"Ultimate" Conspiracies.

Hello ATS,

Before I start my main point I have something to say. The more I watch the mainstream news the more I feel that it should be called by its real name. A ministry of lies. I am sick of seeing false information be spread through out society (and all societies) because these people refuse to do their job properly. They rarely ever investigate and they spoon feed us dribble that is often inaccurate, misleading, or a downright blatant lie. Take the recent Sandy Hook shooting. It seemed that each media outlet was battling tooth and nail to have the most information. Get the most viewers, have the highest ratings. In this process, I believe, so much was unconfirmed when they said it was confirmed. That certain reporters at the scene may have fabricated stories or blown witness testimony out of proportion. I do not know if CNN every rectified its mistake, but the footage they show of the drill at the other school that day, and tag it with Sandy Hook Live, is so incredibly misleading that I think they should be charged. I really do. Sorry for the little rant, I have had a rough day. Now for my actual OP.

I would like to play a little Q & A with you people.

Pick a conspiracy, something that you may believe is happening/or has happened. For example, HAARP or Sandy Hook Cover-up/False Flag or WTC and Pentagon False Flag/Cover-up, anything that you want to talk about. I am going to ask two simple questions,

1. When/How did you become aware that [event] was a cover-up/conspiracy of some sorts?

2. And what is the "nail in the coffin" reasoning for you to feel something is/was amiss?

I am just curious about gathering member opinions on conspiracies as a whole. See how many people agree with each-other and how knowledgeable may be on the subject. I will go first.

World Trade Center/Pentagon Attacks

1. It was later, when George Bush declared War on Iraq, that I began to see something wasn't right about it. I believe my reaction was "But Bin-Laden is in Afghanistan"... This sent me searching even deeper for the answers. There are definitely some wild theories about no planes and even as far as no real deaths but many points that I have read into on these attacks make a conspiracy/cover-up highly likely.

2. The biggest moment was the footage of the buildings collapsing. From the start I thought, that logically, those buildings should not have collapsed like that at the the speed that they did. What the hell. After diving further into the story the more it seemed like their was some sort of explosives inside the building. After this moment I began to question everything about the event. And to this day I still believe that WTC/Pentagon was either orchestrated by the US government or they allowed the event to take place to help further push an agenda.

All right, have at it. I really look forwards to the responses. Give as much or as little detail as you like. Thanks.

reply to post by TheSparrowSings


Similar angle.. Pentagon crash

1. When/How did you become aware that [event] was a cover-up/conspiracy of some sorts?

I always though 9/11 was a little fishy, but I was young and didn't have internet at the time so research was limited. It was probably not to around 2005 when I watched an internet video that I really started researching.

2. And what is the "nail in the coffin" reasoning for you to feel something is/was amiss?
So many things made me realize it was a conspiracy. Flight patterns, debris fields, supposed stories. However, the nail in the coffin for me, was when I spoke to my marine friend about the situation. I've never shared his stories on ATS and I'm not going to because it is all hearsay and I don't need to me flamed, but that was my personal nail in the coffin.

To me, it's isn't necessarily the facts about the event that suggest a conspiracy, but rather the response to the event. If the immediate response to the event involves an assault on our liberties, that to me is enough evidence the event was pre-planned.

You can also tell something is amiss based on whether the story changes over time. Liars will often mix up facts and have trouble keeping a story straight, which is how you can tell they're lying. Then they have to make up new lies to cover for the contradictions that arose, thus the story evolves. For example, in Sandy Hook, the gun was in the trunk, then it was used by the shooter, then it was in the trunk, then the shooter, then there were two rifles, etc etc.

Originally posted by SilentKoala
To me, it's isn't necessarily the facts about the event that suggest a conspiracy, but rather the response to the event. If the immediate response to the event involves an assault on our liberties, that to me is enough evidence the event was pre-planned.

