However, we did witness planes flying into the World Trade Centre building didn't we, how is that explained away?
No one is disputing that two planes flew into the WTC, just like no one is disputing that Diana died in a car wreck - it's the questions behind these events, isn't it?
I also have a fascination with conspiracy theories, but where most of them fall down is the numbers of people that would have to be involved to keep very big secrets.
I can't really draw a conclusion on this. I don't know who to believe... But when it was unfolding live on tv, as an observer completely uneducated in structural engineering, I did wonder how those buildings collapsed the way they did, especially third building that wasn't hit. That's for the architects and engineers to work out, though.
just like no one is disputing that Diana died in a car wreck
Unless people are saying she faked her death...?
Just edited to add: The 'truth' behind a lot of conspiracy theories may just be down to people covering up incompetence and failings to avoid blame and repercussions.
This I certainly agree with. Oh, yes, most certainly. No conspiracy there.
I'm not entirely sure oil is the reason, however. Oil may be a side benefit. I think the primary reason was for the U.S. to gain a hold on the Middle East in the form of permanent military bases - much the same way as the U.S. has military bases all over Germany...
Yes, the idea it was only for oil may be a bit simplistic. All the same, the Bush family have enormous oil-connections.
V
Firstly I love a conspiracy. Diana and Madeline McCann to name but two.
However, we did witness planes flying into the World Trade Centre building didn't we, how is that explained away?
I can't say I see any reason to "love" conspiracies, TBH. They're not entertainment.
The planes being seen is a huge subject. Personally I'd just refer you back to several long threads on the subject under "Current Affairs" going right back to 9/11 itself.
Very briefly:
- How did 16 terrorists get on board four planes like that? It's said none were recorded as having boarded anyway. And their flight-training was very minimal.
- Why on just that one day was there no military air protection for Washington or New York?
- How come some of the alleged terrorists ('suicides') turned up alive and claiming innocence?
- Over 1,000 architects and engineers claim the crashes would not have brought down the towers anyway; one theory is that the attack was known about, but allowed to happen (like Pearl Harbour), with bombs planted to bring the towers fully down by non-terrorists.
How did a third tower come down with no impact?
- Half the people who witnessed the Pentagon impact say it wasn't an airliner, but they saw a jet or "missile"; furthermore the impact to the Pentagon was a small but very deep hole, not consistent with an airliner, but with a missile.
Etc, etc, so see earlier threads over the years.... 🙂
V
I can't say I see any reason to "love" conspiracies, TBH. They're not entertainment.
V
I am not saying I love the fact these people have died I don't, perhaps I should have used the word intriguing when it comes to conspiracies, and for that reason I do find them entertaining.
9/11 is not one in my book though.
I am not saying I love the fact these people have died I don't, perhaps I should have used the word intriguing when it comes to conspiracies, and for that reason I do find them entertaining.
9/11 is not one in my book though.
"Intriguing" I can somewhat agree with. 🙂 After all, doesn't it begin with intrigue? I think personally, since real conspiracies (not just conspiracy "theory") are virtually always a small coterie of elitists trying to get one up on, or over on, the general people, my "interest" in conspiracies is exposure of them, and to get one back on conspirators. Also to try to awaken people to conspiracies, when the general population are asleep, disbelieving, or sheep.
Of course, there's the danger of seeing conspiracy where there isn't one, and some things do get overblown. 9/11? I was once certain about it's being a conspiracy: but whether it's trickery or genuine, there's as much information out now to disprove conspiracy as to suggest it. It was all still mighty strange, though. And it was the kind of excuse the White House had actively wanted to invade parts of the Middle East - that's on paper, proven. "Another Pearl Harbour" was needed, it was written.
Some conspiracies are exposed at least to a degree. Unfortunately exposure always seems to get delayed for years by the powers-that-be. It's very rare for perpetrators to be brought to justice. Off my head, a thumb-nail sketch of just a few real, proven conspiracies:
- The original Bavarian Illuminati were found out, caught, and stopped from European take-over plans in the late 1700s.
- It's documented that the White House allowed Pearl Harbour to take place, to justify entering into the Pacific War, and WW II.
