I was curious what everyone's opinion is on these 2 concepts. I've always enjoyed discussing possible false flag attacks (Sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11 WTC attacks) and like hearing what people think of them and how they rationalize these events. I understand most of these major historical events are controversial, but try to refrain from attacks against people based on their thoughts.
If you ask me, the Gulf of Tonkin incident is enough to tell me that the people in power always want war. Anything to push the country into conflict. Same with the sinking of the Lusitania, which I believe was a set up. Knowing that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened and it being the catalyst for the Vietnam War was very troubling to me when I heard. I do not for one second believe most official stories, including the 9/11 Commission Report.
So what are your guys thoughts on this subject? Are you just going to call me a foolish conspiracy theorist or try to bring up valid points? I've done some pretty heavy research on the above historical events and I'm curious what other people think.
(Also, if you are going to argue the 9/11 point, don't forget that the official story is one helluva conspiracy theory.)
Main points:
1.) Sinking of the Lusitania - Why would a civilian cruise liner be sent into known hostile waters?
2.) Pearl Harbor - Do you believe that the U.S. was actually caught by surprise? Reportedly, Truman knew about the attack before it ever happened. There were multiple reports of a large force detected in the Pacific, but no counter-measures were taken.
3.) Gulf of Tonkin - Pretty much nothing to discuss here. McNamara admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin never happened and claimed that the Vietnam War was a mistake. Still, this fact leads us to other false flag attack theories. If they did it once, who's to say they wouldn't do it again?
4.) 9/11 WTC Attacks - Watching WTC Building 7 collapse is pretty convincing that it was a controlled demo. No plane even struck that building. Granted, the collapse of the other buildings caused some minor damage, but I'm not convinced it caused it to fall. I'm also a little concerned that the tapes from mounted video cameras around the Pentagon were confiscated by federal agents and still haven't been released. I have read the official report and it's pretty ridiculous if you ask me.
Like I said, I've done some pretty extensive research in the above topics, but point out any flaws that you see. Admittedly, a lot of this research started because I watch the movie "Zeitgeist". The movie makes some pretty incredible claims that frankly shocked me, so I in turn wanted to research all of their claims. If you haven't seen any of the Zeitgest films, I suggest you check them out. They spark some very interesting critical thinking.
Thanks for reading my rant, I just like talking about these types of things.
All of these (minus #3) are Bs. 1) Wilson would not have made a false flag. He didn't want to enter into WW1. 2) The US ships at Pearl Harbor was the counter-measure. No one thought the Japanese would attack that far east. They were wrong. 3) I'll give you that. 4) If the US wanted to go to war, They would have told some bs about Iraq wanting to attack us and building Nukes... Oh.
All of these (minus #3) are Bs. 1) Wilson would not have made a false flag. He didn't want to enter into WW1. 2) The US ships at Pearl Harbor was the counter-measure. No one thought the Japanese would attack that far east. They were wrong. 3) I'll give you that. 4) If the US wanted to go to war, They would have told some bs about Iraq wanting to attack us and building Nukes... Oh.
You still didn't answer the #1. Why would a civilian ship be sent into known hostile territory?
Where else would Japan have attacked? Guam? The naval ships stationed at PH were not counter-measures. Counter-measures would include preparation for an incoming attack. No preparation was made.
WMDs were not the main reason for invading Iraq. Why were plans being made to enter Iraq within the week after 9/11?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music."
You still didn't answer the #1. Why would a civilian ship be sent into known hostile territory?
Where else would Japan have attacked? Guam? The naval ships stationed at PH were not counter-measures. Counter-measures would include preparation for an incoming attack. No preparation was made.
WMDs were not the main reason for invading Iraq. Why were plans being made to enter Iraq within the week after 9/11?
1) They thought it could out run any ship. So they didn't care. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/lusitania.htm
2)You do know just how much land the U.S. had, Right? Hawaii is at the mid-point of the Pacific. Thats were I would put a Counter-measure Navy.
3) All Bush Said was, "Iraq wants WMDS. We must stop them." for 2 years.
