Liverpool FC Forum

[LFC2007]

So basically Emerald Red, you're trying to tell us how the US gov't managed to rig one of the tallest sky scrapers in the world with explosives, without anyone knowing and without anyone questioning what they were doing at the time, in what is one of, if not the most densely populated cities in America, and the rest of the world.

You can find and regurgitate info you have found on conspiracy theory websites, but as far as I'm concerned it means nothing and I certainly wouldn't call the evidence 'reliable'. There is a very strong possibility that it is bull sh!t spouted from far left websites who simply hate the U.S. gov't, which is very common.

No-one can provide a sufficient motive for the conspiracy, nobody.

When you think about it, it would have been very simple to do it and over a long period of time. A building that size would take a serious amount of maintenance. I don't know how many charges it would take to do that kind of damage or bring something like that down, but in a space where work is all a distraction, and especially in NY, then sure it's possible. Dress like a maintenance worker, go in, do the job. I'm thinking if anything was planted, it would have been planted in the thing that keeps the building standing, and that's the core. In the core, I'm not sure how many there were, but there were, but there was close to 100 elevators. It would have been simple to stall one of those and get into the shaft. Weaken the core, and the whole lot come down like it did, section by section. This thing just cannot fall how it did. Think of it like a tree trunk. Would it make sense for a tree trunk to drop straight down into itself?

Her you can see the trajectory point of the second plane. Does it look as if it was going to threaten the integrity of the core in any way enough to destabilise the whole building?

So you're telling me, in a city with so many people and with so many security cameras, undercover gov't agents purposely rigged the building with explosives without anyone realising. Walking past their fellow Americans, who they know are likely to die, rigging the building and then strolling out without a mark on their conscience and a smiley face. Get real FFS.


I think it's far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far more feasible, that somehow, for whatever structural reason the jet caused the tower to come down, or whatever structural weaknesses arose from the impact. Structural engineers have explained how and why the building came down, but I suppose they're also in on it?


For every major catastrophe, there will be a conspiracy theory. This one just happens to be the most absurd one of the lot.

Yeah, but tell me how that everything in those buildings was reduced to nothing but dust. They never found a single keyboard or printer. Not anything larger than the size of half a keyboard. They have no answer for that. It would take a serious amount of energy to do that. In other words, they'd have to have been exploded.

I don't want an answer regurgitated from a conspiracy theorists' website, I want an answer to my basic questions.

The structural questions have been answered.

When a jet hits a sh!t high building that subsequently collapses, it's no surprise that almost everything turned to dust.

How is that? It's not possible. Think, if even the top half of that building fell, and somehow managed to go through the floors in some kind of pancaking effect, wouldn't the rate of decent slow as more and more resistance gathered and slowed it down? Wouldn't at least office desks, chairs, copying machines be crushed at least, but remain intact? They weren't. They were reduced to a very fine powder. It just doesn't seem right. And planes have hit buildings before and burned for days, and they haven't done what those two have.

Here's another interesting video.

Link

As the building crashed, it gained momentum and speed. The pancake effect accelerated. Your idea that somehow as the resistance increased it surely would have slowed down is completely flawed and absurd. What resistance? The resistance of office equpment? Compared to tonnes and tonnes of steel gurders and beams crashing down at an increasing velocity?

Explain how the rate of descent would slow? It wouldn't.

These questions have been explained by qualified structural engineers anyway.

It seems you won't answer my questions but would rather play the regurgitation game.

Because the time it took for them to fall. Count it. Just over 11 seconds. Freefall speed is just over 10. It would still take time for the building to gain that kind of momentum for freefall speed. And yes, there was resistance of stuff like concrete floors and steel beams and trusses. It wasn't just all thin air, you know.

These questions have been answered, however, your basic idea that the rate of descent would slow is laughable, and clearly derived from crazy far left websites.

You have no answer whatsoever to the questions I posed you. It seems you'd rather regurgutate sh!t from websites, that has no credibility.

Answer the questions on motive, circumstance and feasibility.

Your own views, not ones from crazy websites with anti governmental agendas.

[Emerald Red]

I've seen that one. Much smaller building, but most of it still stood regardless.

It stood because it was far wider spread that the World Trade Center towers, so only a relatively small part of the building was actually struck. The point is the same, that at the impact point, nothing was left but rubble, fire, death and a huge hole.

