Has healthy skepticism curdled into paranoia?
Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories.
A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event ,usually a political, social, or historical event, as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful persons (sometimes described as "an unseen power elite") rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence.
While history has shown that crimes carried out by a group of people (a "conspiracy") are not uncommon, the term "conspiracy theory" is usually used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is almost always constructed with certain naive methodological flaws (the moonlandings, 9-11 or aliens on Earth). The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors.
Particular accusations of conspiracy vary widely in their plausibility, but some common standards for assessing their likely truth value may be applied in each case:
Occam's razor - is the alternative story more, or less, probable than the mainstream story? Rules of thumb here include the multiplication of entities test.
Psychology - does the conspiracy accusation satisfy an identifiable psychological need for its proposer?
Falsifiability - are the "proofs" offered for the argument well constructed, ie, using sound methodology?
Whistleblowers - how many people and what kind have to be loyal conspirators?
The 911 conspiracy theory is very similar to the moonlanding hoax theory. Basically it's a bunch of pseduoscientists talking mumbo jumbo, and while true structural engineers, astronomers,metallurgists, and avionics experts just blow them off as ignorant fools, some conspiracy-minded joe six-pack listen to them with rapt attention.
I think that most people are able to deal with fears and accept them as part of life...
But for others, this burden is too great.
As a result, they ignore the real fears and instead create massive new things to be concerned about.
Enter the conspiracies:
Its simply more comforting for the conspirasy nut (yes, they almost always believe in more than just one) to believe that either their evidence is better, or those disproving their claims are in on the conspiracy.
Thus, the elaborate explanation of a simple event occupies the part of their minds that would otherwise be flooded with insecurities about everyday life.
Inconsistencies are the foundation of these sorts of conspiracies. The conspiracy believer create them because they don't understand the details, then they project them onto "the establishment" as proof, implying that the "masterminds" of these events were somehow so inept in the execution of "their plan" that any uneducated fool could see right through it.
The hoax, if true, is fooling a vast cadre of experts world-wide, yet ineptly unable to pull the wool over the eyes of a few ideologues on some fringe web sites!?
I dont think so.
Full Version: Conspiracy theories.
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > News, Media & World Events > Conspiracies & Secret Societies
Hazzard
Oh, c'mon, you know that's not true.
Conspiracies are the most common type of crime but the hardest to prove and least prosecuted. Conspiracy theories often defy an official or dominant understanding about current or historical events. The definition of a conspiracy is a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act (especially a political plot). A "conspiracy theory" is often presented by its skeptics as simply an allegation of unlikely secret action based on little or no solid evidence and unworthy of serious consideration. That ideology couldn't be more irresponsible and foolish.
The mass media seem to take it upon themselves as to decide what is news-worthy enough to get attention and repeated, and what is not. They are guilty of lying, by omitting important information thus forcing the reader to form an opinion with only half of the facts resulting in a false conclusion. Even small local news papers are guilty of this, simply by ignorance. A casual look trough any local newspaper with it’s similar stories from national and international media services should make you aware of a force controlling the so-called free press.
A free press is key to a democracy, but it must be willing to ask the difficult questions. An in-depth analysis can be more challenging and expensive to produce, especially when it questions prevailing values and corporate interests. It’s much simpler to regurgitate material supplied by public relations firms and corporate spin-doctors at the associated press. Often critical coverage is censored by big media owners or stifled by (associated press) journalists themselves in fear of their own jobs.
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
— Noam Chomsky, The Common Good, Odonian Press, 1998
Since the voice of the people is allowed to speak out [in democratic societies], those in power better control what that voice says — in other words, control what people think. One of the ways to do this is to create political debate that appears to embrace many opinions, but actually stays within very narrow margins. You have to make sure that both sides in the debate accept certain assumptions — and that those assumptions are the basis of the propaganda system. As long as everyone accepts the propaganda system, the debate is permissible.
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. propaganda system did its job partially but not entirely. Among educated people it worked very well. Studies show that among the more educated parts of the population, the government's propaganda about the war is now accepted unquestioningly. One reason that propaganda often works better on the educated than on the uneducated is that educated people read more, so they receive more propaganda. Another is that they have jobs in management, media, and academia and therefore work in some capacity as agents of the propaganda system — and they believe what the system expects them to believe. By and large, they're part of the privileged elite, and share the interests and perceptions of those in power.
— Noam Chomsky, Propaganda, American-style, Interview conducted by David Barsamian of KGNU-Radio in Boulder, Colorado (Mid 1986)
The internet is not controlled by a few major corporations that filter which news reaches the public.
"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press....They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. "An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers."
-- U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917
"Propaganda is persuading people to make up their minds while withholding some of the facts from them."
-- Harold Evans
"The weapon of the dictator is not so much propaganda as censorship."