I can agree with that. I find whenever an "event" takes place that leads to actions by governments that people generally would not approve but are so shocked about "event" that they find themselves jumping aboard without thinking it through. Perfect example of a conspiracy/cover-up for me.

reply to post by SilentKoala

Originally posted by SilentKoala
To me, it's isn't necessarily the facts about the event that suggest a conspiracy, but rather the response to the event. If the immediate response to the event involves an assault on our liberties, that to me is enough evidence the event was pre-planned.

You can also tell something is amiss based on whether the story changes over time. Liars will often mix up facts and have trouble keeping a story straight, which is how you can tell they're lying. Then they have to make up new lies to cover for the contradictions that arose, thus the story evolves. For example, in Sandy Hook, the gun was in the trunk, then it was used by the shooter, then it was in the trunk, then the shooter, then there were two rifles, etc etc.

There is a world of difference between disparities in early reports, particularly in the SH situation - and a cover-up. There is not even an official story yet ( police findings or report ) to accuse of being a lie. So the entire premise is flawed until such a time as there are actual facts to agree with or dispute.

As for the evaluation of the typical signs of a liar? They do apply to most interpersonal situations. If ones wife comes home smelling like another mans cologne and she waffles? She is probably lying. But even talented con artists are good enough at their craft to never leave the script. As for governmental cover-ups? Those tend to be air tight and totally invisible until such a time as a whistle blower steps forward to reveal the truth.

Pointing to nervous coroners, county sheriffs, witnesses, etc and coming to conclusions based upon their poor performance doesn't cut it. Most of the people here, making claims about these things, would find themselves stuttering and grasping for words if they walked out of their front door and into a camera - knowing that they were being beamed worldwide.

As to the OP:

Hands down the Kennedy assassination. It happened before I was born, but I can clearly remember being a child and just feeling that there was something not right about it all. Then, as a teenager, developing an interest in history, seeing the sheer number of assassinations and odd deaths surrounding the Kennedy clan? I was left with little doubt that something fishy was happening.

To this day I am still resolute that the JFK, RFK, and King assassinations are all connected, that Teddy probably drunkenly survived at least two attempts on his own life ( Plane crash and Chappaquiddick ), and that the suicide of Marilyn Monroe was probably tied into it all somehow.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


I too think that the Kennedy assassination is one of the biggest conspiracies, I am nit surprised to see it mentioned. I haven't done enough real research, do to the mass amount of information and the fact that I only really know that conspiracy from later in my life when I finally was granted access to the internet. I don't know about the Kennedy's as a whole and one day I would to be educated on the matter in entirety. I am sure ATS would be an excellent place to start searching. The moment for me is seeing the footage and understanding the trajectory of the bullet had it been Oswald.

reply to post by TheSparrowSings

911--- The next day. George Bush appeared in the rubble of the twin towers with a bull horn and said, "The people that did this will soon be hearing from us."

My immediate thought was, the people that did this are dead. Their vaporized molecules are in the smoking rubble at your feet. How could they know with such certainty this early who exactly it was? Isn't that a little premature? Shouldn't we let the fires die and sift forensics a little first? Why would you incite revenge like that with a bull horn without being sure with the public proof? Boy is that a bygone era: evidence...

I mean just to be sure. It was like they couldn't wait. The day before Peter Jennings had already dropped UBL's name before the buildings had even finished collapsing. Thats when I knew they had an agenda and 911 was to be used as a pretense for war. They didn't care to prove anything. "We're going to war". Thats when I knew.

reply to post by intrptr

I mean just to be sure. It was like they couldn't wait. The day before Peter Jennings had already dropped UBL's name before the buildings had even finished collapsing.

Its things like this that I was never able to witness. The day of the attacks I was in my high-school English class. My teacher kept updating us and no one was really learning or teaching that day, And I am in Canada. And that was about all I heard of it for the time. You just shared something with me I wasn't aware of, thanks.

Port Arthur Massacre, Tasmania, Australia

1. When/How did you become aware that [event] was a cover-up/conspiracy of some sorts?

The whole situation did not make sense whatsoever. The official story told of a mentally deficient individual (an I.Q. of 66, equivalent to an 11-year-old at the bottom 1.17 percent of the Australian population) who massacred a bunch of civilians and tourists at Port Arthur. The shooter (Martin Bryant) never had proper tuition in the handling of guns yet killed 35 and wounded another 23.

