.
  • Paul Hate.
    Paul Hate. Members Posts: 4,538 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    Lbj having something to do with the JFK death.
    Israel having something to do with 911.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Options
    brown321 wrote: »
    AlQaeda: Made up organization to put an "It's ok to ? /Invade them" label on anyone the U.S. doesn't like.
    they seem to be mysteriously absent in Venezuela for some reason

    but really, the problem with this conspiracy theory is that the defender of it ALWAYS combines "al-Qaeda is completely justified due to US policy" with "al-Qaeda is totally fake." well, if you think they're completely justified, why do you think all these groups are fake?
    brown321 wrote: »
    Columbine: I never understood how 2 kids could set up pipe bombs all over a school out getting caught.
    possibly because that's not what they supposedly did: they set up a bomb south of the school, and then two bombs in the cafeteria. all the other explosives used (and "used" might be a better term, since i believe a good percentage did not go off) were carried by the kids and used during the shooting.

  • brown321
    brown321 Members Posts: 1,439 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    janklow wrote: »
    they seem to be mysteriously absent in Venezuela for some reason

    but really, the problem with this conspiracy theory is that the defender of it ALWAYS combines "al-Qaeda is completely justified due to US policy" with "al-Qaeda is totally fake." well, if you think they're completely justified, why do you think all these groups are fake?

    possibly because that's not what they supposedly did: they set up a bomb south of the school, and then two bombs in the cafeteria. all the other explosives used (and "used" might be a better term, since i believe a good percentage did not go off) were carried by the kids and used during the shooting.

    ^Youtube the 1998 cnn interview with bin laden. They never say the words AlQaeda during the whole thing. You telling me this dude Heads a worldwide terrorist group & they don't even mention it?
    On the morning of 9/11 they don't say AlQaeda they say "Bin Laden's Group" because they hadn't been handed the script with his name on it yet.

    I can't speak for the people you talking about, but I know there are real terrorist that are ? off at the US. I just don't believe many capable ones are here or they wouldn't have to entrap retards to make an arrest. It's also the reason they say "inspired by alqaeda" now cuz they know it's bs.


    & the columbine thing is why I put it under kinda, because I remember the media saying they place bomb all over the school but I figure it could be a false report.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Options
    brown321 wrote: »
    ^Youtube the 1998 cnn interview with bin laden. They never say the words AlQaeda during the whole thing. You telling me this dude Heads a worldwide terrorist group & they don't even mention it?
    On the morning of 9/11 they don't say AlQaeda they say "Bin Laden's Group" because they hadn't been handed the script with his name on it yet.
    so first off, do you believe Bin Laden is a legitimate terrorist or not? because if you DO, who cares how often he says "al-Qaeda?" and if you don't... don't you think they'd have the fake terror group planned out?

    now it is also possible, in complete seriousness, for Bin Laden to not be using the specific name "al-Qaeda" at various points in time. so remember that sometimes it is shorthand for "terrorists affiliated with Bin Laden."
    brown321 wrote: »
    I can't speak for the people you talking about, but I know there are real terrorist that are ? off at the US.
    start naming the ones that you consider "real," then, that's the question.
    brown321 wrote: »
    & the columbine thing is why I put it under kinda, because I remember the media saying they place bomb all over the school but I figure it could be a false report.
    they THREW bombs all over the place, but come on, breaking news never gets reported 100% accurately.

  • brown321
    brown321 Members Posts: 1,439 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    Bruh Bin-Laden was involved in terrorism. Did he head a super group that was gonna crop dust us with poison & Nuke the super bowl? No. He was just a financier. The government with the help of the media put the AlQaeda bs out there.

    The organization known as Alqaeda doesn't exist.
    It's just a label to use when convenient.
    I think they made up the name so they could prosecute Bin-Laden for his role in the 1998 african bombings in absentee & that was around 2000, So maybe they might have mentioned the name on 9/11.
    Definitely After 9/11 they applied it to Usama & anyone brown to push their agenda.



