Liverpool FC Forum

[Sabre]

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.

True.

All that "arguments" have been debunked millions of times. They won't listen, because they're ready to believe any conspiration. But I'm talking about this one, not the 9/11 of which I haven't a deep opinion. The moon and dozens of other conspiracies, some of them as silly as the Yanks wanting to convert Jupiter in a star with a plutonium bomb, are debunked here:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/?cat=9&submit=view

But then JBG's point is true aswell, there's been conspiracies through out history. Franco bombarded Gernika with Nazi planes, and blamed the communists. Hitler blamed the comunist of many atrocities his army made in warsaw. U.S.A. Declared war on Spain accussing them of sinking a shíp, all of them documented and known the truth afterwards.

[LFC2007]

But then JBG's point is true aswell, there's been conspiracies through out history. Franco bombarded Gernika with Nazi planes, and blamed the communists. Hitler blamed the comunist of many atrocities his army made in warsaw. U.S.A. Declared war on Spain accussing them of sinking a shíp, all of them documented and known the truth afterwards.

These examples are very different to the examples cited at the beginning of this thread.

I wouldn't necessarily call your examples conspiracies, just the reality of intense military conflict.

[66-1112520797]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Learn more about citing Wikipedia •
Jump to: navigation, search

There are a number of theories about AIDS which make claims about the origin and/or nature of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS that differ radically from mainstream beliefs. These theories range from claims that HIV is not the principal cause, to suggestions that AIDS was the inadvertent result of medical experiments, to claims that HIV was deliberately created.
Contents
[hide]

    * 1 Man-made origin of AIDS
    * 2 Minority theories of causation, origin or treatment
    * 3 See also
    * 4 References
    * 5 External links

[edit] Man-made origin of AIDS

Some scientists and others have theorized that AIDS is a man-made disease. These theories generally state that the disease was designed to act as a form of population control, or to deliberately wipe out a certain segment of the population in an act of genocide, and/or was created as biowarfare research. Others have theorized alternative natural or accidental origins for the disease.

    * Jakob Segal, a biology professor at Humboldt University in the former East Germany, proposes that HIV was engineered at a U.S. military laboratory at Fort Detrick, located in Frederick, Maryland by splicing together two other viruses, Visna and HTLV-1. According to his theory, the new virus, created between 1977 and 1978, was tested on prison inmates who had volunteered for the experiment in exchange for early release. It was through these prisoners that the virus was spread to the population at large. Segal was accused of being a Soviet disinformation agent by defector Vasili Mitrokhin.
    * Nobel Peace Prize laureate Wangari Maathai was alleged to have stated that she believes that the biological agent causing AIDS is not natural.[1]
    * KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin, the KGB planted disinformation suggesting the CIA or other agencies created HIV, in a plot to destabilize the Western world through an East German physicist, Jakob Segal, in the mid 1980s (see the Mitrokhin Archive, 1999 page 319).
    * Dr. Alan Cantwell, author of AIDS and the Doctors of Death: An Inquiry into the Origin of the AIDS Epidemic and Queer Blood: The Secret AIDS Genocide Plot, believes that HIV is a genetically modified organism developed by U.S. Government scientists; that it was introduced into the population through Hepatitis B experiments performed on gay and bisexual men between 1978-1981 in Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, St. Louis, Denver, and Chicago. Cantwell claims these experiments were directed by Dr. Wolf Szmuness; and that there is an ongoing government and media cover-up regarding the origin of the AIDS epidemic. Similar theories have been advanced by Dr. Robert B. Strecker, Matilde Krim and by Milton William Cooper, author of Behold A Pale Horse
    * Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz, author of Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola. Nature, Accident or Intentional? and Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare, has advanced the theory that the AIDS virus was engineered by such U.S. Government defense contractors as Litton Bionetics for the purposes of bio-warfare and "population control." Dr. Horowitz believes that Jews, blacks, and Hispanics are prime targets in these attempts. He cites the historical preoccupation with eugenics on the part of the American medical establishment as evidence of a greater conspiracy to commit genocide.

[edit] Minority theories of causation, origin or treatment

    See also: AIDS reappraisal

A number of proponents of alternative theories of the causation or origin of AIDS are sometimes accused of being conspiracy theorists. However, non-majoritarian positions do not necessarily endorse any belief in any conspiracy, but simply think that the majority positions are incorrect from a scientific perspective.

    * Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa, along with other prominent members of the ruling African National Congress party, has argued that AIDS is the result of poverty, chronic disease, malnutrition and other environmental factors.[2] Mbeki drew on the ideas of AIDS dissidents, such as Peter Duesberg, Robert Root-Bernstein, and Kary Mullis (inventor of polymerase chain reaction), who have argued that HIV does not cause AIDS, nor the sole factor in AIDS etiology. These arguments are made despite overwhelming evidence that HIV infection fulfills Koch's postulates, so therefore is the etiology of AIDS.[3] It has been suggested that the ANC leadership adopted this position as a political expedient, intended to deflect criticism that the ANC had not done enough to fight AIDS in South Africa. "Stop Denying the Killer Bug" (21 February 2002)[citation needed].
      In 2000, two statements by government spokespeople, (one later retracted), placed the financial cost of treating pregnant HIV positive women and the subsequent cost to the state of raising the child as central in the decision of whether to provide anti-retroviral drug treatment.[4] Also in 2000, Mbeki claimed that the CIA, "is part of a conspiracy to promote the view that HIV causes AIDS", and that Western drug companies were promoting that view as well, in order to increase sales of their anti-AIDS drugs.[5]

    * Edward Hooper, author of The River, correctly notes that HIV1 (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is an evolution of SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), a virus found in the chimpanzee. However, he lays blame on Dr. Hilary Koprowski, a Polish-born virologist working for Philadelphia's Wistar Research Institute, who allegedly used hastily concocted chimpanzee kidney culture medium from a Stanleyville research laboratory to create a million doses of oral polio vaccine for a mass vaccination program in the Belgian Congo.[citation needed] He points out inconsistencies in what Koprowski and his team said they did, and what workers in Koprowski's labs and at his chimpanzee research camp said was done; he also implicates pharmaceutical industry pressure and Koprowski's single-minded drive to beat Drs. Salk and Sabin to have the first commercially-available polio vaccine as contributing factors to the outbreak.[citation needed] Although supported by the influential evolutionary biologist, W. D. Hamilton, Hooper's claims are not supported by empirical evidence and were rejected by the scientific establishment in 2000 at a conference at the Royal Society in London. In spite of this, the 2004 documentary The Origins Of AIDS has once again brought attention on this theory. See also: OPV AIDS hypothesis

    * Dr. Hulda Clark claims to be able to cure AIDS and many other diseases, contrary to the medical establishment. The AIDS conspiracy alleged against her is that the medical establishment seeks to suppress her theories and cures, now offered in Tijuana, Mexico.[6]

[edit] See also

    * AIDS origin

[edit] References

   1. ^ Faris, Stephan (2004-10-10). 10 Questions: Wangari Maathai. TIME.com/CNN. Retrieved on 2007-03-19.
   2. ^ Deadly meddling. Thabo Mbeki shows no sign of giving up his misguided views on AIDS. Economist GB. pg 82 print edition (2001-11-01). Retrieved on 2007-03-19.
   3. ^ [1]
   4. ^ Cost of Treatment: Political Debate. Journ-AIDS (September 2000). Retrieved on 2007-03-19.
   5. ^ Barrell, Howard (2000-10-06). President tells party caucus that Western interests are seeking to discredit him and South Africa. Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg). Retrieved on 2007-03-19.




I certainly find some of these 'conspiracy theories' very interesting, and whats more is that nobody on these boards knows for sure or has the facts to prove either theories true or false.

So it makes for interesting debate.

[112-1077774096]

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.

they reckon lennon was killed by stephen king on the instructions of reagan and nixon. the picture taken of lennon and chapman on the day chapman allegedly killed lennon is actially lennon and stephen king.

its a fascinating read, obvioulsy lennon was an enemy of the state as the CIA were watching him closely

[112-1077774096]

Augh!

Right. Here's the big difference. YOU believe the explanation of building 7's falling to be cause by small fires and structural damage?

Right. Have you really thought about that? I mean, like seriously given thought to it. Think. Small fires. Little to no real structural damage compared to other buildings,

I would not class a ten floor gash as being "little to no" structural damage, even if it wasn't as comprehensively damaged as the other buildings.

including a grand hotel that was far closer to the twin towers collapse, and sustained massive damage, including fires that burned for days afterwards simply because those fires were not a real priority to firefighters and rescuers. Tell me how you can go there today, and that building still stands? Tell me how, that a building that sustained the minimal amount of damage and was one of the furthest away, manage to fall straight down in a neat pile all caused by minor fires and superficial damage?

The damage was considerable and in no way simply "superficial". The fires themselves burned on floors 11 and 12 in the east section of the building. Later that afternoon fires were visible on floors 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 29 and 30. Later a bulge was seen between floors 10 and 13 and creaking noises heard indicating that the building was in major trouble. I would not call those fires "minor". As for the "neatness" of the rubble, the same thing happened with the South Tower. Once the building began to buckle, it simply fell straight down crushed under its own weight. As opposed to toppling over onto its side.

Are you meaning to tell me that this building, made of reinforced tempered iron and fired industrial strength concrete (built with a reinforced nuclear bunker) succumbed to mere fire damage?

No, because the fires were not "mere" and it had also sustained severe structural damage.