-- Terence H. Qualter, Propaganda and Psychological Warfare, 1962
"We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know, and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."
-- Katherine Graham, owner and former publisher of The Washington Post - speech to CIA recruits in 1988
"One cannot wage war under present conditions without the support of public opinion, which is tremendously molded by the press and other forms of propaganda."
-- General Douglas MacArthur
"The magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big."
-- Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
Why do people fall victim to conspiracies, and why are they not able to see the truth? What’s wrong with everyone?
Propaganda seems to work because of a number of reasons, including:
• People wish to believe the best about themselves and their country;
• Media management and public relations is very professional
• Managing thoughts by narrowing ranges of debate, thus minimizing widely discussed thoughts that deviate from the main agendas
The real question is why do you trust the establishment and governmnet to not lie to you when they are caught lying to you everyday. Do you choose which lies you want to believe?
Don't drink a dictator's urine as he pisses on your face and tells you it's raining!
Oh, c'mon, you know that's not true.
Conspiracies are the most common type of crime but the hardest to prove and least prosecuted. Conspiracy theories often defy an official or dominant understanding about current or historical events. The definition of a conspiracy is a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act (especially a political plot). A "conspiracy theory" is often presented by its skeptics as simply an allegation of unlikely secret action based on little or no solid evidence and unworthy of serious consideration. That ideology couldn't be more irresponsible and foolish.
The mass media seem to take it upon themselves as to decide what is news-worthy enough to get attention and repeated, and what is not. They are guilty of lying, by omitting important information thus forcing the reader to form an opinion with only half of the facts resulting in a false conclusion. Even small local news papers are guilty of this, simply by ignorance. A casual look trough any local newspaper with it’s similar stories from national and international media services should make you aware of a force controlling the so-called free press.
A free press is key to a democracy, but it must be willing to ask the difficult questions. An in-depth analysis can be more challenging and expensive to produce, especially when it questions prevailing values and corporate interests. It’s much simpler to regurgitate material supplied by public relations firms and corporate spin-doctors at the associated press. Often critical coverage is censored by big media owners or stifled by (associated press) journalists themselves in fear of their own jobs.
"Why such inaccurate news coverage? Wells points to the media's "almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information" — as well as "reluctance to question official pronouncements on 'national security issues.'"
Your problem Hazzard is that your reality is contructed for you by your reliance of official government information as the most credible source, and further influenced by the corporate controlled media.
"We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261
QUOTE
A Foundation for Belief in Conspiracies
In times past, people were suspicious of their rulers. This was because, lacking a mass media, it was rumor which conveyed information, and rumor has no respect for authority.
In our world today, it is the media which we rely upon for our information, and even rumors have become subservient to the mass media. In those places of the world which lack the electronic infrastructure with which to convey the mass media, rumors continue, and governments seek to control the population through violent force. In nations such as ours today, the power of the media has become such that the government is able to control us so effectively that violent force is no longer required. As a result of this lack of violent oppression by government, we have been deluded into believing that we live in a democracy.
One element of the media’s focus over the last hundred years has been to discredit any theory which can be classified as a "conspiracy." As a result many people have come to view conspiracy theories with suspicion, rather than viewing government with suspicion. This is a very strange reversal of human opinion, and it is important to note that this is a very recent development in the history of mankind. Conspiracies have driven political direction since the beginning of civilization, and are the rule rather than the exception. It is a testament to the power of modern media that over the course of the last hundred years, a carefully controlled media has been able to condition the population into the belief that conspiracies are the last resort of those citizens who are either paranoid or unable to explain their own failures by any other means.
We need, therefore, to establish the true historical background of conspiracies, so that the reader can view the matter from the perspective of historical fact rather than the highly politicized modern mood. One of the most highly respected historians of our century, Carroll Quigley, wrote of the historical developments leading to the modern control of the media by political powers. In his book, "Tragedy and Hope", he explains that newspapers have been under the control of those with political agendas since 1890, and have been used for manipulating public opinion to support foreign wars. His book also gives the history of the formation of a secret society in 1891 which has influenced governments and world affairs ever since. The groundwork for conspiracies is well documented, and the reader should not be so simple minded as to think that conspiracies are the fabrication of unstable minds, when solid historical documentation supports their existence throughout human civilization.
Another point to consider is this: Why does the media in general discount conspiracy theories so consistently? If the media is not controlled, as I say it is, then would not each editor of each newspaper respond to each theory independently, and would this not result in a wide variation of the treatment of such theories? But this is not the case, and the media is very well coordinated in discounting conspiracy theory. This can only be considered as further proof that the media is centrally controlled.
