144 replies to this topic

[Cradle of Fish]

el midgetron, on 02 March 2011 - 04:50 AM, said:

If there is a consistency in "truthers" that Flyingswan hopes for, its that they are all asking questions. Its that they want answers and don't believe we have been told the truth.

But they don't! That's the whole problem with conspiracy theorists, they apply such a high level of scrutiny to the official facts, but don't turn that same level of scrutiny towards their version.

Ok, so a lot of people claimed to see a person on the grassy knoll, but it still doesn't change the fact that the exit wound was on the front of JFK's head. Lee Harvey Oswald could have been a patsy, but is there really any evidence that he was? Let's not forget that he killed a police officer who stopped him after the assassination, but if he was innocent, why would he have to?

Roswell is another great one. Remember that it occured in the early days of the cold war, so if it was a top secret high altitude balloon designed to monitor for Soviet nuclear tests, the military would have a good reason to cover it up. And there was a cover up, everyone knows that. The only thing we have to go on for Roswell is anecdotes of the people who were there, or who knew people who were there. It's ambiguous enough that we can have our own feelings about it, but we really don't have enough to go on, so ultimately we should fall back on Occam's Razor.

I haven't paid attention to what the current picture of the supposed 9/11 conspiracy is, but I do know this; The Bush Administration didn't really profit at all from the attacks. Was it supposed to be Halliburton who profited? They did earn a boatload of cash in the aftermath, but the risk involved for such a minor monetary gain is way too high for any sane businessman to ever consider it.

[dekker87]

Cradle of Fish, on 08 March 2011 - 02:37 PM, said:

But they don't! That's the whole problem with conspiracy theorists, they apply such a high level of scrutiny to the official facts, but don't turn that same level of scrutiny towards their version.

Ok, so a lot of people claimed to see a person on the grassy knoll, but it still doesn't change the fact that the exit wound was on the front of JFK's head. Lee Harvey Oswald could have been a patsy, but is there really any evidence that he was? Let's not forget that he killed a police officer who stopped him after the assassination, but if he was innocent, why would he have to?

Roswell is another great one. Remember that it occured in the early days of the cold war, so if it was a top secret high altitude balloon designed to monitor for Soviet nuclear tests, the military would have a good reason to cover it up. And there was a cover up, everyone knows that. The only thing we have to go on for Roswell is anecdotes of the people who were there, or who knew people who were there. It's ambiguous enough that we can have our own feelings about it, but we really don't have enough to go on, so ultimately we should fall back on Occam's Razor.

I haven't paid attention to what the current picture of the supposed 9/11 conspiracy is, but I do know this; The Bush Administration didn't really profit at all from the attacks. Was it supposed to be Halliburton who profited? They did earn a boatload of cash in the aftermath, but the risk involved for such a minor monetary gain is way too high for any sane businessman to ever consider it.

very good post CoF.

<tips hat>

[Rafterman]

Stundie, on 26 February 2011 - 06:20 AM, said:

A bit like that Bradley Manning, he allegedly reveal secrets of military personnel conspiring and carrying out attacks on civilians and he was untouchable and got instant world-wide celebrity, didn't he?

That's a bit different than someone providing proof of Bush/Cheney/whoever's role in 9/11.

Besides, the same people that would applaud a 9/11 whistleblower loves for the military/intelligence service to get a black eye.

[el midgetron]

Cradle of Fish, on 08 March 2011 - 02:37 PM, said:

But they don't! That's the whole problem with conspiracy theorists, they apply such a high level of scrutiny to the official facts, but don't turn that same level of scrutiny towards their version.

Ok, so a lot of people claimed to see a person on the grassy knoll, but it still doesn't change the fact that the exit wound was on the front of JFK's head. Lee Harvey Oswald could have been a patsy, but is there really any evidence that he was? Let's not forget that he killed a police officer who stopped him after the assassination, but if he was innocent, why would he have to?

Just because someone is a "patsy" doesn't mean they are also "innocent".

Cradle of Fish, on 08 March 2011 - 02:37 PM, said:

Roswell is another great one. Remember that it occured in the early days of the cold war, so if it was a top secret high altitude balloon designed to monitor for Soviet nuclear tests, the military would have a good reason to cover it up. And there was a cover up, everyone knows that. The only thing we have to go on for Roswell is anecdotes of the people who were there, or who knew people who were there. It's ambiguous enough that we can have our own feelings about it, but we really don't have enough to go on, so ultimately we should fall back on Occam's Razor.