What, were they lying and it was really built of tin and cardboard? I mean, come on! Use your head! Look at a video of it again. It's a blatant demolition.

I always though from the day that happened that it was strange how that building looked when it fell straight down like that. I'll say that again: it fell straight down!

But, seeing that one of the most destructive elements in nature fails to have a similar effect on tall buildings after shaking their foundation and starting massive fires (I'm talking about earthquakes here), then the official explanation of small basement fires has to be true. Case closed on that one.

Often buildings are designed to remain standing in earthquake conditions. The WTC 7 damage was considerably more than just to its base with much of the structure weakened by internal raging fires and the twin tower collapse nearby.

By the way, you might want to check these videos out. How is it  that the media who controls how we think about things like this, make such a critical error about the collapse of that building unless they knew before hand that it was for a fact going to happen? Psychic? I don't think so.

Building 7 reported collapsed before it actually has.

You can clearly see the building standing in the background. This was a LIVE broadcast. They clearly f*cked up and realised it. Spooky how she gets cut off seconds before the building gets pulled.

It's not so hard to explain. WTC 7 had sustained damage and was most likely largely hidden amidst the dust clouds from the destroyed twin towers. The fact that the report was made only twenty minutes before the full collapse indicates that sections of the building had already begun to deteriorate severely and they jumped the gun by believing that it collapsed completely, which proved to be not strangely prophetic (considering the damage visible and reported by firemen and proximity to the twin towers). It's understandable that a reporter in a chaotic situation may not be fully aware of which large tall building is which, thus offering an explanation for not noticing that the building was still standing. With a disaster of this scale, details are always sketchy (as the reporter in New York clearly states) and incomplete and sometimes incorrect.


Further discussion regarding conspiracy theories relating to WTC can be found here:

Link

why were the bbc reporting the collapse of the building before it even collapsed, the reporter was on live and building 7 was behind her still standing as she was reporting the collapse

[dawson99]

9/11 was a conspiracy in the fact that they knew more than what they were saying. they did not however have anything first hand to do with it, they just turned a blind eye to some of the ways they could have caught the culprits

[LFC2007]

Wikipedia, that reliable old source.

[dawson99]

i told ya, its all about abovetopsecret.com

[The Manhattan Project]

why were the bbc reporting the collapse of the building before it even collapsed, the reporter was on live and building 7 was behind her still standing as she was reporting the collapse

An error. As I said, and as the report makes clear, details were sketchy and incomplete. Given the exceptional circumstances that day, mistakes would naturally have been made. Even big ones. On that day, I remember American news networks reporting that the State Department had also been attacked, which was actually not the case. If anyone suspects foul play, one would have to believe that dark forces gave the BBC a "conspiracy script" and they jumped the gun, because of course everyone knows that reporting that a heavily damaged empty building had collapsed before it was inevitably going to was a vital cog in the wheels of the sinister plot right?


Far from being a graphic demonstration of an enormous plot masterminded by ruthless government agents the attacks on September 11th were actually a graphic demonstration of an enormous failure by government authorities.

[112-1077774096]

mate they found attas passport in the rubble on the day of the collapse, bear in mind he was in a plane that was incinerated 

anyway i watched  a great documentary about the owner of towers and the cost of the upkeep and renovation, and how it would be cheaper to demolish them an start again, then the towers just happen to fall at freefall speed without the other floors even slowing the fall.

those towers were brought down mate, also what hit the pentagon, it certainly wasn't a 767 according to the witnesses, even ATC said the plane performed a turn that wasn't possible for a plane that size even with an experienced pilot

[Bammo]

abovetopsecret.com is my fave for conspiracy theories...lots about the new world order/illuminati/skulls/freemasons which is something i definately believe about.

Also things about a boeing hitting the pentagon, stuff like that.

the one that i do think is a consipracy is the unibomber, the man who acted alone when he blew up that building. how somehow just on that day the fbi section was shut off just for that day.

this one how ever is more apt for this site:

Computer = 666 = mark of the beast

If you take the multiples of 6 down the alphabet, A=6, B=12, C=18 etc... add up the multiples from the word computer. It equals 666. This is no coincidence.

Revelation 13:16-18 states,

And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.

Buying and selling, a upc codes home is in the computer. Only a computer scans the UPC. Universal product code. NO MAN WILL BUY OR SELL unless they have the mark. A spiritually dead world is dependent on the system, not faith in God. Their faith is their paychecks and materials. They don't want to wake up from the matrix. They'll fight to keep it alive, which leads me to believe most people are not aware of their own mortality. Death is not reality to them, they run from the truth. They're full of fear because they have no faith.
They will take the mark willingly because they are dependant on the system. Don't be one of these people.

