| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:23 pm Post subject: a couple of questions for the critics |
 |
|
Hi folks - as you can see I'm new here, but I've been checking out these forums for a while and wanted to ask the critics their opinion on a couple of things.
(btw I'm not quite a truther myself - I'm not sure what I think - I'm a fence sitter)
1/ Does it bug you that you have to have these arguments?
what I mean is, assuming the official version to be true, it appears the US government is being deliberately opaque and could settle many issues immediately.
For example - the Pentagon - why not release all the footage?
I've heard the argument about it prejudicing upcoming trials where it may be evidence, but the fact is footage has already been released that is supposed to show flight 77. The fact it looks like a dodgy UFO pic is neither here nor there - the US government has stated clearly this is flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. So why not just release it all and set our minds at rest?
Similarly, I keep reading all this stuff about wtc 7 having actually endured severe damage which precipitated its collapse. Yet it seems hard to find a decent image that clearly shows, what, 20 stories 'gouged out'. It seems difficult to believe not one such image exists.
At a slight tangent, I also find it hard to get my head round why the voice recordings have not been released, at least to the families of the passengers. Imagine this; your loved dies horribly - the government have a recording of their last, desperate struggle, yet they play it for you once and won't even give you a copy. Am I the only one to find this pretty disgusting?
Why do the US (and UK - same stuff with 7/7) government see fit to basically encourage 'conspiracy theory'? Personally, I don't see it as unreasonable to get a bit suspicious when stuff gets held back for no apparent reason. If the government don't care about 'conspiracy nuts' I find it a bit concerning they are so dismissive of those they're (supposedly) elected to serve. It seems they might be messing with our heads.
I find it ironic given the constant mantra of "You've nothing to fear if you've nothing to hide". Should that not swing both ways?
2/ I wondered how many critcs subscribed to the 'worldwide Al Qaeda threat' stuff as opposed to the more, say, Chomskyite line.
It just occurs to that it's a bit odd that 911 was - lets face it - a brilliant operation but ever since 'Al Qaeda' have been, well, totally ineffectual.
I mean a lot of worldwide stuff concerns longstanding groups with longstanding grievances (Chechnya, Indonesia). Only now it's all "linked to Al Qaeda". Believe that if you wish.
But regarding UK/US since 911 - well, 7/7 (perhaps include 21/7), Richard Reid (hardly a genius, him) and....what?
Oh yeah, loads of innocent guys -
UK - Forest Gate, 'liquid bombers', ricin, Man U etc etc
-this leads me to believe it's not our amazing intelligence services thwarting constant plots. They're not exactly showing a good track record here.
I know less about the US but believe it's the same (correct me if I'm wrong)
Contrast to, say, the IRA - constant, constant attacks. By people who were, supposedly, not totally determined to 'destroy our way of life' and who tended to not want to make suicide attacks, which makes it harder (getting away is a tricky bit). Where are all these terrorists?The people who masterminded 911 can't even get their act together to bomb some army recruiting centres or whatever?
What's wrong with this picture?
I'm not raising this as 'evidence for the CT' 'cause it's not, but it does seem to me an enormous blag is going on and again it's not surprising that folk get all suspicious about all kinds of stuff.
Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Phew, long 1st post
Thanks for your time
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:08 pm Post subject: Re: a couple of questions for the critics |
|
|
| wobbler wrote: | Hi folks - as you can see I'm new here, but I've been checking out these forums for a while and wanted to ask the critics their opinion on a couple of things.
(btw I'm not quite a truther myself - I'm not sure what I think - I'm a fence sitter)
1/ Does it bug you that you have to have these arguments?
what I mean is, assuming the official version to be true, it appears the US government is being deliberately opaque and could settle many issues immediately.
For example - the Pentagon - why not release all the footage?
|
I don't know, but it sounds like something the Pentagon would do. Maybe they don't want to indulge the whims of people who doubt the overwhelming evidence that an airliner did, in fact, crash into the Pentagon, which is as follows:
1. Air traffic control saw the blip headed for the Pentagon when they lost contact.
2. Hundreds of people saw the plane crash into the Pentagon.
3. After the crash, there was a big hole in the Pentagon, fires, aircraft debris, and the bodies of the passengers from the hijacked flight.
4. The flight recorder was recovered and the data showed that the plane flew in low and hit the Pentagon.
| Quote: |
Similarly, I keep reading all this stuff about wtc 7 having actually endured severe damage which precipitated its collapse. Yet it seems hard to find a decent image that clearly shows, what, 20 stories 'gouged out'. It seems difficult to believe not one such image exists.
|
Unfortunately, there was a lot of smoke. Perhaps you could infer the damage by the fact that the building was on fire, and the buildings around it were heavily damaged. Anyway, I have a difficult time understanding WHY anyone would secretly and at great risk demolish the building when all the other buildings around it were demolished openly in the months that followed.
Also, the buildings that were demolished (WTC3 through 6, among others) were not imploded, but dismanted manually, because the authorities didn't want to damage the infrastructure below the buildings. So, why would they implode WTC7, which was much bigger and would do much more damage? Why not just let the fire gut it and pull it down with the other buildings?
| Quote: |
At a slight tangent, I also find it hard to get my head round why the voice recordings have not been released, at least to the families of the passengers. Imagine this; your loved dies horribly - the government have a recording of their last, desperate struggle, yet they play it for you once and won't even give you a copy. Am I the only one to find this pretty disgusting?
|
Did they ask for a copy?
Maybe it is disgusting. Maybe they don't have a single reason to withhold a copy of the tape from the families. Or maybe they do. Either way, it hardly makes a slam-dunk case that our President, after having climbed his way up the business and political ladders all his life to reach the pinnacle of power, suddenly decided to become a mass murderer.
| Quote: |
Why do the US (and UK - same stuff with 7/7) government see fit to basically encourage 'conspiracy theory'? Personally, I don't see it as unreasonable to get a bit suspicious when stuff gets held back for no apparent reason. If the government don't care about 'conspiracy nuts' I find it a bit concerning they are so dismissive of those they're (supposedly) elected to serve. It seems they might be messing with our heads.
|
Could be. Or maybe it's that, since they are dealing with some pretty sneaky people who can strike unpredictably at any time, they don't want to reveal information that could be crucial to stopping the next attack.
| Quote: |
I find it ironic given the constant mantra of "You've nothing to fear if you've nothing to hide". Should that not swing both ways?
|
I disagree with that mantra as well, as most reasonable people should.
| Quote: |
2/ I wondered how many critcs subscribed to the 'worldwide Al Qaeda threat' stuff as opposed to the more, say, Chomskyite line.
It just occurs to that it's a bit odd that 911 was - lets face it - a brilliant operation but ever since 'Al Qaeda' have been, well, totally ineffectual.
|
Maybe it's because we overran their base of operations and they're all in caves now?
Anyway, they're NOT ineffectual. They have successfully carried out several attacks since 9/11. Also, you need to understand that al Qaeda doesn't have a strategy to overthrow the US or any other western power -- in fact, they don't have a strategy at all (they're a lot like the "truth" movement that way). They just like blowing stuff up to affirm their belief that Allah is on their side.
| Quote: |
Contrast to, say, the IRA - constant, constant attacks.
|
Naturally. We can understand the IRA, they come from basically the same culture we do. They have a goal that they are working towards, and they have pursued it aggressively as is typical of Westerners. The difference between the IRA and al Qaeda is cultural. Al Qaeda doesn't want independence, and they don't have any realistic expectation to bring about change. Their attacks have done nothing to advance the plight of Palestinians, for instance -- quite the contrary. In light of this, it's difficult for westerners to understand why al Qaeda would continue in their counter-productive ways, but you have to understand that they just don't think the same way we do. It's ethnocentrical to believe that all cultures should adopt the same linear, goal-oriented thought processes of western societies.
| Quote: |
Thanks for your time |
Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Maybe it's because we overran their base of operations and they're all in caves now? |
They didnt have a base of operations to overrun. If there in caves its Pakistani ones courtesy of the ever helpful ISI
Do you remember the hilarious "secret mountain hideouts" Rumsfeld and Co kept claiming they had in the run up to the Afghan campaign? Mulit-level underground bases straight out of a Bond movie? 'Course he knew Al-quada had no such thing because the USA hadnt paid for 'em 
The BBC did a brilliant documentary on the Al-queda fantasy, must try to dig it up
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2077142.stm
The hunt for Bin Laden
It's a conflict that pits the might of America and its allies against Osama Bin Laden's terror network.
Who is now winning the "war on terror"?
Since September 11th, Panorama has followed the hunt to destroy Bin Laden and his network.
Billions of dollars have been spent and thousands of soldiers mobilised across the globe.
Jane visited the old Soviet airbase at Bagram, now the US base for the "war against terror"
But with Bin Laden and most of his lieutenants still at large, what has the war actually achieved?
The terror network still stalks the west and al-Qaeda threatens new attacks, even more deadly than what happened in New York and Washington.
And US Senator Bob Graham, head of the Senate's Intelligence Committee, has told Panorama he is convinced Osama Bin Laden is still alive.
Trailing the enemy
We follow the war across its battlefields in Afghanistan: to Tora Bora where Bin Laden was allowed to escape, to the valleys of south eastern Afghanistan where the US launched a full scale military offensive against the network, and to the Pakistan border where the British try in vain to find remnants of the network.
As this happens we show how the terror network has responded and learnt from its mistakes.
With attacks on civilians in Tunisia and Pakistan, al-Qaeda has continued to bring terror in spite of the war waged on it.
The programme follows the "band of brothers" C Company Engineers, 101st airborne
The film has extensive documentary access to US and British soldiers in Afghanistan.
We follow a group of American infantrymen as they locate and destroy al-Qaeda caves and develop a new understanding of their foe.
We show what life is like for them on the new front line.
And we follow the frustrating efforts of a British helicopter pilot and of marines to find traces of their enemy.
Since 1998 Jane Corbin has made a number of investigative films about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda for Panorama. In Towards the Zero Hour, a one-hour special on BBC One last December, Jane investigated the terror cell, led by Mohammed Atta, which planned and executed the World Trade Centre attacks.
Production Team:
Reporter: Jane Corbin
Producer: Aidan Laverty
Assistant Producer: John Thynne
Editor: Mike Robinson
|
Have found a download for it yet.. but dont you just love the BEEB for the bolded line?
'Course this documentary was pre- the furore over Doctor Kelly...
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The important thing about terrrsts is there are two types:
'real' ones who are autonomously fighting to liberate their occupied homelands (like the French resistance during WWII or currently in Iraq)
and:
imaginary ones which is when the State uses terror as an instrument of control against its own people.
It's that simple. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="John White"] | Quote: |
The BBC did a brilliant documentary on the Al-queda fantasy, must try to dig it up |
It was The Power of Nightmares i do believe. A truely excellent documentary if a little limited in scope(they dont go the whole hog and ask if Al Qaeda really did 911).
Its a three part series but the guts of the series is part 3;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3649090417189127240&q=power+o f+nightmares
And BTW, dont bother trying to get any sense from the critics on this series Wobbler. I tried when i still had hope of dialogue with them but their minds are fixed. Your position however is one i greatly admire. You are not entirely convinced of inside job but you still have sense enough to recognise a hole when it needs filled. Its your type i was hoping to form dialogue with when i first engaged the critics.
Good luck on your search for answers. Its a fun ride.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for your replies.
| Quote: | I don't know, but it sounds like something the Pentagon would do. Maybe they don't want to indulge the whims of people who doubt the overwhelming evidence that an airliner did, in fact, crash into the Pentagon, which is as follows:
1. Air traffic control saw the blip headed for the Pentagon when they lost contact.
2. Hundreds of people saw the plane crash into the Pentagon.
3. After the crash, there was a big hole in the Pentagon, fires, aircraft debris, and the bodies of the passengers from the hijacked flight.
4. The flight recorder was recovered and the data showed that the plane flew in low and hit the Pentagon. |
Well, my point is many people hotly dispute these points - 2 and 4 in particular have been hot topics in the LC forum of late. Irrespective of who's right, if footage had been released at the outset, you'd have saved a lot of time debating truthers. At least with 'missile theorists'. Same with wtc7 - I don't think your points are unreasonable, but there are all kinds of theories (believe em or not) as to why wtc7 may have been demolished. IF the official narrative is true, the US government have, I feel, fed the CT by their furtive culture of secrecy. And left joe public like you to argue their corner.
| Quote: | Did they ask for a copy?
Maybe it is disgusting. Maybe they don't have a single reason to withhold a copy of the tape from the families. Or maybe they do. Either way, it hardly makes a slam-dunk case that our President, after having climbed his way up the business and political ladders all his life to reach the pinnacle of power, suddenly decided to become a mass murderer.
|
I believe the flight 93 families couldn't take notes, so a copy would be out of the question. I just think it's arrogant and inhumane - like the government 'owns' the last few seconds on earth of your wife or husband.