1) They thought it could out run any ship. So they didn't care. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/lusitania.htm
2)You do know just how much land the U.S. had, Right? Hawaii is at the mid-point of the Pacific. Thats were I would put a Counter-measure Navy.
3) All Bush Said was, "Iraq wants WMDS. We must stop them." for 2 years.
1.) I have to call ******** on that one. Just because a ship can out pace other ships, doesn't mean it can out pace torpedoes. You'd figure they would have taken that into account.
2.) Pearl Harbor was made a military naval base at the turn of the century. I wouldn't consider simply having war ships docked at their home port as a count-measure at all. I'd call it business as usual.
3.) True, there were talks of WMDs well before 9/11, but I find it very odd that we didn't go until after 9/11.
What's your opinion on the "War on Terror"? Do you believe it's a legitimate pursuit and good use of resources? I for one, think it's rubbish and a perfect reason to invade any country you want, as long as they have terrorists. Just like the "Patriot Act" which pretty much nullifies the Bill of Rights if the government decides to consider you a terrorist.
I think the war on terror is a perfect use of resources after all it allows us to invade critical countries where certain natural resources are that pretty much support society and provides a critical chokepoint to our country. But the Patriot Act and such can suck my balls!
1.) I have to call ******** on that one. Just because a ship can out pace other ships, doesn't mean it can out pace torpedoes. You'd figure they would have taken that into account.
2.) Pearl Harbor was made a military naval base at the turn of the century. I wouldn't consider simply having war ships docked at their home port is a count-measure at all. I'd call it business as usual.
3.) True, there were talks of WMDs well before 9/11, but I find it very odd that we didn't go until after 9/11.
What's your opinion on the "War on Terror"? Do you believe it's a legitimate pursuit and good use of resources? I for one, think it's rubbish and a perfect reason to invade any country you want, as long as they have terrorists. Just like the "Patriot Act" which pretty much nullifies the Bill of Rights if the government decides to consider you a terrorist.
I Think that the "war on terror" is a bad idea and pointless. I Don't think that 9/11 was an inside job, though. The Feds would have done some thing smaller like Gulf of Tonkin or flying a spy plane over enemy hostile territory (they were planning on doing that for Iraq) if they wanted a "reason."
I Think that the "war on terror" is a bad idea and pointless. I Don't think that 9/11 was an inside job, though. The Feds would have done some thing smaller like Gulf of Tonkin or flying a spy plane over enemy hostile territory (they were planning on doing that for Iraq) if they wanted a "reason."
I wouldn't consider it a "reason" per se. They already had a reason, they just needed public support. It's more important that your citizens agree with a war before going through with it. I'm still not completely sure about 9/11. I'm not convinced that government powers had no prior knowledge of the attacks, but I'm also not convinced that they actually had involvement in the planning. I'll admit I'm leaning towards an active role in the planning, but it's also possible that they simply knew of the attack and just purposefully took no action. There's a lot of evidence to suggest prior knowledge.
I found it very odd that the military was conducting training exercises involving using commercial airliners as missiles to target skyscrapers that very same morning. This also happened during the subway bombings in London. Police forces in London were conducting a training exercise involving bombing subway trains at the exact same time as the attacks. Even the time in the exercise was the same as the actual attack. Coincidence?
I wouldn't consider it a "reason" per se. They already had a reason, they just needed public support. It's more important that your citizens agree with a war before going through with it. I'm still not completely sure about 9/11. I'm not convinced that government powers had no prior knowledge of the attacks, but I'm also not convinced that they actually had involvement in the planning. I'll admit I'm leaning towards an active role in the planning, but it's also possible that they simply knew of the attack and just purposefully took no action. There's a lot of evidence to suggest prior knowledge.
I found it very odd that the military was conducting training exercises involving using commercial airliners as missiles to target skyscrapers that very same morning. This also happened during the subway bombings in London. Police forces in London were conducting a training exercise involving bombing subway trains at the exact same time as the attacks. Even the time in the exercise was the same as the actual attack. Coincidence?
I would like to see a source for that. It seems 1) like an Internet rumor. or 2) like a random event. It seems like Someone that was willing plan out and kill 3000 of their own people, was able to keep of 1000s of now dieing Firefights from talking (said firefights would have found blast caps and the like.), would have thought not to do that.