The greatest hindrance the average person has in learning the truth about the world is his inability to put present developments into historical perspective. This is to say that lack of historical knowledge makes it hard for the average reader to step outside of the paradigms of his era, and this in turn makes it difficult to take a truly objective approach to studying historical fact. This is an important point simply because the present day manifestation of those events which many now regard as conspiracies are the outcome of secret societies which began one hundred years ago, at precisely the time when mass media was becoming a powerful social force. In fact, it is the author’s opinion that without mass media, the plans of these secret societies would have never become successful.
http://www.satansgovernment.com/book.php?book=1&chapter=2
In times past, people were suspicious of their rulers. This was because, lacking a mass media, it was rumor which conveyed information, and rumor has no respect for authority.
In our world today, it is the media which we rely upon for our information, and even rumors have become subservient to the mass media. In those places of the world which lack the electronic infrastructure with which to convey the mass media, rumors continue, and governments seek to control the population through violent force. In nations such as ours today, the power of the media has become such that the government is able to control us so effectively that violent force is no longer required. As a result of this lack of violent oppression by government, we have been deluded into believing that we live in a democracy.
One element of the media’s focus over the last hundred years has been to discredit any theory which can be classified as a "conspiracy." As a result many people have come to view conspiracy theories with suspicion, rather than viewing government with suspicion. This is a very strange reversal of human opinion, and it is important to note that this is a very recent development in the history of mankind. Conspiracies have driven political direction since the beginning of civilization, and are the rule rather than the exception. It is a testament to the power of modern media that over the course of the last hundred years, a carefully controlled media has been able to condition the population into the belief that conspiracies are the last resort of those citizens who are either paranoid or unable to explain their own failures by any other means.
We need, therefore, to establish the true historical background of conspiracies, so that the reader can view the matter from the perspective of historical fact rather than the highly politicized modern mood. One of the most highly respected historians of our century, Carroll Quigley, wrote of the historical developments leading to the modern control of the media by political powers. In his book, "Tragedy and Hope", he explains that newspapers have been under the control of those with political agendas since 1890, and have been used for manipulating public opinion to support foreign wars. His book also gives the history of the formation of a secret society in 1891 which has influenced governments and world affairs ever since. The groundwork for conspiracies is well documented, and the reader should not be so simple minded as to think that conspiracies are the fabrication of unstable minds, when solid historical documentation supports their existence throughout human civilization.
Another point to consider is this: Why does the media in general discount conspiracy theories so consistently? If the media is not controlled, as I say it is, then would not each editor of each newspaper respond to each theory independently, and would this not result in a wide variation of the treatment of such theories? But this is not the case, and the media is very well coordinated in discounting conspiracy theory. This can only be considered as further proof that the media is centrally controlled.
The greatest hindrance the average person has in learning the truth about the world is his inability to put present developments into historical perspective. This is to say that lack of historical knowledge makes it hard for the average reader to step outside of the paradigms of his era, and this in turn makes it difficult to take a truly objective approach to studying historical fact. This is an important point simply because the present day manifestation of those events which many now regard as conspiracies are the outcome of secret societies which began one hundred years ago, at precisely the time when mass media was becoming a powerful social force. In fact, it is the author’s opinion that without mass media, the plans of these secret societies would have never become successful.
http://www.satansgovernment.com/book.php?book=1&chapter=2
Focusing on leaders' thoughts is often a kind of propaganda. It involves repeating the government line without comment, thereby allowing journalists to claim neutrality as simple conduits supplying information. But it is not neutral to repeat the government line while ignoring critics of that line, as often happens. It is also not neutral to include milder criticism simply because it is voiced by a different section of the establishment, while ignoring more radical, but perhaps equally rational, critiques from beyond the state-corporate pale. A big lesson of history is that it is wrong to assume that power, or “respectability”, confers rationality. Media analyst Sharon Beder describes the reality of much mainstream reporting:
“Balance means ensuring that statements by those challenging the establishment are balanced with statements by those whom they are criticizing, though not necessarily the other way round.”
Talk of leaders' “hopes” teaches us to empathize with their wishes by personalizing issues: “Blair desperately hopes to build bridges in the Middle East.” This is also a kind of propaganda based on false assumptions. It assumes that the reality of politicians' “hopes” — their intentions, motivations and goals — is identical to the appearance. Machiavelli was kind enough to explain what every politician knows, and what almost all corporate media journalists feign not to know:
“It is not essential, then, that a Prince should have all the good qualities which I have enumerated above [mercy, good faith, integrity, humanity, and religion] but it is most essential that he should seem to have them; I will even venture to affirm that if he has and invariably practices them all, they are hurtful.”
— David Edwards, Turning Towards Iraq, Media Lens, November 27, 2001 (Emphasis is original)
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
— Noam Chomsky, The Common Good, Odonian Press, 1998
Since the voice of the people is allowed to speak out [in democratic societies], those in power better control what that voice says — in other words, control what people think. One of the ways to do this is to create political debate that appears to embrace many opinions, but actually stays within very narrow margins. You have to make sure that both sides in the debate accept certain assumptions — and that those assumptions are the basis of the propaganda system. As long as everyone accepts the propaganda system, the debate is permissible.