Most of the video from above is mainly misdirected clips put together to make it sound like bombs were going off left right and centre. Most of it is misinformation, as most of the time the people are talking about the explosions from the planes. But some of the accounts talk of explosions from underneath. It's interesting.

Dude, I'm afraid you are seeing conspiracies everywhere. You suggest one, I conclusively debunk it, you ignore the evidence and simply move onto the next conspiracy.


You display all the marks of a person who's been reading paranoid websites and then reposting what you've read.

What? I'm actually critisising the video I posted up. That's not moving on to the next thing. I'm actually casting a critical eye over it by stating that most of that video is false and misinformation. Some of it does have some interesting and questionable accounts. You're confusing me for someone who just believes everything that he reads and sees. I'm not.

[The Manhattan Project]

Because the time it took for them to fall. Count it. Just over 11 seconds. Freefall speed is just over 10. It would still take time for the building to gain that kind of momentum for freefall speed. And yes, there was resistance of stuff like concrete floors and steel beams and trusses. It wasn't just all thin air, you know.

The concrete floors presented no problem. Each floor had only a relatively thin covering of concrete, but crucially, once the floors pulled away from the walls of the tower, they would have collapsed like a house of cards. The steel floors and trusses were lightweight. The WTC was a tube structure without a large framework. It had outer walls and a core. The floors hung between them.

[The Manhattan Project]

What? I'm actually critisising the video I posted up. That's not moving on to the next thing. I'm actually casting a critical eye over it by stating that most of that video is false and misinformation. Some of it does have some interesting and questionable accounts. You're confusing me for someone who just believes everything that he reads and sees. I'm not.

There's nothing to criticise in the footage. It shows the plane striking the building and explains where your "mysterious" flash came from. Your "critical" eye have been proven time and time again to be terrible flawed. You DO believe half of what you see and read. Particularly sources that claim conspiracy while you dismiss information which debunks that nonsense as "misinformation".

[Emerald Red]

What? I'm actually critisising the video I posted up. That's not moving on to the next thing. I'm actually casting a critical eye over it by stating that most of that video is false and misinformation. Some of it does have some interesting and questionable accounts. You're confusing me for someone who just believes everything that he reads and sees. I'm not.

There's nothing to criticise in the footage. It shows the plane striking the building and explains where your "mysterious" flash came from. Your "critical" eye have been proven time and time again to be terrible flawed. You DO believe half of what you see and read. Particularly sources that claim conspiracy while you dismiss information which debunks that nonsense as "misinformation".

Na. I never really believed any of this stuff, even when someone mentioned it. When I first heard it, my reaction is the same as the one you have now. I'm no different. I thought it was fantasy. But it  did raise questions, and interesting ones. There's still a lot of 9/11 that remains unexplained, and even though the experts have supposedly came forward and debunked a theory, with another theory, at the end of the day, no one can really fully explain for fact what happened to those towers. It is why the conspiracies exist in the first place, or at least partly. It's this part that intrigues me. And no, I simply won't accept that the other building just fell how it did like that. I won't. That's my belief and I'll stick by it. The rest can all be proven as bollox. I don't really care. But if one single piece of the conspiracy can be proven as truth, then it could mean that all the other questions raised could also be true. It's not impossible. That's the thing about a theory is that it isn't impossible, no matter how implausible it sounds. The thing is, no one will ever know the truth. The truth is always the first casualty.

[The Manhattan Project]

Na. I never really believed any of this stuff, even when someone mentioned it. When I first heard it, my reaction is the same as the one you have now. I'm no different. I thought it was fantasy. But it  did raise questions, and interesting ones. There's still a lot of 9/11 that remains unexplained, and even though the experts have supposedly came forward and debunked a theory, with another theory, at the end of the day, no one can really fully explain for fact what happened to those towers. It is why the conspiracies exist in the first place, or at least partly. It's this part that intrigues me. And no, I simply won't accept that the other building just fell how it did like that. I won't. That's my belief and I'll stick by it. The rest can all be proven as bollox. I don't really care. But if one single piece of the conspiracy can be proven as truth, then it could mean that all the other questions raised could also be true. It's not impossible. That's the thing about a theory is that it isn't impossible, no matter how implausible it sounds. The thing is, no one will ever know the truth. The truth is always the first casualty.

