Liverpool FC Forum

[LFC2007]

Conspiracy theories.

The only major conspiracy theory I can think of that has any sort of credence is the JFK one. It's quite conceivable there may have been a second shooter. This one is far more feasible than the others, but still, in general I think they're bollocks.

The moon landing one is utter bollocks , as is the 9/11 one.

IMHO.

[Sabre]

The moon landing conspiracy is easily debunked, since they installed mirrors in the moon to measure the distance and progressive separation of the moon and earth.

Obviously if you can rebound a signal against a mirror in the moon, somebody had to put it there, and the most likely option it's the americans.

[Dundalk]

Those pesky Americans 

[EddieC]

The moon landing conspiracy is easily debunked, since they installed mirrors in the moon to measure the distance and progressive separation of the moon and earth.

Obviously if you can rebound a signal against a mirror in the moon, somebody had to put it there, and the most likely option it's the americans.

I thought the moon conspiracy wasn't that no-one had ever been there, just that the Americans hadn't been there when they said they had & had made it up to make sure they won the space race against the USSR.

[The Manhattan Project]

Few if any popular conspiracy theories have a basis in fact.

September 11th, JFK, Diana etc....

No conspiracies.

[66-1112520797]

The moon landing conspiracy is easily debunked, since they installed mirrors in the moon to measure the distance and progressive separation of the moon and earth.

Obviously if you can rebound a signal against a mirror in the moon, somebody had to put it there, and the most likely option it's the americans.

I thought the moon conspiracy wasn't that no-one had ever been there, just that the Americans hadn't been there when they said they had & had made it up to make sure they won the space race against the USSR.

Correct Eddie.

AIDS, another conspiracy ?

[112-1077774096]

they can easily prove the moon landings, we have telescopes that see billions of miles, we also have satellites that can zoom in on earth to pick up the finest detail, so why dont nasa show the remains of the landings on the moon, the platform is still there, as is the moon rover etc. they wont because they are not there

[Emerald Red]

Conspiracy theories.

The only major conspiracy theory I can think of that has any sort of credence is the JFK one, or should I say, the Kennedy conspiracies.

The moon landing one is bollocks , as is the 9/11 one.

IMHO.

I wouldn't say the Moon Landings or the 9/11 ones are bollox and dismiss them outright.

A solid fact 0n 9/11 that one building that wasn't hit by anything and took little to no damage from the buildings falling, fell straight down a few hours after with no real viable explanation. Building 7, if any logistical thinking person really takes the time to study and actually think about it, will come to the conclusion deduced by common sense that a healthy structure just doesn't do things like that, and therefore building 7 has to be viewed as the smoking gun that lends massive credence to any sort of conspiracy on that day.

The official explanation for the fall of this building as that fires had broken out, and that one of the columns to the east took damage due to falling debris. If this was the case, then how come any of the closer buildings situated directly in and underneath Trade Center 1&2 still stood after extensive foundational and structural damage, and they burned for days afterwards. Yet they stood?

If it was the case that building 7 was damaged in that way, then surely a partial collapse would have made better sense? No. The building came straight down, and collapsed in the centre. It telescoped. It's not really my opinion to say that this was a controlled explosion. I'm not going to state as such. I will state it as a fact however. This was a controlled demolition of building 7. And if this is the case, then it takes weeks of preparation to do a job like that right. Certainly at least, it would take a day or more. Instead it took hours. In this case, all you have to do is ask yourself how and why on that day of all, would it have been possible to do such a job unless they knew beforehand that something was going to happen on that day. Simple logic.

For me, 9/11 is no different to the JFK conspiracies. It's just in a more grander scale as far as the damage was concerned. Everyone knows JFK took a bullet. I'm sure the sight of it shocked the millions that seen it at that time, and anyone who viewed it afterwards. The shock of seeing a man's head blown apart like that would blind a person into actually thinking or questioning first hand as to how it happened, and why. The U.S government maintains to this day that the shooter was a Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald, that took his fatal shot from an open window from a library overlooking the road behind the president head. As  everyone sees, this explanation is nothing but fabricated bollox. His head rocked first forward as he was hit in the neck from behind, then the fatal blow comes from the front, made obvious as the back of his head comes flying off. The governments explanation for this? A magic bullet that turned round and bounced back in several directions before hitting the president. Bollox.

Of course all this this went on during a time of civil unrest in America. The Vietnam war was fierce and putting a huge amount  of strain on the economy. Then there was the lurking threat of the Iron Curtain of Russia and the Cold War crisis. This is where you can draw a link between JFK and his love affair with the space program, which leads on to the Moon Landing conspiracies.

