Posted by Cassius on Mon Feb 5th at 5:00am 2007
Posted by Bewbies on Mon Apr 23rd at 8:38pm 2007
Yay! I found the ol' conspiracy thread! Well I've got a new one ... this time regarding the Cho/VT shooting deal. Didn't really feel right about posting it in the VT thread, so I think this will do.
Following the VT shootings, we all saw the obligatory ?he played counter-strike? argument in the assessments of what caused him to do such a thing. Most notable of the deluded criers, ?school shooting expert? Jack Thompson. According to him and his reports, violent media influences young people to the point of carefully planning and executing a shooting rampage in their school. At first thought, unfortunately, this is an easy pill to swallow. It casts blame when who which should be blamed killed himself.
This tragedy got me thinking about the subject again? and while I?m already well-known for my ?violent media is a product of a violent society, nice visa versa? opinion, I believe there is now another dimension to it? What if games like counter-strike actually deterred Cho from lashing out at the world the way he did?
Jack Thompson, who is lucky I?m even mentioning his name for a second time, suggested that Cho was acting out a fantasy that was created while playing counter-strike. What I?m thinking, however, is that he already produced these fantasies? And that games like counter-strike not only catered to these fantasies, but appeased the possible urge to realize them. I mean, if I were a murderous psychopath, I?d love to play a game where one of the objectives is to kill people. To me, using the common ?blame videogames? logic, this conclusion makes just as much sense ? if not more.
Assuming I?m right, and he was using counter-strike to act out the fantasies that already dwelled in his messed up head, it would explain some of his other behavior. Did games like counter-strike influence his macabre writings like Richard McBeef? Did they cause him to stalk classmates? How about his fixation on the ?upper-class?? Especially in Richard McBeef, where there are strong sexual and incest themes, one can only find that he had problems long before his exposure to counter-strike.
Strangely enough, he wasn?t even playing counter-strike in the period leading up the shootings? He spent his time writing more than anything else. What if, in the absence of the appeasement of counter-strike, he finally realized the fantasy? That would literally mean that the violent media was keeping him from acting out on the real world. That may be a stretch, though.
Bewbies
member
413 posts
41 snarkmarks
Registered: Sep 10th 2003
Location: US-of-A

Occupation: IT Dude
the marching band refused to yield
Posted by Orpheus on Tue Apr 24th at 2:13am 2007
You know the only thing that made sense during all that mess was a quote from Dr. Laura.. "If you stop watching, they'd stop showing it"
The media fan fare over the VT thing was... almost worse than the people dying. :/
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA

Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
The best things in life, aren't things.
Posted by reaper47 on Tue Apr 24th at 3:44pm 2007
Posted by DocRock on Tue May 22nd at 8:37pm 2007
How about back to some 9/11 stuff
Professor Steven Jones presented brand new and compelling evidence for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently, but the 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a slam dunk on proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson.
During a talk at the Rebuilding America's Senses event at the University of Texas last month, Jones laid out facts about steel samples recovered from the WTC site that Popular Mechanics dare not even attempt to debate. Debunkers are scared to even get near this information because the science behind it fundamentally contradicts the official story of what happened on 9/11.
Jones detailed his lab experiments in which he attempted to replicate NIST's conclusion that the lava like orange material flowing out of the south tower is aluminum from Flight 175, the plane that hit the building. Jones clearly documents the fact that liquid aluminum is silver and not orange as is seen in the video of the south tower, therefore the material cannot be aluminum. Jones then explains that the material is in fact a compound that can cut through steel like a hot knife through butter, thermite with sulphur added to make thermate.
The crux of the fresh evidence revolves around newly uncovered globules or spheres that were discovered at the WTC site that Professor Jones was able to obtain and run a electron microscope analysis on.
The spheres contained iron and aluminum, which would be expected in any steel sample, but also sulphur which is a by-product of a thermate reaction.

