conspiracy theories

[jesusfreak]

here is a link to expane the pentagon conspiracy theory tell me what you think of it and any other conspiracy theories you like. http://www.robrob8.com/you_wanted_to_know/pentagon-terror-conspiracy.htm#Main

[jesusfreak]

so what do you think asdfjk and the guest

[jesusfreak]

ops sorry asdflkj (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/member.php?u=8616) i couldn't rember the order of the letters

[{Tim}]

here is a link to expane the pentagon conspiracy theory tell me what you think of it and any other conspiracy theories you like. http://www.robrob8.com/you_wanted_to_know/pentagon-terror-conspiracy.htm#Main
I think there is a conspiracy afoot to trick us into believing in non-existent conspiracies. :teeth:

[mentored1]

Hail and well met...

Well I think there's a point where a Conspiracy Theory, due to extensive exposure and evidence, becomes a distinctly possible, even probable. The link you provided was intriguing - but my unfamiliarity with that particular conspiracy requires a bit more research.

I've read and watched many pieces of evidence for the 9/11 conspiracies - most of which are dubious; but one book and video I'd recommend is "9/11 in Plain sight" by David VanKleist (www.thepowerhour.com). It's part of a larger context of careful researchers who stop short of making direct accusations but provide enough evidence to suggest that it is more than a theory that 'something' conspiratorial has occured.

The only reason I'd consider conspiracy theories at all is because a glimpse through history will show the extents to which our fellow man will go to gain and retain power. Whether the attempt is good or evil is another issue.

Take care

[jesusfreak]

those are good points. i was also watching the History Channel and they where showing a thing about JFK assination theories about the grassy noll. there is a theory about what is called a bage man behind a retaining wall. they proved that it was very very extemly chanceful that somebody also shot kenedy from behind the retaining wall but in the end they stuck there foot in there mouth by saying that he was to eather to short or to tall to get a clear shot but i just thought to myself if he was to tall common scence tells me he would neal down and if he was to short than he would just stand on something.

[JSDileo]

here is a link to expane the pentagon conspiracy theory tell me what you think of it and any other conspiracy theories you like. http://www.robrob8.com/you_wanted_to_know/pentagon-terror-conspiracy.htm#Main

That was just stupid.

So, you want me to believe that the government got an actual plane, killed the people in it, made the plane mysteriously disappear, and then shot a missile at the Pentagon.

Rrrriiiigggghhhhttt.

Besides, part of the video provides evidence for it not being a missile. Remember the part where the narrator talked about the neatly punctured holes going through the different layers of the Pentagon? They claimed that was because a missile went through the different layers, thus leaving circular holes in each layer down to layer C. However, think about this: How did the fire in layer A start, yet there was no fire in layers B or C? If the missile was still intact when it punctured B and C it would not have started the fire on the outer layer but would have exploded in one of the inner layers, thus starting the fire there.

Besides, the hole could easily be exlained by an engine disconnecting from the plane and being carried by the plane's momentum.

[Hail Mary]

Shhh!! :stop:

They're reading this thread!

[Rubia Warren]

:lol:

[The Curtmudgeon]

... but in the end they stuck there foot in there mouth by saying that he was to eather to short or to tall to get a clear shot but i just thought to myself if he was to tall common scence tells me he would neal down and if he was to short than he would just stand on something.

You missed the point they were making, JF: If the pixels in that photograph which are interpreted as being a human face really were a person, then he would have to be standing 16 FEET in the air, 40 YARDS behind the wall in order to have a shot over the wall to where JFK was hit in the motorcade (the numbers were mentioned in the presentation, which I also watched), as well as making the "face" fit a standard human adult body. It isn't a question of simply kneeling down or standing on something like a box: the size of the "face" isn't right for it to be a human face where the CTs say a person was standing.

That was an excellent program altogether for exposing the JFK assassination CTs, as far as more than one shooter or problems with the "magic bullet" or the like. They didn't discuss any of the CTs about who might or might not have hired LHO, whether he really was acting on his own or not as far as his motivation was concerned, but the program systematically dismantled all the CTs that call for an additional shooter on the scene. Having seen that presentation, I would say that it's practically impossible now for anyone to make a serious case for any bullets other than the three fired by LHO from the School Book Depository.

There are certainly conspiracies in the world: 11 September was an excellent example of that, although not in the sense that the wilder CTs would want us to believe. The conspiracy involved 20 hijacker/pilots, plus possible alternates, plus some unknown number of planners that were not involved in the actual act of flying the planes into buildings, plus however many friends and family members who knew that something was up but didn't break silence about it. Abraham Lincoln's assassination was a definite conspiracy, since it was actually only one incident in a simultaneous attack on several Cabinet members, and while Booth was killed in the tobacco warehouse other members of the conspiracy (and one more-or-less innocent Dr. Mudd) were caught and hanged. Julius Caesar's assassination was a conspiracy, Gunpowder Plot was a conspiracy, and so on and so forth.

But the modern conception of CTs as "The US government is conspiring, or has conspired, to ... (fill in the blank) ..." are almost all provably bunk. They are recognisably all anti-governmental polemics, speaking more about the political leanings of the True Believers than about the actual facts of the cases involved. Even the Watergate break-in was shown not to be an action of the US government at the time, but only of a faction of Nixon cronies acting (and on a par with Laurel and Hardy, or perhaps Abbott and Costello) on their own.

Add to that all the CTs involving (in no particular order) the Freemasons, the Roman Catholic Church, the Templars, the Illuminatti, the Rosicrucians and/or the creations of Madame Blavatsky's imagination. The CTs about the Freemasons were originally the creations of the Roman church, which has long been paranoid about secret societies other than their own, and so I find it hilarious that so many of the Freemason CTs have been adopted, or even taken over, by people who are just as willing as not to entwine the Church in the same webs. Of course, the Freemasons opened themselves up to that kind of thing by their obvious bent for fabricating their own history.

The (and just ask your local order of Masons to come out and build a house and see what you get) Curtmudgeon