Here's an article that makes all the 666 conspiracies quite funny if this is true:

Real Number of the Beast

[Emerald Red]

mate they found attas passport in the rubble on the day of the collapse, bear in mind he was in a plane that was incinerated 

anyway i watched  a great documentary about the owner of towers and the cost of the upkeep and renovation, and how it would be cheaper to demolish them an start again, then the towers just happen to fall at freefall speed without the other floors even slowing the fall.

those towers were brought down mate, also what hit the pentagon, it certainly wasn't a 767 according to the witnesses, even ATC said the plane performed a turn that wasn't possible for a plane that size even with an experienced pilot

Well, they never found it in the rubble. In fact, they found his passport several blocks away, untouched, unmarked. Considering it came out of a fireball. A miracle, no? But of course, I'm sure there's some half-a$sed scientist out there that's up to the task of explaining that with complex equations and such. Really, it beggars belief that people actually do believe that three buildings, all with significance politically, and inextricably linked to the hierarchy of government, can just fall ever so conveniently how they did. and those that debunk the theory - and listen to this carefully - with another theory on how those buildings fell, are just as open to fallibility as some of the "non-official" theories. Just because it's glossed up with red tape does not make it true. If you believe the truth that the government spits out, then you are just as accountable of the evil that they commit in the name of their so called justice that they commit, but once again paint it with red tape in order to justify their means. Be it for greed of money, or imperialistic acts of invasion to reap and plunder, as in the case of Iraq. Governments are meant to be in fear of their people, not vice versa. 9/11 struck fear into the hearts of Americans, and people the world over. The message of "you are not safe no matter who you are or where you are" was key. After all, this is supposed to be the most powerful country in the world, and has the best defense, and if it could happen to them, it could happen to anyone. Right?
Pearl Harbor could never happen again (Geneva Conventions Act). Yet it did. And that gave the license for war and an invasion of another country that they had no right to invade.

It's also worth pointing out that those who debunk such theories   have no practical insight into what actually took place. What they witness is one thing to their minds as experts in certain fields, but to a man or many men who seen that sort of things thousands of times over the course of their career's, there was no doubt in their minds. I'd be more inclined to believe the man who does it for a living, that a man who just analysis things from afar. Kind of like many on here who claim to know that they could do a better job than Rafa Benitez just from sitting on their seats and watching on the TV.
I'm talking about trained and skilled demolitions experts. Many of which had seen what happened and instantly knew that what just happened was the result of what they've been doing for a living for 30 or more years. Who am I, or anyone else for that matter, to question those men?

Also, if you Google it, I once found an article printed by the BBC on their official site that in fact many of the supposed hijackers on that day's identities were stolen, and that the people responsible, or supposed to be, are still alive and well.

  BBC link

[112-1077774096]

emerald there are some great documentaries on www.tv-links.co.uk

[The Manhattan Project]

mate they found attas passport in the rubble on the day of the collapse, bear in mind he was in a plane that was incinerated

False. It was the passport of hijacker Satam Al Suqami. It's not surprising that relatively small objects survive plane crashes. After his plane struck the North Tower, survivors from the WTC were peeking out of the gaping hole in the side of the skyscraper. If they can survive a plane crashing into their building, a small object that is thrown far from the impact point can too.    

anyway i watched  a great documentary about the owner of towers and the cost of the upkeep and renovation, and how it would be cheaper to demolish them an start again,

I'd be very interested to know what "documentary" this was and whether it has been scrutinised and its claims tested.

then the towers just happen to fall at freefall speed without the other floors even slowing the fall.

Link

those towers were brought down mate,

Yes they were....by two commercial airplanes and raging jet fuel fires.

also what hit the pentagon, it certainly wasn't a 767 according to the witnesses, even ATC said the plane performed a turn that wasn't possible for a plane that size even with an experienced pilot

You're correct. It wasn't a 767. It was actually a Boeing 757.

Suicidal hijackers wouldn't care about making neat turns or pushing the airplane to the ends of it's design capabilities. The "no plane hit the Pentagon" theory is parroted mainly by a French nutter named Thierry Meyssan. It ignores conclusive evidence for a plane impact:

Link

One of the most convincing arguments (besides tons of evidence) against conspiracy theories is the fact that conspiracy theorists are actually able to speak. If a government was ruthless enough to send airplanes filled with terrified innocent passengers into huge skyscrapers filled with terrified innocent civilians, they would not hesitate in killing anyone who seriously threatened the secrecy of said plot. The only defence against this question from theorists tends to be the old "yeah, but killing me would raise suspicion man so they'll try to discredit me instead!" which IMO indicates a mindset of 50% deluded self-importance and 50% paranoia.

[112-1077774096]

so it another hijackers passport that escaped the fireball that you claim managed to demolish two buildings, it was either bad enough or it wasn't, but don't expect me to believe a paper document managed to escape from the heat that was supposedly hot enough to melt steel structures to the point of collapse

the passport was planted mate so there would be a scapegoat