Conspiracy theories

[deipnosophist]

At the very least every person who looks at the full story would conclude if being truthful to themselves that if the government didn't do it themselves that they let it happen. Going back to Clinton there was specific intelligence that bin Laden was seeking to blow up the towers for good (after 93) specifically mentioning the use of aircraft.

I remain equivocal as to who did it....but I am unequivocal in my stance regarding the towers' (3 of them) falls being assisted implosions.

 

[VentureBrosEFC]

I remain equivocal as to who did it....but I am unequivocal in my stance regarding the towers' (3 of them) falls being assisted implosions.

As I said "in the very least" with no knowledge of collapse patterns.

 

[WA Toffee]

At the very least every person who looks at the full story would conclude if being truthful to themselves that if the government didn't do it themselves that they let it happen. Going back to Clinton there was specific intelligence that bin Laden was seeking to blow up the towers for good (after 93) specifically mentioning the use of aircraft.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing

 

[WA Toffee]

Fascinating stuff to look into. I went way down the rabbit hole a few years ago with this and the Georgia guide stones.

Best way is to study each mural without looking up what others have seen, then go look at what you missed. Very dark stuff imho.

I've never been there, so do not claim to speak with any authority on the subject, but is it just really dark art or something more sinister. Apparently there are other artworks which never get a mention because they don't fit the narrative.

 

[chrismpw]

I suspect the energy came from the compression to an energy scintilla of a previous universe. This process repeats every X billion years or so.
But what was the provenance of the very first universe?
It's provenance was the very last universe...it's a circularity.
Think of a hoop you hold in your hand...it has no discreet beginning and end, it's comprised of an infinite set of points all equidistant to one point. It's infinity feeding back on itself.

Like the universe

My thoughts too, apart from the Idea of a loop. Nice.
.

 

[Blue Cheese]

I suspect the energy came from the compression to an energy scintilla of a previous universe. This process repeats every X billion years or so.
But what was the provenance of the very first universe?
It's provenance was the very last universe...it's a circularity.
Think of a hoop you hold in your hand...it has no discreet beginning and end, it's comprised of an infinite set of points all equidistant to one point. It's infinity feeding back on itself.

Like the universe

I still don't understand how the very first energy particles came from if there was nothing, I cant even quantify nothingness in my head when on this topic

 

[Frank Gallagher]

I still don't understand how the very first energy particles came from if there was nothing, I cant even quantify nothingness in my head when on this topic

2 meteorites colliding, would create energy

 

[Blue Cheese]

2 meteorites colliding, would create energy

But there was nothing, meteorites didn't exist as there was no universe, so where did the energy come from to create the 'big bang'?

@deipnosophist theory is all well and good but there had to be a starting point, how?

 

[Frank Gallagher]

But there was nothing, meteorites didn't exist as there was no universe, so where did the energy come from to create the 'big bang'

it was GOD mate. honest

 

[bicycleheader]

The Bilderberg Group from what I have read in reliable sources such as The Guardian etc, holds meetings in secret at which new up and coming people (politicians, writers, opinion formers) are invited. People of different political persuasions are apparently invited and - as far as I can deduce from what I have read - attempts are made (not in an obviously sinister fashion but by flattery and persuasion) to draw them into this global hedgemonic thinking.

In short - anyone with any radicalism that threatens the global interests of the powerful will be destabilised. Why do you think the media are so strong against any labour leader (Kinnock, Foot, Corbyn) who appears to threaten this, whereas with a safe Bilderberg type of leader like Healey (even though he wasn't ever labour leader) or Blair weren't?

I think the problem sometimes with starting down the conspiracy route is that often people start to only see what fits the theory or bend what doesnt until it does fit.

For example in the two paragraphs above. My first thought is always to play devils advocate. Im not assuming you are stating as fact all you are posting, but just responding to what yoive written.

If there were so many meetings with invitations to people from different walks of life, would there not be a strong likelihood that we would have a lot of stories out there from people who attended them? Would it not be very likely it would be a lot more of a FACT right now rather than a secret or a conspiracy? The probabilty should be high on this if so many different types of people attend.

On the second you do seem to state this as something you strongly believe in. Could it not be simply that the politicians mentioned believed in policies which went against that of those who hold the purse strings and ultimately the power in the major media outlets? They then use that power to influence how government policy might go. I think is something most people would agree is a done thing, but what suggests that it goes a level above that and a secret society decides who is and isn't targeted? (there were many Pro Corbyn articles on the Guardian for example, and although greatly outnumbered by those against there was still enough of both points of view being aired there to make it difficult to see a complete media whitewash)

I dont hold a strong view either way, but find the way that people approach and discuss these things very interesting.

 

[bicycleheader]

The Bilderberg Group from what I have read in reliable sources such as The Guardian etc, holds meetings in secret at which new up and coming people (politicians, writers, opinion formers) are invited. People of different political persuasions are apparently invited and - as far as I can deduce from what I have read - attempts are made (not in an obviously sinister fashion but by flattery and persuasion) to draw them into this global hedgemonic thinking.

In short - anyone with any radicalism that threatens the global interests of the powerful will be destabilised. Why do you think the media are so strong against any labour leader (Kinnock, Foot, Corbyn) who appears to threaten this, whereas with a safe Bilderberg type of leader like Healey (even though he wasn't ever labour leader) or Blair weren't?

I think the problem sometimes with starting down the conspiracy route is that often people start to only see what fits the theory or bend what doesnt until it does fit.

For example in the two paragraphs above. My first thought is always to play devils advocate. Im not assuming you are stating as fact all you are posting, but just responding to what yoive written.

If there were so many meetings with invitations to people from different walks of life, would there not be a strong likelihood that we would have a lot of stories out there from people who attended them? Would it not be very likely it would be a lot more of a FACT right now rather than a secret or a conspiracy? The probabilty should be high on this if so many different types of people attend.

On the second you do seem to state this as something you strongly believe in. Could it not be simply that the politicians mentioned believed in policies which went against that of those who hold the purse strings and ultimately the power in the major media outlets? They then use that power to influence how government policy might go. I think is something most people would agree is a done thing, but what suggests that it goes a level above that and a secret society decides who is and isn't targeted? (there were many Pro Corbyn articles on the Guardian for example, and although greatly outnumbered by those against there was still enough of both points of view being aired there to make it difficult to see a complete media whitewash)

I dont hold a strong view either way, but find the way that people approach and discuss these things very interesting.

 

[deipnosophist]

I suggest the rationalisation/consolidation of the 'Main Stream Media' hasn't aided dissemination of balanced news/commentary.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Regarding the JFK assassination, this Youtube vid is worth nearly two hours of your time, if you are interested...

 

[WA Toffee]

I still don't understand how the very first energy particles came from if there was nothing, I cant even quantify nothingness in my head when on this topic

Don't worry, a lot better minds than yours have tried to answer this and failed.

 

[Groucho]

2 meteorites colliding, would create energy

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed can it? It can alter its form.

Two travelling meteorites (carrying kinetic energy) would collide and convert said kinetic/potential energy in to heat/sound/light energy.

This requires energy to be present in the first place.