many science fiction movies and tv shows are actually true stories, but since no one will believe that they’re true, they are presented as fiction. Only a select few know which stories are documentaries showing what really happened.
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
53 points (87.3% liked)
Ask Lemmy
27285 readers
1366 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
None of them! All of my secret conspiracies are SECRET!
Mossad was behind the Benghazi attack in order to get Mitt Romney elected in 2012. When that didn't work, Mossad informed Republicans of certain Intel to use in order to make Obama look weak.
Most disasters, fires, mass shootings, etc that you see on the news are actually created by the News organizations themselves in order to grab people's attention. Those news vans you see driving around, those are sabotage squads going around committing all the violence. How else do you think they're able to get on the scene so quick to report the news? They're literally creating the news themselves. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!
(I don't actually believe this, it was an idea for a short story I had at one point though)
load more comments
(1 replies)
My husband who disappeared years ago is actually alive and well and conspiring with his friends to downvote my posts and comments. I think he drives by my house from time to time as well.
He is in cahoots with my family, who have custody of my child, to stop my child's DNA from getting added to a genealogy website because that would prove that he was conceived from incest with a distant relative when I was very young.
What in the world? 🌎
Dude… write a book. This would be a great plot to a thriller novel.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Sorry, all my conspiracies are publicly known.
Yeah I have my guesses or conspiracy theory about JFK but it's not a secret and other people have already shared similar theories.
Like the conspiracy that ants built stonehedge? Think about it. Their body can carry thinks 100x their size. And in the age of the dinosaurs, everything was bigger. Crocodiles were measured as large as 120 feet long. Ants don't have a skeliton to leave behind. So who's not to say ants weren't 18 feet tall at one time? Imagine an 18 foot ant. That'd be scary as hell! Who else is going to build stonehedge? Slaves? Pssshhh! They couldn't do that! They're waaaaaaay too malnourished. They'd have no strength!
load more comments
(2 replies)
9/11 was sort of an inside job by the architects. Built during the height of the cold war, every mega construction project would have had to address what would happen if attacked. There had been a number of massive skyscraper fires already and even much smaller buildings had no way to effectively douse the flames. Imagine a massive raging inferno towering above a dense population centre for weeks or months or who knows how long. It would have been an even worse outcome. The health and mental health effects would have been incredibly devastating. A decision had to be made. A structural, engineered weakness to very hot flames was built in to make the towers implode on themselves, snuffing out the flames.
It would have been a tough call to make. Like the trolly problem, do you engineer it to save the occupants? Or the potential health of the rest of the city?
It makes sense to me to keep quiet about it after the fact. The architects did what they had to do and some people would not agree with their decision. Therefore due to 'national security' or whatever it's best to just keep quiet. I've held on to this theory for a while but I think it's been long enough to discuss it.
Never heard this one before. That was a wild ride!
Checkout the Well There's Your Problem podcast about the WTC buildings and the attack.
It is three hours long, quite rambly and full of dark humor, but digs quite deep into the time the towers where constructed and the issues that it caused during the attack.
Not really. It is more that no one really thought that this would be something you had to design for.
Now, a bomber hit the Empire State Building at it survived. So, you could design a building to withstand a plane hitting it. The problem is that the Empire State Building is heavy; it is probably the last skyscraper whose design was controlled by dead load.
There had been studies into failure of buildings after the Oklahoma City Bombing; some of the fruits of that research led to designs which were installed in the Pentagon by 2001. However, for most buildings, it wasn't considered to be worth it. This includes skyscrapers both in the USA and around the world.
A * B * C is generally considered below the cost of making most buildings plane impact resistant, so they don't do it.
The other thing is, both towers were plane impact resistant. Both of them took dead square hits from airliners and remained resolutely standing afterwards. What it turned out they were not proof against was an ongoing raging inferno inside that was hot enough and carried on long enough to weaken their critical structural elements.
If the planes had not been laden with fuel and/or if it had not ignited for whatever reason, the towers probably would not have collapsed. They probably wouldn't have been readily repairable, though, so then the question would be what to do with two massive skyscrapers with giant holes in the middle of them. They'd probably have to be demolished eventually anyway. Said demolition would have killed far fewer people.
