[Caael]

I know it's been done before, but I'm really into this at the moment as a result of my current affairs class. I love hearing others voices on these matters, so please contribute your thoughts. If good points are brought up, I may even present some to my class.


I'm going to start off with some context about each theory I'm going to mention, and then a few opinions of my own about conspiracy theories and then we'll go from there.


9/11

The facts: The theory here is that the 9/11 attacks were a 'planned demolition' by the government to attain support and justification for the invasion of Iraq, and so the attacks were engineered to look like Al-Qaeda did them.

The Opinion: I do believe there was some kind of works behind the attacks, I'm not going to come out and say "GOVMERT DID EET" but I do think there was far more going on than what we've been told. The most glaringly obvious point is that plane fuel doesn't melt buildings. However I'll go into more details in this later on.


Lake Tahoe

The facts: Some time in the 1970's (cant remember exactly), famous explorer Jacques Cleastou used a miniature submarine to visit the bottom of Lake Tahoe, the 2nd deepest lake in America. When he surfaced, he is claimed to have said "Humanity is not ready for what is at the bottom of Lake Tahoe." The popular theory is that there is a forest filled with perfectly preserved human remains, held down with concrete blocks, complete with 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's clothes as a cryptic history exibit, supposedly due to the Mafia during the construction of Las Vegas, as the city was run by criminals. Other theories involve the hiding of aliens, a tunnel to the ocean and other such theories.

However due to the federal authorities, nobody since Clestou's voyage has been granted permission to venture down again, so the secret is still kept under lock and key.

The Opinion: I say, if anything is down there, it's likely to be the mafia story as it's clearly most plausible. It would be absolutely incredible though if it was true to go on a tour down there, what a history tour that would be.


Area 51

The Facts: Due to the extremely tight keep on Area 51; the closed airspace, the huge exclusion zone around the site and the general shroud of mystery surrounding the area, it's led to speculation among many people that the government are keeping something from the public there. Popular theories are that aliens are being kept there, or that secret technologies are being developed there.

The Opinion: I believe it as what it is; an experimental aircraft testing facility. The reason I think it's kept under such tight lock and key is because, well, it's secret development and they dont want ideas stolen.


Dianas Death

The Facts: In August 1997, Princess Diana of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed died in a car crash in Paris. The driver of their car was intoxicated, and Dodi had requested that only one of his bodyguards accompany them, and none of Dianas. Subsequently, before entering a tunnel, the car crashed and everybody involved was killed. The conspiracy theory behind this is that the Royal Family planned the crash as Diana had divorced out of Royalty, and was also supposedly pregnant with Dodi's child which would bring the family into British Royalty. I'm not fully read-up on the details but its something along those lines.

The Opinion: I'm not sure where to stand on this one. I think the set-up was very strange and oddly contrived and planned, but it seems hard to orchestrate a crash. I'm not sure whether the Royals motives behind the conspiracy are watertight either, but there's definitely more than than what is told to it.


I've come to a writers block, so continue with your own opinions and please do add to the list if you have any opinions of other conspiracies which you probably no doubt will, I know I've left out some quite important ones.

Keep it clean :rolleyes:

[Toasty]

9/11 attacks:

My opinion, is that there is no conspiracy. The terrorists flew freaking 747's into the towers, and the towers were only designed to withstand the impact of a crop duster.
Also, jet fuel is incredibly flammable, and burns very hot. In fact, it can even explode. The initial explosion blew the cheap fire-proofing off of the beams, and the hot flames caused the beams to get hot enough to fail. Not necessarily melt, but at least soften to the point where the weight of the building caused them to bend and fail.


Lake Tahoe:

I visited Lake Tahoe over the summer, and never heard a word about that conspiracy theory. Though if any of those theories are correct, it's probably the one about dead people.


Area 51:

I believe highly experimental technologies are being developed there. The kinds of things that the military has in development tends to be 10 years ahead (the first stealth fighter was completed in 1990-something, and wasn't revealed to the public until the 2000's), so they obviously have something really high-tech brewing.
For obvious reasons, they're not going to want people knowing what they're working on.

[Golden Legacy]

There is the conspiracy aspect of 9/11, then there is the unquestioned impact of 9/11. I do not know yet where I stand on the events of 9/11. There is a historical precedent for false flag operations, and I do think there is far more to the story than is being revealed (as a reading of the 9/11 commission report has obvious holes). However, I think it is far-fetched to say the government outright planned it... but that they had the knowledge about it and "let it happen"? Possible.