I haven't paid attention to what the current picture of the supposed 9/11 conspiracy is, but I do know this; The Bush Administration didn't really profit at all from the attacks. Was it supposed to be Halliburton who profited? They did earn a boatload of cash in the aftermath, but the risk involved for such a minor monetary gain is way too high for any sane businessman to ever consider it.

Roswell isn't really something I am interested in. However, doesn't a "cover up" require a "conspiracy"? Is it only when a conspiracy is for our own good (protecting us from the Russians) that they become acceptable? Or is it only when they support a convention of common knowledge (little green men are bogus)? Because it seems like as soon as a conspiracy suggests the government isn't our protectors and isn't working for our best interests it becomes the lore of mentally challenged tin foil hat wearers.

I think that breaks the question down. It isn't "Why People Believe in Conspiracies". Conspiracies exist, end of story. Its the extent of a conspiracy. Its when the conspiracy suggests that the government is conspiring against the people. That seems to be the tipping point of what can be accepted.

The war in Iraq alone costs something like 200 million a day. Someone is making a chunk of change. Does that mean it was a conspiracy? No. But if you want to consider money as a possible motive, the dollar signs are there.

[Stundie]

Rafterman said:

If they could in fact prove that what they were doing was somehow connected to 9/11 and prove that national leaders conspired to carry out 9/11, they would be untouchable and an instant world-wide celebrity. Absolutely nothing would happen to them.

Stundie said:

A bit like that Bradley Manning, he allegedly reveal secrets of military personnel conspiring and carrying out attacks on civilians and he was untouchable and got instant world-wide celebrity, didn't he?

Rafterman, on 08 March 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:

That's a bit different than someone providing proof of Bush/Cheney/whoever's role in 9/11.

Besides, the same people that would applaud a 9/11 whistleblower loves for the military/intelligence service to get a black eye.

Why is it a bit different? Bradley Manning was showing that the US kills civilians and a whistle blower for 9/11 would be showing the very same thing except that it killed it's own civilians.

And what relevance would it be if the same people who would applaud a 9/11 whistle blower who would love the military/intelligence service to get a black eye?

The point is that whistleblowers do not become untouchable or get instant world wide celebrity like you seem to think or believe, even one of the most famous whistle blowers Daniel Ellsberg was not untouchable, he almost lost his freedom but was fortunate enough to have a mistrial because of the FBI illegal wire tapping and the subsequent lost records.

This was at the expense of the FBI trying to bribe the judge by offering him a directors position within the FBI, the burglary of his psychiatrist as well as an alleged plot to incapacitate him by either hospitalising or assassinating him.

So your objections that my comparisons are different are really without merit.

Bradley Manning allegedly blew the whistle and showed wrong doing within the US administration and it's cost him his freedom and possibility his sanity if the stories of him being locked in solitary confinement are anything to go by.

And that was for showing the US army killing Iraqi civilians which most Americans couldn't give a flying toss about.

Edited by Stundie, 08 March 2011 - 11:13 PM.

[Cradle of Fish]

el midgetron, on 08 March 2011 - 07:25 PM, said:

Just because someone is a "patsy" doesn't mean they are also "innocent".

That's true.

Quote

Roswell isn't really something I am interested in. However, doesn't a "cover up" require a "conspiracy"? Is it only when a conspiracy is for our own good (protecting us from the Russians) that they become acceptable? Or is it only when they support a convention of common knowledge (little green men are bogus)? Because it seems like as soon as a conspiracy suggests the government isn't our protectors and isn't working for our best interests it becomes the lore of mentally challenged tin foil hat wearers.

I'm absolutely for freedom of information, I just say it's a cover up because that's what they did, the swooped in to cover it up. To me a conspiracy suggests something that was planned before the event.

Quote

I think that breaks the question down. It isn't "Why People Believe in Conspiracies". Conspiracies exist, end of story. Its the extent of a conspiracy. Its when the conspiracy suggests that the government is conspiring against the people. That seems to be the tipping point of what can be accepted.