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. propaganda system did its job partially but not entirely. Among educated people it worked very well. Studies show that among the more educated parts of the population, the government's propaganda about the war is now accepted unquestioningly. One reason that propaganda often works better on the educated than on the uneducated is that educated people read more, so they receive more propaganda. Another is that they have jobs in management, media, and academia and therefore work in some capacity as agents of the propaganda system — and they believe what the system expects them to believe. By and large, they're part of the privileged elite, and share the interests and perceptions of those in power.
— Noam Chomsky, Propaganda, American-style, Interview conducted by David Barsamian of KGNU-Radio in Boulder, Colorado (Mid 1986)
Perception management is a term originated by the U. S. military. The U. S. Department of Defense (DOD) gives this definition:
perception management—Actions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning as well as to intelligence systems and leaders at all levels to influence official estimates, ultimately resulting in foreign behaviors and official actions favorable to the originator’s objectives. In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations security, cover and deception, and psychological operations.
The internet is not controlled by a few major corporations that filter which news reaches the public.
"The owners and managers of the press determine which person, which facts, which version of the facts, and which ideas shall reach the public."
-- Commission On Freedom Of The Press
"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press....They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. "An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers."
-- U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917
"Propaganda is persuading people to make up their minds while withholding some of the facts from them."
-- Harold Evans
"The weapon of the dictator is not so much propaganda as censorship."
-- Terence H. Qualter, Propaganda and Psychological Warfare, 1962
"We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know, and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."
-- Katherine Graham, owner and former publisher of The Washington Post - speech to CIA recruits in 1988
Some great quotes from President Nixon were in my local news paper, the Wisconsin State Journal November 17, 2005 in the article titled ‘Nixon’s deceptive ways revealed in documents’ on page A3.
The first paragraph says
"Even after Richard Nixon’s secret war in Cambodia became known, the president persisted in deception. “Publicly we say one thing.” He told aides. “Actually we do another” and in another paragraph, he says, “That is what we will say publicly.” He asserted. “But now, let’s talk about what we will actually do”. "
"One cannot wage war under present conditions without the support of public opinion, which is tremendously molded by the press and other forms of propaganda."
-- General Douglas MacArthur
"The magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big."
-- Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."
--J. Edgar Hoover
Why do people fall victim to conspiracies, and why are they not able to see the truth? What’s wrong with everyone?
Propaganda seems to work because of a number of reasons, including:
• People wish to believe the best about themselves and their country;
• Media management and public relations is very professional
• Managing thoughts by narrowing ranges of debate, thus minimizing widely discussed thoughts that deviate from the main agendas
QUOTE
1. He is terribly naive. He believes the massive corruption "just happened" to begin in his own lifetime, otherwise mummy or daddy or teacher would have warned him. It does not occur to him that his Parents, teachers etc. were as conditioned as he was.
2. Most people do not wish to know. They, like farm animals, have been domesticated. Wild animals (original) have natural instincts of self-preservation. They sense the evil intentions of predators and they survive by trusting their instincts. Wild herds do not "hang around" when one or more members drops dead. Specially bred sheep do.
3. Pavlovian conditioning/response indoctrination has been fed to every individual, through schooling. The media then takes over. Peoples' opinions are simply sound-bites from news, talk-shows or quotes from glossy magazines.
4. Trust replaces the instinct of self-preservation. It over-rides memory and logic. Controllers and shepherds encourage trust.
2. Most people do not wish to know. They, like farm animals, have been domesticated. Wild animals (original) have natural instincts of self-preservation. They sense the evil intentions of predators and they survive by trusting their instincts. Wild herds do not "hang around" when one or more members drops dead. Specially bred sheep do.
3. Pavlovian conditioning/response indoctrination has been fed to every individual, through schooling. The media then takes over. Peoples' opinions are simply sound-bites from news, talk-shows or quotes from glossy magazines.
4. Trust replaces the instinct of self-preservation. It over-rides memory and logic. Controllers and shepherds encourage trust.
The real question is why do you trust the establishment and governmnet to not lie to you when they are caught lying to you everyday. Do you choose which lies you want to believe?
Don't drink a dictator's urine as he pisses on your face and tells you it's raining!
Good post scoobysnack. 
The first 2 posts BOTH seem to me to be good.
Evening all. I don't often post here, but fancied doing so on this occasion.
I have an active interest in the theory of conspiracy theory/ies (early stages of dissertation formulation maybe), and liked what you both had to say.
However, i feel annoyed (OK, not annoyed but bothered) that a conclusion is drawn that someone who is a 'skeptic' is just swallowing all or most of government / establishment propaganda.