In the modern world, it often seems that logic is the first casualty. With September 11th, for some the idea of a dark conspiracy involving missiles and controlled demolition is more interesting than the simple fact of "Plane + Building + Fire = Disaster"

[LFC2007]

What? I'm actually critisising the video I posted up. That's not moving on to the next thing. I'm actually casting a critical eye over it by stating that most of that video is false and misinformation. Some of it does have some interesting and questionable accounts. You're confusing me for someone who just believes everything that he reads and sees. I'm not.

There's nothing to criticise in the footage. It shows the plane striking the building and explains where your "mysterious" flash came from. Your "critical" eye have been proven time and time again to be terrible flawed. You DO believe half of what you see and read. Particularly sources that claim conspiracy while you dismiss information which debunks that nonsense as "misinformation".

Na. I never really believed any of this stuff, even when someone mentioned it. When I first heard it, my reaction is the same as the one you have now. I'm no different. I thought it was fantasy. But it  did raise questions, and interesting ones. There's still a lot of 9/11 that remains unexplained, and even though the experts have supposedly came forward and debunked a theory, with another theory, at the end of the day, no one can really fully explain for fact what happened to those towers. It is why the conspiracies exist in the first place, or at least partly. It's this part that intrigues me. And no, I simply won't accept that the other building just fell how it did like that. I won't. That's my belief and I'll stick by it. The rest can all be proven as bollox. I don't really care. But if one single piece of the conspiracy can be proven as truth, then it could mean that all the other questions raised could also be true. It's not impossible. That's the thing about a theory is that it isn't impossible, no matter how implausible it sounds. The thing is, no one will ever know the truth. The truth is always the first casualty.

You're right, anything is possible. It's possible that Rafa works for MI5, it's possible that fairies exist, it's possible that George Bush intended to kill thousands of his own citizens in a covert plot that nearly everyone happens to be in on.

It's however, highly improbable that any of these are actually true.

The basic questions on motive, circumstance and feasibility haven't been answered by any conspiracy theorist, or if they have, it's an answer riddled with anti-governmental propaganda. The structural questions are a given, they've been answered. There will always be structural questions arising from events such as this given how infrequent such events are, and how unexpected the event was.

These events present opportunities for crazed left wing nutters to attack the U.S. gov't, who detest Bush, and setup websites to brainwash people with misinformation, and propaganda.

[redtrader74]

A load of religious nutters, learnt to fly planes, and then highjacked four passengers jets, and flew 2 into the World trade centres, these planes were full of jet fuel, FULL, and the two towers collapsed, thats it. The rubbish about how and why they collapsed is a waste of time, this was an unprecendented passage of events, never happened before, therefore the manner of the reaction was previously unknown. Those huge buildings fcking swayed when they were initally hit, that alone would have compromised the structure.

Motive we hate the U.S and the West, (Also A-Q have accepted responsibility)

Or we can believe a government and hundreds of people planned, and caused 911, infact not only did they line the buildings with hundreds of explosive devices, they strapped some missiles to the planes for all to see, and if that wasn't enough the planes themselves were filled to the brim with jet fuel, oh and somehow have managed to keep all those involved quiet. Yup sounds reasonable.

Motive....?

[Emerald Red]

What? I'm actually critisising the video I posted up. That's not moving on to the next thing. I'm actually casting a critical eye over it by stating that most of that video is false and misinformation. Some of it does have some interesting and questionable accounts. You're confusing me for someone who just believes everything that he reads and sees. I'm not.

There's nothing to criticise in the footage. It shows the plane striking the building and explains where your "mysterious" flash came from. Your "critical" eye have been proven time and time again to be terrible flawed. You DO believe half of what you see and read. Particularly sources that claim conspiracy while you dismiss information which debunks that nonsense as "misinformation".