The B-25 bomber and Boeing 767 airliner are two very differet aircraft.
The WTC towers and the Empire State Building were also very different buildings.
So there events are not really comparable.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I…. Uh….
This makes way more sense than any other crackpot 911 theory I’ve ever heard.
What if was less a structural weakness than actual demolition charges built into the superstructure of the building that few knew about that could be used in just such an event?
Different materials burn at different temperatures, and a raging inferno near the top wouldn’t affect structural members near the bottom, so a fire might not be guaranteed to trigger the weakness, but charges could be placed to guarantee the outcome if the worst happened.
Would explain SO much of the “evidence” that 911 conspiracy theorists talk about - the smell of chordite, the flashes in the windows, the clean collapse, that whole “the decision was made to ‘pull’ [building 7]” but no way they could have placed charges that quickly in that situation thing…
Then, this begs the question - What other structures might be similarly equipped?
Then, this begs the question - What other structures might be similarly equipped?
I also think this theory is plausible, and if it is true I assume it's stayed under wraps precisely because they didn't want future terrorists to be able to just trigger the conveniently pre-installed explosives.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Jackie Kennedy had JFK killed. She had Marilyn Monroe killed first as a warning to stop fooling around, he didn't listen... and a year later...
After it happened she was emotionally devastated, because she SPECIFICALLY ASKED THEM not to make a mess of her outfit. That was a $200 jacket and those stains are NOT coming out with club soda.
And $200 in 1963 is like $2,000 today!
There is only one Waffle House with doors around the world.
JFK's head just did that on its own.
Then why are the employees at one Waffle House near me always high, but another near me across town is normal? Well… normal as Waffle House gets, anyway.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Sometimes peoples' heads just fall apart.
Well, rarely.
Okay, once. Sheer coincidence that it was such a prominent person and in such a prominent moment. And that Lee Harvey Oswald just happened to be cleaning his gun by that window at the time. But hey, sometimes weird coincidences happen.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Incandescent light bulbs burned out at the speed they did because of an agreement between light bulb manufacturers to not make them better. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
That's totally true. If you go to Edison's house they have light bulbs that have been burning for a really long time. Every tour someone asks, "why don't my light bulbs last that long?" The tour guide replies, "because then you'd only buy them once."
Also the bulbs that last forever are majorly undervolted. They last forever because they’re not run anywhere near their current capacity, and as a result, they emit way less light and their filament doesn’t degrade as fast.
If you take any old off the shelf incandescent bulb and only run it at 50v, it’ll last decades.
load more comments
(2 replies)
That’s so oversimplified that it borders on being a lie. Yes it happened, but the why of it wasn’t as simple as just “sell more lightbulbs”.
I can’t link it right now, but go on YouTube and find the channel technology connections. He does a deep dive into the history of the light bulb and the phoebus cartel. TLDR: believe it or not, it was actually a good thing.
It was neutral at best, it was still a conspiracy to reduce choice in the market in a way that was beneficial to them. Yes, the excuse they used was that it prevented people from creating light bulbs that were of poor quality, and had an unpleasant color to them, but it also was profitable for them to do so.
Here's the video you mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY
That’s fair. I can get behind a neutral view of it.
It would have been a race to the bottom. The same way it happens with other products today. Some number bigger = better marketing = selling more = others need to do the same or go bankrupt = everyone does it.
Maybe the Technology Connections guy is an heir to the General Electric fortune. He certainly has a lot of access to old toasters. 🤔🧐
/s
Now there’s a conspiracy theory I can get behind. He’s financed by big toaster.
Does that explain why he did a 40 minute video on why microwaves from the 60s were better, but have since become shitified? To promote toasters instead?
Actually, come to think of it, it’s not just toasters… it’s coffeemakers, microwaves, stove knobs, thermostats…
HE’S SUPPORTED BY BIG BIMETALLIC STRIP!
load more comments
(1 replies)
That you don't actually need toilet paper or a bidet, it's just a money making scheme for the elites.
That's why you have a sinistra hand
Opinions like this are why cons smell like shit.
load more comments
(5 replies)