Are there any conspiracy theories that you just think could have an element of truth?

[AhhhHereItGoes]

I love all things conspiracy theory - from a psychological/social point of view it's interesting to see what makes people fearful or pessimistic.

But I often do see some conspiracy theories a bit like Urban legends in that they could be an exaggerated truth.

Are there any conspiracy theories or rumours that you just think 'maybe...' or even ones you're completely sold on.

hopes nobody thinks the Queen is a metamorphic lizard alien

I'd seriously recommend the Vigilant Citizen site. Very intelligent articles.

9/11 still do not believe 2 aircrafts can demolish a building like that, if you watch some videos on YouTube, you can see explosions going off on each level.

That's the windows blowing out as the floors pancaked down during the collapse. Really, have a read here.

9 11 Conspiracy Theories

Did you ever wonder how they moved tons of explosives into the building and wired them up with no one noticing?

The laser reflecting on the moon is not proof that man went to the moon
What a perfect way to prove we went than to tell someone it’s obviously true because a laser has been fired back.
Have you checked?
And yes the moon is generally reflective to lasers.
But not to any normal lasers a standard citizen would own

Jill Dando's murder, I certainly think now, was an assassination linked to the paedophile ring, given all that has come out since Saville death.

Diana too, I think was also MI5. The others no! I dont believe there is any conspiracy around 9/11 what so ever.

I had family caught up in it and there is no way in this day and age something like that, so big, could be kept secret. It would have taken too many people knowing for it not to have got out. It was unprecedented that is why people find it hard to believe

I am not saying the CIA/FBI hadn't heard rumblings of, however let's face it it seemed too impossible and incredible to be true. They are dealing with warnings everyday.

There are so many attacks thwarted a year we dont hear about for the reason of security

I think people want to believe a conspiracy because it's too scary and big to think something like that can happen and your not safe anywhere

I find it difficult to believe that the twin towers would have just collapsed the way they did

This is thoroughly debunked here:

www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

As someone who actually saw the second plane hit and the towers collapse I'm a bit shocked at the number of 9/11 "truthers" on this thread.

What happened with Building 7, then? No planes hit it at all. The BBC reported that it had also fallen and then, 20 minutes later, it did fall - in the same fashion as the twin towers, suggesting a controlled demolition. There was no earthquake.

travellinglighter I think you mean images of child sexual abuse and not " kiddieporn"

Definitely think Diana was murdered. I actually said after the Panorama interview ‘She needs to be careful. She’s going to be having an accident’ I’ll never be convinced it wasn’t murder.

Am I getting this right? Some people think Diana didn't die at all and is off living it up- where? Do her sons know or did she just watch on telly like the rest of us her poor, broken boys walking behind her coffin during her funeral?

A recent interview with head of NASA gave me further doubts when he said that the reason we haven’t been back is because we have lost the rocket technology that we had back then and can’t make a rocket big enough

They also 'lost' hundreds of cans of footage of the Moon landings. Apparently, it was wiped, because of the high cost of tape back then. Potentially the recordings of THE biggest human achievement of the millennium, but they had more important things to re-use the tapes for.

Also there are dozens of terrorist threats that we in the UK don’t hear of until a case goes to court.

I can't remember the last time we heard of a terrorist suspect, after the attack, who wasn't already known to MI5.

What happened with Building 7, then? No planes hit it at all.

Fire brought it down.

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building firessimilar to fires experienced in other tall buildingscaused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.

The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.

After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

I believe conspiracy theories were invented so that the government had a quick way of spotting stupid, gullible people.

Just as naive and ridiculous a view as those who swallow any and every CT that they ever hear of whole, without any critical thinking whatsoever. Are you one of the 'smart' people who laughed up your sleeve at the idiots who actually believed it when they taught you about the Gunpowder Plot at school?

MissConductUS Thanks for the info and the link, but I still fail to be convinced. Do they really build landmark multi-storey buildings on one of the richest, most prestigious pieces of real estate on earth using steel girders that don't just buckle but actually disintegrate in their entirety when subjected to fire? Considering that they use fire/intensively hot temperatures to actually shape them in the first place?

The 'progressive collapse' that they talk about coincidentally sounds very similar to what you see at the scene of controlled demolitions.

For those of you questioning George Bush reaction unless your body language expert I dont know what you expected him to do.

He was in a classroom of innocent young children. He couldn't exactly have a meltdown. The article link at the bottom explains his reaction. He seen journalists starting to gather outside the classroom so he knew something was going down.

I know I just stood there staring at the TV. I had just walked into my friend's home and asked what film she was watching when the first plane went in.

She said it isnt a film its happening now etc! I just stood and she sat there staring at the TV and staring for ages. When the 2nd plane hit I screamed my nephew name as he worked on there.

Thst was all said as I fled for my mobile to ring my much older brother. I then sat with my friend all afternoon staring at the TV. We didnt say a word between us

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020215/President-Bush-explains-blank-face-told-9-11-attacks.html

Do they really build landmark multi-storey buildings on one of the richest, most prestigious pieces of real estate on earth using steel girders that don't just buckle but actually disintegrate in their entirety when subjected to fire?

I guess you didn't read the parts of the article I didn't bother to copy and paste here. The structural steel components didn't disintegrate, they expanded (as all metals do when heated) and lost connection with each other.

The report also suggests that current engineering standards for coping with fire-induced thermal expansion need to be re-examined, particularly for buildings like WTC 7 that have long, unsupported floor spans. A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural "connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads." According to Sunder: "For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse."

Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.

NIST's press release and other material on the report can be found here. Click here to download the full report in pdf form.