- Skull and Bones was a top secret US organisation until the 1980s, and is now well-outed.
- It took a third enquiry in the late 1970s, but the assassination of JFK is now officially recognised not to have been really possible by any lone gunman and was "probably a conspiracy".
- I'd count Antony Sutton's research work as proving for sure that Wall Street, and some Wesern bankers, financed the rise of Hitler, and also financed the Bolshevik Revolution (and the USSR after that).
- (I expect a future investigation into David Kelly's death to prove it was not suicide.)
Etc, etc. There is a point where the phrase "conspiracy theory" is misused, as the actual conspiracy is clearly exposed, and there is no "theory" about it. 🙂
V
It's documented that the White House allowed Pearl Harbour to take place, to justify entering into the Pacific War, and WW II.
This is completely false.
Skull and Bones was a top secret US organisation until the 1980s, and is now well-outed.
This is a secret society at Yale University.
Re Pearl Harbour being known to be coming and allowed, just a quick look as I'm short on time:
This is completely false.
It is not "completely false":
[DLMURL] http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html?q=pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html [/DLMURL]
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm
Most of American society before the Pearl Harbor bombing believed in the idea of isolationism.
Franklin D. Roosevelt knew this, and knew the only way in which United States countrymen would take arms and fight in Europes War was to be an overt action against the United States by a member of the Axis Power. Roosevelt also believed Hitler would not declare war on the United States unless he knew they were beatable. There are numerous accounts of actions by Roosevelt and his top armed forces advisors, which reveal they were not only aware of an attack by Japan, but also they were planning on it, and instigating that attack. On 7 October 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote the eight-action memo.
This memo outlined eight different steps the United States could do that he predicted would lead to an attack by Japan on the United States. The day after this memo was giving to Franklin D. Roosevelt, he began to implement these steps. By the time that Japan finally attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, all eight steps had occurred.....
All Navy reports showed the Japanese were in Pacific Water, and were in a direction towards Hawaii and Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt knew this information, but one must wonder why in the world would he not want to tell his cabinet this information, unless he wanted to hide something? On 6 December 1941 at a White House dinner Roosevelt was given the first thirteen parts of a fifteen part decoded Japanese diplomatic declaration of war and said, This means War.
Later that night, Roosevelt along with top advisor Harry Hopkins, Henry Stimson [member of Skull and Bones secret society - Venetian], George Marshall, Secretary of the Navy Knox, with aides John McCrea and Frank Beatty deliberately sat through the night waiting for the Japanese to strike Pear Harbor.
The USA had previously cracked Japan's military radio codes, and knew of the intent to attack, but FDR for the above reasons didn't tell Pearl Harbour. In fact he placed a disproportionate amount of "sitting duck" ships there as targets, to make sure Japan's attack was telling and stirred the American public to want war.
Re Skull and Bones:
This is a secret society at Yale University.
Nope. Recruits are initiated in their final year at Yale, but not active members until they leave Yale, after which they are of course all over the USA.
After leaving Yale and throughout their adult lives, they are members. Goodness, Scott, this has been well-exposed since the mid-1980s. 😮 Averell Harriman while alive, was probably their leader ... in his nineties! Both Bush Presidents refused to discuss their membership, "Because it is a secret". Yep, American presidents had secrets - from their own voting public.
Here we go:
https://www.healthypages.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=71897
I even once got someone, by means I won't go into, to get me their membership list. During the Bush vs.Kerry election campaign, both Bush and Kerry were Bonesmen and both refused to comment when challenged by reporters about their by-then 'outed' adult membership, "because it is a secret". Whoever won that election, Skull and Bones won. See the links in my HP thread linked above.
It's adults in capes who finalise membership of the Yale seniors: they could be anything from their 20s to their 80s in age. The financial base for Skull and Bones, full of their members, is the investment bankers, Brown Brothers, Harriman. (Who sent a "Red Cross" mission consisting of bankers but no medics (!) - to Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution. At a time when three factions were in civil war for control of Russia, the Skull and Bones bankers financially backed the Bolshevik communists.)