So having moved from a hypothesis that thermate was used to bring down the towers from using video footage and debunking the aluminum explanation of NIST, Jones now has empirical scientific proof, undertaken under laboratory conditions, that thermate was indeed used as an artificial explosive at the World Trade Center.
It has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 was an act of deliberate arson and not as a result of fires from crashing planes.
Jones' evidence offers no other conclusion that insiders planted thermite devices within the buildings to literally pulverize the supporting columns and cause the collapse of the towers and also WTC 7. Debunkers have uniformly failed to address the existence of thermite and also molten metal at the ground zero site because they cannot dismiss the scientific proof, and are forced to resort to ad hominem insults and smears.
We are issuing a challenge to Popular Mechanics to rebut Professor Jones' analysis of the sphere samples and the clear evidence of thermate at the World Trade Center. Address the focused scientific proof without resorting to ad hominem attacks or straying off topic.
We don't expect the progenitors of yellow journalism to have any answers for what constitutes the smoking gun of controlled demolition.
Posted by Stadric on Wed May 23rd at 1:01am 2007
...the 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a slam dunk on proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson.
and
It has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 was an act of deliberate arson and not as a result of fires from crashing planes.
Using such language degenerates your attempt to be taken seriously. The best way to persuade does not include insulting those whom you wish to persuade. I'm sure there's some famous quote about that somewhere.
Onwards to what I do know.
I know that I'm not going to get caught up in the sensationalism just yet. I'd prefer to wait until I've heard the debunker's rebuttal, as well as the conspiracy theorists' rebuttal to that.
As I Lay Dying
Posted by Foxpup on Wed May 23rd at 3:11am 2007
Thermate is an extremely explosive substance used only by the military. If there was thermate, it was placed there in preparation for the terrorist attack, not a simple case of arson. Also, thermate is 30% barium nitrate and only 2% sulphur. Where'd the barium nitrate go?
Foxpup
member
380 posts
38 snarkmarks
Registered: Nov 26th 2004
Location: the Land of Oz

Occupation: Student
Bill Gates understands binary: his company is number one, and his customers are all zeros.
Posted by Bewbies on Wed May 23rd at 5:20am 2007
doc, once again, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
i created this thread to sport your own conspiracy theories. not some crackpot s**t you spend all day googling for. please gtfo of what was once a thread i was proud of.
Bewbies
member
413 posts
41 snarkmarks
Registered: Sep 10th 2003
Location: US-of-A

Occupation: IT Dude
the marching band refused to yield
Posted by Yak_Fighter on Wed May 23rd at 5:54am 2007
Yak_Fighter
member
1832 posts
406 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 30th 2001
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Occupation: College Student/Slacker
Posted by DocRock on Wed May 23rd at 2:35pm 2007
You will never get me off of this thread unless you ban me. If you want me to shut up about 911, then ban me. Do what you must so that I won't keep jamming the truth about 911 down your throats. Ignore me. Ban me. But I will NEVER shut up about 9/11.
Read this from a review of Debunking 911 Debunking.
Review:
| By | Andrea "Terrorized" (New York, NY) - See all my reviews |
I declined a friend who begged me to read this book at least three times. I was vaguely aware that there were alternative conspiracy theories, other than the official one, that existed. Any time an alternate conspiracy theory was mentioned in casual conversating I "pfffffft" and chuckled.
Well, about a week ago, against what I thought was my good judgement, I buckled and promised my friend to read this book. I had thought that I'd just skim through it, leaving the TV on in the backround in case it's absurdity became too much to handle.
Well, I haven't put the book down, except for the 9 hours I'm at work during the day. My husband has been completely puzzled by my bookworm behaviour, as I'm not one to keep my nose in a book every free second I have.
Right now, as I write this, I honestly feel sick to my stomach. I've cried myself to sleep the last two nights. Why? Because this book has changed my mind on the events and aftermath of 9/11.
It's almost too much to handle all at once, all the revalations made by Mr. Griffin in this book. I feel like my mind has gone through a polar shift over the last 72 hours.
For over 5 years I've been blind. For 5 years I've been have been down-and-out lied to. Right under our noses, America was stolen by criminals. I'm infuriated, and don't know what to do with myself.
Reading this book was very much a life-altering event for me. I just hope enough people end up reading it. It could be the most important thing they ever do.
Posted by Bewbies on Wed May 23rd at 2:56pm 2007
Doc, we all stopped giving a damn about what you have to say a long time ago; so don't let this feed your very apparent thirst for attention.
This is a thread for PERSONAL CONSPIRACY THEORIES. If you want to push 9/11 theories on us, just make a thread of your own.. again. So we can prove you wrong.. again.
(Or so we can just ignore said thread altogether.)
Bewbies
member
413 posts
41 snarkmarks
Registered: Sep 10th 2003
Location: US-of-A

