TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Conspiracy Theorists
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit Usually conspiracy theorists have some sort of factual evidence, where religious people simply have blind faith.

I'm an atheist, and even I don't think religion is based solely on blind faith... that's just too simplistic an explanation, mate, you've got to work on something much more elaborate than that to talk about religion.

I just had the most frustrating day from dealing with a family of CT's, here's a quote:

"you know when Ahmedinejad said there are no gays in Iran, he was telling the truth-this fad doesn't exist in Iran like in the west so I don't know why the zionist media made such a big deal"

Apparantly Obama, Harper, Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown, etc., are all part of a spirit worshiping masonic cult...

I am extremely diplomatic in these situations and I can usually play it off that I am intrigued by the illogical rhetoric that is being spewed. A word to the wise, don't ever debate a conspiracy theorist with a PHD, it can be a Pretty Huge Disaster

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I'm an atheist, and even I don't think religion is based solely on blind faith... that's just too simplistic an explanation, mate, you've got to work on something much more elaborate than that to talk about religion.

lol i was being a bit sarcastic. The premise of religion is simply a faith no questions asked as to why no testable predictions just believe and thats it. We don't try to find evidence of noah's arc, the parting of the red sea, or radiometric data verifying 7 days of creation. Its simply faith. To compare this to a conspiracy theorist would not be analogous since, on the contrary, consipracy theorists are creating, analyzing or fabricating evidence towards a theory.

This could be analogous if there was 1 true religion as there is 1 truth regarding a conspiracy theory. For religion, the probability of even 1 of them being correct is very slim. So your comparing myth to myth.

To be analagous, the two comparables must have the same premise.

This myth is correct while that myth is incorrect.

vs

The moon landing was real while the conspiracy theorist believe its fake.

To be analagous there should be at least 1 correct response

1 and 1
1 and 0

mathematically this does not process.

anyways im trying to twist your leg here lira

I firmly believe that conspiracy theorists are paid by the government to spread hoaxes in order to hide the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by d-miurge I firmly believe that conspiracy theorists are paid by the government to spread hoaxes in order to hide the truth.

what if the government paid people to help perpetuate the illusion that conspiracy theorists are paid directly in order to cover up the truth?

didn't think about that did you, you fucken sheep.

its an exercise in futility. deranged people will cling to nonsense concepts for grim death. you can't argue with fantasy.

John Lennon talks about the New World Order

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel This is basically what I was figuring, but I wondered if anyone had any ideas that could help sway someone. Basically the situation is this friend of my aunt's, claimed some NWO bullshit and I called him out on it. He then says that he is an independent thinker and all this. I tell him if he was an independent thinker, he would not believe that the NWO is true.

JFK wore a tinfoil hat.

It's sad, because eventually a CTer is going to be right and no one is gonna believe him

use their tinfoil hat to wrap your sandwich for lunch

quote:

Originally posted by iTranscendence JFK wore a tinfoil hat.

i prefer this vid

Its easy to get sucked in to the conspiracy theories in the beginning. After a while you come back to reality but it always sits deep in the back of your mind. Nothing wrong with conspiracy theories as long as there is real research done to try and prove it. We are pounded by the media all day long about what "happend" and what is good and what is bad. Its easy to think conspiracy theories are fake with all the brainwashing we get throughout the day.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Nacht Nothing wrong with conspiracy theories as long as there is real research done to try and prove it.

in the long history of conspiracy theories, when has this EVER been attempted? Conspiracies themselves are born through poor/misunderstood research. If people had a commitment to doing proper analysis they wouldn�t be conspiracy theorists.

Those who attempt to prove conspiracy theories throw away deduction, logic and the scientific method whenever and wherever they need to, because they have already reached their conclusion and are simply looking for evidence to support it. that's not how research works kids!

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Nacht Its easy to think conspiracy theories are fake with all the brainwashing we get throughout the day.

no, its easy to think they're wrong because none of them actually make any sense.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN in the long history of conspiracy theories, when has this EVER been attempted?