I don't want to rant on about the ins-and-outs of things without turning the post into a history lesson, but the political implications at the time  were massive as far as the hearts and minds of the people of both super powers were concerned. It was being put out that he who controlled the Heavens, obviously must control the Earth in turn. Russia was by far the most advanced at the time. People in America sensed it and as such the fear of being nuked from on high by an advanced Russian rocket that could traverse the atmosphere undetected and fall down on American soil was immense. Sputnik was already in Space, and Yuri Gagarin with it, while America had nothing. I'm thinking that the panic button was pushed and the Americans staged a fake Lunar landing to assert their dominance and to show the Russians they were not to be f*cked with.

There's lots of things that back this up, from the flag that is wavering in the pictures (there is no wind in space apart from solar wind), to the displacement of shadows, to the fact that a belt of solar wind surrounds the Earth as scientific fact, with radiation powerful enough to fry a man's brain unless he had lead protection of around 8 feet. Then you ask yourself how many more landings have their been since then? Certainly not in my lifetime, and never will be until the technology is actually there to do the job for real next time. People are a lot wiser than what they were back in the 60's. Or at least they should be.

[Emerald Red]

they can easily prove the moon landings, we have telescopes that see billions of miles, we also have satellites that can zoom in on earth to pick up the finest detail, so why dont nasa show the remains of the landings on the moon, the platform is still there, as is the moon rover etc. they wont because they are not there

And you'd be 100% correct.

[112-1077774096]

i think with the beatles one the band members have played along with it and added clues at every step of the way, i get the impression that would be their sense of humour, and try and get some theory going.

some of the clues on the album covers etc are outstanding

[Emerald Red]

I'm not exactly sure why there would be a conspiracy surrounding the murder of Lennon. I would class that one in the same book as Elvis is still alive etc etc. Don't really know much about it. But anything is possible, really.

[The Manhattan Project]

A solid fact 0n 9/11 that one building that wasn't hit by anything and took little to no damage from the buildings falling, fell straight down a few hours after with no real viable explanation. Building 7, if any logistical thinking person really takes the time to study and actually think about it, will come to the conclusion deduced by common sense that a healthy structure just doesn't do things like that, and therefore building 7 has to be viewed as the smoking gun that lends massive credence to any sort of conspiracy on that day.

Two enormous skyscrapers collapsed very close to World Trade Seven. Large amounts of debris stuck the building inflicting among other damage, a gash ten floors high. The sprinkler system was also damaged and the building was ravaged by internal fires all day until it finally collapsed. No conspiracies. Just the effects of an exceptional occurances beyond any reasonable or practical design redundancy.

The official explanation for the fall of this building as that fires had broken out, and that one of the columns to the east took damage due to falling debris. If this was the case, then how come any of the closer buildings situated directly in and underneath Trade Center 1&2 still stood after extensive foundational and structural damage, and they burned for days afterwards. Yet they stood?

If it was the case that building 7 was damaged in that way, then surely a partial collapse would have made better sense? No. The building came straight down, and collapsed in the centre. It telescoped. It's not really my opinion to say that this was a controlled explosion. I'm not going to state as such. I will state it as a fact however. This was a controlled demolition of building 7. And if this is the case, then it takes weeks of preparation to do a job like that right. Certainly at least, it would take a day or more. Instead it took hours. In this case, all you have to do is ask yourself how and why on that day of all, would it have been possible to do such a job unless they knew beforehand that something was going to happen on that day. Simple logic.

The buildings closest to the towers were all destroyed. WTC 7, WTC 6, WTC 5, WTC 4, the Marriott, St. Nicholas' church are gone. The Deutsche Bank building and Fiterman Hall were both condemned.

For me, 9/11 is no different to the JFK conspiracies. It's just in a more grander scale as far as the damage was concerned. Everyone knows JFK took a bullet. I'm sure the sight of it shocked the millions that seen it at that time, and anyone who viewed it afterwards. The shock of seeing a man's head blown apart like that would blind a person into actually thinking or questioning first hand as to how it happened, and why. The U.S government maintains to this day that the shooter was a Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald, that took his fatal shot from an open window from a library overlooking the road behind the president head. As  everyone sees, this explanation is nothing but fabricated bollox. His head rocked first forward as he was hit in the neck from behind, then the fatal blow comes from the front, made obvious as the back of his head comes flying off. The governments explanation for this? A magic bullet that turned round and bounced back in several directions before hitting the president. Bollox.

