TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- conspiracy - what do you think
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 »


Posted by cyper on Dec-08-2005 05:32:

quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
You're on the right track, but more correctly stated it would be that you can never convince me of those theories without evidence. And if you cannot be convinced that those theories are false despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary, then you are a fool.

I refuse to wave this off as an "agree to disagree" issue. These conspiracy theories are wrong; they are based on little to no supporting evidence, they oversimplify and personify complex social issues, they fail the scientific method test, they fail Occam's razor, they fail the multiplication of entities test, and they rely heavily on confirmation bias and several logical fallacies. THEY ARE BULLSHIT.


So I guess even the pyramids on Mars, which contain mathematical properties similar to those in Eygpt. Is just a coincidence. And the fact nobody has yet to explain(not even science) how "natural" formations have formed on Mars(in the cydonia region) which contain not one, but many structures that also share many mathematical properties and equations based on our current knowledge.

Also, the photos of mars have been proven by professionals that the structures are real, and not just light & shadow.

But now I sound like a geek. So im gunna go drink some more..


Posted by Yohan on Dec-08-2005 05:36:

quote:
Originally posted by cyper
So I guess even the pyramids on Mars, which contain mathematical properties similar to those in Eygpt. Is just a coincidence. And the fact nobody has yet to explain(not even science) how "natural" formations have formed on Mars(in the cydonia region) which contain not one, but many structures that also share many mathematical properties and equations based on our current knowledge.

Also, the photos of mars have been proven by professionals that the structures are real, and not just light & shadow.

But now I sound like a geek. So im gunna go drink some more..


Ah yes. the Martians.

Haven't seen them in a while. I think they finally realized that humans smell bad


Posted by cyper on Dec-08-2005 05:39:

Score:

Conspiracy Crazy People: 1

Everyone Else: 25


Back in the game bitches!


Posted by DigiNut on Dec-08-2005 05:40:

quote:
Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
all credibility lost right there Sir.

Hmm...let's see here.

-1961 Bay of Pigs...yep, good show there, righteous Americans.
-Vietnam War or "Police Action" - the crusade against Communism! What a lovely and just war that was.
- support of all the bannana republics in Central and South America, even outright dictators who oppressed their own people.
- the Nuclear Arms Race...the country in the early 80s was suffering from a massive recession, yet Reagan still spent trillions on nukes, even though about a 100 hydrogen bombs would destroy the northern hemisphere. Excellent use of government funds.
- The current Iraq debacle. - ignoring all evidence to supercede the UN to invade a country who never had any WMD's. Democracy at its best.

Of course, we could go into domestic problems as well.....slavery, being the LAST western nation to ban it, treatment of african americans through the 1900s, treatment of Native Americans....it just goes on and on.

They'd never lie to us, would they?

First of all, I did not say that they have a perfect track record. All I said was that compared to most other governments there's very little to fault them on.

Most of what you point out doesn't even make sense.
- They've never supported the banana republics, except in the insane rants of Left-wing crackheads.
- I can't even believe you're trying to fault Reagan on winning the Cold War and preventing what could potentially have wiped out half the planet. The mechanics of Mutually Assured Destruction are VERY complicated and it's clear that you don't understand them at all.
- The USA went into Iraq because of the available evidence. They've found plenty of weapons since the occupation started, but you don't read about that in the NY times because they'd look foolish for mentioning it after constantly slamming Bush for acting "unilaterally" (despite the fact that 30 other countries went along with it). Need I remind you that the USA only agreed to leave Kuwait in the early 90s under the condition that Saddam would not only disarm but prove to the rest of the world that he had done so, which even the U.N. will tell you he didn't do. Who the hell cares what the U.N. thinks anyway - they've solved maybe 1 minor conflict, compared to the USA stopping 2 major wars and preventing several more.
- The USA was hardly the last nation to abolish slavery, and with respect to their treatment of "Native Americans" - what the hell? The Native Americans were taking up maybe 1% of the land mass but also happened to be nomadic, territorial, and utterly hostile. The tribes themselves were always killing each other (just ask the Comanche about the Apache, for example), and tried very hard to kill all the U.S. Settlers even though they hadn't directly invaded the Indian territory.

Get your facts straight, man, and stop spouting clich�s.


Posted by DigiNut on Dec-08-2005 05:42:

quote:
Originally posted by cyper
So I guess even the pyramids on Mars, which contain mathematical properties similar to those in Eygpt. Is just a coincidence. And the fact nobody has yet to explain(not even science) how "natural" formations have formed on Mars(in the cydonia region) which contain not one, but many structures that also share many mathematical properties and equations based on our current knowledge.