Conspiracy theorists aren't really theorists –once they've decided on something, no amount of evidence to the contrary will change their mind. It's more like a belief system.

The tragic case of Jacintha Saldanha always sounded very strange to me. She killed herself owing to the perceived shame of merely passing on a phone call to a colleague without divulging any information whatsoever herself.

Incidentally, as coincidence would have it (harking back to earlier posts), the royal gynaecologist, who attended the birth, was actually Jill Dando's former fiance. He doesn't have the best of luck in not being in the wrong place at the wrong time, clearly.

More here on fire and structural steel failure:

Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts

Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."

MissConductUS

OK, thanks for that, fair enough - I'm not an engineer and I wasn't there, so I accept that that's their explanation of what happened.

Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved.

The problem with this, though, is that, like with the Diana case and others; just suppose for one moment that the authorities had conspired and were themselves the perpetrators.... would any officially-sanctioned inquiry ever come up with the conclusion - and release it to the public - that, yes, the people at the top of the power chain were indeed found to be guilty of plotting and instigating (mass) murder and would now be stripped of their power and prosecuted? Even if it were the POTUS and his top advisors/husband of the head of the Royal family?

I think there will always unavoidably be a huge element of distrust on both sides - those suspecting conspiracies will believe that 'that's exactly what they want you to think' whilst the people at the top of the chain who may be guilty/implicated/innocent/incompetent/blameless have the power and resources to ensure that they are never truly held to account, even if they have been guilty of anything heinous.

How long and how many thousands of pages did the Chilcot Report run to? Was Blair implicated at all of any wrongdoing? Even with the later smoking-gun findings re the 'dodgy dossier', as identified by David Kelly and also seized on and publicised by Robin Cook, shortly before both men's tragic accidental deaths? Have the UK public largely been happy to accept these findings and that the man has been exonerated of wrongdoing? Are millions of people all deluded/misguided/stupid?

People look at the fact that Hillary Clinton was once a close friend of Trump's, even attending his wedding, before becoming his sworn enemy a decade or so later. Did their respective lusts for power turn everything on its head and make it into a 'et tu, Brute?' situation? Maybe.

Is it a pure coincidence that more than a third of the Prime Ministers that the UK has ever had just happened to attend one of three (very expensive) schools? Even though PM is a position that is wholly awarded through an electorate of tens of millions of adults of all classes, as opposed to, say, 'being employed by daddy's blue-chip company'? Maybe it is.

Who knows?

@BishopBrennansArse- please can you DM too please? I can't sleep thinking what it might be :/

@herland no social media black out, you’ve just gotta know the right people to see it all. There are loads with loved ones never accounted for. Still to this day the government refuse to acknowledge them. Just listen to ghosts of Grenfell by lowkey on YouTube xx

I used to work with a European expert on structural fire. He was convinced that the towers were literally designed to collapse that way in the event of fire. He was, frankly, an incredibly intelligent man who devoted decades of his life to understanding the way large buildings behave in extreme conditions. One day flying to Zurich to give a talk, the next sweeping out the lab with the rest of us. He has never courted publicity and has remained a quiet, unassuming man who kept his expertise to himself unless asked. (But give him some space if arsenal lost at the weekend.)

Since then I've been convinced that the vast majority of conspiracy theorists were simply uninformed. Because, most often, those who know best simply don't speak. Just like the wise old owl.

Conspiracy theorists aren't really theorists –once they've decided on something, no amount of evidence to the contrary will change their mind. It's more like a belief system.

True, there are a lot of people who are widely referred to as conspiracy theorists who do very much conform to this description.

Most people don't instinctively trust governments/authorities/corporations/influential people - if you disbelieve me, do a straw poll on the streets anywhere in the western world and ask 'Do you believe that politicians, governments and big companies always tell you the whole truth and only have the people's best interests at heart?' - and who like to use their own faculties to decide whether or not they believe them. As a result, some will start to question the official/assured from on high narratives on a whole range of subjects and consider the evidence, as it appears, before using their own freedom to make up their own minds - and will, between them, settle their beliefs (or at least hunches) anywhere on a huge range of viewpoints and subjects where conspiracy and/or deliberate and underhand acting against the common good is suggested as a possible factor.

All the way from 'supermarkets don't accidentally put sweets near the checkout queues and at child-height', 'Teresa May didn't spend billions of public money to partner with the DUP solely because she passionately shared their political beliefs' and 'David Kelly's death was at least slightly suspicious' all the way to 'the Earth is flat' and 'the Queen is an actual lizard'.

Having said that, though, who would have wondered why a creepy, washed-up old DJ in a grubby tracksuit would ever have functioned as a close advisor to/confidante of members of the Royal family and spent Christmas day every year for over a decade with Margaret & Denis Thatcher?

At the other, furthest reaches of the spectrum, there are people who have well and truly learned to love Big Brother.

Since then I've been convinced that the vast majority of conspiracy theorists were simply uninformed. Because, most often, those who know best simply don't speak. Just like the wise old owl.

So smart people only ever either believe what they're told or pretend/give the illusion of believing it? Was Yasmin Alibhai Brown an arrogant fool for blowing the whistle on Savile when so many other high-profile people had knowingly turned a blind eye? Is it a bad thing that the Hillsborough campaigners persisted for three decades or should they just have shut up? Same with the Rotherham scandal?

My number one conspiracy theory is that the people who actually run the country and the world regularly seed discord and new scandals for us to get het up about (Brexit, anyone?) so we don't focus on what is really happening and are instead busy eagerly picking over the scraps they throw us like happy, docile farm animals.

^

Totally agree with this. Too busy bitching about Brexit and immigration to start revolting, for example?