Na. I never really believed any of this stuff, even when someone mentioned it. When I first heard it, my reaction is the same as the one you have now. I'm no different. I thought it was fantasy. But it  did raise questions, and interesting ones. There's still a lot of 9/11 that remains unexplained, and even though the experts have supposedly came forward and debunked a theory, with another theory, at the end of the day, no one can really fully explain for fact what happened to those towers. It is why the conspiracies exist in the first place, or at least partly. It's this part that intrigues me. And no, I simply won't accept that the other building just fell how it did like that. I won't. That's my belief and I'll stick by it. The rest can all be proven as bollox. I don't really care. But if one single piece of the conspiracy can be proven as truth, then it could mean that all the other questions raised could also be true. It's not impossible. That's the thing about a theory is that it isn't impossible, no matter how implausible it sounds. The thing is, no one will ever know the truth. The truth is always the first casualty.

You're right, anything is possible. It's possible that Rafa works for MI5, it's possible that fairies exist, it's possible that the George Bush intended to kill thousands of his own citizens in a covert plot that nearly everyone happens to be in on.

It's however, highly improbable that any of these are actually true.

The basic questions on motive, circumstance and feasibility haven't been answered by any conspiracy theorist, or if they have, it's an answer riddled with anti-governmental propaganda. The structural questions are a given, they've been answered. There will always be structural questions arising from events such as this given how infrequent such events are, and how unexpected the event was.

These events present opportunities for crazed left wing nutters to attack the U.S. gov't, who detest Bush, and setup websites to brainwash people with misinformation, and propaganda.

I don't know about that. It's just a case of who's case you find more agreeable with what you believe. at the end of the day, the things the theorists are being attacked with, like other scientific theories, are just as questionable. When something doesn't look or seem right, it's going to throw up people with extreme views on things. It doesn't mean they are wrong. They could still be right. They just don't have the means to completely prove beyond doubt that what they says is true. It's just that because when something is dubbed as official, it means it is true and there's no dispute. That shouldn't be. The theorists explanations may seems outlandish, but they are also explainable and can make a lot of sense.

I'm not the founder of such claims, nor should I be attacked in such a way as if I am. I am not totally agreeing to any party here. I'm just exploring other possible reasons no matter how nuts they sound. Do I believe in controlled demolitions? It's possible. Do I believe the American government was responsible? Yes. In one way or another. Do I believe fire brought down these buildings, and a building that was never hit by a plane alone? No. That's just my belief.

Even if one of you do debunk that belief (which is not mine alone) by going to other sites that debunk it, it's still no different to simply what I'm doing here by posting theories from other people's opinions. I'm not saying I believe it all as I've said. I'm just saying that I'm not willing to say it's bullsh*t either. I've an open mind on the matter.

Another thing is, that if you believe in this sort of thing, you're looked at as being a nut. That's fine. But what can be said for the billions of people around the globe that believe in Buda, jesus Christ, Allah, etc etc. There is no concrete proof of those people, and what there is is sketchy at best. Yet people believe in them. It's all just a question of belief. Who's opinion you favor.
But in this case, those that have that kind of belief or faith must also be nuts.

[account deleted by request]

Its a bit like believing the President of the USA and leading Whitehouse figures would plan and organise a break in of the Democratic party headquarters, campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins, wiretapping on a massive scale, including the wiretapping of the press and American citizens, and a secret slush fund laundered in Mexico to pay those who conducted these operations. Who would believe such rubbish........ oh wait that actually happened didn't it.

[LFC2007]

What? I'm actually critisising the video I posted up. That's not moving on to the next thing. I'm actually casting a critical eye over it by stating that most of that video is false and misinformation. Some of it does have some interesting and questionable accounts. You're confusing me for someone who just believes everything that he reads and sees. I'm not.

There's nothing to criticise in the footage. It shows the plane striking the building and explains where your "mysterious" flash came from. Your "critical" eye have been proven time and time again to be terrible flawed. You DO believe half of what you see and read. Particularly sources that claim conspiracy while you dismiss information which debunks that nonsense as "misinformation".

Na. I never really believed any of this stuff, even when someone mentioned it. When I first heard it, my reaction is the same as the one you have now. I'm no different. I thought it was fantasy. But it  did raise questions, and interesting ones. There's still a lot of 9/11 that remains unexplained, and even though the experts have supposedly came forward and debunked a theory, with another theory, at the end of the day, no one can really fully explain for fact what happened to those towers. It is why the conspiracies exist in the first place, or at least partly. It's this part that intrigues me. And no, I simply won't accept that the other building just fell how it did like that. I won't. That's my belief and I'll stick by it. The rest can all be proven as bollox. I don't really care. But if one single piece of the conspiracy can be proven as truth, then it could mean that all the other questions raised could also be true. It's not impossible. That's the thing about a theory is that it isn't impossible, no matter how implausible it sounds. The thing is, no one will ever know the truth. The truth is always the first casualty.