Occupation: IT Dude
the marching band refused to yield
Posted by Le Chief on Fri May 25th at 1:23am 2007
A least he is speaking his mind and beliefs. Hay Doc, my dad shares your oppinion to about 911. Let me ask you something, do you belive that man landed on the moon?
Posted by DocRock on Tue May 29th at 6:41pm 2007
I'm suprised no one has said anything since Aaron posted that. Did it make you step back and re-think what your wrote, Bewbies?
Doc, we all stopped giving a damn about what you have to say a long time ago; so don't let this feed your very apparent thirst for attention.
So does that mean that Aaron's dad has a thirst for attention too since he doubts the official 911 theory? I applaud your Dad, Aaron, for examining the information in front of his face. I'm glad he's awake.
About the Moon landing, I doubt it ever happened. Of course, this is just my personal opinion, and I don't have alot of hard evidence to back up my opinion on this subject.
Posted by Bewbies on Tue May 29th at 7:04pm 2007
Does Aaron's dad burst into book club meetings, spewing 9/11 theory bulls**t? Or maybe he stands up in the middle of church service to do so? I bet my lunch money that he doesn't. Because most people, even 9/11 conspiracy theorists, have some sense of time/place for their rants.
Speaking your mind, I have no issue with.. Speaking someone else's mind every chance you get, no matter how inappropriate, I have an issue with. 90% of your posts are copy+pasted half-baked theories posted in unrelated threads. In this thread, for example, I deliberately examplified the 'fake moon landing' conspiracy theory as inappropriate -- but yet you felt the need to post anyway. wtfm8? Can you not read?
If you want to make your own thread, go right ahead. In fact, please do; I'd love to use my highschool-dropout common sense and limited knowledge of physics to debunk everything you bring to the table. (Again.)
Bewbies
member
413 posts
41 snarkmarks
Registered: Sep 10th 2003
Location: US-of-A

Occupation: IT Dude
the marching band refused to yield
Posted by G.Ballblue on Tue May 29th at 7:12pm 2007
I generally don't like to attack people on forums, due to huge ammount of flaming that can ensue and the posibility of starting WWIII or something, but I almost feel that I have to:
Oh man, I just burst a seem laughing so hard. I'd like to use this as further evidence to say that you're full of it. In fact, I don't think I've ever blown off someone's opinion so fast in my entire life :/
G.Ballblue
member
1511 posts
211 snarkmarks
Registered: May 16th 2004
Location: A secret Nuclear Bunker on Mars

Occupation: Student
Posted by Crono on Tue May 29th at 7:17pm 2007
He's just like every other crack-pot theorist out there, except he likes annoying us. He knows we don't care and that we don't want to hear to idiotic and "unique" ideas he has to share. That's exactly why he's sharing them.
He doesn't care about being made to look stupid in any way, I mean, look what he's preaching, I would imagine his goal is much more on the "annoy everyone" end of things.
At least, you'd have to be more sane to want to annoy people than to believe the s**t he's spewing.
But I actually wouldn't mind discussing the moon landing arguments. Because the opinions that support it being fake are so amusing. I think my favorite two are "The astronauts would have had to pass through the cosmic microwave background radiation and that would have killed them" and "the flag is waving in the wind on the surface". They're amusing because they completely ignore how things work and what 'things' are exactly.
Posted by fishy on Wed May 30th at 12:18am 2007
Most of the reasons for the moon landings being fake, also make all of the space shuttle missions fake. But still, it's great how they come up with all sorts of new tech and materials for the so-called "space race", just to keep us thinking it's for real.
Posted by Le Chief on Wed May 30th at 12:22am 2007
I cant quite remember why he thinks this, but I remember he said to give america power or somthing. I remember him talking about it to me for like half an hour and me thinking (not saying I belive it at all!) that kinda makes sense.
And he dosent "burst into book club meetings, spewing 9/11 theory bulls**t? Or maybe he stands up in the middle of church service to do so? I bet my lunch money that he doesn't. Because most people, even 9/11 conspiracy theorists, have some sense of time/place for their rants." as bewbies said. He just keeps it to him self.
About the moon landing. I dont know mabye it was fake but in Australian TV they ran this program on April fools day where they explained all the things that made the moon landing fake : like the two things crono said and that there are no stars in the background. But then late at night they ran a program explaining that it was an april fools joke and that they explained why the flag was waving and all. Sorry O cant remember the reason.
Posted by BlisTer on Wed May 30th at 2:48pm 2007
The moon landing was real, the video wasn't. There's a documentary about high ranking politicians confessing it was shot in a studio because they didn't have the real footage and needed it to glorify the event to the public. cba to look it up though.
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.1557 seconds.