Of course it could also be because they don't want the fakery exposed... 
| Quote: | Could be. Or maybe it's that, since they are dealing with some pretty sneaky people who can strike unpredictably at any time, they don't want to reveal information that could be crucial to stopping the next attack.
|
I'd assert much of this stuff has no national security risk. Take the unreleased 7/7 cctv footage; this would show blokes who are dead in public locations with footage from cameras we all know are there and can easily locate. How does that aid terrorists? I don't see why governments shouldn't back up their assertions by all reasonable means. To accuse people of mass murder is very serious and should be accompanied by all reasonable evidence rather than 'The state said so. Live with it' . Irrespective of any CT, this shows a certain contempt for the public. To simply accept the state is right tacitly endorses the kind of mentality that allows people to be banged up without trial on unspecified 'terror' charges.
| Quote: | Maybe it's because we overran their base of operations and they're all in caves now?
Anyway, they're NOT ineffectual. They have successfully carried out several attacks since 9/11. Also, you need to understand that al Qaeda doesn't have a strategy to overthrow the US or any other western power -- in fact, they don't have a strategy at all (they're a lot like the "truth" movement that way). They just like blowing stuff up to affirm their belief that Allah is on their side. |
As was said by John White, they never had much of a base anyway. In fact, it has been generally portrayed as 'sleeper cells' dotted around. Mohammad Atta and pals may have gone to Afghanistan, but they didn't spend all their time there.
I'd wonder which attacks you mean are Al Qaeda. There are a great many muslim terror groups who generally have a very clear agenda, usually around overturning 'western corruption' in their home state in a Said Kutb stylee. Take Jemaah Islamiyah (sp?) in Indonesia - they've been around since what? 1969? Hardly fair to call them 'Al Qaeda'. The fact is that 'group with links to Al Qaeda' has become a stock phrase without any analysis of what this is supposed to mean. I'm certainly not seeing stuff Bin Laden is proved to be behind. Bin Laden himself has a stated agenda; The Power of Nightmares doc mentioned covers this well as does Jason Burke's (emphatically non truther) book 'Al Qaeda'.
You can cite Iraq, but I've yet to see any evidence that 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' is anything other than wartime propaganda. They certainly had a hard time finding all these 'foreign fighters' who were supposed to be in Fallujah.
| Quote: | Naturally. We can understand the IRA, they come from basically the same culture we do. They have a goal that they are working towards, and they have pursued it aggressively as is typical of Westerners. The difference between the IRA and al Qaeda is cultural. Al Qaeda doesn't want independence, and they don't have any realistic expectation to bring about change. Their attacks have done nothing to advance the plight of Palestinians, for instance -- quite the contrary. In light of this, it's difficult for westerners to understand why al Qaeda would continue in their counter-productive ways, but you have to understand that they just don't think the same way we do. It's ethnocentrical to believe that all cultures should adopt the same linear, goal-oriented thought processes of western societies.
|
I take the point about ethnocentrism, but I'd dispute our inability to understand. At least if we don't attempt to, it's a slippery slope to 'they're not like us. they just want to destroy us' rhetoric. I can't imagine ever blowing myelf up, but I feel I can get my head round why a Palestinian might if I take a long hard look at their culture and situation.
However, my point is we're led to believe these guys are determined to attack us in the UK/US at every opportunity. Rodent faced, tub thumping fear monger Melanie Phillips claims, citing official sources, (in her paranoid rollercoaster of a book 'Londonistan') that up to 16000 radicalised muslims are potential terrorists in the UK alone. It just seems these guys can't get their act together. Unless it's a feature of radical Islamic culture to launch a terror campaign without any terror campaign.
The point remains, if you're determined and skilled enough to pull off 911, why can't you get it togther to put a bomb in a bin somewhere every other week (like the IRA). If your infrastructure was indeed destroyed, then I'd say the 'war on terror' is over. I think citing other cultures as inscrutable kind of dodges the issue.
It doesn't explain the abject failure of this supposed determined attempt to 'destroy our way of life' (though Bush and Blair are doing this pretty well through their progressive erosion of civil liberties - hey! Maybe that was the plan all along! Cunning devils!)
Like I said, I dunno about the CT. On many issues (e.g. twin towers collapse) I simply don't feel qualified enough and haven't studied it enough to form a firm conclusion. It 'doesn't look right' to me but I freely acknowledge this constitutes zero evidence of an inside job. But I certainly don't believe this 'global terror network' stuff and that leads me to wonder why 911 was such a brilliant op. This doesn't necessarily invoke MIHOP/LIHOP - it may just be a very interesting unique set of circumstances or a cover up of spectacular (probably criminal) ineptitude on the part of the intelligence services.
To me, this notion that hordes of crazed 'Islamic extremists' who just like 'blowing stuff up' are hell bent on getting all us kufr westerners for reasons we simply cannot understand seems more way out than MIHOP.
Oh yeah - "We believe we are still at the beginning of this war...we should not not forget that this path is long and it is a path that the Muslims have to walk upon until judgement day" - Suleiman abu Gaith, 2002
Sounds to me a bit like what some Bush guy was saying about us being at the start of a war that could last our entire lives. Maybe we're not that different after all.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: Re: a couple of questions for the critics |
|
|
| wobbler wrote: |
Similarly, I keep reading all this stuff about wtc 7 having actually endured severe damage which precipitated its collapse. Yet it seems hard to find a decent image that clearly shows, what, 20 stories 'gouged out'. It seems difficult to believe not one such image exists.
|
Hi Wobbler
As for WTC7, remember its S side faced Ground Zero.
I've never seen a photographs or film across GZ towards WTC7 during the first few hours after WTC 1+2 came down, which I don't find surprising. Later on when the dust had settled or blown away WTC7 was heavily on fire and the breeze was blowing the smoke across the building's S face. There are vague glimpses of a dark area in the 2nd of these films :
http://www.911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
But the testimony of firefighters reports a 20-storey gash.
One thought continually returns re WTC7 though - why would they rig it in advance for CD? Insurance and/or disposal of evidence make no sense at all.
cheers
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wobbler, interestingly I find myself heading in what may be the opposite direction to you. I basically came to this site because of WTC7, which looked so much like a controlled demolition to me. If it was, then clearly there was a conspiracy in which the government was almost certainly linked. I hoped after 5 years that some answers were available on the internet that were not in the mainstream media.
Instead I find that:
1. Regarding WTC7, there is no more real evidence available now than the day it went down, but people who claim to be looking for truth are prepared to twist Silverstein's "pull it" remark completely out of context to try to pretend he said something he didn't. The motives suggested for a CD are quite unconvincing. The firefighters report more extensive damage than seems to have been photographed and thought it would collapse, but on the other hand NIST still cannot explain the mechanism of the collapse. Demolition experts on the scene did not think it was brought down by CD and thought it would collapse. A Dutch demolition expert viewing it on video thought it was CD. I am leaning to the view that a collapse due to the fires is more likely than CD.
2. There is in fact no hard irrefutable evidence that any part of the official story is wrong.
3. The one thing there seems to be consensus on here is that the towers were brought down in a CD using thermate. This is utterly implausible, given than thermate is never used in this way in professional demolition, it supposes that a form of thermate could be used that would be explosive, the idea of placing it on every pillar on every floor is ludicrous, and protecting it from the aircraft impact and fire prior to detonation would not be feasible. Prof Jones' investigations are plainly designed to get the results he wants.
4. I am surprised to find that there is no sign of any coherent narrative emerging from the truthers' side. Indeed everyone has their own particular interest and theory but it does not seem to be regarded as at all important to establish any form of agreed narrative. The theories themselves range from the plausible, such as Flight 93 was shot down, to the totally barking "no planes" theory, from those for whom the internet has totally replaced reality.
5. The contributors to this site, despite its name, do not actually seem to be looking for the truth, they are instead protecting their beliefs. One administrator has as his signature "Ask the tough questions, folks" but asking the tough questions of the truthers on this site mostly produces abuse and labelling as a shill. It is more like a cult than an enquiry, where questioning the belief system brings down punishment on your head. The lies, distortions, evasions and half-truths come almost entirely from the truthers, and the facts and reasoned arguments mostly from the critics.
Setting it down has clarified things for me - count me among the critics now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | Wobbler, interestingly I find myself heading in what may be the opposite direction to you. I basically came to this site because of WTC7, which looked so much like a controlled demolition to me. If it was, then clearly there was a conspiracy in which the government was almost certainly linked. I hoped after 5 years that some answers were available on the internet that were not in the mainstream media.
Instead I find that:
1. Regarding WTC7, there is no more real evidence available now than the day it went down, but people who claim to be looking for truth are prepared to twist Silverstein's "pull it" remark completely out of context to try to pretend he said something he didn't. The motives suggested for a CD are quite unconvincing. The firefighters report more extensive damage than seems to have been photographed and thought it would collapse, but on the other hand NIST still cannot explain the mechanism of the collapse. Demolition experts on the scene did not think it was brought down by CD and thought it would collapse. A Dutch demolition expert viewing it on video thought it was CD. I am leaning to the view that a collapse due to the fires is more likely than CD.
2. There is in fact no hard irrefutable evidence that any part of the official story is wrong.
3. The one thing there seems to be consensus on here is that the towers were brought down in a CD using thermate. This is utterly implausible, given than thermate is never used in this way in professional demolition, it supposes that a form of thermate could be used that would be explosive, the idea of placing it on every pillar on every floor is ludicrous, and protecting it from the aircraft impact and fire prior to detonation would not be feasible. Prof Jones' investigations are plainly designed to get the results he wants.
4. I am surprised to find that there is no sign of any coherent narrative emerging from the truthers' side. Indeed everyone has their own particular interest and theory but it does not seem to be regarded as at all important to establish any form of agreed narrative. The theories themselves range from the plausible, such as Flight 93 was shot down, to the totally barking "no planes" theory, from those for whom the internet has totally replaced reality.
5. The contributors to this site, despite its name, do not actually seem to be looking for the truth, they are instead protecting their beliefs. One administrator has as his signature "Ask the tough questions, folks" but asking the tough questions of the truthers on this site mostly produces abuse and labelling as a shill. It is more like a cult than an enquiry, where questioning the belief system brings down punishment on your head. The lies, distortions, evasions and half-truths come almost entirely from the truthers, and the facts and reasoned arguments mostly from the critics.
Setting it down has clarified things for me - count me among the critics now. |
Thanks for that. Do you mind if I share your post with the folks at JREF? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Be my guest, Chipmunk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | It is more like a cult than an enquiry, where questioning the belief system brings down punishment on your head. The lies, distortions, evasions and half-truths come almost entirely from the truthers, and the facts and reasoned arguments mostly from the critics.
|
Cheers !
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | Wobbler, interestingly I find myself heading in what may be the opposite direction to you. I basically came to this site because of WTC7, which looked so much like a controlled demolition to me. If it was, then clearly there was a conspiracy in which the government was almost certainly linked. I hoped after 5 years that some answers were available on the internet that were not in the mainstream media.
Instead I find that:
1. Regarding WTC7, there is no more real evidence available now than the day it went down, but people who claim to be looking for truth are prepared to twist Silverstein's "pull it" remark completely out of context to try to pretend he said something he didn't. The motives suggested for a CD are quite unconvincing. The firefighters report more extensive damage than seems to have been photographed and thought it would collapse, but on the other hand NIST still cannot explain the mechanism of the collapse. Demolition experts on the scene did not think it was brought down by CD and thought it would collapse. A Dutch demolition expert viewing it on video thought it was CD. I am leaning to the view that a collapse due to the fires is more likely than CD.
2. There is in fact no hard irrefutable evidence that any part of the official story is wrong.
3. The one thing there seems to be consensus on here is that the towers were brought down in a CD using thermate. This is utterly implausible, given than thermate is never used in this way in professional demolition, it supposes that a form of thermate could be used that would be explosive, the idea of placing it on every pillar on every floor is ludicrous, and protecting it from the aircraft impact and fire prior to detonation would not be feasible. Prof Jones' investigations are plainly designed to get the results he wants.
4. I am surprised to find that there is no sign of any coherent narrative emerging from the truthers' side. Indeed everyone has their own particular interest and theory but it does not seem to be regarded as at all important to establish any form of agreed narrative. The theories themselves range from the plausible, such as Flight 93 was shot down, to the totally barking "no planes" theory, from those for whom the internet has totally replaced reality.
5. The contributors to this site, despite its name, do not actually seem to be looking for the truth, they are instead protecting their beliefs. One administrator has as his signature "Ask the tough questions, folks" but asking the tough questions of the truthers on this site mostly produces abuse and labelling as a shill. It is more like a cult than an enquiry, where questioning the belief system brings down punishment on your head. The lies, distortions, evasions and half-truths come almost entirely from the truthers, and the facts and reasoned arguments mostly from the critics.
Setting it down has clarified things for me - count me among the critics now. |
I applaud you and your well written post.
The only reason I come here at all is to view the opinions of the "critics". They seem to be the voice of sanity within a storm of madness.
You have put into words, far better than I ever could, my thoughts.
Cheers stateofgrace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks for that, stateof grace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:11 am Post subject: Re: a couple of questions for the critics |
|
|
| wobbler wrote: |
1/ Does it bug you that you have to have these arguments?
what I mean is, assuming the official version to be true, it appears the US government is being deliberately opaque and could settle many issues immediately.
|
This line of thinking offends me greatly. What is the government hiding? The problem is that no matter how much information the government gives conspiracy theorists, they will always be convinced they are hiding things.
