Firegrande Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 Love the theories regarding big cats prowling the countryside as well Watched quite a few documentaries on this on youtube Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ealingfox Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 Supposedly Jill Dando was killed because she found out about the massive paedo ring going on within the BBC - Savile etc. She was about to blab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the fox Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 1 hour ago, browniefox said: The 9/11 attack was known about before it happened and there was a government cover-up somewhere in there Go look at the Cuba crisis. One of the ways to get the public on board is to allow a terrorist attack to happen in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKB Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 Those YouTube videos that have Stephen Hawking sounding voice generated narrators make me laugh. Just watched one about Paul McCartney dying in 1966 and being replaced by a lookalike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the fox Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 the dingo ate her baby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the fox Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 1 minute ago, CKB said: Those YouTube videos that have Stephen Hawking sounding voice generated narrators make me laugh. Just watched one about Paul McCartney dying in 1966 and being replaced by a lookalike Funny you said that, because I have the same theory about vardy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firegrande Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 10 minutes ago, ealingfox said: Supposedly Jill Dando was killed because she found out about the massive paedo ring going on within the BBC - Savile etc. She was about to blab. I believe this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKB Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 Just now, the fox said: Funny you said that, because I have the same theory about vardy Make a video about it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityfanlee23 Posted 17 January 2017 Author Share Posted 17 January 2017 31 minutes ago, leicsmac said: That's an interesting one. On a similar vein, today renewable energy tech on a macro and micro level is already there and ready for production, but the big non renewable companies have bought up the patents and are suppressing the tech while they can squeeze maximum profit from dwindling oil and gas resources. Then, when the time is right, they'll swoop in with this "revolutionary new tech", save the world and maintain control of the market they have had for so long. Result: maximum possible financial return, no matter how much damage and unrest is cause in the meantime. Oh, and those same companies pay off unscrupulous scientists for studies "proving" that emissions from oil and gas are not environmentally damaging. Though I think that one is less theory and more actual conspiracy. This. The financial power these companies set to lose if the technology was released would be catastrophic for them. we extract 96 million barrels of oil a day, It puts any theory of the "elite" into perspective really, when it comes to this sort of thing, anything is possible with their greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the fox Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 1 minute ago, CKB said: Make a video about it! They already did. It is called " jamie vardy 2016/2017 season " highlight video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityfanlee23 Posted 17 January 2017 Author Share Posted 17 January 2017 What about the death of David Kelly? Very interesting one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaspa Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 Used to watch tonnes of this nutjob a few years ago along with loads of other stuff like Nuffrespect in the early years of YouTube Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the fox Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 3 minutes ago, SpazticChicken said: Used to watch tonnes of this nutjob a few years ago along with loads of other stuff like Nuffrespect in the early years of YouTube This man is a huge meme now! But seriously, why do companies make them so hard to open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 Billy Davies got a sex change and is working behind a bar in Dundee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 35 minutes ago, leicsmac said: That's an interesting one. On a similar vein, today renewable energy tech on a macro and micro level is already there and ready for production, but the big non renewable companies have bought up the patents and are suppressing the tech while they can squeeze maximum profit from dwindling oil and gas resources. Then, when the time is right, they'll swoop in with this "revolutionary new tech", save the world and maintain control of the market they have had for so long. Result: maximum possible financial return, no matter how much damage and unrest is cause in the meantime. Oh, and those same companies pay off unscrupulous scientists for studies "proving" that emissions from oil and gas are not environmentally damaging. Though I think that one is less theory and more actual conspiracy. Why would the oil companies continue with oil when they have to bribe foreign govts, send their staff to places where they are targeted by terrorists and they are hounded by bad publicity when they could make just as much, probably more money, by introducing this technology now? Like all these conspiracy theories, if you set aside prejudice and use common sense it's obviously nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the fox Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: Why would the oil companies continue with oil when they have to bribe foreign govts, send their staff to places where they are targeted by terrorists and they are hounded by bad publicity when they could make just as much, probably more money, by introducing this technology now? Like all these conspiracy theories, if you set aside prejudice and use common sense it's obviously nonsense. Because they already have oil. You can try to get energy. But, you can't get the oil. And by stopping people from making new ways to make energy. They will stay in control of the energy business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 3 minutes