You're right, anything is possible. It's possible that Rafa works for MI5, it's possible that fairies exist, it's possible that the George Bush intended to kill thousands of his own citizens in a covert plot that nearly everyone happens to be in on.

It's however, highly improbable that any of these are actually true.

The basic questions on motive, circumstance and feasibility haven't been answered by any conspiracy theorist, or if they have, it's an answer riddled with anti-governmental propaganda. The structural questions are a given, they've been answered. There will always be structural questions arising from events such as this given how infrequent such events are, and how unexpected the event was.

These events present opportunities for crazed left wing nutters to attack the U.S. gov't, who detest Bush, and setup websites to brainwash people with misinformation, and propaganda.

I don't know about that. It's just a case of who's case you find more agreeable with what you believe. at the end of the day, the things the theorists are being attacked with, like other scientific theories, are just as questionable. When something doesn't look or seem right, it's going to throw up people with extreme views on things. It doesn't mean they are wrong. They could still be right. They just have the means to completely prove beyond doubt that what they says is true. It's just that because when something is dubbed as official, it means it is true and there's no dispute. That shouldn't be. The theorists explanations may seems outlandish, but they are also explainable and can make a lot of sense.

I'm not the founder of such claims, nor should I be attacked in such a way as if I am. I am not totally agreeing to any party here. I'm just exploring other possible reasons no matter how nuts they sound. Do I believe in controlled demolitions? It's possible. Do I believe the American government was responsible? Yes. In one way or another. Do I believe fire brought down these buildings, and a building that was never hit by a plane alone? No. That's just my belief.

Even if one of you do debunk that belief (which is not mine alone) by going to other sites that debunk it, it's still no different to simply what I'm doing here by posting theories from other people's opinions. I'm not saying I believe it all as I've said. I'm just saying that I'm not willing to say it's bullsh*t either. I've an open mind on the matter.

Another thing is, that if you believe in this sort of thing, you're looked at as being a nut. That's fine. But what can be said for the billions of people around the globe that believe in Buda, jesus Christ, Allah, etc etc. There is no concrete proof of those people, and what there is is sketchy at best. Yet people believe in them. It's all just a question of belief. Who's opinion you favor.
But in this case, those that have that kind of belief or faith must also be nuts.

You should absolutely be looked at as a nut, IF, you believe that the US gov't undertook a plot to kill their own citizens on 9/11.

Believing in Buddha comes with no accomaniment that accuses a person(s) of committing mass genocide on its own people, that's a very important distinction that you don't acknowledge in your example.

You can't even provide the basis i.e. the motive, for such a theory, which is the underlying basis of every conspiracy theory. The preponderance of structural questions have been dealt with by people who are qualified, and who were appointed (they must also be in on the plot) to analyse the specific reasons for the collapse. Engineers may well dispute the reasons for the way in which it collapsed, however, the sole reason FOR the collapse begins with and ends with an aeroplane filled with fuel hitting a giant skyscraper.

[redtrader74]

Yeah exactly the same

[LFC2007]

Its a bit like believing the President of the USA and leading Whitehouse figures would plan and organise a break in of the Democratic party headquarters, campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins, wiretapping on a massive scale, including the wiretapping of the press and American citizens, and a secret slush fund laundered in Mexico to pay those who conducted these operations. Who would believe such rubbish........ oh wait that actually happened didn't it.

No, this would be very very different.

[Emerald Red]

What? I'm actually critisising the video I posted up. That's not moving on to the next thing. I'm actually casting a critical eye over it by stating that most of that video is false and misinformation. Some of it does have some interesting and questionable accounts. You're confusing me for someone who just believes everything that he reads and sees. I'm not.

There's nothing to criticise in the footage. It shows the plane striking the building and explains where your "mysterious" flash came from. Your "critical" eye have been proven time and time again to be terrible flawed. You DO believe half of what you see and read. Particularly sources that claim conspiracy while you dismiss information which debunks that nonsense as "misinformation".