There are, literally, 100s of videos of planes flying into the WTC, and people still believe there were no planes. The fundamental issue here is, just like you can't make all the people happy all the time, you can't convince all the people of anything.
I want to know what, specifically, you need to know, and why you need to know it, in order to be convinced. What crucial piece of evidence, in the government's possession, is all that you need to be convinced?
| Quote: |
For example - the Pentagon - why not release all the footage?
I've heard the argument about it prejudicing upcoming trials where it may be evidence, but the fact is footage has already been released that is supposed to show flight 77. The fact it looks like a dodgy UFO pic is neither here nor there - the US government has stated clearly this is flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. So why not just release it all and set our minds at rest?
|
Because it won't? How many videos are there of the planes hitting the WTC? How many people still think there are "no planes". I understand you think THOSE people are crazy for ignoring all of that video evidence. Equally, maybe, the government thinks you are crazy for ignoring the mountain of evidence for a plane hitting the pentagon.
| Quote: |
At a slight tangent, I also find it hard to get my head round why the voice recordings have not been released, at least to the families of the passengers. Imagine this; your loved dies horribly - the government have a recording of their last, desperate struggle, yet they play it for you once and won't even give you a copy. Am I the only one to find this pretty disgusting? |
Really? Maybe it's so "truthers" aren't breaking into their homes to get the tape because they are convinced it will be good to "make public". Maybe the government doesn't think it's necessary to subject these people to conspiracy theorists who "know" they have a tape that busts the case wide open.. if only they could just analyze it and prove it was fake. Maybe the government doesn't want them being harassed. Maybe. Just a theory.
| Quote: | Why do the US (and UK - same stuff with 7/7) government see fit to basically encourage 'conspiracy theory'?
|
This is just flat paranoia. They aren't actively "encouraging" anything. They have higher priorities than convincing the last 1% of the population who, at best, has unreasonable expectations of "proof" and at worst, impossible ones. These people presuppose conspiracies, and through masterful circular logic, find conspiracies.
No one is encouraging anything. The government has provided plenty of evidence, including 12,000 page reports, which has been combed through every single line by hundereds of people who "know" they are lying to find any factual inconsistency they can, and then use that to throw out the entire 12,000 page narrative.
When you guys come up with a 12,000 page explaination for the events of Sept11, let me know.
| Quote: | If the government don't care about 'conspiracy nuts' I find it a bit concerning they are so dismissive of those they're (supposedly) elected to serve. It seems they might be messing with our heads.
|
More paranoia. The government can't solve all the problems of its people. Sometimes you need to admit it's not their fault, but yours, and find help yourself.
| Quote: |
It just occurs to that it's a bit odd that 911 was - lets face it - a brilliant operation but ever since 'Al Qaeda' have been, well, totally ineffectual.
|
We also killed or captured 2/3 of their leaders in the months following. Choosing the evidence to support your conclusion, and ignroing the rest is not very logically sound.
| Quote: | Where are all these terrorists?The people who masterminded 911 can't even get their act together to bomb some army recruiting centres or whatever?
What's wrong with this picture?
|
You mean Khalid Sheik Mohammad and Mohammad Atta? The masterminds? Well... uh...
| Quote: |
I'm not raising this as 'evidence for the CT' 'cause it's not, but it does seem to me an enormous blag is going on and again it's not surprising that folk get all suspicious about all kinds of stuff.
|
People get suspicious when they use circular reasoning. If you presuppose a conspiracy, selectively choose evidence that supports it, you will find a conspiracy. You just did it. There are two possible reason that Al Qaeda has been largely ineffective since 9/11. One, they were never effective to begin with and the government helped them pull off 9/11, or two, we completely destroyed their organizational structure.
You've completely, and utterly, ignored the second possibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmm, interesting stuff.
I'm intrigued how trying to write a post that wasn't trying to specifically argue in favour of the CT has seemingly been interpreted as, er, arguments for the CT. Sorry if I've given the wrong impression.
Bushwacker:
| Quote: | . Regarding WTC7, there is no more real evidence available now than the day it went down, but people who claim to be looking for truth are prepared to twist Silverstein's "pull it" remark completely out of context to try to pretend he said something he didn't. The motives suggested for a CD are quite unconvincing. The firefighters report more extensive damage than seems to have been photographed and thought it would collapse, but on the other hand NIST still cannot explain the mechanism of the collapse. Demolition experts on the scene did not think it was brought down by CD and thought it would collapse. A Dutch demolition expert viewing it on video thought it was CD. I am leaning to the view that a collapse due to the fires is more likely than CD.
|
To be honest, the Silverstein remark has had so much attention it does my head in. To me, the way he says it doesn't sound like he means firefighters, but that's just my perception which doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. I can understand why its been seized on so much, but it's a moot point as it doesn't 'prove' anything without accompanying evidence. A bit like you, I think wtc7 looks very much like a CD but the exact motives for doing so are unclear. There are accounts of heavy damage but no specific images to confirm this. Images would be nice. the why is the the thing I'd really like from the CT. I know 'incriminating' documents from corporate scandals are supposed to have been in there, but there would have been lots of other ways to deal with them in the context of that day.
| Quote: | There is in fact no hard irrefutable evidence that any part of the official story is wrong.
|
Irrefutable? Well, I tend to agree. I don't think either side is. If there was anything I considered utterly irrefutable about the CT I wouldn't be a fence sitter.
| Quote: | | . The one thing there seems to be consensus on here is that the towers were brought down in a CD using thermate. This is utterly implausible, given than thermate is never used in this way in professional demolition, it supposes that a form of thermate could be used that would be explosive, the idea of placing it on every pillar on every floor is ludicrous, and protecting it from the aircraft impact and fire prior to detonation would not be feasible. Prof Jones' investigations are plainly designed to get the results he wants. |
I think this issue has has been over-done. The fact it isn't used in profession demolition doesn't mean it couldn't be used, but I know very little about CD other than the crash course I'm getting on forums like this. I think the CT has tended to get a bit carried away with what is, after all, a hypothesis. It's a bit ironic that that the pancake theory assumes the towers fell all by themselves, but mention explosives and they've got to be everywhere to make it collapse but I'm not making an argument here, just an observation - I don't think thermite/thermate is anywhere near 'proved'. Far from it, I think its likelihood is exaggerated.
As for placing it in the building, CT fans could counter this by looking at maintenance work prior to 911 (has this been done?) The one critic point I don't agree with is that this would have been inordinately difficult to get blokes placing all those charges. I mean you could feasibly do it in plain view - how often do you look at what workmen are actually doing? How often do you really see them? - "It's amazing what a suit will let you get away with...You have to appear to belong in the area where you are" (from 'without a trace' - Animal Liberation Front practice guide type thing) - amateurs well know these techniques. And they work. It's really not that hard to become 'invisible'. Even professional shoplifters know the trick is to march round like you own the place and you don't get noticed.
(I'm not referring to stuff I do here in case you're wondering)
How you'd get to the internal structure though is another matter.
And, yeah, the bombs round the impact zone, though that's been debated elsewhere.
| Quote: | | I am surprised to find that there is no sign of any coherent narrative emerging from the truthers' side. Indeed everyone has their own particular interest and theory but it does not seem to be regarded as at all important to establish any form of agreed narrative. The theories themselves range from the plausible, such as Flight 93 was shot down, to the totally barking "no planes" theory, from those for whom the internet has totally replaced reality. |
I'm not in the least bit surprised. I think it's inevitable. I don't think it constitues any proof there wasn't a conspiracy as opposed to the fact that anything you can think of someone, somewhere believes it. I'm amazed I haven't seen a 'UFOs brought down the towers' theory yet (anyone got a link?). I did once see an argument that we'd invaded Iraq because Saddam had a downed flying saucer. Didn't make me think the anti-war movement was bogus. I think I'd be more convinced if there was a consistent narrative, but I'd also be wary of a '911 truther dogma'. Particularly if it involved there being no planes!
| Quote: | | The contributors to this site, despite its name, do not actually seem to be looking for the truth, they are instead protecting their beliefs. One administrator has as his signature "Ask the tough questions, folks" but asking the tough questions of the truthers on this site mostly produces abuse and labelling as a shill. It is more like a cult than an enquiry, where questioning the belief system brings down punishment on your head. The lies, distortions, evasions and half-truths come almost entirely from the truthers, and the facts and reasoned arguments mostly from the critics. |
From what I've read here I think some people probably behave like that and others don't. I do think cries of 'shill' and 'tin foil hatter' are inherently pointless. I agree that in some places the truth movement is getting a bit 'wild' and I find that puts me off. But I see no reason why sceptics are immune from falling in love with their own beliefs. Come on - if, the presence of thermite was 100% proved (I'm not saying that's likely, btw), there would still be 'sceptics' who'd say it was impossible.
In fact, that's why I asked the second question I did - I'm interested to see what kind of angle the critics are coming from. It helps me to understand where their prejudices lie and how they might distort 'the truth' (see below)
I admire the fact you've changed your mind on what you've judged to be convincing evidence. We all have prejudices when it comes to 'facts' and I'm trying to recognise mine while trying to follow the process (in whatever direction) to form my own conclusion - I'd define scepticism as refusing to subsribe to a belief unless you're fully convinced either way, Iin which case I'd say I'm a sceptic. I'm not going believe either side simply because they tell me they're right.
Anti-sophist -
I'm sorry if I offended you.
I didn't intend to offend anybody.
| Quote: | | I want to know what, specifically, you need to know, and why you need to know it, in order to be convinced. What crucial piece of evidence, in the government's possession, is all that you need to be convinced? |
I didn't say I needed evidence to be released. My point was that evidence (apparently) exists that would blow some CT arguments out of the water.
I was simply saying that assuming the official narrative is true, the government, perhaps inadvertently fuels this stuff by its irrational tendency to be secretive for no apparent reason.
I think they should care about this because they are ostensibly the servants of the people and should be concerned about being as open and transparent as possible and should be concerned if a sizeable proportion of the populace believes they killed 3000 of their own people.
This does not endorse the CT on my part. It is, however, unsurprising that people suspect a cover up if they behave in a furtive manner irrespective of whether there is one.
Governments do have a long history of hiding things you know.
I can't see why this is such a controversial point. Governments lie and cover stuff up all the time. Just look at Iraq. Why are you surprised people get twitchy when they arbitrarily kept stuff out if the public domain? This doesn't mean there is a cover up; it's just unsurprising people know/think/believe/suspect there is/may be.
I gave the example of the Pentagon footage. Another could be the reluctance to hold an enquiry, the refusal to make it independent and the lamentable resources given to it (compared to the Clinton penis saga) - watch 'Press for Truth' (which doesn't promote MIHOP)
Also the 7/7 cctv as I mentioned in my second post on this thread - you could add the refusal to hold an enquiry to this. I mean with 7/7 you don't have to believe the MI5 CT - what are the odds they just accused the wrong guys? It's not like the dibble have a good track record on getting the right man. Do you believe that they've a good reason to lock up all these 'terror suspects' with secret evidence? This is about the culture of secrecy as much as placating CTs
If governments refuse to release information, I want to know why. Not because it means there's a CT, but because they are (supposedly) my servant.
| Quote: | | Because it won't? How many videos are there of the planes hitting the WTC? How many people still think there are "no planes". I understand you think THOSE people are crazy for ignoring all of that video evidence. Equally, maybe, the government thinks you are crazy for ignoring the mountain of evidence for a plane hitting the pentagon. |
Fair point. Except I've personally never subscribed to the missile theory. I was pointing out many people do. And maybe they'll say that was a hologram too.
There is no inherent connection between
a/Unusual or idiosyncratic belief systems
b/A disputed interpretation of evidence
and being 'crazy'
Check out the DSM4 or ICD10 for more information. Mind you, I'm not saying they're 'the truth'.
I still want to know why I cannot see that footage.
| Quote: | really? Maybe it's so "truthers" aren't breaking into their homes to get the tape because they are convinced it will be good to "make public". Maybe the government doesn't think it's necessary to subject these people to conspiracy theorists who "know" they have a tape that busts the case wide open.. if only they could just analyze it and prove it was fake. Maybe the government doesn't want them being harassed. Maybe. Just a theory.
|
Look, I don't want to come across as confrontational (I'm very mild mannered), but that's wild speculation and way less convincing than 'no planes'. You can't seriously mean that?
My point is simply, as I said, that the government appears to think it 'owns' the last few seconds of the loved ones of those who had a spouse or family member on that flight. If the government had a recording of my wife in her last moments I'd be pretty incensed if they regarded that as their property for five years and counting.
That is not a CT argument
I'm surprised no-one will say whether they agree it's out of order or not but instead invent strained hypothetical justifications. You don't have to believe the CT to regard the government as a bunch of callous tw*ts.
| Quote: | This is just flat paranoia. They aren't actively "encouraging" anything. They have higher priorities than convincing the last 1% of the population who, at best, has unreasonable expectations of "proof" and at worst, impossible ones. These people presuppose conspiracies, and through masterful circular logic, find conspiracies.