Saying that "as everyone sees" is a ludicrous blanket statement. The direction his head moved after being struck does not mean that the bullet came from a different direction than officially stated. There's a great deal of research out there that shows how that particular argument is baseless. The bullet did not change direction. It was a clean shot which entered and exited Kennedy then struck Connelly who was sitting further inboard and lower than Kennedy, which is a fact that the serial nutter Oliver Stone "forgot" to mention in his movie.

Of course all this this went on during a time of civil unrest in America. The Vietnam war was fierce and putting a huge amount  of strain on the economy. Then there was the lurking threat of the Iron Curtain of Russia and the Cold War crisis. This is where you can draw a link between JFK and his love affair with the space program, which leads on to the Moon Landing conspiracies.

You're falling into the trap conspiracy theorists often do, of trying to link many many different events into a grand theory. It just snowballs and becomes bigger and bigger and bigger...and more impractical and unlikely.

I don't want to rant on about the ins-and-outs of things without turning the post into a history lesson, but the political implications at the time  were massive as far as the hearts and minds of the people of both super powers were concerned. It was being put out that he who controlled the Heavens, obviously must control the Earth in turn. Russia was by far the most advanced at the time. People in America sensed it and as such the fear of being nuked from on high by an advanced Russian rocket that could traverse the atmosphere undetected and fall down on American soil was immense. Sputnik was already in Space, and Yuri Gagarin with it, while America had nothing. I'm thinking that the panic button was pushed and the Americans staged a fake Lunar landing to assert their dominance and to show the Russians they were not to be f*cked with.

There's lots of things that back this up, from the flag that is wavering in the pictures (there is no wind in space apart from solar wind), to the displacement of shadows, to the fact that a belt of solar wind surrounds the Earth as scientific fact, with radiation powerful enough to fry a man's brain unless he had lead protection of around 8 feet. Then you ask yourself how many more landings have their been since then? Certainly not in my lifetime, and never will be until the technology is actually there to do the job for real next time. People are a lot wiser than what they were back in the 60's. Or at least they should be.

I suggest you visit a site called "Clavius" which specialises in debunking the kind of things you just posted...unless of course you believe they are also "in on the plot!"

[The Manhattan Project]

they can easily prove the moon landings, we have telescopes that see billions of miles, we also have satellites that can zoom in on earth to pick up the finest detail, so why dont nasa show the remains of the landings on the moon, the platform is still there, as is the moon rover etc. they wont because they are not there

Probably because NASA aren't willing to indulge the crazy fringe beliefs of conspiracy theorists and they are also well aware that even doing what you ask would probably not be enough to convince the loons who have turned moon landing conspiracy theories into their own subculture and industry.

[Emerald Red]

A solid fact 0n 9/11 that one building that wasn't hit by anything and took little to no damage from the buildings falling, fell straight down a few hours after with no real viable explanation. Building 7, if any logistical thinking person really takes the time to study and actually think about it, will come to the conclusion deduced by common sense that a healthy structure just doesn't do things like that, and therefore building 7 has to be viewed as the smoking gun that lends massive credence to any sort of conspiracy on that day.

Two enormous skyscrapers collapsed very close to World Trade Seven. Large amounts of debris stuck the building inflicting among other damage, a gash ten floors high. The sprinkler system was also damaged and the building was ravaged by internal fires all day until it finally collapsed. No conspiracies. Just the effects of an exceptional occurances beyond any reasonable or practical design redundancy.

The official explanation for the fall of this building as that fires had broken out, and that one of the columns to the east took damage due to falling debris. If this was the case, then how come any of the closer buildings situated directly in and underneath Trade Center 1&2 still stood after extensive foundational and structural damage, and they burned for days afterwards. Yet they stood?

If it was the case that building 7 was damaged in that way, then surely a partial collapse would have made better sense? No. The building came straight down, and collapsed in the centre. It telescoped. It's not really my opinion to say that this was a controlled explosion. I'm not going to state as such. I will state it as a fact however. This was a controlled demolition of building 7. And if this is the case, then it takes weeks of preparation to do a job like that right. Certainly at least, it would take a day or more. Instead it took hours. In this case, all you have to do is ask yourself how and why on that day of all, would it have been possible to do such a job unless they knew beforehand that something was going to happen on that day. Simple logic.

