Answers below:
Conspiracy theories can be fun to talk about and have discussions that is maybe viable or that it may have happened. With me there is one conspiracy theory that I am starting to believe is in fact real
the boxing day tsunami that his south east asia a few year ago. The conspiracy theory is that is was caused by a nuclear test in the middle of the ocean.
No, absolutely not. Not a chance. Consider a few things:
-How would North Korea get a nuclear device drilled into the bottom of the ocean off of Indonesia? And it would have to be drilled so as not to diffuse the lions share of the energy into the water. And how could it reach those depths without imploding, considering they had no miniaturization technology as of yet.
-The first North Korean test, two years later, was estimated at .48 kilotons. The Indonesian earthquake produced approximately 92 gigatons, which is 180 million times as much energy.
-Most importantly, WHY?!?! Kim Jong-Il's primary goal was to prove to the world that he had a nuclear capability. If he managed to ignite one of his little sparklers, the last thing he wanted to do was hide it.
None of this adds up. It was physically impossible and remains entirely nonsensical.
Don't know about conspiracy, but it is funny that the CIA was arming Bin Laden. Then he was an ally, later a terrorist. Seems a bit fishy, but what the hell do I know.
To be frank, the US has at one time or another directly or covertly sold arms to just about every bad guy there is. I mean you've got to make money right? Later you can then go play world cop.
Nothing fishy about it really. He was an upstart leader from an important family that was a useful ally when America wanted allies in Afghanistan. The extent to which his people were trained by the C.I.A. is frequently overblown, but they had a relationship at the time because they had similar goals. That relationship ended in Afghanistan, and by the time he was in Sudan, the CIA considered him not an ally, but a threat.
The 1993 World Trade bombing was a test run for the 2001 attacks on 9/11.
'Test run'? They were trying to knock down a building in '93, and might have succeeded if they had a better understanding of its architecture. And how could it be a 'test run', when the buildings were later brought down by planes? Unless you're suggesting... no, no, I'm sure you're not. Good.
Certifiably crazy. If you think there's anything to this, you should stop trusting your instincts... on anything. They will never, ever help you.