No one is encouraging anything. The government has provided plenty of evidence, including 12,000 page reports, which has been combed through every single line by hundereds of people who "know" they are lying to find any factual inconsistency they can, and then use that to throw out the entire 12,000 page narrative.
When you guys come up with a 12,000 page explaination for the events of Sept11, let me know. |
The government are aware of the CT - it's been mentioned by Bush and featured in the media. I don't think it's paraonoid to question why they won't release what people ask for (substantially more than 1% - variable depending on the poll) even out of exasperation. There are inconsistencies in the reports - these have been debated ad infinitum by people more knowledgable than me. And you forget the fact there had to be a fight to get the reports in the first place.
| Quote: | | More paranoia. The government can't solve all the problems of its people. Sometimes you need to admit it's not their fault, but yours, and find help yourself. |
How's it paranoid to expect the government to have an open dialogue with the populace?
As a practising mental health professional with regular clinical supervision from a clinical psychologist I'm reasonably sure I don't, at this time, 'need help'. Thanks anyway.
| Quote: | We also killed or captured 2/3 of their leaders in the months following. Choosing the evidence to support your conclusion, and ignroing the rest is not very logically sound.
|
| Quote: | People get suspicious when they use circular reasoning. If you presuppose a conspiracy, selectively choose evidence that supports it, you will find a conspiracy. You just did it. There are two possible reason that Al Qaeda has been largely ineffective since 9/11. One, they were never effective to begin with and the government helped them pull off 9/11, or two, we completely destroyed their organizational structure.
You've completely, and utterly, ignored the second possibility.
|
To assert that 'Al Qaeda' was, effectively, castrated is perfectly reasonable, but there are two (distinct) points here. Firstly:
| Quote: | | why 911 was such a brilliant op. This doesn't necessarily invoke MIHOP/LIHOP - it may just be a very interesting unique set of circumstances or a cover up of spectacular (probably criminal) ineptitude on the part of the intelligence services. |
.
I'm simply curious how they pulled of such a massive operation and then nothing. You can argue they lost a lot of people, fair enough -I don't know where the 2/3 exactly comes from and I be interested in anything you can point me to that explores how the organisation structure was eroded. I think that's a reasonable point, although the media would have us believe Al Qaeda is primarily composed of largely autonomous 'sleeper cells'. I'm assuming by your response you'd reject that notion.
Secondly - I think the point remains that the media/government line is that there are thousands of these 'fanatics' determined 'to destroy our way of life'. You don't need to subscribe to MIHOP to assert that's an enormous blag (Chomsky manages well enough on similar lines).
I don't 'believe' the CT, but I do believe we are being lied to about the threat posed by 'Islamic terrorists'. Mainly because there simply doesn't appear to be one. Until, at least here in the UK, the government have alienated the muslim population sufficiently to provoke violence.
It is perfectly possible that 911 got pulled of by some Islamic terrorists (with or without the assistance/deliberate lack of intervention/lack of intervention due to incompetence of intelligence services), then the ringmasters maybe, like you say, got largely wiped out, but then the 'Al Qaeda' myth took hold; you don't need to subsribe to the CT to believe the 'terror threat' to be an enormous lie.
My original question was to ask critcs
| Quote: | 2/ I wondered how many critics subscribed to the 'worldwide Al Qaeda threat' stuff as opposed to the more, say, Chomskyite line.
|
And I did then give some of my thoughts.
I'm interested because you can take several (CT aside) positions on this:
The government would do it. I don't know if they did (pretty much me)
They government would not do such a thing. It couldn't happen.
911 was real. War on terror is a blag to push government agendas (might be where I end up)
911 was real War on terror is pretty real. Maybe exaggerated and exploited to push government agendas
911 was real I believe everything the state tells me. and as long as we fight these evil fanatics, the government cares about me and everything is aaaalllll riiiight.
You could invent more.
I fullly agree the truthers wear blinkers according to their belief systems. Why are you different? If you believed 'the government would not do such a thing' - wouldn't that prejudice your beliefs? Why are 'critics' always somehow impartial?
I'm clear - I believe that 'the terror threat' is, at the very most, a gross exaggeration. I'm interested as to whether this is a common belief among the critcs or if you all believe this 'destroy our way of life' gubbins.
I'm just bemused at how this has been taken as an argument in favour of the CT.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Look, I don't want to come across as confrontational (I'm very mild mannered), but that's wild speculation and way less convincing than 'no planes'. You can't seriously mean that?
My point is simply, as I said, that the government appears to think it 'owns' the last few seconds of the loved ones of those who had a spouse or family member on that flight. If the government had a recording of my wife in her last moments I'd be pretty incensed if they regarded that as their property for five years and counting.
That is not a CT argument
I'm surprised no-one will say whether they agree it's out of order or not but instead invent strained hypothetical justifications. You don't have to believe the CT to regard the government as a bunch of callous tw*ts. |
I'm sorry that you think conspiracy theorists are as rational as you think they are. 99% of them are harmless, the last 1% are not. Some of them are highly mentally disturbed, and the government has learned the putting people in unnecessary danger isn't a smart thing to do. Frankly, I agree with them. Do I need to bring up the moon-hoax lunatic that harassed Buzz Aldrin for years, before getting punched in the face?
I really, truely, honestly believe that releasing things, privately, to specific people is going to put them under a great deal of harassment from "truthers". I don't believe it's "wild" speculation. Conspiracy theorists have a long and sordid history doing this.
If you are going to release something, release it publically, to everyone, in order to prevent harassment of those in possession of it. You've said, yourself, that may not be the best course of action, because of the sensitive nature of its contents.
Same goes with the "unnamed" investor who did 95% of the put-option on United, the day before 9/11. He was investigated, found to be innocent, and the government moved on. CTers seized on this because it could be a case of a coverup. Likewise, it could the government protecting this poor person who got incredibly unlucky, and was very likely to be harassed, forever, for "profitting" from 9/11.
| Quote: |
I was simply saying that assuming the official narrative is true, the government, perhaps inadvertently fuels this stuff by its irrational tendency to be secretive for no apparent reason.
|
A fair point. However, don't confuse "no apparent reason" for "no reason". Also, I am only agreeing because you've added the word "inadvertently".
| Quote: |
Governments do have a long history of hiding things you know.
|
Yes, and sometimes for the better. I'm not going to turn this into a giant philosophical discussion about how information "wants to be free", and no good comes from government secrets.
| Quote: |
This doesn't mean there is a cover up; it's just unsurprising people know/think/believe/suspect there is/may be.
|
You are confusing rational suspicion with irrational paranoia. I have no problems, whatsoever, with people distrusting the government as face value. I do have a problem with ignoring evidence, or using circular logic to ignore evidence (any evidence that doesn't agree must have been "planted"). Rational analysis versus paranoid circular logic. They are distinct methods of "truth-finding", and you are intermixing them.
| Quote: |
I still want to know why I cannot see that footage.
|
What footage?
| Quote: |
How's it paranoid to expect the government to have an open dialogue with the populace?
|
It's not. And you should. Again, your implied assumption is that all government secrets are bad. It's a poor assumption.
| Quote: |
ou can argue they lost a lot of people, fair enough -I don't know where the 2/3 exactly comes from and I be interested in anything you can point me to that explores how the organisation structure was eroded. I think that's a reasonable point,
|
following is a list of 29 operatives identified by experts and by the U.S. government as key Qaeda members. Sixteen are in custody, four are believed dead, and nine remain at large.
http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=191 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wobbler wrote: | Hmmm, interesting stuff.
I'm intrigued how trying to write a post that wasn't trying to specifically argue in favour of the CT has seemingly been interpreted as, er, arguments for the CT. Sorry if I've given the wrong impression.
|
No, I do appreciate that you are just saying that there are questions to be answered and you are puzzled that evidence has not been produced that might be. For myself, I think that is largely down to the tendency of investigative agencies to hold their cards close to their chests, at least partly for legal reasons.
| Quote: |
To be honest, the Silverstein remark has had so much attention it does my head in. To me, the way he says it doesn't sound like he means firefighters, but that's just my perception which doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.
|
I tend to agree that he does not mean firefighters, since he says "it" I think that he means pull it from the list, so to speak, of the buildings the FDNY are working on.
| Quote: |
I think this issue has has been over-done. The fact it (thermate) isn't used in profession demolition doesn't mean it couldn't be used, but I know very little about CD other than the crash course I'm getting on forums like this. I think the CT has tended to get a bit carried away with what is, after all, a hypothesis. It's a bit ironic that that the pancake theory assumes the towers fell all by themselves, but mention explosives and they've got to be everywhere to make it collapse but I'm not making an argument here, just an observation - I don't think thermite/thermate is anywhere near 'proved'. Far from it, I think its likelihood is exaggerated.
As for placing it in the building, CT fans could counter this by looking at maintenance work prior to 911 (has this been done?) The one critic point I don't agree with is that this would have been inordinately difficult to get blokes placing all those charges. I mean you could feasibly do it in plain view - how often do you look at what workmen are actually doing? How often do you really see them? - "It's amazing what a suit will let you get away with...You have to appear to belong in the area where you are" (from 'without a trace' - Animal Liberation Front practice guide type thing) - amateurs well know these techniques. And they work. It's really not that hard to become 'invisible'. Even professional shoplifters know the trick is to march round like you own the place and you don't get noticed.
(I'm not referring to stuff I do here in case you're wondering)
How you'd get to the internal structure though is another matter.
And, yeah, the bombs round the impact zone, though that's been debated elsewhere.
|
I think the reason the critics talk about explosives being placed all the way down the towers is that the CTs say the speed at which they fell, near freefall, could only be achieved by using explosives. If explosives were only used to start the collapse, which later continued under gravity, they would not be able to use this argument.
My point about thermate not being used in professional demolition is that it would not be sensible to try a techniques for the first time in a complicated conspiracy where you could not risk it going wrong. Also, you would not be using thermate in the way it normally is, as an incendiary, but in a special form in which it becomes explosive, otherwise the collapse of all floors other than the impact floors would take too long. Prof Jones' experiments are only with it in its incendiary form, of course. Whether it could be used as an explosive to shatter steel remains unproved, as far as I know.
I agree that wearing a suit gets you into all sorts of places, or convincing looking overalls would be more appropriate for people doing manual work, but I do think that workers knocking holes in walls to get at the steel structure and fixing something to them would cause comment, if only because it would be very disruptive. You would also need an army of workers if every column on every floor is to be dealt with. Even if you got away with it in advance, those who worked in the towers but escaped would be questioning it afterwards. As it is just one man has said there was a power-down for maintenance work on some floors of one of the towers over one weekend.
| Quote: | I'm not in the least bit surprised (that there is no sign of any coherent narrative emerging from the truthers' side). I think it's inevitable. I don't think it constitues any proof there wasn't a conspiracy as opposed to the fact that anything you can think of someone, somewhere believes it. I'm amazed I haven't seen a 'UFOs brought down the towers' theory yet (anyone got a link?). I did once see an argument that we'd invaded Iraq because Saddam had a downed flying saucer. Didn't make me think the anti-war movement was bogus. I think I'd be more convinced if there was a consistent narrative, but I'd also be wary of a '911 truther dogma'. Particularly if it involved there being no planes!
|
I agree it's no kind of proof that there was no conspiracy, but if there was I would expect the evidence that emerged to all begin to point in one direction, and further investigation to carry that forward. As it is, the "evidence" that truthers point to is all over the place, leading to all the different theories we see. A lot of people here appear to have no difficulty in holding a number of completely different theories at the same time! What I do find surprising is that no truthers seem to think it necessary or desirable to have an all embracing theory covering all the known facts. They seem happy simply to stick to individual incidents.
I do accept the tendency we all have to prefer evidence that supports our beliefs, rather than challenges them! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anti-sophist - thanks for your reply.
| Quote: | I'm sorry that you think conspiracy theorists are as rational as you think they are. 99% of them are harmless, the last 1% are not. Some of them are highly mentally disturbed, and the government has learned the putting people in unnecessary danger isn't a smart thing to do. Frankly, I agree with them. Do I need to bring up the moon-hoax lunatic that harassed Buzz Aldrin for years, before getting punched in the face?
I really, truely, honestly believe that releasing things, privately, to specific people is going to put them under a great deal of harassment from "truthers". I don't believe it's "wild" speculation. Conspiracy theorists have a long and sordid history doing this.
If you are going to release something, release it publically, to everyone, in order to prevent harassment of those in possession of it. You've said, yourself, that may not be the best course of action, because of the sensitive nature of its contents.
Same goes with the "unnamed" investor who did 95% of the put-option on United, the day before 9/11. He was investigated, found to be innocent, and the government moved on. CTers seized on this because it could be a case of a coverup. Likewise, it could the government protecting this poor person who got incredibly unlucky, and was very likely to be harassed, forever, for "profitting" from 9/11.
|
It is the case that:
a/Someone with a mental disturbance is prone to develop bizarre or unusual ideas.
b/Someone's extant ideas may become a central feature of a mental disturbance to a highly exaggerated or obsessive degree.
This has no specific relation to 'conspiracy theorists' - it applies to anyone - even 911 critics.
For example, those who stalk celebrities say nothing about people who buy ok or hello and follow celebrity lifestyles (though why anyone does do that is a mystery in itself).
