Liverpool FC Forum

[red37]

Gets coat....nice knowing you lot. 

[Emerald Red]

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.

With a number of notable distinctions, the comparison is devoid of any practical relevance.

One is motiveless, the other has a clear political motive - a motive that as some stage has been demonstrated in every Democracy across the globe. Political scandal vs Mass Genocide of your own people - I'd say there is a grand difference.

One is true, we know it's true, they were exposed shortly after the events.

The other is highly improbable, has no motive and is a crime on a FAR greater scale.

You mean no meaningful motive has yet been revealed, if true there may well have been a meaningful motive.... just not yet clear or revealed.  Just because YOU don't know the motive doesn't mean there wasn't one if it was true . Mass Genocide of a countries citizens is nothing new.The Khmer Rouge for example had a pretty good stab at it. 

Hitler's treatment of the Jews in the concentration camps was a secret kept not only by the Germans but by the British and Americans from 1941/42. Even the Pope kept it secret. So the size of a crime or conspiracy doesn't stop it being true.

Watergate was exposed 2 years after the events, less people believed Watergate than believed 911 was a conspiracy.

Exactly Saint. Even if someone did claim a motive, it would still be a stab in the dark. It could be anything, but there are 7 deadly sins. Pick one. You've a one in 7 chance of getting it right.

[account deleted by request]

You mean like the German plot prior to declaring war on Poland?

On the night of August 31, 1939 a small group of German operatives, dressed in Polish uniforms and led by Naujocks[2] seized the Gleiwitz station and broadcast a short anti-German message in Polish (sources vary on the content on the message). The Germans' goal was to make the attack and the broadcast look like the work of anti-German Polish saboteurs.[3][2]

In order to make the attack scene more convincing, the Germans brought in Franciszek Honiok, a German Silesian known for sympathizing with the Poles, who had been arrested the previous day by the Gestapo. Honiok was dressed to look like a saboteur; then killed by lethal injection, given gunshot wounds, and left dead at the scene, so that he appeared to have been killed while attacking the station. His corpse was subsequently presented as proof of the attack to the police and press.[4]

In addition to Honiok, several other convicts from the Dachau concentration camp[2] were kept available for this purpose.[3] The Germans referred to them by the code phrase "Konserve" ("canned goods"). For this reason some sources incorrectly refer to the incident as "Operation Canned Goods".[5]


[edit] Context
The Gleiwitz incident was only a part of a larger operation, carried out by Abwehr and SS forces.[3] At the same time as the Gleiwitz attack there were other incidents orchestrated by Germany along the Polish-German border, such as house torching in the Polish Corridor and spurious propaganda output. The entire project, dubbed Operation Himmler and comprising 21 incidents in all,[6] was intended to give the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany.[5]

Dressing up like enemy soldiers seems far easier than the things I mentioned that would be required to organise, execute and cover up the supposed September 11th plot, particular in the totalitarian Third Reich where any scruntiny or investigation would be brutally crushed and repressed. If anyone in Germany said "yeah right, that's bollox, the reich can't expect anyone to believe that!" they would be floating face down in a river the next morning.

As we don't know who was involved, and how many were involved, at what level they were involved, or if there was any involvement at all by the USA in 911 , its pretty pointless to speculate which was the hardest to accomplish 

What can be seen, is that it is possible for a complex operation to be kept secret for years from the mass population.

As I have said before I dont tend to believe in these conspiracies, but that doesn't make the likelyhood of them being true any less. Just that there is little real evidence to support them in my opinion at this time

Now ghosts, UFO'S and God are a totally differnt matter..... 

[The Manhattan Project]

As we don't know who was involved, and how many were involved, at what level they were involved, or if there was any involvement at all by the USA in 911 , its pretty pointless to speculate which was the hardest to accomplish   

What can be seen, is that it is possible for a complex operation to be kept secret for years from the mass population.

If one day someone can bring forward convincing evidence to support a September 11th conspiracy theory, then it would and should be considered.

But it'd have to be more than easily explainable flashes, so-called magic bullets, and David Icke, in order to be taken seriously.

[LFC2007]

You mean no meaningful motive has yet been revealed, if true there may well have been a meaningful motive....
just not yet clear or revealed.  Just because YOU don't know the motive doesn't mean there wasn't one if it was true . Mass Genocide of a countries citizens is nothing new.The Khmer Rouge for example had a pretty good stab at it. 


.

Watergate took two years to uncover, it has been 6 years since 9/11 - a theory that if true would be of a far greater magnitude - in a society where suspicion is particularly rife - in a city that has an innumerable number of cctv camera's, after the bombings that preceded it - security at the WTC's was immense. In order for the theory to be correct, how many people would have to be in on such a plot? The CCTV operators, the security and maintenance workers at the Building. All of these people, or a vast preponderance of these people would have had to have been aware of such a plot. Otherwise it is simply not possible. If you can explain to me how so many people could keep a clean conscience, execute the plot and go on living a facade in the face of the greatest tragedy ever to hit the U.S.A. then I would love to know. A motive is required as a basis for the theory. No motive, no argument. It doesn't mean the act didn't take place, it means there is no argument on the part of the theorist. The burden of proof is firmly on the theorist.