There seems to be little consideration that a skeptic may well have looked at and researched the evidence provided by both sides of an argument and has chosen one side over the other (or for example in the case of 9/11, chosen a place on the scale of possibilities between total in-house government involvement and total Al-Qaeda plot)
Government and public investigations are flawed - that's bound up in the nature of inquiries. The evidence pointing to in-house 'conspiracy' as opposed to pure Al-Qaeda 'conspiracy', has its own flaws and taken point by point is rather less convincing than some would have us believe.
If you have any more than a foot in this skeptic camp, the response is often that you have failed to grasp reality, that you have succumbed to propaganda, etc., and perhaps here is a fundamental problem with a number of such theories, and therefore whether you will be persuaded by them. If you don't agree with them in some manner, partially or wholly, you are often derided as foolish, being uneducated and so on.
This is not a way to bringing someone around to your way of thinking. This is somewhat in the same fashion that animal rights activists do their cause more harm than good by failing to engage the populace with good rational argument. Digging up a body will likely not endear you to those that perhaps otherwise would listen to your reasoning. Indeed there are sound scientific ones in there too.
But i'm getting off topic.
It is the inconsistency and meandering of CTs that fails to engage some people. Point by point, there are as many holes in 9/11 conspiracy as the official government explanation(OK, i haven't counted). Of course there is the bigger picture indicated by the suspicious goings on before during and since that day in 2001. Or perhaps there isn't.
I certainly don't have all the answers - but then again, anyone that says they do is reaching.
Regarding 9/11 for example, I fall in the 'US government was severly negligent' camp, the 'ooooooooops that was a bit of a screw up wasn't it?' ballpark. Disasters are made up of a number of coinciding factors that on another day would not necessarily combine to form the same result. Sadly, these can usually only be unravelled and remedied after the event.
It still all comes back to: who do you choose to believe and why?... If the evidence presented is lacking, faulty, inconsistent (this all works for both sides), you are unlikely to be persuaded by it, unless of course it reinforces your previously held notions or convictions.
So the 'for's are not deluded, the 'against's are not unpatriotic (and vice-versa).
Off to ponder some more, and perhaps to reread my post to see if it's as succinct as i suspect it's not!
I would indeed be interested to know if conspiracy theories help to mask everyday-life comings and goings. For me, they are a welcome distraction from long dark night shift mundanity, and inspiration for dissertation topic brainstorming.....
ttfn
Al
Evening all. I don't often post here, but fancied doing so on this occasion.
I have an active interest in the theory of conspiracy theory/ies (early stages of dissertation formulation maybe), and liked what you both had to say.
However, i feel annoyed (OK, not annoyed but bothered) that a conclusion is drawn that someone who is a 'skeptic' is just swallowing all or most of government / establishment propaganda.
There seems to be little consideration that a skeptic may well have looked at and researched the evidence provided by both sides of an argument and has chosen one side over the other (or for example in the case of 9/11, chosen a place on the scale of possibilities between total in-house government involvement and total Al-Qaeda plot)
Government and public investigations are flawed - that's bound up in the nature of inquiries. The evidence pointing to in-house 'conspiracy' as opposed to pure Al-Qaeda 'conspiracy', has its own flaws and taken point by point is rather less convincing than some would have us believe.
If you have any more than a foot in this skeptic camp, the response is often that you have failed to grasp reality, that you have succumbed to propaganda, etc., and perhaps here is a fundamental problem with a number of such theories, and therefore whether you will be persuaded by them. If you don't agree with them in some manner, partially or wholly, you are often derided as foolish, being uneducated and so on.
This is not a way to bringing someone around to your way of thinking. This is somewhat in the same fashion that animal rights activists do their cause more harm than good by failing to engage the populace with good rational argument. Digging up a body will likely not endear you to those that perhaps otherwise would listen to your reasoning. Indeed there are sound scientific ones in there too.
But i'm getting off topic.
It is the inconsistency and meandering of CTs that fails to engage some people. Point by point, there are as many holes in 9/11 conspiracy as the official government explanation(OK, i haven't counted). Of course there is the bigger picture indicated by the suspicious goings on before during and since that day in 2001. Or perhaps there isn't.
I certainly don't have all the answers - but then again, anyone that says they do is reaching.
Regarding 9/11 for example, I fall in the 'US government was severly negligent' camp, the 'ooooooooops that was a bit of a screw up wasn't it?' ballpark. Disasters are made up of a number of coinciding factors that on another day would not necessarily combine to form the same result. Sadly, these can usually only be unravelled and remedied after the event.
It still all comes back to: who do you choose to believe and why?... If the evidence presented is lacking, faulty, inconsistent (this all works for both sides), you are unlikely to be persuaded by it, unless of course it reinforces your previously held notions or convictions.
So the 'for's are not deluded, the 'against's are not unpatriotic (and vice-versa).