Or people who kill 'because God told me to do it' say nothing about Christians per se.
It's perfectly conceivable that someone may obsessively harass some poor flight 93 relative, but no more so than Lisa Jefferson getting stalked by some guy who says he's in telepathic communication with the soul of Tod Beamer.
Or a critic attacking Dylan Avery because they believe he's on a secret Al Qaeda mission to destabilise America.
Should Dylan get a police guard just in case?
I don't know about the 'long and sordid history' but I'm guessing it's not worse than people in any other kind of movement. I'm a nobody but I've been harassed by a few disturbed people in my time. None of them were conspiracy theorists.
I agree that the tapes should perhaps be generally released. Perhaps the relatives should make that choice.
I'm bemoaning the fact they have never been given it. No 'we'd let you have this, but you know those truthers...' statement has been issued. I'm guessing that, given the choice, most would run the risk of possible hassle.
Regarding the investor, I agree they would get flack and be regarded by some as 'in on it' irrespective of who he/she was. I also think it's reasonable that their financial affairs aren't paraded in public if they are innocent.
However, I also have full sympathy with truthers being very cynical when the government says "Oh yeah, we checked it out, not suspicious at all". I certainly don't trust that myself. If there were a cover up, it's highly likely that this would be part of it I regard that as a kind of catch 22 and I can't see a solution to settle it.
| Quote: | | A fair point. However, don't confuse "no apparent reason" for "no reason". Also, I am only agreeing because you've added the word "inadvertently". |
I actually said " perhaps inadvertently"
| Quote: | | Yes, and sometimes for the better. I'm not going to turn this into a giant philosophical discussion about how information "wants to be free", and no good comes from government secrets. |
I think very few things need to be kept secret. But fair enough, it is a big discussion.
| Quote: | You are confusing rational suspicion with irrational paranoia. I have no problems, whatsoever, with people distrusting the government as face value. I do have a problem with ignoring evidence, or using circular logic to ignore evidence (any evidence that doesn't agree must have been "planted"). Rational analysis versus paranoid circular logic. They are distinct methods of "truth-finding", and you are intermixing them.
|
I think the line is very thin and not at all obvious. For example:
I'm vociferously opposed to ID cards. Does that make me paranoid or am I justified in distrusting what the state will do with the wealth of information they'll hold?
To some it is, to some it isn't. I've met people who think it's paranoid. To me, it's them who are deluded, ignorant and misinformed. It depends on your politics, beliefs and selection of evidence. Yes, I totally agree with you on ignoring evidence and circular arguments; you accuse the truthers of that and I suppose you'd have to look at that by your experience. Personally I'd be surprised if both sides don't do it. And me.
Regarding equivocal evidence, I fully agree with you if it's "is" vs "maybe" statements.
For example, you mention planting evidence:
Straight after 911, I wasn't even aware people thought it was an 'inside job' I didn't have the internet, so I missed the growth of the 'truth movement' totally.
When the passport at ground zero and flight manual etc in the car stuff came out, I thought "yeah, right" and assumed they'd probably been planted. I thought maybe the case was too weak against the suspects, or they'd accused the wrong guys. It's not like the police never plant evidence, is it? In fact, most people I spoke to (if not everyone) thought the same thing.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect such evidence may have been planted (it's pretty jolly convenient)
It's not just the odds of it surviving, but the fact it wasn't the passport of Mary Bloggs or whoever (afaik we don't have the set for the flight)
I don't think it's irrefutable evidence of an inside job - it's possible it just floated there, if pretty unlikely.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to view it as 'suspicious' or a 'possible plant'.
I don't even think it's 'irrationally paranoid' to say it is evidence of an inside job. Why's it paranoid? Surely it's just using a fact to support your hypothesis. Inconclusive maybe, it could mean lots of other things. At worst it's jumping to conclusions.
Sorry if I've 'straw manned' you there - I know you didn't give that example and it's different to the kind you were alluding to. I couldn't think of an example of the behaviour you allege.
Probably a bit pointless, that bit!
Unreleased pentagon footage. Unreleased cctv footage from 7/7 too. No conceivable national security risk. No possible trial prejudice as other images purportedly showing same stuff already released. I don't argue this because I'm saying "they won't because it's expose their lies" but because it's unnecessary secrecy and may clear up a couple of issues.
| Quote: | t's not. And you should. Again, your implied assumption is that all government secrets are bad. It's a poor assumption.
|
I'd assert most of them are unnecessary. Off the top of my head (there's probably more I grant),
a/direct consequent risk to populace
b/infringment of personal privacy (principally the public. Elected officials should be subject to closer scrutiny (imho))
are good reasons for a secret.
An overview of declassified documents on both sides of the Atlantic, as routinely elucidated by the likes of Noam Chomsky and Mark Curtis shows lots of naughty secrets are routinely kept until such time has passed for people to not get all cross. Like overthrowing Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran in 1953, setting in motion a chain of events that's left Iran where it is today, trying to assassinate Qadaffi, MKULTRA (yeah I know it has all kind of debatable CT stuff attached but it certainly existed, certainly some pretty zany LSD experiments went down), the haze around CIA torture flights right now, Iran/contra and so on. Most government secrets are kept because the public wouldn't be too chuffed about them if they knew. It took years to get a (weak) FOIA in the UK - not keen to keep us in the know here they're not. I really do not believe governments deny us information because they don't want us to know what we're getting for Christmas.
Regarding 911, I currently believe this is more symptomatic of a general culture of secrecy as opposed to a conspiracy. I can't see how secrecy without a clear, rational, understandable justification can be a good thing.
Thanks for the link. Being cynical (and perhaps a bit paranoid) I never trust these 'terror experts' (how exactly does one become a 'terror expert' sounds a bit grim if you think about it.) but it gives me some names to look into.
Appreciated.
Bushwacked-
| Quote: | I tend to agree that he does not mean firefighters, since he says "it" I think that he means pull it from the list, so to speak, of the buildings the FDNY are working on.
|
That's an interesting take on it I hadn't heard/thought of. Another speculation for the mix, but makes a lot more sense than firefighters.
| Quote: | | I agree that wearing a suit gets you into all sorts of places, or convincing looking overalls would be more appropriate for people doing manual work, but I do think that workers knocking holes in walls to get at the steel structure and fixing something to them would cause comment, if only because it would be very disruptive. You would also need an army of workers if every column on every floor is to be dealt with. Even if you got away with it in advance, those who worked in the towers but escaped would be questioning it afterwards. As it is just one man has said there was a power-down for maintenance work on some floors of one of the towers over one weekend. |
Or a fewer guys over long period. I take your point; that's why I'm interested as to whether it can be verified if any serious maintenance was going on or most certainly wasn't. I'd speculate that many workers wouldn't necessarily recall it as a detail worth mentioning as significant - it may have been disruptive but not necessarily regarded as suspicious or weird or worth mentioning subsequently. I think it would be more convincing if more than one guy was talking about power downs. The explosives bit still leaves the question of collapse speed and...actually, I don't want to get into that here - I'm still getting my head round the variety of arguments about that and I can get into that on other threads. Thanks for the explanation, though.
I take your point about the individual incidents. However, I think some of the arguments have become so complex, this 'field' is on the verge of creating 'specialisms'. The problem is, if a hypothetical overarching narrative were advanced, wouldn't it just be dismissed as being totally speculative and a wild eyed 'conspiracy theory' making the 'facts' fit the 'story'? I could think of a possible narrative based on standard CT claims off the top of my head, but it wouldn't evidence the 'inside job' hypothesis any better than the individual claims from which it's composed. Which is what everyone would go back to arguing about.
I think that if, say, CD of the twin towers (or even wtc7) were proved beyond reasonable doubt, it would suddenly become very hard to say it wasn't an inside job. The truth movement appears to operate on the principal that if you can prove culpability on one issue, you've won the car. I tend to think that's actually a pretty sensible strategy. Thinking about it, I'm personally far more wary of people who think they know exactly what happended at each stage, why, how, and what Richard Perle said to his wife that morning.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument seems to come from a libertarian point of view that government secrets are inherently bad, and as such, they shouldn't keep any. Therefore, it's the government's fault for keeping secrets that they shouldn't, and causing all this conspiracy theory nonsense.
The built-in assumption here is that government's keeping secrets is fundamentally wrong. That is the point of disagreement. Your conclusions logically follow if I accept that statement to be true. Therefore, talking about the pentagon tapes and everything else is superfluous until we establish common ground on this issue. You are arguing based upon a system of thought that includes the notion that all secrets are bad, and I am not, therefore we find different conclusions and will just talk circles around each other. I respect your opinion on government secrets, but personally find it naive.
The bigger issue, at least to the topic of these forums, is whether or not that secrecy is evidence, in and of itself. The answer is, to some extent, yes, but most CTers overvalue secrecy as evidence of guilt. There are many other reasons to keep things secret that do not imply guilt.
| Quote: |
I don't know about the 'long and sordid history' but I'm guessing it's not worse than people in any other kind of movement.
|
Well, I agree to some extent (I object only to generality of "any other kind" of movement... maybe if you insert "radical" or "fringe" or "extreme").
I was merely positing a theory. I don't know WHY the government acted the way it did. It doesn't really bother me, however, because the evidence on those tapes is entirely unnecessary to prove a plane hit the pentagon, or hit in a field in Pennsylvania. The human remains do a sufficient job of that.
What I do know is that there are plenty of PLAUSIBLE reasons for the government to keep it a secret... keeping the victims from abuse and/or keeping very sensistive audio from being played publically, is just one. Your comment, specifically, was that there was NO reason for them to release it, "at least to the families", and I've given you one.
You've rationalized that reason as not being "any worse than any other", but it doesn't change the fundamanetal issue that releasing those tapes to these people, privately, opens them up to a world of harassment that they don't deserve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument seems to come from a libertarian point of view that government secrets are inherently bad, and as such, they shouldn't keep any. Therefore, it's the government's fault for keeping secrets that they shouldn't, and causing all this conspiracy theory nonsense.
The built-in assumption here is that government's keeping secrets is fundamentally wrong. That is the point of disagreement. Your conclusions logically follow if I accept that statement to be true. Therefore, talking about the pentagon tapes and everything else is superfluous until we establish common ground on this issue. You are arguing based upon a system of thought that includes the notion that all secrets are bad, and I am not, therefore we find different conclusions and will just talk circles around each other. I respect your opinion on government secrets, but personally find it naive.
The bigger issue, at least to the topic of these forums, is whether or not that secrecy is evidence, in and of itself. The answer is, to some extent, yes, but most CTers overvalue secrecy as evidence of guilt. There are many other reasons to keep things secret that do not imply guilt.
| Quote: |
I don't know about the 'long and sordid history' but I'm guessing it's not worse than people in any other kind of movement.
|
Well, I agree to some extent (I object only to generality of "any other kind" of movement... maybe if you insert "radical" or "fringe" or "extreme").
I was merely positing a theory. I don't know WHY the government acted the way it did. It doesn't really bother me, however, because the evidence on those tapes is entirely unnecessary to prove a plane hit the pentagon, or hit in a field in Pennsylvania. The human remains do a sufficient job of that.
What I do know is that there are plenty of PLAUSIBLE reasons for the government to keep it a secret... keeping the victims from abuse and/or keeping very sensistive audio from being played publically, is just one. Your comment, specifically, was that there was NO reason for them to release it, "at least to the families", and I've given you one.
You've rationalized that reason as not being "any worse than any other", but it doesn't change the fundamanetal issue that releasing those tapes to these people, privately, opens them up to a world of harassment that they don't deserve. |
The government is currently keeping many secrets that it has no reason to. I read a book by a WWII historian that complained that it was unlikely that ALL the historical data from that war would ever come to light, because so much of it was labeled "classified", and, although the statute of limitations has expired on these secrets, they won't be disclosed unless someone asks for them. The problem is, no one knows what to ask FOR, and the volume of classified information is so huge that no one has time to research what MIGHT be in there and to lobby the government to release it.
I think the government is much like a pack-rat in this way. It labels things secret just in case it might be sensitive, and after a while it is forgotten.
Also, if anyone asks for this classified data, the reaction might be: "We'd better not release it just in case..."
I'm not saying this is rational behavior, it's just the way things are. It doesn't mean there is a cover up. In a lot of cases, I don't think the government even knows what it is "covering up". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | he government is currently keeping many secrets that it has no reason to. I read a book by a WWII historian that complained that it was unlikely that ALL the historical data from that war would ever come to light, because so much of it was labeled "classified", and, although the statute of limitations has expired on these secrets, they won't be disclosed unless someone asks for them. The problem is, no one knows what to ask FOR, and the volume of classified information is so huge that no one has time to research what MIGHT be in there and to lobby the government to release it.
I think the government is much like a pack-rat in this way. It labels things secret just in case it might be sensitive, and after a while it is forgotten.
Also, if anyone asks for this classified data, the reaction might be: "We'd better not release it just in case..."
I'm not saying this is rational behavior, it's just the way things are. It doesn't mean there is a cover up. In a lot of cases, I don't think the government even knows what it is "covering up". |
That's a really good point. That probably does happen
I think the 911 type stuff is different, cause folk are howling for it -it's not forgotten.