Hitler's treatment of the Jews in the concentration camps was a secret kept not only by the Germans but by the British and Americans from 1941/42. Even the Pope kept it secret. So the size of a crime or conspiracy doesn't stop it being true.

These examples are of no practical relevance. We are in 2007, not 1941/42. This is also not Cambodia, this is not a regime that oppresses its own people, it has no record of oppressing its own people in the time it's been in office. The size and type of the crime makes the chances of the crime being executed very slim - ESPECIALLY in today's society, a Western Liberal Democracy. Culturally it's also very different, there are so many differences that make it more improbable than any of the examples cited in your post. In context, it is highly improbable.

Watergate was exposed 2 years after the events, less people believed Watergate than believed 911 was a conspiracy.

As it happens, the political dynamics of America have changed dramatically since Watergate, this explains this stat - if it's true. There is a far-left movement in America baying for blood, they will exploit any opportunity to suit their ends. The 9/11 conspiracy is one such opportunity. If anything scandals such as Watergate have made people more prone to 'conspiracy' thinking, any such suspicions propped up by the radical left movement in America will always have a relatively big following.

[account deleted by request]

As we don't know who was involved, and how many were involved, at what level they were involved, or if there was any involvement at all by the USA in 911 , its pretty pointless to speculate which was the hardest to accomplish   

What can be seen, is that it is possible for a complex operation to be kept secret for years from the mass population.

If one day someone can bring forward convincing evidence to support a September 11th conspiracy theory, then it would and should be considered.

But it'd have to be more than easily explainable flashes, so-called magic bullets, and David Icke, in order to be taken seriously.

Once you have concrete evidence, its no longer a conspiracy theory its just a conspiracy 

[Emerald Red]

As we don't know who was involved, and how many were involved, at what level they were involved, or if there was any involvement at all by the USA in 911 , its pretty pointless to speculate which was the hardest to accomplish   

What can be seen, is that it is possible for a complex operation to be kept secret for years from the mass population.

If one day someone can bring forward convincing evidence to support a September 11th conspiracy theory, then it would and should be considered.

But it'd have to be more than easily explainable flashes, so-called magic bullets, and David Icke, in order to be taken seriously.

Once you have concrete evidence, its no longer a conspiracy theory its just a conspiracy 

And right now all we have are two conflicting theories.

[LFC2007]

As I have said before I dont tend to believe in these conspiracies, but that doesn't make the likelyhood of them being true any less. Just that there is little real evidence to support them in my opinion at this time

Evidence is required to support a theory, it makes a theory more probable. You accept that there is little evidence to support the theory at this time, but then contradict this by saying it doesn't lessen the likelihood of it being true. What criteria do you go by then? If a lack of evidence doesn't decrease the likelihood of the theory, what does?

You must therefore accept that at this moment in time, the likelihood of the theory being true is significantly less.

Is there something that hasn't been revealed after 6 years, that you expect might suddenly pop up?
If so, what?

[account deleted by request]

You mean no meaningful motive has yet been revealed, if true there may well have been a meaningful motive....
just not yet clear or revealed.  Just because YOU don't know the motive doesn't mean there wasn't one if it was true . Mass Genocide of a countries citizens is nothing new.The Khmer Rouge for example had a pretty good stab at it. 


.

Watergate took two years to uncover, it has been 6 years since 9/11 - a theory that if true would be of a far greater magnitude - in a society where suspicion is particularly rife - in a city that has an innumerable number of cctv camera's, after the bombings that preceded it - security at the WTC's was immense. In order for the theory to be correct, how many people would have to be in on such a plot? The CCTV operators, the security and maintenance workers at the Building. All of these people, or a vast preponderance of these people would have had to have been aware of such a plot. Otherwise it is simply not possible. If you can explain to me how so many people could keep a clean conscience, execute the plot and go on living a facade in the face of the greatest tragedy ever to hit the U.S.A. then I would love to know. A motive is required as a basis for the theory. No motive, no argument. It doesn't mean the act didn't take place, it means there is no argument on the part of the theorist. The burden of proof is firmly on the theorist.

Hitler's treatment of the Jews in the concentration camps was a secret kept not only by the Germans but by the British and Americans from 1941/42. Even the Pope kept it secret. So the size of a crime or conspiracy doesn't stop it being true.

These examples are of no practical relevance. We are in 2007, not 1941/42. This is also not Cambodia, this is not a regime that oppresses its own people, it has no record of oppressing its own people. The size and type of the crime makes the chances of the crime being executed very slim - ESPECIALLY in today's society. Culturally its also very different, there are so many differences that make it more improbable than any of the examples cited in your post. In context, it is highly improbable.