The buildings closest to the towers were all destroyed. WTC 7, WTC 6, WTC 5, WTC 4, the Marriott, St. Nicholas' church are gone. The Deutsche Bank building and Fiterman Hall were both condemned.

For me, 9/11 is no different to the JFK conspiracies. It's just in a more grander scale as far as the damage was concerned. Everyone knows JFK took a bullet. I'm sure the sight of it shocked the millions that seen it at that time, and anyone who viewed it afterwards. The shock of seeing a man's head blown apart like that would blind a person into actually thinking or questioning first hand as to how it happened, and why. The U.S government maintains to this day that the shooter was a Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald, that took his fatal shot from an open window from a library overlooking the road behind the president head. As  everyone sees, this explanation is nothing but fabricated bollox. His head rocked first forward as he was hit in the neck from behind, then the fatal blow comes from the front, made obvious as the back of his head comes flying off. The governments explanation for this? A magic bullet that turned round and bounced back in several directions before hitting the president. Bollox.

Saying that "as everyone sees" is a ludicrous blanket statement. The direction his head moved after being struck does not mean that the bullet came from a different direction than officially stated. There's a great deal of research out there that shows how that particular argument is baseless. The bullet did not change direction. It was a clean shot which entered and exited Kennedy then struck Connelly who was sitting further inboard and lower than Kennedy, which is a fact that the serial nutter Oliver Stone "forgot" to mention in his movie.

Of course all this this went on during a time of civil unrest in America. The Vietnam war was fierce and putting a huge amount  of strain on the economy. Then there was the lurking threat of the Iron Curtain of Russia and the Cold War crisis. This is where you can draw a link between JFK and his love affair with the space program, which leads on to the Moon Landing conspiracies.

You're falling into the trap conspiracy theorists often do, of trying to link many many different events into a grand theory. It just snowballs and becomes bigger and bigger and bigger...and more impractical and unlikely.

I don't want to rant on about the ins-and-outs of things without turning the post into a history lesson, but the political implications at the time  were massive as far as the hearts and minds of the people of both super powers were concerned. It was being put out that he who controlled the Heavens, obviously must control the Earth in turn. Russia was by far the most advanced at the time. People in America sensed it and as such the fear of being nuked from on high by an advanced Russian rocket that could traverse the atmosphere undetected and fall down on American soil was immense. Sputnik was already in Space, and Yuri Gagarin with it, while America had nothing. I'm thinking that the panic button was pushed and the Americans staged a fake Lunar landing to assert their dominance and to show the Russians they were not to be f*cked with.

There's lots of things that back this up, from the flag that is wavering in the pictures (there is no wind in space apart from solar wind), to the displacement of shadows, to the fact that a belt of solar wind surrounds the Earth as scientific fact, with radiation powerful enough to fry a man's brain unless he had lead protection of around 8 feet. Then you ask yourself how many more landings have their been since then? Certainly not in my lifetime, and never will be until the technology is actually there to do the job for real next time. People are a lot wiser than what they were back in the 60's. Or at least they should be.

I suggest you visit a site called "Clavius" which specialises in debunking the kind of things you just posted...unless of course you believe they are also "in on the plot!"

I'm not a "theorist". I didn't come up with these explanations. I've looked into all other angles and didn't just believe what's being said from both parties. I've come to my own conclusions summing up pro's and con's from both viewpoints. I'm not falling into any kind of trap either.

And the official explanation is what you've just mentioned about building 7 falling. This is exactly what I said was supposed to have happened. Yet, this is fact: you will not find a single building to have fallen in that way due to any kind of fire or structural damage, be in man made or natural. Even a strong hurricane, tornado, or earthquake wouldn't have toppled that building like that. It's just a fact. And common sense. No fires have ever felled a building. Not even a massive bomb has. You only need to look at the building in Oklahoma that took a massive explosion, and that building was a federal building just like building 7. Same shape, design, hight etc etc. It never fell. The official explanation is just bullsh*t, and to believe what they say is just an insult to a person of average intelligence. It is the smoking gun. I just don't care what sh*t they spit out. I've seen dozens of buildings damaged by fire and bomb damage in my time. Their explanation doesn't stick with me.

And the other buildings were not felled like building 7. They took the hit, burned, stayed up, then were demolished weeks afterwards. They took 100 times more damage.

The Kennedy thing too. Look at the video. His head rocks back and the back of his head flies  off from the exit of the round, meaning the bullet came from the front. Two shooters. Simple as that.

[red37]

Great read this lads. Keep 'em coming. (even if one or two of them seem highly improbable)..