The unquestioned impact of 9/11 is, regardless of where you stand on how it happened, it most certainly did give the administration in power the base with which to curtail civil liberties in the US (i.e. indefinite detention, removal of habeus corpus), and of course the illegitimate invasion, massacre, and continued occupation of Iraq.


One of my favorite conspiracy theories is the Business Plot, which is a supposed cout 'detat of Franklin Roosevelt by lucrative business owners, who were plotting a march of 500,000 private contractor mercenaries to take over the Capital.

And I think it would be amiss not to mention perhaps the long lasting conspiracy regarding the Apollo moon landings (that they never happened, that the first landing never occurred specifically, it was all done in a set on Earth).

[Split Infinity]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 10 2009, 12:30 PM, said:

And I think it would be amiss not to mention perhaps the longest lasting conspiracy regarding the Apollo moon landings (that they never happened, that the first landing never occurred specifically, it was all done in a set on Earth).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(...Moon_Landing.22

Adam and Jamie have you covered. :3

[Golden Legacy]

Good stuff, MythBusters is awesome. I know that you can also go to an observatory and send a light beam to the moon which is reflected back on mirror plates that were put there by the Apollo astronauts, indicating that it is all indeed real.

[Toasty]

I don't believe the moon landing was staged, and MythBusters definitely did do a good job on debunking the myth, but the question stands:
If we went there before, why haven't we gone back?

The simple answer being because most of the research and data from around the time of the moon landings has been lost over time. NASA has actually had to go to "spaceship junkyards" to find parts of their old rockets so they could analyze how they worked.

[Nosferatu]

Toasty, on Oct 9 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

I don't believe the moon landing was staged, and MythBusters definitely did do a good job on debunking the myth, but the question stands:
If we went there before, why haven't we gone back?

The simple answer being because most of the research and data from around the time of the moon landings has been lost over time. NASA has actually had to go to "spaceship junkyards" to find parts of their old rockets so they could analyze how they worked.

You'd think they'd Ctrl+S that shit.

[Mallick]

Nosferatu, on Oct 9 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

You'd think they'd Ctrl+S that shit.

>implying they kept their data on computers in the day

[Nosferatu]

Captain Cannabis, on Oct 9 2009, 10:21 PM, said:

>implying they kept their data on computers in the day

>implying that I wasn't just being an ass

[Ironsight]

>Implying Implications

[Split Infinity]

Nosferatu, on Oct 10 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

You'd think they'd Ctrl+S that shit.

They taped over the original landing footage. No joke.

[Caael]

Toasty, on Oct 10 2009, 02:09 AM, said:

9/11 attacks:

My opinion, is that there is no conspiracy. The terrorists flew freaking 747's into the towers, and the towers were only designed to withstand the impact of a crop duster.
Also, jet fuel is incredibly flammable, and burns very hot. In fact, it can even explode. The initial explosion blew the cheap fire-proofing off of the beams, and the hot flames caused the beams to get hot enough to fail. Not necessarily melt, but at least soften to the point where the weight of the building caused them to bend and fail.


Lake Tahoe:

I visited Lake Tahoe over the summer, and never heard a word about that conspiracy theory. Though if any of those theories are correct, it's probably the one about dead people.


Area 51:

I believe highly experimental technologies are being developed there. The kinds of things that the military has in development tends to be 10 years ahead (the first stealth fighter was completed in 1990-something, and wasn't revealed to the public until the 2000's), so they obviously have something really high-tech brewing.
For obvious reasons, they're not going to want people knowing what they're working on.

There is so much suspicion surrounding the steel beams. There's a few things I should point out:

1. As soon as the clearing of the site began, all the steel was quickly taken away and destroyed. Why? Why destroy rubble? What's there to hide?
2. Many, many forensic experts, scientists, building foremen etc have said that the steel in the building would not have even been weakened by the burning flame fuel, let alone straight up melted. However, because the steel had been shipped off and destroyed, there was not much evidence to support this.

It begs the question; why take the steel away?

I also suggest you read this page, as it can explain far more than what I can.
http://911research.w...ro/cleanup.html


As for Lake Tahoe and Area 51, I agree with you on both.

[Toasty]

I'll read the link after I get some shut-eye, but where'd you read that they destroyed the metal beams?

And supposedly, the metal beams shouldn't have melted, if the fire-proofing had stayed on. But since it didn't, it left the beams exposed. Thus, they failed. That's what I've heard.

Nosferatu, on Oct 9 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

You'd think they'd Ctrl+S that shit.

Yeah well, they kinda didn't. =/

[Legolastom]

Toasty, on Oct 10 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

data from around the time of the moon landings has been lost over time.