Also, the photos of mars have been proven by professionals that the structures are real, and not just light & shadow.

But now I sound like a geek. So im gunna go drink some more..

Ah, yes, the pyramids. On Mars. Source? Evidence? Anyone? Bueller?

Sorry, but nobody here is going to award you that point until you can actually prove something.

One other thing: conspiracy theorists, please stop telling us to keep an "open mind". People should not be "open" to every stupid assertion that gets thrown their away. People should be objective, and weigh those assertions against the available evidence before making a judgment call.


Posted by Cosmic Fur on Dec-08-2005 05:45:

Stick to the point please. Don't go off rambling about pyramids and whatnot as it has no relevance to the topic at hand. For some reason when we present you with evidence that your conspiracy theories are wrong, you keep going back to the point that we blindly follow everything the US gov't says. I DO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING THEY SAY. Did they make up WMDs? Yes, they did. I believed that from day 1. Did they have something to do with 9/11? No. And until you prove otherwise, the 'no' stays (as we presented evidence and you did not present counter-evidence), and as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is closed (just like it was closed with the same result on countless other forums).

It's preposterous to think that the US Government couldn't have thought of a simpler way to launch an attack on Iraq (which I'm under the impression is the connection you're making between staging the 9/11 and the war) other than hijacking 5 planes, killing all the passengers on board, and downing 2 of some of the biggest building in the country. They could have just bought a nuke on the black market from the Russians, planted it in Iraq, and 'caught' Saddam kissing the nuke. Or thousands of other ways. Terrorists attacking the WTC gave Bush an opportunity, and he used that opportunity to his favour. That does not mean the opportunity was fabricated by him.


Posted by hardcore trancer on Dec-08-2005 05:48:

quote:
Originally posted by EvilTree
Source? This is new info to me.


sure there are plenty of info on this if you do a little search.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-e...on/20020428.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...,686182,00.html

http://www.iol.co.za/general/newsvi...d=2396&set_id=1


Posted by JB1 on Dec-08-2005 05:51:

I'll buy everyone drinks and call this "mass destruction" between one another even?

We all have our own point of view on certain subject in life, let us all learn from one another and expand our view points. I shall offer a peace agreement to you all


Posted by cyper on Dec-08-2005 05:52:

I can give you a few dozen links, and tell you to read a few books (like, The Mars Mystery).
But you still wont believe me DigiNut.

Also, you seem like the perfect spokesperson for the whitehouse. Doing nothing but defending American & criticizee those that bash the government for being corrupt or malignant.


Posted by Cosmic Fur on Dec-08-2005 05:54:

quote:
Originally posted by cyper
I can give you a few dozen links, and tell you to read a few books (like, The Mars Mystery).
But you still wont believe me DigiNut.

Also, you seem like the perfect spokesperson for the whitehouse. Doing nothing but defending American & criticizee those that bash the government for being corrupt or malignant.


OFF TOPIC


Posted by cyper on Dec-08-2005 05:54:

quote:
Originally posted by JB1
I'll buy everyone drinks and call this "mass destruction" between one another even?

We all have our own point of view on certain subject in life, let us all learn from one another and expand our view points. I shall offer a peace agreement to you all


DigiNut wouldnt agree


Posted by cyper on Dec-08-2005 05:56:

Its funny how you can keep pissing people off by feeding them a bunch of crazy conspiracy theories.


Posted by Dj Smitty20 on Dec-08-2005 05:58:

Diginut....The US was the last WESTERN nation to ban slavery...pay attention.

The Native Americans were taking up 1% of the land? What are you smoking! I've taken two courses in ethnohistory an dyou're telling me that the natives were violent, hostile and that WASN'T justified? Holy mother of shit.

Let's see here...Andrew Jackson's administration actually enacted FORCIBLE REMOVAL of natives and even contemplated extermination. The Winter of Tears in 1837...Union troops kick out 10,000 Cherkoees from their home and move them to Okalahoma (where again, they were moved when oil was discovered there in the 1920s). Hundreds died in the frigid temperatures during the forced march.
Then there's the whole Plains Indian Sioux affair...Custer massacred a whole village of defenceless women and children in 1868 at the Washita. A treaty was worked out in 1869 promising the Montana area to be Indian territory. In 1873, American traders began encroaching, the Transcontinental Railway was constructed right through it and conflict arose again. The Sioux were eventually displaced and put on reserves in Nebraska where their remnants remain today in poverty.