    & you can dead the columbine thing the post you quoted is basically agreeing with you.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Options
    brown321 wrote: »
    Bruh Bin-Laden was involved in terrorism. Did he head a super group that was gonna crop dust us with poison & Nuke the super bowl? No. He was just a financier. The government with the help of the media put the AlQaeda bs out there.
    yeah, but listen to what you're saying: you're calling Bin Laden a terrorist while saying al-Qaeda doesn't exist. so we're assuming any mention he DOES make of al-Qaeda is fake? (and again, the shorthand thing.) you don't see the contradiction in declaring Bin Laden a legit terrorist but al-Qaeda fake and used to prosecute a man for terrorism you ACKNOWLEDGE he committed?

    still waiting on these legit groups, though
  • High Revolutionary
    High Revolutionary Members Posts: 3,729 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    @janklow damn you turned on Anderson that quick?
  • luke1733
    luke1733 Members Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭✭
    Options
    America's endorsing and placement of ? .
  • luke1733
    luke1733 Members Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭✭
    Options
    Bacon's Rebellions outcome
  • brown321
    brown321 Members Posts: 1,439 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    janklow wrote: »
    brown321 wrote: »
    Bruh Bin-Laden was involved in terrorism. Did he head a super group that was gonna crop dust us with poison & Nuke the super bowl? No. He was just a financier. The government with the help of the media put the AlQaeda bs out there.
    yeah, but listen to what you're saying: you're calling Bin Laden a terrorist while saying al-Qaeda doesn't exist. so we're assuming any mention he DOES make of al-Qaeda is fake? (and again, the shorthand thing.) you don't see the contradiction in declaring Bin Laden a legit terrorist but al-Qaeda fake and used to prosecute a man for terrorism you ACKNOWLEDGE he committed?

    still waiting on these legit groups, though


    The government made up the name AlQaeda so that they could prosecute Usama in absentee as had of a criminal organization. Dude didn't start using it til after 9/11. If he started the group I'm sure he would have mentioned it when he told american reporters that he declared war on us. Maybe it slipped his mind tho.

    Why are you waiting on the legit groups? What do they have to do with AlQaeda being fake?
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2013
    Options
    brown321 wrote: »
    janklow wrote: »
    brown321 wrote: »
    Bruh Bin-Laden was involved in terrorism. Did he head a super group that was gonna crop dust us with poison & Nuke the super bowl? No. He was just a financier. The government with the help of the media put the AlQaeda bs out there.
    yeah, but listen to what you're saying: you're calling Bin Laden a terrorist while saying al-Qaeda doesn't exist. so we're assuming any mention he DOES make of al-Qaeda is fake? (and again, the shorthand thing.) you don't see the contradiction in declaring Bin Laden a legit terrorist but al-Qaeda fake and used to prosecute a man for terrorism you ACKNOWLEDGE he committed?

    still waiting on these legit groups, though


    The government made up the name AlQaeda so that they could prosecute Usama in absentee as had of a criminal organization. Dude didn't start using it til after 9/11. If he started the group I'm sure he would have mentioned it when he told american reporters that he declared war on us. Maybe it slipped his mind tho.

    Why are you waiting on the legit groups? What do they have to do with AlQaeda being fake?

    With all due respect you are wrong about the origin of the name al-Qaa'idah. Bin Laden explained it just after the attacks on 9\11.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDDJU-Iqwas
  • twinzmom
    twinzmom Members Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    I have my doubts about Sandy Hook
  • Maximus Rex
    Maximus Rex Members Posts: 6,354 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    twinzmom wrote: »
    I have my doubts about Sandy Hook

    What's there to doubt? A white went 51.50 and bodied twenty-six people in an elementary school.

  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited July 2013
    Options
    @janklow damn you turned on Anderson that quick?
    no, i still think he's the best, but the image made me sad

    note: it'll be back if this rematch goes well
    brown321 wrote: »
    The government made up the name AlQaeda so that they could prosecute Usama in absentee as had of a criminal organization. Dude didn't start using it til after 9/11. If he started the group I'm sure he would have mentioned it when he told american reporters that he declared war on us. Maybe it slipped his mind tho.
    right, but i guess i need to repeat this: you don't see the contradiction in declaring Bin Laden a legit terrorist but al-Qaeda fake and used to prosecute a man for terrorism you ACKNOWLEDGE he committed?

    if you think he was a legitimate terrorist (or just a terrorism financier)... then he IS involved in a criminal organization. one he might be the head of. and if you DO think he was involved in pre-9/11 bombings... then it's the same.

    seriously, it'd be one thing if you were saying "he's totally a fake." i would strongly disagree, but whatever. but to say he IS a terrorist but al-Qaeda's fake? not trying to sound harsh, i just find it hard to understand.
    brown321 wrote: »
    Why are you waiting on the legit groups? What do they have to do with AlQaeda being fake?
    because you said "there are real terrorist that are ? off at the US" and i want to hear you name some of them since you're so invested in declaring al-Qaeda fake? and you haven't yet? seemed pretty clear.