I can't speak for the alleged shadow government, but I think the people in government, from the lowly clerk to the president are all just people. They tend to have good intentions, whether or not they're misguided, and most of the trouble they cause, I believe, is a result of incompetance. Because, lets face it, nothing can prepare you for the job of being President. It's tough even being a member of congress. Bush had three guaranteed years to push his agenda after 9/11, then another four after his re-election, and he accomplished almost nothing. I don't think they're conspiring against the people. I think their main concerns are pushing their agenda and remaining in power.

Quote

The war in Iraq alone costs something like 200 million a day. Someone is making a chunk of change. Does that mean it was a conspiracy? No. But if you want to consider money as a possible motive, the dollar signs are there.

It's easy for the super rich to make more money, particularly through illegal means. But staging a terrorist attack in order to go to war with two countries, something which has left the American economy drained, just doesn't make sense as a business strategy. It's more likely that they're just vultures.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Cradle of Fish, on 09 March 2011 - 02:30 AM, said:

I can't speak for the alleged shadow government, but I think the people in government, from the lowly clerk to the president are all just people. They tend to have good intentions, whether or not they're misguided, and most of the trouble they cause, I believe, is a result of incompetance. Because, lets face it, nothing can prepare you for the job of being President. It's tough even being a member of congress. Bush had three guaranteed years to push his agenda after 9/11, then another four after his re-election, and he accomplished almost nothing.

This is exactly it. If they (i.e. the Bush administration, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the PNAC) had such a dark and sinister agenda, well, why weren't they able to accomplish it, despite having the resources and the planning skill to be able to engineer 9/11? And the same goes if it wasn't the Bush administration, but was the Shadow government or the NWO? 9/11 was nearly 10 years ago now,; so why haven't dissenters been rounded up into those FEMA Camps? Why hasn't the US established the entire Middle East as a military colony? It seems that US influence in the area is so great now that the most O'Bama can do is talk very firmly to Gadaffi and tell him that, if he carries on as he'd doing, the US may have to consider thinking about taking some sort of steps? It's been argued a bit earlier on in this thread that the PNAC has run out of steam because there's less neo-con influence in the Obama administration. So their influence has actually declined, then? Wouldn't you have thought that it would be just the opposite; that a group as powerful as the PNAC and Cheney (if he's that evil) would have been able to wrap a weak Democrat president around their fingers? Wouldn't this be a golden opportunity for them to push forward with their malevolent plans, and get the Democrats blamed for it? Why wait for a Republican adminsitration?

[Little Fish]

Cradle of Fish, on 09 March 2011 - 02:30 AM, said:

I can't speak for the alleged shadow government, but I think the people in government, from the lowly clerk to the president are all just people. They tend to have good intentions

Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Geobbels, Himmler, Mao Tse-Tung, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Mubarak, Pinochet, Suharto, Mullah Omar, Idi Amin, Mugabe, Mussolini, Caligula were "people in government".

There is no basis for the notion that those in government "tend to have good intentions".

[flyingswan]

Stundie, on 06 March 2011 - 09:49 PM, said:

I've addressed every point you have made.

So what was the "smoking gun" that completely disproves the official story again?  Not some trivial detail that the official story can easily be modified to include, but the real deal.

Quote

Maybe you should try addressing all the points instead of cherry picking parts which don't challenge you and answering them in the belief you have addressed every point.

I don't recall you ever coming up with anything at all challenging.

Quote

How do you justify yours?? Because you don't use evidence to support your claims, that's for sure. lol

What claims did you have in mind?  Mostly on this thread I've been arguing the logic of your claims.

[Stundie]

flyingswan, on 09 March 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

So what was the "smoking gun" that completely disproves the official story again?

Not some trivial detail that the official story can easily be modified to include, but the real deal.

Good things come to those who wait my friend.

I'm not going to reveal anything to anyone whose mind is as closed as a woolworths store.

flyingswan, on 09 March 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

I don't recall you ever coming up with anything at all challenging.

You don't recall because you ignore the things which challenge you. lol

flyingswan, on 09 March 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

What claims did you have in mind?  

Your religious worship and personal belief in the official story.

flyingswan, on 09 March 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

Mostly on this thread I've been arguing the logic of your claims.

No you haven't....