V
Whatever you want to believe. I'm not going to argue the Skull and Bones 'conspiracy', as I don't think the society really amounts to anything meaningful to those outside it. Nor do I care about the other so-called 'conspiracies', except maybe as historical curiosities. However, I will definitely take issue with the Pearl Harbor 'conspiracy'. It's just plain wrong.
That's all I'm going to say about it.
Hi Scott,
I'd like to open here by saying that conspiracies do exist, and do occur. Any thinking person knows that there are "conspiracies" in this world, large or small. If not, we'd not even have the word in the lexicon. And I consider major conspiracies to be important to expose. To put it another way, possible major conspiracies surely deserve to be researched, not ignored?
Elsewhere you've written that you hope you won't get "flamed". I'd like to assure you that I don't write in any personal way. Not in the slightest, mate, but (1) I do like to be fairly comprehensive in replying on this subject at times; and (2) it's sometimes hard not to be a little ironic. 🙂
It's clear that some conspiracies are proven (e.g. Watergate); whilst others are wacky to 99% of us (David Icke and his idea that the Royal Family and others are really reptiles for e.g.). And then there are those which seem to offer compelling evidence both ways.
Whatever you want to believe. I'm not going to argue the Skull and Bones 'conspiracy', as I don't think the society really amounts to anything meaningful to those outside it.
Well, this is incorrect. At least tens of thousands of Americans are very concerned. It's meaningful to many thousands.
Take the Bush vs. Kerry election: if we had an election in the UK wherein both would-be PMs turned out to be members of the same small secret society, active within it in adulthood, and both refusing flat-out to say a word about their membership, I think this nation would be in uproar! Perhaps Americans just put up and shut up more? Or, more likely, not many knew of these interviews with Kerry and Bush.
But S & B is very meaningful to many people outside it.
What of those inside it? A disgruntled member, now deceased, wrote in his papers that Skull and Bones is "the most sordid thing ever to happen to mankind". Not exactly a college fraternity, then.
Nor do I care about the other so-called 'conspiracies', except maybe as historical curiosities. However, I will definitely take issue with the Pearl Harbor 'conspiracy'. It's just plain wrong.
That's all I'm going to say about it.
Thanks for this alternative view, as it's always important to have them. My first thought TBH was that the report comes from the NSA, and you know who they are, right? (So can we trust a word they say?)
However, spokesperson for the report, who I therefore take to have been in some way in charge, Robert J Hanyok, was also responsible for a 2001 secret NSA report into the alleged Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy.
This conspiracy theory has it that President Johnson and the military-industrial complex of the USA wanted a full-blown Vietnam war (when there wasn't one), and therefore faked a North Vietnamese attack on the US Navy. People caught wind of this NSA secret report, got hold of it through the Freedom of Information Act, and lo, and behold! The very same Robert J Hanyok and his co-researchers found that Tonkin definitely was a serious misleading of the US people in order to begin the full Vietnam War which led to the death of 50,000 American servicemen, not to mention the Vietnamese.
You seem to be of a mind that conspiracies don't happen, or that considering that they may have done means a person is "nuts" (not a quote from you, but it's how it comes across). Well, the same people you cite who say Pearl Harbour was not a conspiracy, say the Tonkin affair was a deliberate lie to begin the Vietnam War. So we might blow one conspiracy idea, but only to find we face another.
And entrance into the Vietnam War - like the invasion of Iraq - are hardly, in your words, "historical curiosities". I personally know people who fought in and survived the Vietnam War.
Summing up the 2001 secret NSA report:
The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later.
The truth was very different.
Rather than being on a routine patrol Aug. 2, the U.S. destroyer Maddox was actually engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers in sync with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force.
"The day before, two attacks on North Vietnam...had taken place," writes scholar Daniel C. Hallin. Those assaults were "part of a campaign of increasing military pressure on the North that the United States had been pursuing since early 1964."
On the night of Aug. 4, the Pentagon proclaimed that a second attack by North Vietnamese PT boats had occurred earlier that day in the Tonkin Gulf a report cited by President Johnson as he went on national TV that evening to announce a momentous escalation in the war: air strikes against North Vietnam.
But Johnson ordered U.S. bombers to "retaliate" for a North Vietnamese torpedo attack that never happened.