ago, Webbo said: Why would the oil companies continue with oil when they have to bribe foreign govts, send their staff to places where they are targeted by terrorists and they are hounded by bad publicity when they could make just as much, probably more money, by introducing this technology now? Like all these conspiracy theories, if you set aside prejudice and use common sense it's obviously nonsense. They need the coming fuel shortage to drive up prices first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityfanlee23 Posted 17 January 2017 Author Share Posted 17 January 2017 4 minutes ago, Webbo said: Why would the oil companies continue with oil when they have to bribe foreign govts, send their staff to places where they are targeted by terrorists and they are hounded by bad publicity when they could make just as much, probably more money, by introducing this technology now? Like all these conspiracy theories, if you set aside prejudice and use common sense it's obviously nonsense. We rely on 96 million barrels of oil per day. Quite clearly a huge monopoly over our world, and the technology we currently have is nowhere near as efficient as oil, its cost effective to keep it as it is at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 1 minute ago, the fox said: Because they already have oil. You can try to get energy. But, you can't get the oil. And by stopping people from making new ways to make energy. They will stay in control of the energy business. We already have limitless cheap electricity according to the theory and the oil companies own all the patents. they already control it, so why make things hard for themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 1 minute ago, cityfanlee23 said: We rely on 96 million barrels of oil per day. Quite clearly a huge monopoly over our world, and the technology we currently have is nowhere near as efficient as oil, its cost effective to keep it as it is at present. So the oil companies aren't stopping the world from getting cheap electricity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the fox Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: We already have limitless cheap electricity according to the theory and the oil companies own all the patents. they already control it, so why make things hard for themselves? Exactly. And You don't want to be better than the competition, you want to erase the competition. You would never know what happens. So, better safe than sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 13 minutes ago, Webbo said: Why would the oil companies continue with oil when they have to bribe foreign govts, send their staff to places where they are targeted by terrorists and they are hounded by bad publicity when they could make just as much, probably more money, by introducing this technology now? Like all these conspiracy theories, if you set aside prejudice and use common sense it's obviously nonsense. Because they'll get a bigger return as the prices rise when supply dwindles, and also a bigger one when they introduce the "new" tech, because of people's desperation and because they're the only game in town? And such returns would exceed the outlay both of continued security costs, bribes and publicity costs that they have to pay between now and then? And that by doing so they would absolutely guarantee their control over the new market, given how inflexible and desperate it would be as opposed to now where there would be the possibility of competition? They stand to make much, much more by keeping the tech on ice until they've extracted maximum value from the old one..scarcity will help with that for a variety of reasons, as above. As long as the unrest is not beyond control, they can move forward out of it so much better off. I have zero time for the moon landing, 9/11, Diana et al conspiracy theories beyond mild interest, but this one just seems to make sound financial sense - the only issue being that they would have to make sure the world situation didn't become too volatile to control before coming in with the new stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 I just find them fascinating, whether you agree with the theories or not, you can get lost in the details/bullshit for hours. However far fetched there is always one part which makes me think, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 A couple I think have some merit, David Kelly, Jill Dando, even some good thinking behind the ideas behind the JFK assassination. The conspiracy theories around 9/11, moon landings, cures for cancer etc though are often just based on lies and ridiculous logic easily debunked by fact, the people in real life I meet are usually the same sorts, weirdos who believe everything is controlled by an elite while they sit there smoking far too much skunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 17 January 2017 Share Posted 17 January 2017 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: Because they'll get a bigger return as the prices rise when supply dwindles, and also a bigger one when they introduce the "new" tech, because of people's desperation and because they're the only game in town? And such returns would exceed the outlay both of continued security costs, bribes and publicity costs that they have to pay between now and then? And that by doing so they would absolutely guarantee their control over the new market, given how inflexible and desperate it would be as opposed to now where there would be the possibility of competition? They stand to make much, much more by keeping the tech on ice until they've extracted maximum value from the old one..scarcity will help with that for a variety of reasons, as above. As long add the unrest is not beyond control, they can move forward out of it so much better off. I have zero time for the moon landing, 9/11, Diana et al conspiracy theories beyond mild interest, but this one just seems to make sound financial sense - the only issue being that they would have to make sure the world situation didn't become too volatile to control before coming in with the new stuff. We already subsidise wind turbines so we will pay for clean electricity. If it's cheap and bountiful the production costs would be far lower. Also, why wouldn't oil companies want clean air or are all successful businesses evil? And the oil companies don't own every scientist, it's not like there aren't hundreds of research projects going on into this atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.