Off to ponder some more, and perhaps to reread my post to see if it's as succinct as i suspect it's not!
I would indeed be interested to know if conspiracy theories help to mask everyday-life comings and goings. For me, they are a welcome distraction from long dark night shift mundanity, and inspiration for dissertation topic brainstorming.....
ttfn
Al
Hazard, if taking you into consideration then the boston tea party would be nothing more than just being arguementative. Scooby Snack, did you have a moment of clarity?
QUOTE(boggle @ May 27 2006, 06:46 PM) [snapback]1207914[/snapback]
Hazard, if taking you into consideration then the boston tea party would be nothing more than just being argumentative. Scooby Snack, did you have a moment of clarity?
What's the matter kid, you got wax in your ears? My posts are always crystal clear.
Just kidding. 
When you've been posting on the internet for a few years like myself, including typing close to 1,000 pages, you get sick of repeating yourself over and over again. This is information I've posted before (plus some new info, because I always try to add new info), but I decided to condense it, and put it in one continuous post for everyone else who has not read my posts for the last year. I could write a paper with intro, body and conclusion, spelling out my thoughts in detail, but I can't spend all my time making every post complete including full explanation and understanding. If you want a lesson into the new world order, just look at my previous posts. It's all there.
QUOTE(scoobysnack @ May 28 2006, 02:19 AM) [snapback]1208048[/snapback]
What's the matter kid, you got wax in your ears? My posts are always crystal clear.
Just kidding. When you've been posting on the internet for a few years like myself, including typing close to 1,000 pages, you get sick of repeating yourself over and over again. This is information I've posted before, but I decided to condense it, and put it in one continuous post for everyone else who has not read my posts for the last year. I could write a paper with intro, body and conclusion, spelling out my thoughts in detail, but I can't spend all my time making every post complete including full explanation and understanding. If you want a lesson into the new world order, just look at my previous posts. It's all there.your posts are indeed informative, i dont get into much detail documenting the various details that depict NWO inevitability so rather than taking your spot
, i decided to just simplify it down to one formula while yet remaining sympathatic to human nature. Of course there varying political postures but all roads lead into one, at least eventually.
The mentally damaged thrive on conspiracy theories.
QUOTE(Rosencruez @ May 28 2006, 05:14 PM) [snapback]1208647[/snapback]
The mentally damaged thrive on conspiracy theories.
and if you reversed that you would have:
The mentally incapacitated comply like sheep to an extermination chamber
QUOTE(Rosencruez @ May 28 2006, 05:14 PM) [snapback]1208647[/snapback]
The mentally damaged thrive on conspiracy theories.
Just Rosencruez is a member of Illuminati, masons and God knows what else, so he thinks that he is an elite and we are just mad conspiracy geeks.
QUOTE(Sanjuro @ May 28 2006, 05:09 PM) [snapback]1208771[/snapback]
Just Rosencruez is a member of Illuminati, masons and God knows what else, so he thinks that he is an elite and we are just mad conspiracy geeks.
.........what?...............ok, lets set something straight. It seems like these "conspiracy theororist" get a good jolly out of blaming sum1 else for things that happened. I bet if they somehow proved bush blew up the twin towers then the same people would come up with reasons why terrorists did it. Conspiracy buffs seem to believe every single conspiracy, along with the ones about the end of the world in 2012 or aliens or even rabid 6 foot lizards flying and abducting people. Sometime's people have no grasp on reality. I'm not saying ALL conspiracys are wrong, just the majority of them
whats the source of this rubbish article? fox news? show us.
QUOTE
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
ignorance is being a jackass or inept and definitely oblivious ... not strength
QUOTE(boggle @ May 29 2006, 08:42 AM) [snapback]1209322[/snapback]
ignorance is being a jackass or inept and definitely oblivious ... not strength
Its sarcasm.
.
Oh ooh Haz, now youve done it.
There realy comming out of the woodwork on this one.
Aint that the truth.
There realy comming out of the woodwork on this one.
QUOTE
The 911 conspiracy theory is very similar to the moonlanding hoax theory. Basically it's a bunch of pseduoscientists talking mumbo jumbo, and while true structural engineers, astronomers,metallurgists, and avionics experts just blow them off as ignorant fools, some conspiracy-minded joe six-pack listen to them with rapt attention.
Aint that the truth.
QUOTE(DEBUNKER @ May 29 2006, 09:18 AM) [snapback]1209360[/snapback]
Oh ooh Haz, now youve done it.
There realy comming out of the woodwork on this one.
Aint that the truth.
QUOTE
There realy comming out of the woodwork on this one
ROFL, for someone who doesnt want to be in like manner is just as much of an idiot who points the finger.
Evolutionary psychology.