Why is the scenario strange? Why did it seem like a cover up?

Focusing on the Cafe murders (as there were also murders at other locations on that day), Martin Bryant had killed 12 people in a matter of 15 seconds. Furthermore, all shots were fired from Bryant's hip. Most people in the cafe succumbed to head shots. Martin Bryant had killed further people throughout the day (continuing his pin point accuracy above the neck). This does not sound right for a mentally retarded individual who had no prior weapon experience...well in my opinion anyway.

2. And what is the "nail in the coffin" reasoning for you to feel something is/was amiss?

There were numerous events which put the nail in the coffin for me. First there was the comment made by New South Wales Premier Barrie (Barry) Unsworth in December of 1987:

"There will never be uniform gun laws in Australia until we see a massacre in Tasmania."

9 years later, there was a massacre. The Port Arthur Massacre currently sits within the top 5 worst murders of civilians in modern history. After the Port Arthur Massacre, the Government rushed to get all types of weapons banned: (Assault) rifles, shotguns, you name it.

I will post this video for perusal:



The final nail in the coffin for me was the statement by Ted Serong, the former commander of Australian Forces in Vietnam. He was also a Special Forces Officer and was heavily involved with the CIA. He stated that there was no way that Martin Bryant was the shooter, claiming that if he was, the amount of head shots he made were consistent with the top Special Forces operators in the world.

In conclusion, the Port Arthur Massacre is a story which does not make sense. Furthermore, there are numerous interesting statements by specific individuals which lends credence to the official story not being true.

Well I certainly believe its possible a conspiracy could exist but given the fact that not a single major one has ever been proving true I have to lean on the side of being a skeptic.

Every year we see more stories about the government doing this or that or how the world is ending and none of it ever proves out.

And conspiracies have been going on in this nation even while the British ruled us. Instead its things nobody knows about like the Pentagon Papers that end up being a cover-up. Nobody saw that coming.

So I'll keep an ear out but I doubt any of the current ones are true. It is fun to talk about however.

reply to post by daaskapital


For an event so big I am shocked that I never heard of it. Thankyou for bringing this to light. I will take a moment now to watch the video although your summary was excellent.

reply to post by Spookycolt

I doubt any of the current ones are true. It is fun to talk about however.

I agree. I think as long as the ideas that people form about events stay within the realm of reasonable speculation and do not hurt anyone then all is fair game. When we speculate about events we are trying to look at the world in a different perspective. A world where the government and governing bodies of the world have agendas and often will go to great lengths to execute them/cover them up.

Speculation may lead to understanding but out right belief will only lead to absolutism. There is no such thing as absolute.

Originally posted by TheSparrowSings
reply to post by daaskapital

 

For an event so big I am shocked that I never heard of it. Thankyou for bringing this to light. I will take a moment now to watch the video although your summary was excellent.

No worries mate

The video of Ted Serong's statements in regards to the Port Arthur massacre has been removed from Youtube unfortunately. I would have posted it here otherwise. The media made him out to be crazy for claiming that the shooter wasn't Martin Bryant (despite his history)...

I prefer to accept the words of a high ranking Military official than the words of a politician or the MSM...

reply to post by TheSparrowSings


Don't get me wrong however. I do believe that there are some big things being covered up but I also believe we have no clue what they are and when they are discovered people will go "OH S**T, I never saw that coming."

As far as these Bilderberg meetings and stuff I think they just get together and watch the internet forums while drinking scotch and have a good ole laugh at our expense.

Remember when Watergate happened? There were absolutely no inklings of what Nixon was doing before the story finally broke, even then it died out for about 3 weeks before anyone considered there was something fishy going on.

reply to post by TheSparrowSings


After you replied I went looking for it. All I could find was this one. They mention UBL at about 7 minutes in. It is a lady newscaster and she is reading from a prepared state department "memo". I remember Peter Jennings mentioning it but sounds like they were all reading from this early on.