Watergate was exposed 2 years after the events, less people believed Watergate than believed 911 was a conspiracy.

As it happens, the political dynamics of America have changed dramatically since Watergate, this explains this stat - if it's true. There is a far-left movement in America baying for blood, they will exploit any opportunity to suit their ends. The 9/11 conspiracy is one such opportunity. If anything scandals such as Watergate have made people more prone to 'conspiracy' thinking, any such suspicions propped up by the radical left movement in America will always have a relatively big following.

As you or I don't know how the conspiracy of 911 could have been carried out ,I fail to see how you can say all or MOST of these people would have to know, or THAT ITS NOT POSSIBLE. Improbable, unlikely but possible depending on which scenario you do or don't believe.

It may have been as simple as one or two orders to look the other way as the plot was being hatched, or as a truck loaded with explosives was driven into the parking area. Or it may have been an extensive and well organised, planned operation. 

I don't think anyone has expressed a belief that the people involved would have a clean concience.

These examples are of no practical relevance

That would be your OPINION not mine.

it has no record of oppressing its own people.

I think if you ask the Black population of the USA you will get a different answer.

[account deleted by request]

As I have said before I dont tend to believe in these conspiracies, but that doesn't make the likelyhood of them being true any less. Just that there is little real evidence to support them in my opinion at this time

Evidence is required to support a theory, it makes a theory more probable. You accept that there is little evidence to support the theory at this time, but then contradict this by saying it doesn't lessen the likelihood of it being true. What criteria do you go by then? If a lack of evidence doesn't decrease the likelihood of the theory, what does?

You must therefore accept that at this moment in time, the likelihood of the theory being true is significantly less.

Is there something that hasn't been revealed after 6 years, that you expect might suddenly pop up?
If so, what?

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.

[Kharhaz]

The biggest conspiracy of all is how Utd got THAT penalty against city in a cup match, how they got masses of extra time against Sheff Wed to equalise and win the premiership and how they got leeway to drop out of our premier cup competition with blessings from the FA !

[LFC2007]

As you or I don't know how the conspiracy of 911 could have been carried out ,I fail to see how you can say all or MOST of these people would have to know, or THAT ITS NOT POSSIBLE. Improbable, unlikely but possible depending on which scenario you do or don't believe.

It may have been as simple as one or two orders to look the other way as the plot was being hatched, or as a truck loaded with explosives was driven into the parking area. Or it may have been an extensive and well organised, planned operation. 

I don't think anyone has expressed a belief that the people involved would have a clean concience.

These examples are of no practical relevance

That would be your OPINION not mine.

it has no record of oppressing its own people.

I think if you ask the Black population of the USA you will get a different answer.

1) It's a question of PROBABILITY.

I have said it's possible - which makes your quote incorrect, just like it's possible that fairies exist.

In the circumstances, in the context of the situation how would such a plot be hatched? It is de facto impossible or nigh on impossible. Splitting hairs really.

Please explain. The burden of proof is not on me, it's on those who believe the theory.

From my point of view it's nigh on impossible to successfully hatch such a plot, without at the very least something being leaked by someone along the way. Human nature tells me that, however many people - in all likelihood quite a number - involved in any such plot, would not be able to live with themselves, and would not undertake such a plot. This is 2007, not Nazi Germany or Cambodia, so please don't raise another out of context example.

A truck full of explosives probably wouldn't bring down the WTC. If a truck was able to get in anyway, which is also very unlikely and would look very suspicios - WTC management would also have to be in on it - which comes back to PROBABILITY AGAIN. In any case, the collapse of the building CLEARLY indicates that there was no explosion coming from anywhere near the car park. The building pancaked, just viewing the video disproves this idea.

The other scenarios. How would one of the world's largest sky scrapers be rigged (top to bottom) with explosives without anyone questioning it?. The entire security system network would have had to be influenced, for a significant period of time - the security control room would have to be in on it. These buildings had bomb detection systems, how would that be de-activated?  PROBABILITY?
HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

To hatch such a plot is not simple, there would have to be explosives experts involved, demolition experts. All of these people would have had to co-ordinate the plot. It's a FARCICAL idea to say the least.

I'll repeat it again, and again. Yes, it's possible. Aliens are possible, fairies are possible. It is a question of PROBABILITY.

You give me a scenario that makes it even remotely probable and explain it clearly.


2) Your examples are of no practical relevance, especially since you haven't given any remote link that is contextual.

3) The racial situation has changed dramatically since the 60's (I presume you're referring to this period). If you are suggesting that black people in the U.S. are being oppressed as a comparison to the oppression in Cambodia and Nazi Germany then you are grossly misinformed. Again, another completely out of context example that has no relevance. The current Bush Administration do NOT oppress its OWN people on anything like the scale of comparison you imply, and has no history of murdering its citizens.

[LFC2007]

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.

[Kharhaz]

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.

[LFC2007]

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.