One of the Navy pilots flying overhead that night was squadron commander James Stockdale, who gained fame later as a POW and then Ross Perot's vice presidential candidate. "I had the best seat in the house to watch that event," recalled Stockdale a few years ago, "and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power." ...
But Johnson's deceitful speech of Aug. 4, 1964, won accolades from editorial writers. The president, proclaimed the New York Times, "went to the American people last night with the somber facts." The Los Angeles Times urged Americans to "face the fact that the Communists, by their attack on American vessels in international waters, have themselves escalated the hostilities."
http://www.ww4report.com/node/1360
Of course conspiracies exist. And in other cases people are being too imaginative. Anyway, it seems we have the NSA saying the Pearl Harbour attack was not a conspiracy, while the same team and spokesperson say that the Gulf of Tonkin incident which vastly escalated the Vietnam War - was.
Since we're way off the subject of 9/11, I've posted on conspiracy theory - and how erroneous it could be to discount them - on a new thread at https://www.healthypages.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=641733#post641733
V
Follow the money - reportedly the towers needed 2 billion dollars of work to remove the asbestos in them, they were insured for 7 billion dollars 6 months before the attack, net gain 9 billion.
Building 7 had millions of documents relating to fraud in big companies - most of these were destroyed and no copies were lodged elsewhere.
These are only a few of the huge number of irregularities we saw - for me the most telling was Bush's reaction when he heard about the 'terrorist' attacks - just kept on reading a book to some children while the country is attacked - no surprise, no panic, no urgency
chris
Follow the money - reportedly the towers needed 2 billion dollars of work to remove the asbestos in them, they were insured for 7 billion dollars 6 months before the attack, net gain 9 billion.
Building 7 had millions of documents relating to fraud in big companies - most of these were destroyed and no copies were lodged elsewhere.
These are only a few of the huge number of irregularities we saw - for me the most telling was Bush's reaction when he heard about the 'terrorist' attacks - just kept on reading a book to some children while the country is attacked - no surprise, no panic, no urgencychris
I'm just wondering what source this information came from. Perhaps you could give us your source? 🙂
Hello V,
I don't deny there are conspiracies. I just don't bother with them. There are so many wild conspiracy theories (e.g. Moon landing) that it is difficult identifying authentic ones - and even then deciding if they even matter in the greater course of life (e.g. Skull and Bones).
Also, there is conspiracy and there is outright deception (I suppose defining each term is splitting hairs, but to me, conspiracy has a darker meaning). You brought up the Vietnam conflict. I don't disagree with your assessment - I'm an anti-war sort of person and would have protested the war - but I'd call it a deception of the American public rather than a conspiracy. You brought up Watergate, something I wouldn't call a conspiracy but rather what it was - a crime, for which people were convicted and served time. Again, splitting hairs.
I didn't want to get involved in this, as my interest in conspiracies ends with 'The X-Files' and 'Millennium', but the 9/11 stuff, and then Pearl Harbor just struck a chord with me. 9/11 because it distracts from the true evil behind it - religious fanaticism as a response to American imperialism - and Pearl Harbor, because it is a distortion of historical fact.
I hope I've made my position clearer, because I don't wish to carry on with this course of discussion. Thank you for your time and effort.
Hi Scott,
Thanks for your input, especially on Pearl Harbour.
There's certainly a line somewhere at which logical and rational research or belief in possible conspiracies becomes what most of us would think wacky (I've cited David Icke's belief that our royalty are disguised reptiles 😮 - quite a lot of people follow him in that...). BTW, I was old enough to rush home from school with the most intense interest at lunch-times to watch the astronauts riding around the moon in the early 1970s on the moon buggies. 🙂
Though an adult at the time, I became a friend of the late Prof. Antony C. Sutton. It was through him that I learned how to investigate conspiracy theories in an altogether rational and scientific way - as he did. I remember him saying, "Nobody has ever been able to dispute my facts. [He was a superbly good researcher.] They may disagree with my conclusions, but they can't dispute my facts." I like to carry on, best I can, as an ant in his tradition.
Obviously different people have different interests. 🙂
V
I prefer the ideas of James Randi myself. I attended a very entertaining lecture given by Randi in around 1984. No one has yet collected the prize money.