Paranoid tendencies are associated with an animal's ability to recognize danger. Higher animals attempt to construct mental models of the thought processes of both rivals and predators in order to read their hidden intentions and to predict their future behavior.
Such an ability is extremely valuable in sensing and avoiding danger in an animal community. If this danger-sensing ability should begin making false predictions, or be triggered by benign evidence, or otherwise become pathological, the result is paranoid delusions.
A conspiracy theorist sees danger everywhere, and may simply be the victim of a malfunction in a valuable and evolutionarily-old natural ability.
Paranoid tendencies are associated with an animal's ability to recognize danger. Higher animals attempt to construct mental models of the thought processes of both rivals and predators in order to read their hidden intentions and to predict their future behavior.
Such an ability is extremely valuable in sensing and avoiding danger in an animal community. If this danger-sensing ability should begin making false predictions, or be triggered by benign evidence, or otherwise become pathological, the result is paranoid delusions.
A conspiracy theorist sees danger everywhere, and may simply be the victim of a malfunction in a valuable and evolutionarily-old natural ability.
QUOTE(DEBUNKER @ May 29 2006, 12:23 PM) [snapback]1209465[/snapback]
Evolutionary psychology.
Paranoid tendencies are associated with an animal's ability to recognize danger. Higher animals attempt to construct mental models of the thought processes of both rivals and predators in order to read their hidden intentions and to predict their future behavior.
Such an ability is extremely valuable in sensing and avoiding danger in an animal community. If this danger-sensing ability should begin making false predictions, or be triggered by benign evidence, or otherwise become pathological, the result is paranoid delusions.
A conspiracy theorist sees danger everywhere, and may simply be the victim of a malfunction in a valuable and evolutionarily-old natural ability.
Constants arent, variables never...
a conspiracy theorist sees danger but sees danger everywhere huh?
he/she can see danger in one area while not in the other and may simply be identifying and describing based upon inductive reasoning.
QUOTE(boggle @ May 29 2006, 01:19 PM) [snapback]1209502[/snapback]
he/she can see danger in one area while not in the other and may simply be identifying and describing based upon inductive reasoning.
According to many psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory is often a believer in other conspiracy theories. "Whats that on the moon"
Psychologists believe that the search for meaningfulness features largely in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories. That desire alone may be powerful enough to lead to the initial formulation of the idea. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part.
QUOTE
Confirmation bias is a type of statistical bias describing the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. In inductive inference, confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. To compensate for this observed human tendency, the scientific method is constructed so that we must try to disprove our hypotheses. See falsifiability.
In that context, a typical individual will tend to be more isolated from the kinds of peer networks that grant access to broad sources of information, and may instinctively distrust any statement or claim made by certain people, media, and other authority-bearing institutions. For some individuals, the consequence may be a tendency to attribute anything bad that happens to the distrusted authority.
For example, some people attribute the September 11, 2001 attacks to a conspiracy involving the U.S. government (or disfavored politicians) instead of to Islamic terrorists associated with Al-Qaeda.
QUOTE(DEBUNKER @ May 29 2006, 02:02 PM) [snapback]1209528[/snapback]
According to many psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory is often a believer in other conspiracy theories. "Whats that on the moon"
Psychologists believe that the search for meaningfulness features largely in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories. That desire alone may be powerful enough to lead to the initial formulation of the idea. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part.
In that context, a typical individual will tend to be more isolated from the kinds of peer networks that grant access to broad sources of information, and may instinctively distrust any statement or claim made by certain people, media, and other authority-bearing institutions. For some individuals, the consequence may be a tendency to attribute anything bad that happens to the distrusted authority.
For example, some people attribute the September 11, 2001 attacks to a conspiracy involving the U.S. government (or disfavored politicians) instead of to Islamic terrorists associated with Al-Qaeda.
QUOTE
According to many psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory is often a believer in other conspiracy theories. "Whats that on the moon"
LOL, according to many psychologists a person who doesnt believe in at least one conspiracy theory backed with evidential analysis is often ignorant or in the act of ignoring which can lead to lacking a sense of awareness. "there's no problem when you explain around it"
In example a person who does not believe in a possiblity of a conspiracy and applied it to the following by ignoring events transpiring and regarding it as being .. its a conspiracy theory so ignore it, would have adverse affects:
1. nobody would have believed Paul Revere shouting the british are coming
2. boston tea party would have never taken place since they wouldnt believe the british was conspiring against them.
That is just a few examples and why would William Grieder get such great reviews on accuracy when pointing out a conspiracy theory? Is it because the ones who choose to ignore are just plain better for it? As events transpire there are some who are brave enough to probe, whether that involves questioning the ends to the very means to get there. The very logical motivation behind any conspiracy theory becomes apparent when asking the 'WHY' and without the why in any event transpiring, why becomes stagnant in ignorance which would then seem that ignorance as being truly oblivious.