And some secrets are kept for a reason, I'll wager.
But irrationality and bureaucracy are not a valid excuses! I demand valid reasons goddammit!!!
| Quote: | Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument seems to come from a libertarian point of view that government secrets are inherently bad, and as such, they shouldn't keep any. Therefore, it's the government's fault for keeping secrets that they shouldn't, and causing all this conspiracy theory nonsense.
The built-in assumption here is that government's keeping secrets is fundamentally wrong. That is the point of disagreement. Your conclusions logically follow if I accept that statement to be true. Therefore, talking about the pentagon tapes and everything else is superfluous until we establish common ground on this issue. You are arguing based upon a system of thought that includes the notion that all secrets are bad, and I am not, therefore we find different conclusions and will just talk circles around each other. I respect your opinion on government secrets, but personally find it naive.
The bigger issue, at least to the topic of these forums, is whether or not that secrecy is evidence, in and of itself. The answer is, to some extent, yes, but most CTers overvalue secrecy as evidence of guilt. There are many other reasons to keep things secret that do not imply guilt.
|
I'm not exactly a libertarian. If you mean in the US sense.
I didn't argue all secrets are bad - I gave public protection and protection of privacy as valid reasons.
We might have to agree to disagree on some of this -you think I'm naive for distrusting state secrecy, I think you're naive for seemingly regarding the state as essentially benign.
I think this, weirdly, represents the core of the matter.
Look my original question was to ask if it irritated you to have to argue stuff the government could settle.
You think there's nothing to settle, right?
Right, this pentagon missile thing was originally spawned by the French guy, whatisface. Book a huge hit. For starters, he'd have been on to a non-starter if there was cctv footage showing a clucking great plane hitting the pentagon.
You think that's not that important because reams of other evidence says - to you - a plane hit. At the moment I agree, until I'm convinced of a reason to disbelieve the eyewitnesses, in which case I'll look again.
But however convincing the evidence is to you, to others it simply isn't.
You may dispute their arguments, but they dispute yours.
If there was multiple cctv footage, all showing the same plane, you'd never have got all frustrated trying to argue what, to you, is obvious.
Now imagine, for a moment, - whoda thunkit - you're dead wrong.
A cruise missile did hit the pentagon.
You see it all so clearly now!
If that were the case, not releasing the footage would be the only thing to do - it wouldn't show any plane, right?
So if you believe there was no plane, it's hardly poor reasoning to assume the footage is being deliberatly suppressed.
It's just plain sensible.
Ah! but whats this?
New footage - it shows a plane! Five years on, they bang this out!
Well why now?
Could be a fake - certainly doable - I've seen Jurassic Park
Could be disinformation or an attempt to allow a bogus theory to flourish until POW! growing truth movement look like chumps! Never get the oublic to expose us now!
It's not like disinfo and psyops never existed.
If your starting premise is that the existing evidence is insufficient, it's not paranoid ravings to postulate such things. It fits the hypothesis very neatly.
However much you may find the evidence for a plane compelling, you must face the fact others don't.
If everyone saw it from the start - no missile theory. No planers, sure, but that theory is around anyway.
As it stands, this bizarre secrecy has seen us only just getting that garage footage - why the delay? Did I miss the glimpse of the hidden entrance to the illuminati's secret khazi?
Are you surprised this behaviour breeds conspiracy? If you already think the powers that be area rum lot?
Doesn't mean there's a conspiracy.
Doesn't mean it's totally irrational to take it as possible evidence for one.
Re flight 93, you offer a hypothesis that the government has a generally protective motive towards the relatives when presented with an accusation of morally dubious behaviour on their part. I find that implausible and, dare I say it, unevidenced. Your reasoning isn't reallyany different to truthers. And me. That's NOT a criticism. You offer a possible hypothesis that fits the situation baced on a world view that gives you your starting premise.
I'm clearly more cynical/paranoid...realistic in my worldview.
This filters our general assumptions and hence our interpretation of evidence and the kinds of hypotheses we form.
So any particularly strong evidence, particularly at the outset, is very helpful. It's harder to ascribe multiple interpretations. Though, yeah, that will inevitably happen.
But it's more serious than that.
Take 7/7 (a bugbear of mine), so over to the overseas branch of the US government.
Right - I assert the government/judicial system has a responsibilty to ensure proper evidence is put forward in order to verify guilt for serious crime.
Assuming guilt to be true on the mere say so of government or on flimsy pretences is the behaviour of totalitarian states - Hitler did it. Stalin did it. Bush and Blair are doing it in their 'war on terror', but I digress.
Mass murder is a serious crime. Guilt should be ascertained. Public protected. My sister catches the number 30 bus every day so I certainly want to know she's being kept safe.
The government has a responsibilty, in the absence of a trial, to ensure their conclusions are sound.
As a member of the public I expect access to all non-sensitive information so I can see for myself.
Too much too ask?
So - unreleased cctv footage
Footage that would put the suspects at the scene, on the day.
Good evidence.
Shows dead guys. In public. On cameras we can all see.
Not sensitive. No national security risk.
Why is it still secret?
As it stands, I may be wrong, but I suspect there is not enough evidence in the public domain to convict those guys in a British Court.
At any rate, the story has changed several times. The 'officers of the law' couldn't even work out what train the suspects caught! They said they caught a train that was cancelled that day!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5170708.stm
'Conspiracy theorists' thought to check what trains actually ran that day! the good old British bobby - outsmarted by 'tin foil hatters'! Imagine that!
Now I'm not saying it was a 'false flag'. Everyone knows the dibble are thick.
It could have been the accused
They could have accused the wrong guys (hardly the first time)
It could even have been John Prescott's enraged alter ego when he found someone ate all the pies.
But is a bit of suspicion that something, even serious blundering, may be afoot really that outlandish?
If you behave suspiciously, expect suspicion.
If that makes me paranoid, I'm David Icke on a bike.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:22 pm Post subject: Ludicrous Diversion |
|
|
Hey wobbler,
You might appreciate this:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-4943675105275097719
"On the 7th of July 2005 London was hit by a series of explosions. You probably think you know what happened that day. But you dont.
The police have, from the onset of their investigation, chosen to withold from the public almost every bit of evidence they claim to have and have provably lied about several aspects of the London Bombings.
The mainstream news has wilfully spread false, unsubstantiated and unverifiable information, while choosing to completely ignore the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the official story.
The government has finally, after a year, presented us with their official 'narrative' concerning the event. Within hours it was shown to contain numerous errors, a fact since admitted by the Home Secretary John Reid. They have continuously rejected calls for a full, independent public inquiry. Tony Blair himself described such an inquiry as a 'ludicrous diversion'. What dont they want us to find out?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wobbler wrote: |
But however convincing the evidence is to you, to others it simply isn't.
You may dispute their arguments, but they dispute yours.
If there was multiple cctv footage, all showing the same plane, you'd never have got all frustrated trying to argue what, to you, is obvious.
|
The evidence directly contradicts your statement. There _is_ multiple angles of video showing a plane hitting the WTC, and there are still people who do not believe that there were planes. I understand they are "farther" down in the distrubution, and you consider them objections "crazy"... I feel the same way about the people who dispute the official explaination. They are at the tail end of the distrubtion.
If all points of view are equally valid (a nice idea in a democracy, a terrible one in science), then you must admit your final sentence is wrong.. as there'd still be people who disagree, forcing me to argue, anyway.
| Quote: |
Now imagine, for a moment, - whoda thunkit - you're dead wrong.
A cruise missile did hit the pentagon.
You see it all so clearly now! |
I do? Ok, hypothetically.. I see it so clearly now... based on what evidence? Do I have hard evidence it hit the pentagon? Or do I just "believe"?
| Quote: |
If that were the case, not releasing the footage would be the only thing to do - it wouldn't show any plane, right?
So if you believe there was no plane, it's hardly poor reasoning to assume the footage is being deliberatly suppressed.
It's just plain sensible.
|
Yes, it's sensible when I commit the logical fallacy of PRESUPPOSING my conclusion when looking at the evidence. This is a perfect example of circular logic, and it's NOT sensible. You look at evidence objectively, without presupposing conclusions. I don't presuppose there was a plane, then look for evidence of a plane. I look at the evidence... Flight Data Recorder, human remains, missing people, 100s of eye witnesses. I choose the explaination that best fits all available data. Anything else is NOT sensible. It is NOT sensible to say "I KNOW IT WAS A CONSPIRACY" and then throw out the dead passangers as government lies, and the eye witnesses as government shills. You've started with your conclusion, and then proceeded to find evidence of it... that's bunk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | The evidence directly contradicts your statement. There _is_ multiple angles of video showing a plane hitting the WTC, and there are still people who do not believe that there were planes. I understand they are "farther" down in the distrubution, and you consider them objections "crazy"... I feel the same way about the people who dispute the official explaination. They are at the tail end of the distrubtion.
If all points of view are equally valid (a nice idea in a democracy, a terrible one in science), then you must admit your final sentence is wrong.. as there'd still be people who disagree, forcing me to argue, anyway. |
I don't consider them 'crazy'. I'd just totally agree the evidence is so vague and heavily contradicted by counter evidence I've decided it isn't 'true'.
You'd have to admit the majority of truthers think the same.
Do you reject all critcism of the official expanation?
If ONE of my clients were (god forbid) to die, there'd be an investigation and I could face the sack and end of my career if I were found to be negligent.
The death of Victoria Climbie, one girl, due to the failings of social services and others led to a huge investigation (the Laming Report) and the complete reform of English childrens services (the formation of Children's Trusts).
I'm guessing it's not that different in the US
John O'neill gave repeated warnings of an impending attack
Many of the hijackers were known.
Why is it the consequences of failure become less severe the more important you are?
Look, I don't want to get sidetracked debating the intelligence failures, I'm just raising the point that surely just believing the official account stands, case closed, isn't that different to just believing 'there MUST have been a conspiracy'. I'm surprised that the critics seem so universally opposed to the idea of ANY criminal incompetence or wrongdoing in the 911 affair or broader attitude of government and foreign policy. It's as if if you agree with truthers on anything, you'll 'become one' (not you specifically - an impression from reading critic stuff generally).
All ideas are valid until they're disproved. The scientific method is great, but is unfortunatly operated by humans. How many scientists enerringly find a new drug is harmless when the pharmaceutical company pays their wages? (just look into what happended with the antidepressant Seroxat)
"To take a notorious example from the 1960s, there was a point when three research groups had "proven" that LSD causes chromosone damage, while three other groups had "proven" that LSD has no effect on the chromosones. In each case, the Prover had proved what the Thinker thought"
-Robert Anton Wilson, 1983
yes I know he's 'one of them', but I think he's right in the point he's making. And about LSD research, though we now 'know' chromosone damage is bobbins. Scientists 'found' it back in the day though.
Steven Jones is a scientist and I'd be amazed if he got where he did without understanding the scientific method. If he's wrong, it's probably because he allowed a belief to override his objectivity.
Look, if we took each idea as equal, we'd never have opinions or get anything done, but if we forget that we operating from a point of prejudice, even when we do science, we're more prone to be finding the conclusions we 'want' while pretending we're being objective. Arguments are good (if they're not slanging matches) - they help test your ideas.
| Quote: | I do? Ok, hypothetically.. I see it so clearly now... based on what evidence? Do I have hard evidence it hit the pentagon? Or do I just "believe"?
|
Well I suppose it would be stuff about the alleged flight data inconsistencies, the way the debris 'appears' in photographs where it was absent in pictures straight after the impact - that's the stuff they appear to be going on about over at LC right now. I'm sure you know the arguments better than me. It's not that important for the point - you find it so overwhelmingly convincing you can't get your head round why anyone could doubt that flight 77 hit the pentagon. Like I said, I don't believe the cruise missile thing myself.
Whether or not you can get your head round people believing it, if you do believe it, the suppression of footage is consistent with 'the conspiracy'. That's all I'm saying.
I wouldn't try to argue why you should believe it. It's just a thought experiment to see how the belief follows naturally from a given set of premises. How you reach those premises is irrelevant. Ask a missile theorist, they could give you way 'better' reasons than me.
Though I'm sure you've already had that, er, conversation.
| Quote: | es, it's sensible when I commit the logical fallacy of PRESUPPOSING my conclusion when looking at the evidence. This is a perfect example of circular logic, and it's NOT sensible. You look at evidence objectively, without presupposing conclusions. I don't presuppose there was a plane, then look for evidence of a plane. I look at the evidence... Flight Data Recorder, human remains, missing people, 100s of eye witnesses. I choose the explaination that best fits all available data. Anything else is NOT sensible. It is NOT sensible to say "I KNOW IT WAS A CONSPIRACY" and then throw out the dead passangers as government lies, and the eye witnesses as government shills. You've started with your conclusion, and then proceeded to find evidence of it... that's bunk.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message |
I fully agree that presupposing your conclusion and 'finding' the evidence to fit is erroneous. Though I've already argued I don't think that's unique to 'conspiracy theorists'.