I would like to see a source for that. It seems 1) like an Internet rumor. or 2) like a random event. It seems like Someone that was willing plan out and kill 3000 of their own people, was able to keep of 1000s of now dieing Firefights from talking (said firefights would have found blast caps and the like.), would have thought not to do that.
Sorry, I'm about to leave so I can't fully answer your question. To answer your last point, there are multiple testimonies from firefighters, police officers, and other eye witnesses hearing multiple explosions. There was also molten steel found in the debris. Some was still found weeks after the collapse.
As for the military exercises, I'll find you some documents and video later, but like I said I'm about to leave for the night. But so you know, there are audio tapes of flight controllers receiving messages of hijacked planes and all the reports had to be verified because they thought it was part of the exercise. It created confusion basically. Anyways, good night for now. :smile.gif:
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music."
I saw a video of an airport on the day of 9/11 were someone said "we have evacuated the airport" but people were walking back and forth behind him. What the hell is that?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Guns make you stupid, better to fight your wars with duct tape; duct tape makes you smart" -Michael Westen.
Totally off topic, I know, but when I read the thread title, my first thought was "Wow, someone's overreacting to being censored on YT by trolls..." :laugh.gif:
A forum thread where I tried to bring logic to some moron. has nothing to do with 9/11 or anything, but it really highlights how ****ing ridiculous a theory can get and what the "truther" (supposedly enlightened person) does when confronted with the fact that everything they claim is ****ing impossible or makes no sense in reality:
a 3 hour long video pointing how stupid Loose Change, a completely stupid video about how 9/11 was planned or some **** (I can't remember, was ages ago I watched this one)
It only takes basic logic here to realize that everything that Dylan Avery alleges in Loose Change is completely and utter bull anyway. Now, let's pretend for a moment that the Government had no qualms about, for whatever reason, killing nearly 3,000 innocent civilians. Let's further pretend that everything Avery says is in fact, truth.
Now that we've accepted this horrible fact (at least for the sake of argument), ask yourself this: What is stopping them from killing Avery and his friends to ensure the safety of this conspiracy? Nothing. And yet, Dylan Avery is still breathing, and, as far as I know, healthy.
Conspiracy theories represent a known glitch in human reasoning. The theories are of course occasionally true, but their truth is completely uncorrelated with the believers certainty. For some reason, sometimes whne people think they have uncovered a lie, they raise confirmation bias to an art form. They cut context away from facts and arguments and assemble them into reassuring litanies. And over and over I've argued helplessly with smart people consumed by theories they were sure were irrefutable, theories that in the end can be proved to be completely fictions, --Young-Earth Creationists, The moon landing people, the perpetual motion subculture--.
You know what it is? it's not "truth" it's hiding the truth. confirmation bias isn't a way to prove anything except your own ineptitude and inability to reason. Figures don't lie, but liars figure, is probably the best description. Loose Change, for example, outright makes **** up and omits important details. Making **** up and omitting facts isn't called "the truth", it's called "making **** up and omitting facts" and it's telling that every single conspiracy theory I've ever heard of needs to do one or the other or more likely both to even make themselves seem mildly plausible. The only reason so many people (relatively speaking) buy into the bull is that they now "know" the truth, in their eyes; I've seen it far too often, they "know" how the world works, apparently, they "know" the "truth" to matters and events they often weren't even alive to witness third hand. And yet they are absolutely certain of it. Videos like loose change and that other one about that silly federal reserve nonsense are sorely lacking in any sort of reason or logic and often go off onto completely unrelated tangents for ages for no reason at all without proving anything. You'll note that "real" documentaries tend to stick to the facts, not talk about the life history of a pilot and then not explain what that has to do with anything being discussed.
1.) Sinking of the Lusitania - Why would a civilian cruise liner be sent into known hostile waters?