  • brown321
    brown321 Members Posts: 1,439 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    I'm not invested in it. I just don't believe Alqaeda exists as them crackas said it did. After 9/11 they tried to elevate them to movie villain levels. Tried to blame anthrax on them & Iraq. Had people going out & buying duct tape because they were going to attack our homes with chemical weapons. & then when their lies were becoming apparent to anyone with a brain they started stetting up crackhead Haitians to make arrests since there are no Alqaeda here in the us.

    Yes you are right it doesn't really matter what you call them. He killed people,but the alqaeda the media/government talks about doesn't exist.

    There are some brown dudes in places like Yemen & somalia claiming Alqaeda, but that's like saying my city got bloods just because some teenagers wanna claim that.

  • Markus Garvey
    Markus Garvey Members Posts: 381 ✭✭✭
    Options
    Powerful people like to gather and plan for their futures at the expense of everyone else. Nothing more to it. Sinister conspiracies are duck tales fueled by paranoia. Only ignorant ? fall for it and think they know the hidden truth. This paranoia is what led misguided men like Malachi York to spew his filth bringing so many ? to his personal hell with him.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Options
    brown321 wrote: »
    I'm not invested in it. I just don't believe Alqaeda exists as them crackas said it did. After 9/11 they tried to elevate them to movie villain levels. Tried to blame anthrax on them & Iraq. Had people going out & buying duct tape because they were going to attack our homes with chemical weapons.
    yeah, but i frankly blame a lot of what you just said on people being stupid and overreacting (see also the whole buying duct tape thing). in fairness, stuff like the anthrax saw a move to looking for the actual non-al-Qaeda perpetrators quickly.

    you're not going to get an argument from me if your contention is "Americans are too damn worked up over essentially non-existent terrorism," just to be clear.
    brown321 wrote: »
    Yes you are right it doesn't really matter what you call them. He killed people,but the alqaeda the media/government talks about doesn't exist.
    still contradictory, man: you're acknowledging he's a multinational terrorist but objecting to the name the organization has? plus, al-Qaeda as talked about also has kind of a franchise concept going.

    NOW WHERE ARE MY LEGIT TERROR GROUPS
  • Splackavelli
    Splackavelli Members Posts: 18,806 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    I don't believe in any. now i'm gonna get my jim jones on and start smacking tin foil hats of people heads.
  • mc317
    mc317 Members Posts: 5,548 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    ^speaking of Jim Jones cia was running that


    http://youtu.be/HULqx4SP46Y
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Options
    mc317 wrote: »
    ^speaking of Jim Jones cia was running that
    okay let's hear why they even would
  • mc317
    mc317 Members Posts: 5,548 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    Watch the video
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Options
    mc317 wrote: »
    Watch the video
    my standing policy is to not watch internet videos, so i am going to need you to type out at least a half-assed argument

  • BIGG WILL
    BIGG WILL Members Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    The Govt. tell you the reason Towers 1 and 2 fell the way they did is because of the Planes hitting them and the Jet Fuel weakening the steel and you believe them. But you don't question as to why Tower 7 wasn't hit at all, but fell in the exact same manner? Hell, for the longest time most folks didn't even know a 3rd Tower fell that day.

    Im not saying they set the whole thing up, but they are covering something up.
  • brown321
    brown321 Members Posts: 1,439 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    BIGG WILL wrote: »
    The Govt. tell you the reason Towers 1 and 2 fell the way they did is because of the Planes hitting them and the Jet Fuel weakening the steel and you believe them. But you don't question as to why Tower 7 wasn't hit at all, but fell in the exact same manner? Hell, for the longest time most folks didn't even know a 3rd Tower fell that day.

    Im not saying they set the whole thing up, but they are covering something up.

    Man building 7 had a big chunk knocked out from one of the towers falling on it. Only thing that is suspicious is how it fell. You'd think if a corner was knocked out it would fall towards that corner & it fell straight down.

    The towers collapse don't pass the eye test but my logic says they had to fall from the fire. The only way they were blown up is if they had truck bombs at the base.