In fact, I think that's EXACTLY the reasoning used in the 'war on terror'
Terrorists are being 'found' (usually some poor sap who happpens to be muslim) because WE KNOW THEY'RE EVERYWHERE. And we know they're guilty because they confess under constant torture in some secret jail in Pakistan. Or they're quietly released in the UK after weeks of headlines screaming how they've concocted a bomb out of cereal boxes, sellotape and bits of old wire or something. Or just still locked up, presumed evil fanatic. See - we told you so.
I'd assert missile theorists would vehemently deny they simply start with the conclusion, but that depends on the individual and the argument they're putting forward. I agree some truthers do do this and it's silly. I also see highly intelligent truthers making very well reasoned arguments.
I also doubt that most truthers start with their conclusion - the fact that the truth movement keeps growing is testament to the fact that many people are presented with 'evidence' (true, reasonable, flawed, misleading, lying evidence -take your pick) and think 'Oh my God!' Maybe they get dogmatic when they've decided but hey, Bushwacker changed their mind. Not everyone's fixed on this stuff.
I do think if you believe the government would do such a think you're more likely to accept it than if you wouldn't.
I know several people who've seen LC or whatever and decided it can't be true because "They wouldn't do that to their own people" without even bothering to look into it.
They've started with a conclusion, too.
It doesn't matter. I'm just trying to explore how certain arguments follow naturally without being 'paranoid' or 'irrational' if you take a certain starting position.
Whether that starting position is irrational or paranoid is another matter entirely.
How spurious that argument actually is depends on that particular debate about the evidence.
Scar - cheers for the link. I'll watch that tonight.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:51 am Post subject:
Quote:
The evidence directly contradicts your statement. There _is_ multiple angles of video showing a plane hitting the WTC, and there are still people who do not believe that there were planes. I understand they are "farther" down in the distrubution, and you consider them objections "crazy"... I feel the same way about the people who dispute the official explaination. They are at the tail end of the distrubtion.
If all points of view are equally valid (a nice idea in a democracy, a terrible one in science), then you must admit your final sentence is wrong.. as there'd still be people who disagree, forcing me to argue, anyway.
I don't consider them 'crazy'. I'd just totally agree the evidence is so vague and heavily contradicted by counter evidence I've decided it isn't 'true'.
You'd have to admit the majority of truthers think the same.
Do you reject all critcism of the official expanation?
If ONE of my clients were (god forbid) to die, there'd be an investigation and I could face the sack and end of my career if I were found to be negligent.
The death of Victoria Climbie, one girl, due to the failings of social services and others led to a huge investigation (the Laming Report) and the complete reform of English childrens services (the formation of Children's Trusts).
I'm guessing it's not that different in the US
John O'neill gave repeated warnings of an impending attack
Many of the hijackers were known.
Why is it the consequences of failure become less severe the more important you are?
Look, I don't want to get sidetracked debating the intelligence failures, I'm just raising the point that surely just believing the official account stands, case closed, isn't that different to just believing 'there MUST have been a conspiracy'. I'm surprised that the critics seem so universally opposed to the idea of ANY criminal incompetence or wrongdoing in the 911 affair or broader attitude of government and foreign policy. It's as if if you agree with truthers on anything, you'll 'become one' (not you specifically - an impression from reading critic stuff generally).
|
I'm in the business of analyzing hard evidence. All the 'soft' circumstantial stuff is for the politicians. I am a scientist by trade (Engineer, to be exact). I deal with physics and the physics of 9/11. I don't really care about circumstantial evidence. I know enough about statistics to know that conspiracy theorists do not understand, at all, the mathematics of 'coincedences' and assign way too much weight to circumstantial evidence that supports their theory.
For me, however, my interest lies in the cold hard facts of the physical events of 9/11. Nothing in the 'official' story, in regards to that day, is "100%" true (that's not what science does).. it is, however, BY FAR, the most likely explanation. I have never seen another theory come even close to meeting the data.
| Quote: |
Steven Jones is a scientist and I'd be amazed if he got where he did without understanding the scientific method. If he's wrong, it's probably because he allowed a belief to override his objectivity.
|
Then why does he not use it? The scientific method also involves publishing your research in peer-reviewed scientific journals... Why is he afraid to give it to the peopel who are best equipped to criticize it? Here's one theory: because he knows his work is more useful as propaganda, than science.
Even if I conclude he is a scientist, he is one. There are, literally, tens of thousands between the ASCE, NIST, and other univerisities that disagree with him. The Physics and Material Science departments seem to think is work is fundamentally flawed and baseless... even going as far as to remove him.
His work, by everyone who has looked at it (which isn't many, given the fact he is afraid to put it out there to be criticized), has been deemed "crude", at best, and at worst, incompetant.
| Quote: |
Well I suppose it would be stuff about the alleged flight data inconsistencies, the way the debris 'appears' in photographs where it was absent in pictures straight after the impact - that's the stuff they appear to be going on about over at LC right now.
|
You don't get out enough. These are all myths. I've analyzed the flight data recorder myself (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65369&highlight=JDX%27s+math ) and once you account for all the various sources of error, none of it holds any water. The "FDR" analysts at loose change make about 20 major scientific errors in their analysis of this data, and their ignorance of how FDR is recorded and processed in evident in every post they make. If you'd like more details, feel free to raise your objects in my JREF thread above, and I'll go into it.
Second of all, how things "appear" in a photograph is called "appeal to intuition" and it's a fallacy. Scientists aren't convinced by intuition, they are convinced by evidence.
| Quote: |
Whether or not you can get your head round people believing it, if you do believe it, the suppression of footage is consistent with 'the conspiracy'.
|
I agree. It's also consistent with alot of other things. Claiming it is evidence of a conspiracy, because it is consistent, is circular logic.
| Quote: |
I'd assert missile theorists would vehemently deny they simply start with the conclusion, but that depends on the individual and the argument they're putting forward. I agree some truthers do do this and it's silly. I also see highly intelligent truthers making very well reasoned arguments.
|
Then how do they explain the fact the FDR was found at the pentagon? Or the dead bodies? Or the plane wreckage found by numerous people? How about the 100s of eye-witnesses?
You can't be a 'missile-theorist' unless you have a method of ignoring this evidence... and they all do it by saying it was planted. They have presupposed a conspiracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wobbler wrote: |
You'd have to admit the majority of truthers think the same.
Do you reject all critcism of the official expanation?
|
I can guarantee that no two truthers have an identical theory about what happened on 9/11. In fact, none of them have a theory. They only have a mushed-together tangle of half-truths, rumors, and irrelevant factoids.
| Quote: |
If ONE of my clients were (god forbid) to die, there'd be an investigation and I could face the sack and end of my career if I were found to be negligent.
|
If a crazy man ran in with a hatchet and, in full view of everyone, hacked one of your clients to death with an axe, do you think it's reasonable to investigate YOU to see if you had poisoned the client? That's what the thinking is in CT circles: We all saw the planes crash into the buildings before they caught fire and fell, and yet the CTists seem to think the government ALSO rigged them with explosives, and so they demand an investigation.
| Quote: |
John O'neill gave repeated warnings of an impending attack
Many of the hijackers were known.
Why is it the consequences of failure become less severe the more important you are?
|
I don't think that's it. I think the failure was with the system rather than with one or two individuals. Do you think an administration that was only in office a few months is WHOLLY responsible for the state of affairs that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen?
| Quote: |
Look, I don't want to get sidetracked debating the intelligence failures, I'm just raising the point that surely just believing the official account stands, case closed, isn't that different to just believing 'there MUST have been a conspiracy'. I'm surprised that the critics seem so universally opposed to the idea of ANY criminal incompetence or wrongdoing in the 911 affair or broader attitude of government and foreign policy.
|
At what point, exactly, does incompetence become criminal? Plus, many critics disagree with the "broader attitude of government and foreign policy", but that is a completely separate issue.
| Quote: | It's as if if you agree with truthers on anything, you'll 'become one' (not you specifically - an impression from reading critic stuff generally).
|
Human nature. People naturally have a reluctance to agree with their opponent on anything.
| Quote: |
All ideas are valid until they're disproved.
|
Not all ideas are equal. If we accept your statement as an axiom, then we would have to conclude that all unfalsifiable ideas, such as, "There is a bowling ball orbiting Alpha Centauri", are valid. There is a reason that science tends to reject unfalsifiable ideas. (This includes, of course, conspiracy theories, which are unfalsifiable because any evidence against it is dismissed as the work of shills.)
| Quote: | The scientific method is great, but is unfortunatly operated by humans. How many scientists enerringly find a new drug is harmless when the pharmaceutical company pays their wages? (just look into what happended with the antidepressant Seroxat)
|
The scientific method doesn't work equally well in all situations. Anywhere you must rely on a statistical sample there is going to be a margin for error; also, it is important that the experiment or study is replicated independently. There may well be a conflict of interest here when pharmaceutical companies are involved, but this is not a valid argument against science itself.
| Quote: |
Steven Jones is a scientist and I'd be amazed if he got where he did without understanding the scientific method. If he's wrong, it's probably because he allowed a belief to override his objectivity.
|
Almost certainly!
| Quote: |
Look, if we took each idea as equal, we'd never have opinions or get anything done, but if we forget that we operating from a point of prejudice, even when we do science, we're more prone to be finding the conclusions we 'want' while pretending we're being objective. |
This is exactly why the scientific method exists. Prejudices and biases are so strong that we must specifically protect against them when testing ideas.
| Quote: |
Well I suppose it would be stuff about the alleged flight data inconsistencies, the way the debris 'appears' in photographs where it was absent in pictures straight after the impact
|
Were the pictures taken right after the impact crime scene photos, or were they taken by journalists at the scene? Can you think of a reason why press photos would be released immediately, but crime scene photos would not?
| Quote: |
- that's the stuff they appear to be going on about over at LC right now. I'm sure you know the arguments better than me. It's not that important for the point - you find it so overwhelmingly convincing you can't get your head round why anyone could doubt that flight 77 hit the pentagon. Like I said, I don't believe the cruise missile thing myself.
|
I know exactly why they doubt it -- not because there is evidence, but because doubting it helps support their beliefs.
| Quote: |
Whether or not you can get your head round people believing it, if you do believe it, the suppression of footage is consistent with 'the conspiracy'. That's all I'm saying.
|
It's also consistent with time travel. The photos were taken, then placed in a time machine, where they were transported several years into the future. In the meantime, they couldn't be released to the public.
| Quote: |
I wouldn't try to argue why you should believe it. It's just a thought experiment to see how the belief follows naturally from a given set of premises. How you reach those premises is irrelevant. Ask a missile theorist, they could give you way 'better' reasons than me.
|
If by "better" you mean in all caps and with spelling and grammatical errors, then yes.
| Quote: | I fully agree that presupposing your conclusion and 'finding' the evidence to fit is erroneous. Though I've already argued I don't think that's unique to 'conspiracy theorists'.
|
Right, that's what science and skepticism are for: To find the truth in spite of bias.
| Quote: |
In fact, I think that's EXACTLY the reasoning used in the 'war on terror'
Terrorists are being 'found' (usually some poor sap who happpens to be muslim) because WE KNOW THEY'RE EVERYWHERE. And we know they're guilty because they confess under constant torture in some secret jail in Pakistan. Or they're quietly released in the UK after weeks of headlines screaming how they've concocted a bomb out of cereal boxes, sellotape and bits of old wire or something. Or just still locked up, presumed evil fanatic. See - we told you so.
|
Can't disagree with you there.
| Quote: |
I'd assert missile theorists would vehemently deny they simply start with the conclusion, but that depends on the individual and the argument they're putting forward. I agree some truthers do do this and it's silly. I also see highly intelligent truthers making very well reasoned arguments.
|
Yes, but when they DO make well-reasoned arguments, it is in support of a premise that does not support the conclusion that there was a conspiracy. The difference between the semi-literate "truthers" and the "scholars" is that they are better at hiding their logical fallacies.
| Quote: |
I also doubt that most truthers start with their conclusion - the fact that the truth movement keeps growing is testament to the fact that many people are presented with 'evidence' (true, reasonable, flawed, misleading, lying evidence -take your pick) and think 'Oh my God!' Maybe they get dogmatic when they've decided but hey, Bushwacker changed their mind. Not everyone's fixed on this stuff.
|
They may not start with the conclusion, but they certainly find the conclusion attractive, for one reason or another. It could be because they already hate Bush & Co., or it could be that the thought of a govt. conspiracy is really, really cool. Either way, from that point on, they are biased.
| Quote: |
I do think if you believe the government would do such a think you're more likely to accept it than if you wouldn't.
I know several people who've seen LC or whatever and decided it can't be true because "They wouldn't do that to their own people" without even bothering to look into it.
They've started with a conclusion, too.
|
"They wouldn't do that to their own people" is just one of the many reasons people tend to disagree with LC's ideas, most people I know don't buy it because the "official" story makes sense, while the CT story is a complete mess. For one thing, there ISN'T a single narrative to explain the evidence, and the multiple, schizoid narratives that do exist are not parsiminous in themselves. For instance, why would Larry Silverstein SECRETLY blow up his own building when it was being gutted by fire anyway? The "truthers" would respond, "That's why we need an investigation!"