It wasn't "known hostile" waters, in fact, the ship was sunk off the coast of Ireland. Additionally, it's important to realize that the dangers of the German U-boats hadn't yet been fully realized by the Allies at the time. It's easy to try to force facts into your conspiracy theories if you omit information, or just falsify the fact that the waters were either hostile (which means controlled by the enemy, which they weren't) or dangerous (again, even if they suspected u-boats might be in the area the fact is that they may simply have underestimated them. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence or human error. (this is hilariously the one thing conspiracy theories always do, anyway. In fact that is entirely what they are based on half the time)
The truth of the matter is, all wars are built on propaganda. There is no other way to wage a war...
The United States went from apathetic and even supportive of German leaders to appalled and at war with them when the Allies finally had actual evidence of the otherwise-unbelievable concentration camps; Mostly, this mentality has been erased from history by double-think.
Say what you will, but to pretend that the US isn't slowly but surely becoming a Capitalistic Dystopia is a great bit of double-think or stupidity, all on it's own.
All of these (minus #3) are Bs. 1) Wilson would not have made a false flag. He didn't want to enter into WW1. 2) The US ships at Pearl Harbor was the counter-measure. No one thought the Japanese would attack that far east. They were wrong. 3) I'll give you that. 4) If the US wanted to go to war, They would have told some bs about Iraq wanting to attack us and building Nukes... Oh.
1)Say's who, Wilson? This is all about the government lying 2)The ships weren't properly in position and set up for an attack
This doesn't mean I agree with the US entering wars on purpose, but you bring up good points and I'm not to confident in our governments honesty.
Now that we've accepted this horrible fact (at least for the sake of argument), ask yourself this: What is stopping them from killing Avery and his friends to ensure the safety of this conspiracy? Nothing. And yet, Dylan Avery is still breathing, and, as far as I know, healthy.
1.Dylan Avery realeses very popular video
2. Dylan mysteriously dies
3. Hmm that would look bad for the US wouldn't it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Guns make you stupid, better to fight your wars with duct tape; duct tape makes you smart" -Michael Westen.
1.Dylan Avery realeses very popular video
2. Dylan mysteriously dies
3. Hmm that would look bad for the US wouldn't it?
This; If the information were actually solid evidence of anything, it'd never have gotten out.
If the info could be used in any productive way, it'd never have gotten out.
If the info were actually correct, it'd never have gotten out.
Then you've got to consider... What better way to hide the truth than by making it utterly unbelievable? It worked for Germany, why wouldn't it work for a nation that'd fire a missile at their own military cortex?
This; If the information were actually solid evidence of anything, it'd never have gotten out.
If the info could be used in any productive way, it'd never have gotten out.
If the info were actually correct, it'd never have gotten out.
Then you've got to consider... What better way to hide the truth than by making it utterly unbelievable? It worked for Germany, why wouldn't it work for a nation that'd fire a missile at their own military cortex?
What are you reffering to when you say "it worked for Germany?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Guns make you stupid, better to fight your wars with duct tape; duct tape makes you smart" -Michael Westen.
The Germans actively advertised their concentration camps, but nobody believed they'd actually do it until they saw, first-hand, that it'd been done.
No, they made the concentration camps seem like YMCA camp. Stated that everyone there was well feed and such. They never advertised the fact that they were gassing Millions of people there.
If you ask me, the Gulf of Tonkin incident is enough to tell me that the people in power always want war. Anything to push the country into conflict. Same with the sinking of the Lusitania, which I believe was a set up. Knowing that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened and it being the catalyst for the Vietnam War was very troubling to me when I heard. I do not for one second believe most official stories, including the 9/11 Commission Report.
So what are your guys thoughts on this subject? Are you just going to call me a foolish conspiracy theorist or try to bring up valid points? I've done some pretty heavy research on the above historical events and I'm curious what other people think.
(Also, if you are going to argue the 9/11 point, don't forget that the official story is one helluva conspiracy theory.)
Like I said, I've done some pretty extensive research in the above topics, but point out any flaws that you see. Admittedly, a lot of this research started because I watch the movie "Zeitgeist". The movie makes some pretty incredible claims that frankly shocked me, so I in turn wanted to research all of their claims. If you haven't seen any of the Zeitgest films, I suggest you check them out. They spark some very interesting critical thinking.