Why don't you read, for starters, Stephen Ambrose's "Crazy Horse and Custer" and "Custer Died For Your Sins" by Vine Deloria....or anything contemporary on the conquering of American Indians at the mouth of the cannon and the end of the bayonet. Are you sure you weren't educated in the 1920s?

Historians would have an absolute field day with your views!


Posted by Yohan on Dec-08-2005 06:02:

All 3 articles's say the same thing; why weren't more troops deployed?

Which begs these questions.

-how big is the area bin Laden's suppose to be hiding in?
-how many troops did US have available? specifically how many trained in mountain warfare?
-if US did deploy troops in all passes, how long would they have to stay? how big of a group is needed to block off each pass?
-how will they be supplied? (choppers can't land anywhere)
-what kind of air support will they have in case they get attacked or ambushed?
-how sympathetic are the locals to US and Afghani govt? to talibans and AQ?

Hindsight is 20/20 too...


Posted by Cosmic Fur on Dec-08-2005 06:04:

Oh this is good.

I'm gonna take this as complete and utter defeat from the conspirators. I mean, wtf are you posting?


Posted by cyper on Dec-08-2005 06:11:

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmic Fur
Oh this is good.

I'm gonna take this as complete and utter defeat from the conspirators. I mean, wtf are you posting?


Im drunk, so give me a break.


Posted by hardcore trancer on Dec-08-2005 06:16:

and on Mars check there links out:




cool video: [[ LINK REMOVED ]]





cool article on how Nasa changed the real colour of Mars: http://xfacts.com/spirit2004/
http://xfacts.com/gusev2004/gusev.html


more on mars:

http://www.mufor.org/mars.html

http://www.checktheevidence.com/art...20On%20Mars.htm

http://palermoproject.com/lowell2004/grandcentral.htm

http://mars.spherix.com/spie2003/SP...Color_Paper.htm

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycl.../M/Marsveg.html

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicmarsanoms.htm

http://palermoproject.com/lowell2004/legacy3.htm



Iam not saying these are 100% facts but yet intresting to read.


Posted by cyper on Dec-08-2005 06:17:

http://www.pushhamburger.com/who_rules.htm

Heres a good link about U.S. Media. I suggest you read the whole thing before making a comment.


Posted by cyper on Dec-08-2005 06:19:

quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
and on Mars check there links out:


Thank you.

I was just way to lazy to post all the links I have on here. Since they wont believe me anyways.


Posted by Yohan on Dec-08-2005 06:20:

quote:
Originally posted by cyper
Thank you.

I was just way to lazy to post all the links I have on here. Since they wont believe me anyways.


I hate to tell you, but Diginut is a Martian.
Now that you guys are onto him and his buddies, he's going to have to zap you all with his death ray gun.


Posted by cyper on Dec-08-2005 06:22:

quote:
Originally posted by EvilTree
I hate to tell you, but Diginut is a Martian.
Now that you guys are onto him and his buddies, he's going to have to zap you all with his death ray gun.


Haha. That explains it! Guess we are all screwed.


Posted by hardcore trancer on Dec-08-2005 06:23:

quote:
Originally posted by EvilTree
All 3 articles's say the same thing; why weren't more troops deployed?



well why didnt they??thats the question. Did they not have enough troops??dont forget that we are talking about worlds most powerful military here.


Posted by Yohan on Dec-08-2005 06:29:

quote:
Was it possible for U.S. troops to prevent bin Laden's likely escape? Several thousand American troops would have been needed to create a tight perimeter around Tora Bora, but in late November the United States had only a few hundred available Marines and a few hundred available Army soldiers immediately on hand. It would have been hard to get them into Tora Bora's mountains.


http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-e...on/20020428.htm

To me, it's seems not enough troops in the area.


Posted by solgrabber on Dec-09-2005 01:37:

quote:
To me, it's seems not enough troops in the area.


well how about when osama got treated in an american owned hospital a little while back. why did they not do something then?

cosmic fur:

if the plane that crashed into the pentagon liquified why did the 2 that hit the towers do the same thing?


Posted by Yohan on Dec-09-2005 01:43:

quote:
Originally posted by solgrabber
well how about when osama got treated in an american owned hospital a little while back. why did they not do something then?


Source?


Pages (8): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 »

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