O SH-

...

Its already happening...

[Caael]

Toasty, on Oct 10 2009, 12:09 PM, said:

I'll read the link after I get some shut-eye, but where'd you read that they destroyed the metal beams?

And supposedly, the metal beams shouldn't have melted, if the fire-proofing had stayed on. But since it didn't, it left the beams exposed. Thus, they failed. That's what I've heard.



Yeah well, they kinda didn't. =/

Even if the plane fuel had melted some of the steel, it wouldn't mean the tower would fall to the ground in less than 10 seconds flat. The top half would have been unsupported and fallen horizontally but the bottom half should have been intact. But no, it just fell pretty much perfectly vertically, like a demolition. Explain this please.

[My Best Wishes]

Toasty have you watched any versions of Loose Change?

[Nosferatu]

Why would he watch anything that doesn't support patriotism?

[Golden Legacy]

Anyone ever heard of the supposed water car, and the death of the person who proposed the idea? One hell of a conspiracy if ever there was one.

Toasty, on Oct 9 2009, 10:24 PM, said:

I don't believe the moon landing was staged, and MythBusters definitely did do a good job on debunking the myth, but the question stands:
If we went there before, why haven't we gone back?

Meant to respond to this earlier. It is strange that there have been no lunar landings since the Apollo days, but I think there's "less" of an incentive to do so. The Space Race and the Cold War are over, the goal of has been accomplished, so there's nothing "new" about it anymore.

That's how I rationalize it, at least. Of course, I still would not mind if they resumed those space flights to the moon, and I believe there is a plan in place by space agencies to be back between 2020-2030.

[Mallick]

>Conspiracy theories
>between 2020-2030
>implying the world wont end @ 2012


Man, people are saying there's a conspiracy behind his death? I think there's a line between conspiracy theory and ridiculous, and that just crosses it twice.

[Split Infinity]

Caael, on Oct 18 2009, 12:23 AM, said:

Even if the plane fuel had melted some of the steel, it wouldn't mean the tower would fall to the ground in less than 10 seconds flat. The top half would have been unsupported and fallen horizontally but the bottom half should have been intact. But no, it just fell pretty much perfectly vertically, like a demolition. Explain this please.

I believe that was due to a certain domino effect. The steel beams were obviously designed to support the buildings' weight, but once the damaged levels gave in the entire thousand-ton block pretty much dropped onto the next floor, which instantly collapsed into the one below, and so on, all the way to the base.

You can see it in the footage; the buildings both fall from the center downwards, if it was a controlled demolition they would have either collapsed at the ground floor or just outright imploded.

[Toasty]

watch, on Oct 17 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

Toasty have you watched any versions of Loose Change?

Yes.

If you just watch the video and take everything at face value (without doing any prior research), the video is indeed very convincing. However, it's a load of bull.

When the beams on whatever floor the planes hit began to fail, the upper portion of the building gained a little inertia. When it subsequently collided with the bottom portion, the force caused the level below it to collapse. The force from that caused the level below that to collapse as well, and the resulting cascading effect caused the building to collapse vertically.

If it was a planned demolition, there would have to have been explosives on every floor, strapped to every beam, and the explosions would have had to go off floor-by-floor ahead of the falling upper mass to get a proper demolition. These explosions would have likely thrown debris much farther than the actually area that the debris fell within.

I think many of you are over-estimating the strength of the building's skeleton.

[Caael]

Calm down there toasty, I'm not saying anything is for sure I'm just asking for your point in it, I'm not at your throat baying for blood on this.

It also showed smaller explosions coming out the side of the building, suggesting that explosives had prior been places, or something to that extent. I'm still not convinced that the domino effect is sufficient enough, you'd have thought that at least a small portion of the tower would have fallen sideways, but no, every single bit of it just feel pretty much straight down.

It's also weird how the plane hits in a big fireball, then about 10 seconds later, the whole thing just plummets down all together; you dont see the top part falling first and then the domino effect occuring, you just see crash, and then it just drops.

[Split Infinity]

Hm, I beg to differ:

Firstly because the towers fell one or two hours after the crash, not instantly... :/

Secondly because the planes hit the towers at almost the top floor, so the actual upper section of the buildings which triggered the collapse was comparatively small. So it wouldn't have really skewed off to the side much; not unless the plane had taken a clean pass through the corner and tipped it over.

[Nosferatu]

Captain Cannabis, on Oct 17 2009, 06:52 PM, said:

>Conspiracy theories
>between 2020-2030
>implying the world wont end @ 2012

And that's why there aren't any 2013 calendars. Amirite or amirite?