Liverpool FC Forum

LFC2007 wrote:

Kharhaz wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:Aliens are possible, fairies are possible. It is a question of PROBABILITY.

Fairies? you kidding me? and Santas gonna solve my xmas worries and get my kids what they want.

Absolutely.

LFC2007 wrote:

Emerald Red wrote:Hold on a second. You made me laugh here. Really. I'm not arguing with you, so why make it out as if I am. I'm not on her preaching theories as if they are truth like they are my own brainchild. .

1. You are supporting a theory that has no credibility, that is derived from far-left lunatics who falsify evidence and who know nothing about the structural causes for the collapse.

I'm just pointing them out that there is some valid points to be taken seriously from them

2. I am saying, there is absolutely nothing that can be taken from a conspiracy theory that accuses the U.S. gov't of undertaking a plot to kill its own people.

3. The structural questions are disputed in as far as [B]the way in which the building collapsed[B] can be disputed to have occurred as a result of different structural weakness, the reason for the collapse however, begins and ends with an aeroplane.

Though you say that I'd be nuts for thinking the American government wouldn't be capable of killing it's own. How do you know they wouldn't? They have done and still do. Just in different forms or methods.

4. I know that the scope for such a plan to take place is far fetched to the extreme, this is not watergate, this is an accusation of mass genocide without a motive. Since when has the U.S. gov't massacred thousands of its own people on purpose? It hasn't, you would therefore be wrong in your assertion that they have done and continue to do.

And why are you asking me to provide answers to things that I didn't even come up with in the first place. Like I say, I just agree with some of the things, and don't with others. I'm not willing to discredit them. It's just my opinion on the matter.

5. You suggest that a plot by the US gov't to rig the WTC with explosives is feasible, yet you provide no motive, and will not be able to provide a motive that is anything like feasible. What forms the basis of a conspiracy theory? A MOTIVE.

LFC2007 wrote:You may find these theories enjoyable, just like I used to find the x-files enjoyable, they are however very far from reality.

Kharhaz wrote:Is there really an area 51? just played Deus Ex and there were a couple on there ! must be true just lost on poker to Roswell the scheming little alien lowlife ! (Hoyle Casino)

LFC2007 wrote:It's a mentality, it's no surprise that the same people who thought I was AB and then Karim are the same people who indulge in conspiracy theories of the most absurd order.

Smeg wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:You may find these theories enjoyable, just like I used to find the x-files enjoyable, they are however very far from reality.

Prove it.

LFC2007 wrote:

Smeg wrote:1. Has no credibility? Why? Because its not "official"? How do you know these people are "lunatics"? That they "falsify evidence"? Or how, even for that matter do you know they have no knowledge of the structure of the building and what would cause such a reaction...

2. Why?

3. And you know this how?
(a) Because this is what the media told you?
(b) Because this is the only "plausible" explaination?
© Because this is the easiest thing to believe?
(d) Because the people who question the government can't possibley be correct?
(e) Because you were there and studied this?
(f) Its just impossible for the government to want to cover something up?

4. So because somethings far fetched that makes it impossible? Unlikely maybe, but not impossible. Theres a saying, "first time for everything". No-one here is making "assertations" that they did, people are questioning whether or not they did.

5. No-one knows the motive. What exactly is anyones motive for doing something. You have no idea what so ever.

Its not beyond the realms of possiblity that they were looking for a way to start a war with the other countries involved. But then, I supose it is as that was never an "official" statement. Basically, you're passing your "opinion and beliefs" off as facts on something you have absoloutely no, if any, only limited knowledge of.

Again, you maybe happy to just sit back and listen to the news. You maybe happy to believe EVERYTHING you hear. There are some of us who prefere to think for ourselves.

1) Has no credibility, not from an official source - or a reliable source but a far-left website with a political agenda, and not supported by the vast majority of people.


2) Why? The evidence provided is false, derived from websites who specialise in this type of thing.

3) No, the offical review confirms this.

4) Far fetched when you analyse circumstance and feasibility - already explained.

5) Why do you think it is called a conspiracy? Because there must be a motive. Otherwise what is the purpose of the conspiracy? You're as thick as sh!t.


You're a suspicion merchant, like some others on this forum are. I question everythjing the media spout, everything the gov't put to us. I refrain from believeing the far-left conspiracy theorists as I know they have a political agenda.

1. Not supported by the vast majority? Whats that got to do with anything? You then mention the "o" word... so because its an "official source" that makes it unquestionable?

You then again mention credibility... Why? Whats not credible about asking questions and suggesting other answers than the ones you are given by the media? How about, maybe, just maybe these people are in area's where some of them have actually seen things that make you want to question something. Does that not occur to you? Does it not occur they become suspicious or they have an "agenda" (if they do) because they may well have seen something to make them have this agenda.

Having read the BBC's report about WTC7 collapsing, do you honestly believe its was purely coincidence and no questions should be asked on how the building was reported collapsed a full 23 minutes before it did, then five minutes before the building actually did collapse, they "lost the transmission" think how often that happens on TV... VERY RARE... then, to top it off, the video's are missing?

And no questions should be asked because the official BBC statement says it was a coincidence and a up?

Please.

2. Prove the evidence is false. Its false in your opinion. No fact, no "official statements" to back it up. You can't be 100% certain the evidence is false, which is why its silly to not only dismiss it, but call others names when they bring it into the arguement.

3. The official review? What exactly is an official review? A person's opinion as to what happened is what. Whether qualified or not, its still opinion. And as I've already said, and will say again, if something is "official" does that mean its not to be questioned?

4. Again, like I said but you're unable to comprehend... Does that make it impossible, unfeasable or whatever other word you want to throw in there? No it doesn't. You're basing you're opinion on the fact something like this "may not" have happened before in this particular country. As I've said, first time for everything. Its not my belief there is a motive, I'm not sure what I believe on the matter. My issue is with the ignorance you dismiss other peoples views. Especially people you don't know, who could well have actually been there.

5. Keep name calling, its all you've got because you had your "answers" completely ripped to shreds with reasonable debate. You've done nothing but repeat yourself in your last post which proves you don't have the answers to any of the questions I asked you.

For you to come into an area you know absoloutely nothing/very little about and start name calling is a bit daft really. At least when I do it, its when people talk about an area in which they firstly, aren't qualified in or secondly, generally know nothing about and fellow general opinion.

LFC2007 wrote:

s@int wrote:No read what I wrote again ,  I say the fact that I don't believe them doesn't make the possibility of them being true any less, just as if I did believe them that wouldn't make them true.

You believe that there is little evidence to support the theory in your opinion at this moment in time, therefore, the likelihood of it being true must be lessened. The reason you don't believe the theory is down to a lack of evidence, therefore the likelihood MUST be decreased.

It's a clear contradiction.