Thanks for reading my rant, I just like talking about these types of things.
You still didn't answer the #1. Why would a civilian ship be sent into known hostile territory?
Where else would Japan have attacked? Guam? The naval ships stationed at PH were not counter-measures. Counter-measures would include preparation for an incoming attack. No preparation was made.
WMDs were not the main reason for invading Iraq. Why were plans being made to enter Iraq within the week after 9/11?
1) They thought it could out run any ship. So they didn't care. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/lusitania.htm
2)You do know just how much land the U.S. had, Right? Hawaii is at the mid-point of the Pacific. Thats were I would put a Counter-measure Navy.
3) All Bush Said was, "Iraq wants WMDS. We must stop them." for 2 years.
1.) I have to call ******** on that one. Just because a ship can out pace other ships, doesn't mean it can out pace torpedoes. You'd figure they would have taken that into account.
2.) Pearl Harbor was made a military naval base at the turn of the century. I wouldn't consider simply having war ships docked at their home port as a count-measure at all. I'd call it business as usual.
3.) True, there were talks of WMDs well before 9/11, but I find it very odd that we didn't go until after 9/11.
What's your opinion on the "War on Terror"? Do you believe it's a legitimate pursuit and good use of resources? I for one, think it's rubbish and a perfect reason to invade any country you want, as long as they have terrorists. Just like the "Patriot Act" which pretty much nullifies the Bill of Rights if the government decides to consider you a terrorist.
I Think that the "war on terror" is a bad idea and pointless. I Don't think that 9/11 was an inside job, though. The Feds would have done some thing smaller like Gulf of Tonkin or flying a spy plane over enemy hostile territory (they were planning on doing that for Iraq) if they wanted a "reason."
I wouldn't consider it a "reason" per se. They already had a reason, they just needed public support. It's more important that your citizens agree with a war before going through with it. I'm still not completely sure about 9/11. I'm not convinced that government powers had no prior knowledge of the attacks, but I'm also not convinced that they actually had involvement in the planning. I'll admit I'm leaning towards an active role in the planning, but it's also possible that they simply knew of the attack and just purposefully took no action. There's a lot of evidence to suggest prior knowledge.
I found it very odd that the military was conducting training exercises involving using commercial airliners as missiles to target skyscrapers that very same morning. This also happened during the subway bombings in London. Police forces in London were conducting a training exercise involving bombing subway trains at the exact same time as the attacks. Even the time in the exercise was the same as the actual attack. Coincidence?
I would like to see a source for that. It seems 1) like an Internet rumor. or 2) like a random event. It seems like Someone that was willing plan out and kill 3000 of their own people, was able to keep of 1000s of now dieing Firefights from talking (said firefights would have found blast caps and the like.), would have thought not to do that.
Sorry, I'm about to leave so I can't fully answer your question. To answer your last point, there are multiple testimonies from firefighters, police officers, and other eye witnesses hearing multiple explosions. There was also molten steel found in the debris. Some was still found weeks after the collapse.
As for the military exercises, I'll find you some documents and video later, but like I said I'm about to leave for the night. But so you know, there are audio tapes of flight controllers receiving messages of hijacked planes and all the reports had to be verified because they thought it was part of the exercise. It created confusion basically. Anyways, good night for now. :smile.gif:
My humble LPs can be found here.
9-11 wasn't a ****ing setup. Anybody who thinks that is misguided, and possibly stupid.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=36c_1252510212
http://skepdic.com/911conspiracy.html
http://www.skepdic.com/illuminati.html
A forum thread where I tried to bring logic to some moron. has nothing to do with 9/11 or anything, but it really highlights how ****ing ridiculous a theory can get and what the "truther" (supposedly enlightened person) does when confronted with the fact that everything they claim is ****ing impossible or makes no sense in reality:
http://www.computerhope.com/forum/index.php/topic,113375.0.html
a only mildly relevant video. But no different.
a 3 hour long video pointing how stupid Loose Change, a completely stupid video about how 9/11 was planned or some **** (I can't remember, was ages ago I watched this one)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561&q=screw loose change#
It only takes basic logic here to realize that everything that Dylan Avery alleges in Loose Change is completely and utter bull anyway. Now, let's pretend for a moment that the Government had no qualms about, for whatever reason, killing nearly 3,000 innocent civilians. Let's further pretend that everything Avery says is in fact, truth.