I pointed out some logical fallacies in regards to your position regarding the demolition theory, reason you reject the theory, but you neither acknowledged them or even responded to them. lol

[Habitat]

Puzzled why some people are avid proponents of conspiracy theories ? The answer is seemingly rooted in human psychology, rather than external, objective facts. One compelling explanation is that such beliefs allow people to feel they are "important" by being part of a select group that is "in the know", without the burden of having to really know anything at all. Being part of the great mass of dupes who take at face value what is served up, is plainly unattractive by comparison. It's a way of graduating from being a "nobody" to becoming a "somebody", at least in the their own minds.

[Q24]

747400, on 09 March 2011 - 08:32 AM, said:

This is exactly it. If they (i.e. the Bush administration, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the PNAC) had such a dark and sinister agenda, well, why weren't they able to accomplish it, despite having the resources and the planning skill to be able to engineer 9/11?

Are you blind man!?  

The agenda has been forwarded immensely due to 9/11.

See here – fancy graph and all.

[Stundie]

Habitat, on 09 March 2011 - 11:06 PM, said:

Puzzled why some people are avid proponents of conspiracy theories ?

I'm sure this was not aimed at me specifically but just because I believe in the possibility that 9/11 was either allowed to happen or made to happen by the government doesn't make me an avid proponent of conspiracy theories.

I certainly don't believe in UFO's or that the government is hiding them from us.
I believe we landed on the moon, although I wouldn't be surprised if it was a hoax.
I believe Diana's death was just an accident.

Although I do believe that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JFK.

Does that make me an avid proponent of conspiracy theories? I highly doubt it, but I find it quite amusing how some people catergorise people with the same label to suggest that they are somehow addicted or need to believe in conspiracy theories.

Habitat, on 09 March 2011 - 11:06 PM, said:

The answer is seemingly rooted in human psychology, rather than external, objective facts.

The same argument could be reversed and said of those who do not believe in any conspiracies.

In that the fear of a conspiracy being true makes them psychologically uncomfortable, so they look for a way to comfort themselves by rejecting any possibility.

Habitat, on 09 March 2011 - 11:06 PM, said:

One compelling explanation is that such beliefs allow people to feel they are "important" by being part of a select group that is "in the know", without the burden of having to really know anything at all.

Again, I would call this totally unfounded because most people who I have spoke to who believe in conspiracies theories certainly don't see themselves as important or even in the know.

The label of being a conspiracy theorist conjurers up totally negative connotations.

Habitat, on 09 March 2011 - 11:06 PM, said:

Being part of the great mass of dupes who take at face value what is served up, is plainly unattractive by comparison. It's a way of graduating from being a "nobody" to becoming a "somebody", at least in the their own minds.

Hilarious stuff, but I think being a conspiracy theorist or being labelled as one is plainly unattractive by comparison.

Edited by Stundie, 10 March 2011 - 12:49 PM.

[flyingswan]

Stundie, on 09 March 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

Good things come to those who wait my friend.

I'm not going to reveal anything to anyone whose mind is as closed as a woolworths store.

I take it that means you don't have an answer.

Quote

I pointed out some logical fallacies in regards to your position regarding the demolition theory, reason you reject the theory, but you neither acknowledged them or even responded to them. lol

You claimed that a conspiracy to destroy the WTC Towers by flying aircraft into them would involve no more people than a conspiracy to destroy the towers by aircraft and controlled demolition, hide the involvement of the perpetrators and put the blame on someone else.  When I pointed out that this seemed implausible, you wandered off at a tangent, claiming a controlled demolition wouldn't need more than a single small explosive charge, presumably because the planes had already done a good job, but just short of good enough by a very small amount.

Do you really think that you have logic on your side?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Q24, on 10 March 2011 - 02:16 AM, said:

Are you blind man!?  

The agenda has been forwarded immensely due to 9/11.

See here – fancy graph and all.

Looked at from a purely financial perspective, it looks very colourful. But you also said " The most obvious place to look is the Middle East where the PNAC recommended an increased force presence to shape events in this strategically vital area."
Well, like I said before, that's hardly achieved all it set out to do, has it? Look how much influence the US has had over Gadaffi, about as much as Neville Chamberlain had over the situation in Europe in 1939. It's hardly given the US much of a strong and secure base from which to carry on the expansion of its empire. Apart from Iraq (and not even GW tried to make out that that was because of 9/11 - and that was hardly a walkover) just how much influence has the US had in that area. Iran doesn't seem to take very much notice either, does it?