Come on pk..I know you dismiss them outright but you can't deny research was done that casts doubt on the 9/11 commission story.. I'd like to see a bullet point counter for some of these points, like #13 which I had never heard before.. I realize some of the issues have been denied/debunked but certainly not all.

http://tranceaddict.com/forums/show...threadid=536675

Some of the sh!t just doesn't make sense like all of passengers and their property being vaporized in the Flight 93 Pennsylvania crash yet a complete passport by one of the hijackers is found on the scene unscathed.. True stuff like this and high ranking officials canceling plane flights on 9/10 doesn't "prove" anything..but you can't deny it looks shady.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Come on pk..I know you dismiss them outright but you can't deny research was done that casts doubt on the official 9/11 story..

yeah, shitty research unfit for consumption.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I'd like to see a bullet point counter for some of these points, like #13 which I had never heard before.. I realize some of the issues have been denied/debunked but certainly not all.

you act like they haven't been answered before. like 100 times.

quote:

CS � Number 13; Solicitor General Ted Olson�s claim that his wife Barbara Olsen called him twice from Flight 77, describing hijackers with box cutters, was a central plank of the official 9/11 story. However, the credibility of the story was completely undermined after Olsen kept changing his story about whether his wife used her cell phone or the airplane phone. The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004. American Airlines confirmed that Flight 77 was a Boeing 757 and that this plane did not have airplane phones on board. According to the FBI, Barbara Olsen attempted to call her husband only once and the call failed to connect, therefore Olsen must have been lying when he claimed he had spoken to his wife from Flight 77.

you really are a moron. what would you say to ted olsen when he states to you that he spoke to his wife before she died? i mean, what the fuck is wrong with you?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Some of the sh!t just doesn't make sense like all of passengers and their property being vaporized in the Flight 93 Pennsylvania crash with nothing but a charred hole in the ground left, yet a complete passport by one of the hijackers is found on the scene unscathed.. True this doesn't "prove" anything but you can't deny it looks shady.

flight 93 actually plowed into the ground, and many things were recovered from the crash site, including personal effects and remains. Are you aware of the personal effects found after the most recent NASA shuttle explosion? Did the NWO blow up the shuttle too?

your problem is your ignorance lets these idiotic notions ferment. had you bothered to look at all the answers that have been provided fairly substantially since around 2004 you would no longer be "asking questions" and looking like an idiot.

again, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Did Cap just cite Charlie Sheen as good research?

Sheen didn't do the research. He just wrote the imaginary interview.. Lots of it doesn't add up fellas. And the stuff posted in the second JFK video is disturbing as well. A lot of these societies (Bilderburg, CFR, Trilateral Commission, etc) are obviously involved and influencing government at the highest levels..yet people are addressed as CTers for mentioning the fact and "tinfoil hats" for questioning their motivations.

Here is a list of supposed proven conspiracies. Which means its not ALWAYS bs.

http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blo...acies-from.html

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Sheen didn't do the research. He just wrote the imaginary interview.. It doesn't add up fellas. And the stuff posted in the second JFK video is disturbing as well. A lot of these societies (Bilderburg, CFR, etc) are obviously involved and influencing government at the highest levels..yet people are addressed as CTers for mentioning the fact and questioning their motivation.

It is truly amazing that you, the quintessential capitalist and free market enthusiast is such a scaredy-cat when confronted with the pointy-end of the society naturally produced by your opinions.

Hmmmm, big, rich companies influencing government. How�d those companies get all that money and power? your idiocy isn't even internally consistent

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Nacht Here is a list of supposed proven conspiracies. Which means its not ALWAYS bs. http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blo...acies-from.html

i like how they include the creation of the federal reserve as a conspiracy. you guys can't get ANYTHING right. i mean, look at the source for the statement ffs!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN It is truly amazing that you, the quintessential capitalist and free market enthusiast is such a scaredy-cat when confronted with the pointy-end of the society naturally produced by your opinions. Hmmmm, big, rich companies influencing government. How�d those companies get all that money and power? your idiocy isn't even internally consistent

Big rich companies influencing government is a sign of fascism/corporatism..not capitalism. Don't get confused pk. No self respecting capitalist wants his business to have ANY "connections" with government at all. Government is a tool for losers and parasites of industry, not people who are confident in their work.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Big rich companies influencing government is a sign of fascism/corporatism..not capitalism. Don't get confused pk. No self respecting capitalist wants his business to have ANY "connections" with government at all.

lol. your naivete is astonishing.

Those people are about as "capitalist" at heart as the national socialists (Nazis) were "socialist" pk..

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Those people are about as "capitalist" at heart as the national socialists (Nazis) were "socialist" pk..

Im not sure where you get your peculiar understanding of isms from but the ability to influence those in government (as either an individual or a lobby or a corporation) is at the heart of modern democracy. Your assertion that �true� capitalist businesses don�t influence government policy is just nonsense.

Also, can you provide any examples of the bilderberg group or CFR exerting undue influence for nefarious ends?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.