Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
cityfanlee23

Conspiracy theories

Recommended Posts

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

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 lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 lol

Funny you said that, because I have the same theory about vardy :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...