Now that we've accepted this horrible fact (at least for the sake of argument), ask yourself this: What is stopping them from killing Avery and his friends to ensure the safety of this conspiracy? Nothing. And yet, Dylan Avery is still breathing, and, as far as I know, healthy.
As for Pearl Harbour:
Also ********.
Conspiracy theories represent a known glitch in human reasoning. The theories are of course occasionally true, but their truth is completely uncorrelated with the believers certainty. For some reason, sometimes whne people think they have uncovered a lie, they raise confirmation bias to an art form. They cut context away from facts and arguments and assemble them into reassuring litanies. And over and over I've argued helplessly with smart people consumed by theories they were sure were irrefutable, theories that in the end can be proved to be completely fictions, --Young-Earth Creationists, The moon landing people, the perpetual motion subculture--.
You know what it is? it's not "truth" it's hiding the truth. confirmation bias isn't a way to prove anything except your own ineptitude and inability to reason. Figures don't lie, but liars figure, is probably the best description. Loose Change, for example, outright makes **** up and omits important details. Making **** up and omitting facts isn't called "the truth", it's called "making **** up and omitting facts" and it's telling that every single conspiracy theory I've ever heard of needs to do one or the other or more likely both to even make themselves seem mildly plausible. The only reason so many people (relatively speaking) buy into the bull is that they now "know" the truth, in their eyes; I've seen it far too often, they "know" how the world works, apparently, they "know" the "truth" to matters and events they often weren't even alive to witness third hand. And yet they are absolutely certain of it. Videos like loose change and that other one about that silly federal reserve nonsense are sorely lacking in any sort of reason or logic and often go off onto completely unrelated tangents for ages for no reason at all without proving anything. You'll note that "real" documentaries tend to stick to the facts, not talk about the life history of a pilot and then not explain what that has to do with anything being discussed.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123127032
It wasn't "known hostile" waters, in fact, the ship was sunk off the coast of Ireland. Additionally, it's important to realize that the dangers of the German U-boats hadn't yet been fully realized by the Allies at the time. It's easy to try to force facts into your conspiracy theories if you omit information, or just falsify the fact that the waters were either hostile (which means controlled by the enemy, which they weren't) or dangerous (again, even if they suspected u-boats might be in the area the fact is that they may simply have underestimated them. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence or human error. (this is hilariously the one thing conspiracy theories always do, anyway. In fact that is entirely what they are based on half the time)
as for "zeitgeist":
and
(part 2).
The United States went from apathetic and even supportive of German leaders to appalled and at war with them when the Allies finally had actual evidence of the otherwise-unbelievable concentration camps; Mostly, this mentality has been erased from history by double-think.
Say what you will, but to pretend that the US isn't slowly but surely becoming a Capitalistic Dystopia is a great bit of double-think or stupidity, all on it's own.
1)Say's who, Wilson? This is all about the government lying 2)The ships weren't properly in position and set up for an attack
This doesn't mean I agree with the US entering wars on purpose, but you bring up good points and I'm not to confident in our governments honesty.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/04/19/download-the-minecraft-demo/
1.Dylan Avery realeses very popular video
2. Dylan mysteriously dies
3. Hmm that would look bad for the US wouldn't it?
This; If the information were actually solid evidence of anything, it'd never have gotten out.
If the info could be used in any productive way, it'd never have gotten out.
If the info were actually correct, it'd never have gotten out.
Then you've got to consider... What better way to hide the truth than by making it utterly unbelievable? It worked for Germany, why wouldn't it work for a nation that'd fire a missile at their own military cortex?
What are you reffering to when you say "it worked for Germany?"
The Germans actively advertised their concentration camps, but nobody believed they'd actually do it until they saw, first-hand, that it'd been done.
No, they made the concentration camps seem like YMCA camp. Stated that everyone there was well feed and such. They never advertised the fact that they were gassing Millions of people there.