What conspiracy theory really bugs you the most?

Really... Well, we were there... where's ALL THE FRICKIN OIL. I don't often use the term, but that is sxxxxd!(I censored myself somewhat because I don't want to violate the terms here. That word might. I don't know for sure, but it fits.)
Click to expand...
Probably 911 was similar to Pearl Harbor as in the USA knew that an attack would come, but they did not attempt to prevent it. That way they would have a justification to invade Iraq and pass Patriot Act type laws. Various government agencies have sock puppets, so they then would spread disinformation like King Kong knocked down the twin towers to distract from people who question what really happened at 911.
But yah, oil and the strategic location of Afghanistan was probably the real reason they invaded.

 
This is the kind of ignorance that I could get into trouble over, so I'm going to maximize my restraint here. With little to NO understanding of history some people can be lead to believe almost anything. No, that's wrong... They will be convinced of anything. Regardless, you might think if someone looked at the real world and tried to use their "own" brain... and think...

It should be easy to see that the US has NOT taken over the oil of ANY country. To see that reality and still make comments like I have seen here, is something well beyond ignorance.

Probably 911 was similar to Pearl Harbor as in the USA knew that an attack would come, but they did not attempt to prevent it.
Click to expand...
Knowing of a possible attack but, not knowing when, is far different than "they did not attempt to prevent it." Such a comment is highly offensive to many people and I am one of them. If I have to be temporally banned or even permanently, so be it. I can not let such ignorant statements go unchallenged.

 
Probably 911 was similar to Pearl Harbor as in the USA knew that an attack would come, but they did not attempt to prevent it. That way they would have a justification to invade Iraq and pass Patriot Act type laws. Various government agencies have sock puppets, so they then would spread disinformation like King Kong knocked down the twin towers to distract from people who question what really happened at 911.But yah, oil and the strategic location of Afghanistan was probably the real reason they invaded.
Click to expand...
The first part makes a lot more sense, and some files show that the CIA had information involving 9/11 as far back as 98. Not preventing an attack is more our speed than creating one. FDR mysteriously moved most of our fleet to Pearl Harbor before that attack, and it's likely he was inviting an attack to get into the war (the US was a lot more isolationist at the time and wanted no part of WWII, not to mention many powerful people supported the Nazis) as well as justify a metric tonne of money to get a new fleet with advanced aircraft carriers.
As for oil, the US has been producing lots of oil for ages now. The Alaskan pipeline produces so much oil, most of which goes into military reserve instead of seeing public consumption. While oil is lucrative, and it's entirely possible some big dogs in the oil industry might have staged a conspiracy, I think it's wee bit farfetched to say that Da Gumment did it. Industries doing so definitely has some precedent - anyone look up the Banana Republic conspiracy lately?

 
:(

It's no use. Every Doctor knows there are some that can not be saved, move to the next patient.

I have no more comment for the conspiracy forum. :speechless:

 
As for oil, the US has been producing lots of oil for ages now. The Alaskan pipeline produces so much oil, most of which goes into military reserve instead of seeing public consumption. While oil is lucrative, and it's entirely possible some big dogs in the oil industry might have staged a conspiracy, I think it's wee bit farfetched to say that Da Gumment did it. Industries doing so definitely has some precedent - anyone look up the Banana Republic conspiracy lately?
Click to expand...
The is no shortage of oil, there is a shortage of cheap oil. The cost of producing Iraq oil is like $5 per barrel, maybe less. The cost of producting oil by fracking or from oil sands is $70+ per barrel. The same applies to off shore oil, drilling offshore oil wells is extremely expensive.
A historic example is Britain, there is no shortage of coal in Britain. But the reason why coal became expensive is Britain is because all of the shallow surface coal was used up for the industrial revolution. To convert from one energy source to another is extremely difficult. Even though Britain had the first oil well in middle east most of the oil was used for military purposes. The reason why is British industry could not easily switch over from coal to using oil or natural gas.

This is where China and India have an advantage, since they are still building their infrastructure it is easier for them to design it to use alternative energy sources.

 
The is no shortage of oil, there is a shortage of cheap oil. The cost of producing Iraq oil is like $5 per barrel, maybe less. The cost of producting oil by fracking or from oil sands is $70+ per barrel. The same applies to off shore oil, drilling offshore oil wells is extremely expensive.
Click to expand...
And thus a conspiracy to gain control over wells where cost of production was lower makes more sense. We produce a lot of oil but the methods are expensive. Staging a conspiracy to cause an invasion is a good excuse to get American muscle into countries where our mere presence alters the market - that's pretty devious. I'm not sure if I'm fully on-board but I do have a bit more respect for the theory now. Thanks for the summation.

 
I'm not sure if I'm fully on-board but I do have a bit more respect for the theory now. Thanks for the summation.
Click to expand...
I am saying it is a possibility. What is the saying ? Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity. So was it actually planned ? Or was it just a case of someone taking advantage of an opportunity. There is a good chance it might be the second.
I like to think of myself as an armchair scientist, a scientist should look at all possibilities. The should then attempt to disprove the possibility. So for my theory, there is a motive. But there is no smoking gun, so a smoking gun would be something like a wikileaks document, proof that some cabal actually planned it.

 
Pretty much all of them.

It's not that I think none of them are true because there's definitely secret things going on but they annoy me because people often seem to latch onto conspiracy theories for the wrong reasons. People claim to have unearthed the truth but in reality they just latched onto a position that reinforces their worldview. You see things like this all over the political spectrum. Instead of educating one's self about what's going on in the world, people flock to biased sources that tell them what they want to hear so conspiracy theory discussions end up being arguments about people's ideologies rather than what actually happened.

For example, let's take a hypothetical False Flag incident: a shooter kills a bunch of people at a mall during Black Friday. Within minutes of this happening, someone like Alex Jones is gonna say Obama did it to take away your guns. Does Obama? I don't know, there's just no possible way to make this claim within minutes of the event happening since we don't know anything about it. We go from trying to figure out what happened at the shooting to arguing about gun control. Instead of figuring out the truth, anti-gun control activists and pro-gun control activists argue about their ideological differences. While my False Flag example might sound like I'm playing the right wing is the main culprit of this annoying tendency, I gotta point out that there's leftists who do the same thing about GMOs in food.

 
Back
Top