By the same logic, I could demand an investigation into the time machine at the Pentagon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wobbler wrote: | I'm surprised that the critics seem so universally opposed to the idea of ANY criminal incompetence or wrongdoing in the 911 affair or broader attitude of government and foreign policy. It's as if if you agree with truthers on anything, you'll 'become one' (not you specifically - an impression from reading critic stuff generally).
|
Well I for one think that there was considerable incompetence in interpreting and acting upon the intellignce prior to 9/11, even bearing in mind the large number of warnings that come to nothing. Above all, Bush's foreign policy has been a complete disaster, turning world-wide sympathy for the US immediately after 9/11 into widespread anti-Americanism, and in fact making America much less secure by the complete alienation of the Moslem world. The invasion of Iraq was stunningly successful in its military phase, but unbelieveably naive and inept thereafter, with Rumsfeld apparently blocking the more realistic plans of the State Department.
They have now created a mess they are struggling to find a way out from, and stand every chance of leaving a very unstable country behind them. Meanwhile Iraq has become a training ground for every terrorist in the world to practise and learn in. But yet people believe that these blundering oafs could plan and execute a meticulous plan like 9/11 so perfectly that no hard evidence was left and not a squeak was heard from those involved.
Bush himself I would almost believe capable of ordering 9/11, because he seems able to convince himself whatever he does is right, and because god is on his side whatever he does is justified. His is the attitude of the Holy Inquisition, burning people to death for the good of their souls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anti-Sophist -
| Quote: | 'm in the business of analyzing hard evidence. All the 'soft' circumstantial stuff is for the politicians. I am a scientist by trade (Engineer, to be exact). I deal with physics and the physics of 9/11. I don't really care about circumstantial evidence. I know enough about statistics to know that conspiracy theorists do not understand, at all, the mathematics of 'coincedences' and assign way too much weight to circumstantial evidence that supports their theory.
For me, however, my interest lies in the cold hard facts of the physical events of 9/11. Nothing in the 'official' story, in regards to that day, is "100%" true (that's not what science does).. it is, however, BY FAR, the
most likely explanation. I have never seen another theory come even close to meeting the data.
|
Fair enough. I'm rubbish at physics myself; I'm actually much more interested in the political side.
Actually, I think I agree with you on coincidences; there is a body of research to suggest coincidences are more common than is typically assumed isn't there? Circumstantial evidence, to become proof, does need hard evidence. Which takes you back to the stuff everyone argues about. Circunstantial evidence is, however, often good enough to stimulate further investigations. Otherwise any criminal investigations would have a hard time if they never allowed themselves to follow suspicious coincidences as a stimulus to accumulate further evidence.
| Quote: | Then why does he not use it? The scientific method also involves publishing your research in peer-reviewed scientific journals... Why is he afraid to give it to the peopel who are best equipped to criticize it? Here's one theory: because he knows his work is more useful as propaganda, than science.
Even if I conclude he is a scientist, he is one. There are, literally, tens of thousands between the ASCE, NIST, and other univerisities that disagree with him. The Physics and Material Science departments seem to think is work is fundamentally flawed and baseless... even going as far as to remove him.
His work, by everyone who has looked at it (which isn't many, given the fact he is afraid to put it out there to be criticized), has been deemed "crude", at best, and at worst, incompetant.
|
Did he try? I'm not sure. Would any mainstream journal go along with that ?
I haven't seen any evidence he's a 'propagandist', but I can't claim to be privy to his psychological motivation, but it seems to me it's the broader community that have pushed his paper and its conclusions harder than him. In fact, I think it may turn out to be an own goal to put so much faith, so fast, in one idea.
I don't think he was suspended just because his work is, allegedly, "flawed". That's a bit harsh. Is academia really so much like boot camp these days? I can't give you any proof, but I suspect he'd still be sittin' pretty if he'd produced a ''flawed'" paper on how to make cheese'n'onion crisps that little bit tastier. In fact, I understand the reason for his suspension was due to him discussing his ideas publicly. Personally I think it's bang out of order to threaten his career for saying things that are "wrong" in public, but that's just me.
Also, just because a majority, however vast, disbelieve something doesn't in itself, make it untrue.
I know they've said why - please don't bombard me with truss theory.
| Quote: | | You don't get out enough. These are all myths. |
To be fair, I have said several times I don't personally buy the missile theory. Besides, if I got out more I'd have less time to spend being brainwashed by internet 'conspiracy theorists', surely?
| Quote: | These are all myths. I've analyzed the flight data recorder myself (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65369&highlight=JDX%27s+math ) and once you account for all the various sources of error, none of it holds any water. The "FDR" analysts at loose change make about 20 major scientific errors in their analysis of this data, and their ignorance of how FDR is recorded and processed in evident in every post they make. If you'd like more details, feel free to raise your objects in my JREF thread above, and I'll go into it.
Second of all, how things "appear" in a photograph is called "appeal to intuition" and it's a fallacy. Scientists aren't convinced by intuition, they are convinced by evidence.
|
I'll take your word on the FDR; I'm simply not qualified to judge. I'll leave you to argue that with the LC guys. Like I said before, the wide variety of eyewitnesses is currently good enough for me.
An "appeal to intuition" is certainly insufficient on its own. Can be interesting, though.
I was giving you examples because you asked for them. I at no point attempted to endorse them.
| Quote: | agree. It's also consistent with alot of other things. Claiming it is evidence of a conspiracy, because it is consistent, is circular logic.
|
Of course it is. I'm just trying to show its consistent with the idea there is a conspiracy.
If you say "The fact the footage is unreleased proves a conspiracy" that's dead wrong
If you say "There may be a conspiracy and the non release of the footage is consistent with this and arguably offers circumstantial support" I can't see it's circular reasoning IF you can give other reasons why there may be a conspiracy. In fact, the non release of family film footage of me as handsome little lad is perfectly consistent with some kind of cover-up. You just wouldn't believe there was any reason to suspect one unless you had other reasons to suspect there might be one. (like my Annukaki markings)
It's only circular if that's the only reason for crying 'cover-up'. Which, according to the truthers, it isn't.
Similarly, if you say "The fact the flight 93 families couldn't have that tape proves the government are worried they'd be harassed"
it's different to:
"The government may be worried about potential harrassment which would be consistent with the non-release of the tape"
You just couldn't claim to prove that position from that theoretical position. Which you didn't.
| Quote: | hen how do they explain the fact the FDR was found at the pentagon? Or the dead bodies? Or the plane wreckage found by numerous people? How about the 100s of eye-witnesses?
You can't be a 'missile-theorist' unless you have a method of ignoring this evidence... and they all do it by saying it was planted. They have presupposed a conspiracy.
|
Well, for one they attack the contents of the FDR. If they prove it's impossible or totally inconsistent with the official narrative, they've got a case. I know you hotly dispute that and I don't say you're wrong, but they're certainly not saying "It was a plant - end of story".
In fact, I found another one about the passengers I debunked (in my head - I'm not a member of LC) all by myself, so I'll leave that for now.
Aggle-rithm -
| Quote: | f a crazy man ran in with a hatchet and, in full view of everyone, hacked one of your clients to death with an axe, do you think it's reasonable to investigate YOU to see if you had poisoned the client? That's what the thinking is in CT circles: We all saw the planes crash into the buildings before they caught fire and fell, and yet the CTists seem to think the government ALSO rigged them with explosives, and so they demand an investigation.
|
How'd you know I did that????
Besides, many of my clients are'crazy' men. Who are statistically only marginally more likely to be violent than the population at large.
If poison was found in their bodies, I was a known poisoner, an empty bottle of poison was found at the scene, the crazy man worked for me, his axe was blunt and caused non-fatal injuries it'd be worth a look.
That's sort of the truther position.
| Quote: | I don't think that's it. I think the failure was with the system rather than with one or two individuals. Do you think an administration that was only in office a few months is WHOLLY responsible for the state of affairs that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen?
|
I think that's a good point. I think some of those in office may be culpable (assuming a non MIHOP scenario) but yes, if it's a generalised intelligence failure, I think it would involve the FBI & co primarily. Which doesn't mean it wouldn't be highly embarassing for whoever was in power. Clinton and Bush have already started mud-slinging on this which may mean there's something in it.
| Quote: | | At what point, exactly, does incompetence become criminal |
Willful negligence leading to large scale loss of life?
| Quote: | Human nature. People naturally have a reluctance to agree with their opponent on anything.
|
I agree 100%
| Quote: | | Not all ideas are equal. If we accept your statement as an axiom, then we would have to conclude that all unfalsifiable ideas, such as, "There is a bowling ball orbiting Alpha Centauri", are valid. There is a reason that science tends to reject unfalsifiable ideas. (This includes, of course, conspiracy theories, which are unfalsifiable because any evidence against it is dismissed as the work of shills.) |
Actually, your example is falsifiable, but I can't see NASA bothering to try.
That Popperian notion of falsifiability helps science specifically because it helps science avoid things that aren't its business and do what its good at (my take on it). If you take falsifiability as a prerequisite for all valid ideas, it's a slippery slope to the boring world of logical positivism and time for big arguments with everyone who believes in God.
But for the purposes of the issue at hand, I did make too broad a statement I acknowledge.
However, MIHOP surely is falsifiable? The problem is, you think you falsified it and that view just ain't universal. Check out any other thread for details.
| Quote: | | The scientific method doesn't work equally well in all situations. Anywhere you must rely on a statistical sample there is going to be a margin for error; also, it is important that the experiment or study is replicated independently. There may well be a conflict of interest here when pharmaceutical companies are involved, but this is not a valid argument against science itself. |
No it isn't. The scientific method is great - I couldn't be writing this without it. I'm just saying it seldom, if ever, operates exactly as it ideally should because people just ain't like that. Until we get hair-raising, coldly logical Terminator style robots to do our science for us, we'll be prone to make the facts fit the cash, the passion or the urge to be at home watching telly.
| Quote: | Were the pictures taken right after the impact crime scene photos, or were they taken by journalists at the scene? Can you think of a reason why press photos would be released immediately, but crime scene photos would not?
|
That's a really good point.
Except according to you that crime was solved five years ago.
But gives a good reason why the footage wasn't out immediately
| Quote: | It's also consistent with time travel. The photos were taken, then placed in a time machine, where they were transported several years into the future. In the meantime, they couldn't be released to the public.
|
Time travel! of course...
Yeah, but the argument I'm making is that it's perfectly consistent with the general CT. If you had an argument that purported to evidence government TARDIS technology yoou could make it fit. My argument is it's consistent with the notion of a cover-up. Why there should be a cover up is up to your theory.
| Quote: | They may not start with the conclusion, but they certainly find the conclusion attractive, for one reason or another. It could be because they already hate Bush & Co., or it could be that the thought of a govt. conspiracy is really, really cool. Either way, from that point on, they are biased.
|
I agree the general suspicion/hatred of government makes you way more likely to entertain the CT. Yes, you may 'want' to believe. I don't want to believe it (it's terrifying) but I'm cynical enough to accept it could happen I freely admit. I just think SOME critics will have started from a point of denial and would stay there even if the truthers pulled a rabbit out of the hat that convinced even people like your good self.
| Quote: | "They wouldn't do that to their own people" is just one of the many reasons people tend to disagree with LC's ideas, most people I know don't buy it because the "official" story makes sense, while the CT story is a complete mess. For one thing, there ISN'T a single narrative to explain the evidence, and the multiple, schizoid narratives that do exist are not parsiminous in themselves. For instance, why would Larry Silverstein SECRETLY blow up his own building when it was being gutted by fire anyway? The "truthers" would respond, "That's why we need an investigation!"
|
I agree I don't get the why of the wtc7 thing. Gutted by fire or otherwise.
I still think trying to present an overarching narrative would reduce trutherism to trying to vainly defend speculative narratives when they could be concentrating on 'the facts'. If MIHOP were true and had been proved, the whole story would be tricky to piece together, surely?
| Quote: | By the same logic, I could demand an investigation into the time machine at the Pentagon.
|
Go on! Demand one! I DARE you!
Bushwacker -
| Quote: | Bush himself I would almost believe capable of ordering 9/11, because he seems able to convince himself whatever he does is right, and because god is on his side whatever he does is justified. His is the attitude of the Holy Inquisition, burning people to death for the good of their souls.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message |
You summed up my thoughts exactly. Cheers!
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Much of what you said I agree with, so I'll just touch on a single point.
The pre-9/11 intelligence, and circumstantial evidence is another area rife with mathematical misunderstanding. People think that for every coincidence they find, the probability of a conspiracy increases. That statement is provably false, mathematically.
More importantly, the 'LIHOP' conspiracy people suffer from many of the same logical flaws that plague the 'MIHOP' folks. The major difference is that the facts don't support MIHOP, at all, so you can usually attack 'missile theorists' and 'controlled demolition' people on physical grounds, showing their poor analysis. The LIHOP people tend to have all the facts, but use logical fallacies to draw conclusions they can't draw. Convincing people they are using logical fallacies is quite difficult, especially when they are unreasonable.
Negligence and criminal (or willful) negligence are different things... blaming Bush for not connecting the dots is a far more rational position, in my opinoin, than presuming Bush connected the dots, and just let it happen. Most Americans who criticize Bush on 911 fall into the first group, and most CTers fall into the second. Most CTers, however, quote the polls that inflate their own numbers, that include the first group. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