Na. I never really believed any of this stuff, even when someone mentioned it. When I first heard it, my reaction is the same as the one you have now. I'm no different. I thought it was fantasy. But it  did raise questions, and interesting ones. There's still a lot of 9/11 that remains unexplained, and even though the experts have supposedly came forward and debunked a theory, with another theory, at the end of the day, no one can really fully explain for fact what happened to those towers. It is why the conspiracies exist in the first place, or at least partly. It's this part that intrigues me. And no, I simply won't accept that the other building just fell how it did like that. I won't. That's my belief and I'll stick by it. The rest can all be proven as bollox. I don't really care. But if one single piece of the conspiracy can be proven as truth, then it could mean that all the other questions raised could also be true. It's not impossible. That's the thing about a theory is that it isn't impossible, no matter how implausible it sounds. The thing is, no one will ever know the truth. The truth is always the first casualty.

You're right, anything is possible. It's possible that Rafa works for MI5, it's possible that fairies exist, it's possible that the George Bush intended to kill thousands of his own citizens in a covert plot that nearly everyone happens to be in on.

It's however, highly improbable that any of these are actually true.

The basic questions on motive, circumstance and feasibility haven't been answered by any conspiracy theorist, or if they have, it's an answer riddled with anti-governmental propaganda. The structural questions are a given, they've been answered. There will always be structural questions arising from events such as this given how infrequent such events are, and how unexpected the event was.

These events present opportunities for crazed left wing nutters to attack the U.S. gov't, who detest Bush, and setup websites to brainwash people with misinformation, and propaganda.

I don't know about that. It's just a case of who's case you find more agreeable with what you believe. at the end of the day, the things the theorists are being attacked with, like other scientific theories, are just as questionable. When something doesn't look or seem right, it's going to throw up people with extreme views on things. It doesn't mean they are wrong. They could still be right. They just have the means to completely prove beyond doubt that what they says is true. It's just that because when something is dubbed as official, it means it is true and there's no dispute. That shouldn't be. The theorists explanations may seems outlandish, but they are also explainable and can make a lot of sense.

I'm not the founder of such claims, nor should I be attacked in such a way as if I am. I am not totally agreeing to any party here. I'm just exploring other possible reasons no matter how nuts they sound. Do I believe in controlled demolitions? It's possible. Do I believe the American government was responsible? Yes. In one way or another. Do I believe fire brought down these buildings, and a building that was never hit by a plane alone? No. That's just my belief.

Even if one of you do debunk that belief (which is not mine alone) by going to other sites that debunk it, it's still no different to simply what I'm doing here by posting theories from other people's opinions. I'm not saying I believe it all as I've said. I'm just saying that I'm not willing to say it's bullsh*t either. I've an open mind on the matter.

Another thing is, that if you believe in this sort of thing, you're looked at as being a nut. That's fine. But what can be said for the billions of people around the globe that believe in Buda, jesus Christ, Allah, etc etc. There is no concrete proof of those people, and what there is is sketchy at best. Yet people believe in them. It's all just a question of belief. Who's opinion you favor.
But in this case, those that have that kind of belief or faith must also be nuts.

You should absolutely be looked at as a nut, IF, you believe that the US gov't undertook a plot to kill their own citizens on 9/11.

Believing in Buddha comes with no accomaniment that accuses a person(s) of committing mass genocide on its own people, that's a very important distinction that you don't acknowledge in your example.

You can't even provide the basis i.e. the motive, for such a theory, which is the underlying basis of every conspiracy theory. The preponderance of structural questions have been dealt with by people who are qualified, and who were appointed (they must also be in on the plot) to analyse the specific reasons for the collapse. Engineers may well dispute the reasons for the way in which it collapsed, however, the sole reason FOR the collapse begins with and ends with an aeroplane filled with fuel hitting a giant skyscraper.

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

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.

[account deleted by request]

Its a bit like believing the President of the USA and leading Whitehouse figures would plan and organise a break in of the Democratic party headquarters, campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins, wiretapping on a massive scale, including the wiretapping of the press and American citizens, and a secret slush fund laundered in Mexico to pay those who conducted these operations. Who would believe such rubbish........ oh wait that actually happened didn't it.

No, this would be very very different.

No, they would both be abuse of power if true.