I dont think that anyone here is saying that there has never been a conspiracy on Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_th...#Assassinations
Buy after looking at the scientific evidence I know two things, that we have been on the moon and that nineteen men affiliated with al-Qaeda were crashing planes in the US on September 11 -01.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_th...#Assassinations
Buy after looking at the scientific evidence I know two things, that we have been on the moon and that nineteen men affiliated with al-Qaeda were crashing planes in the US on September 11 -01.
QUOTE(hazzard @ May 29 2006, 10:53 AM) [snapback]1209665[/snapback]
Buy after looking at the scientific evidence I know two things, that we have been on the moon and that nineteen men affiliated with al-Qaeda were crashing planes in the US on September 11 -01.
al-queda does not exist-- its a manufactured patsy which started as a computer data file where the cia and mossad would just enter the name of any islamic male they encountered-- how did a non-existant organization get bush to sign executive order w199i? how did they get norad to stand down? but more importantly "HOW" can you view the collapse of bldg 7 and convince yourself that it was the result of fire?? in the 93' wtc attack the fbi was caught cooking the bomb and paying an informant to find stooges to plant it and in oklahoma the use of demolitions has been proven and the theory vehemently defended by brigadier general benton k partin and i issue a challenge to you to refute him and dismiss the facts presented-- you have obviously never "paid attention" to the firefighters eyewitness testimony of what they saw,felt, and heard on 9/11-- imo you lack the basic ability of reason or are consciencely pushing a disinfo agenda
QUOTE(DEBUNKER @ May 29 2006, 09:02 AM) [snapback]1209528[/snapback]
According to many psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory is often a believer in other conspiracy theories. "Whats that on the moon"
Psychologists believe that the search for meaningfulness features largely in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories. That desire alone may be powerful enough to lead to the initial formulation of the idea. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part.
In that context, a typical individual will tend to be more isolated from the kinds of peer networks that grant access to broad sources of information, and may instinctively distrust any statement or claim made by certain people, media, and other authority-bearing institutions. For some individuals, the consequence may be a tendency to attribute anything bad that happens to the distrusted authority.
For example, some people attribute the September 11, 2001 attacks to a conspiracy involving the U.S. government (or disfavored politicians) instead of to Islamic terrorists associated with Al-Qaeda.
I see where you are coming from Debunker. And by adding a bunch of psychology mumbo jumbo you try to make yourself sound smarter then you actually are
You are right, once a person believes in one conspiracy, they are more likely to believe in others. The reason for this is the boy who cried wolf snydrome. Also, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Well shame on you debunker for falling victim to the boy who cried wolf, again, because again there was no wolf. Will you believe the boy when he cries wolf again? This is the problem where you have a valid point though. Once the boy has cried wolf (government lied to you) they have less crediblity in your mind, then before. They may be trying to tell you the truth, but you know they lie constanly so should they be believed this time around?
It's really a matter of having faith in your governmnet. They are the ones who can easily manufacture evidence to fool people.
I personly have conspired against people many times. And if they ever confront me about, I just deny it, and I call them a conspiracy theorist. Of course they were right all along, but I'll just deny it. Some people say, now that I admitted it, I have less credibility. That's life, you shouldn't trust anyone, especially corporate news, which parrots the official government line.
Americans can't spot propaganda, or irony. They think it's all coincidences or chance. The news does not report. They choose a subject, find two people with conflicting view points, let them argue, and force the viewer to decide what to believe on there own. Fox news loves to do this.
The problem is that both sides can look like a fool. People who are skeptical of the federal government are more likely to think they are lying, then those who put faith in the system. But if you put faith in the system without knowing they are caught lying, you are made a fool of.
The majority trust the system enough to believe what they are told. And the majority of people conform thier thought around what the majority believes. Otherwise you are considered an outcast.
Here's a reason why you should not dismiss conspiracies. This luckly was never fully carried out, but how many events have happened that we don't know about. Criminals love a trusting public, as they can be taken advantage of.
_____________________________________________________________________
I've posted this before, but for those who have not seen it...
The fact is that the human brain in decision making based on logic is only as good as the information that was put in. Like putting in the wrong values to an algebra equasion will result in the wrong answer. If you were conditioned to have faith in the system, which all American have (fact), you will give the system the benifit of the doubt. If you have learned your whole life of covert ops, government orchestrated terrorism, assisnations, conducted by our very own government you would have less faith in them to tell you the truth. My point is that Americans have been fed Bull$H!+ their whole lives, so how can they expect to come to the correct conclusion on their own. Their conclusion can only be as accurate as the information they have absorbed.
Most people don't know that multiple bombs were recovered from the Federal Building in Oklahoma. The truck bomb was the destraction. It was an inside job to, and so was the 1993 WtC bombing! If you only knew what we are up against you would take me serious.
QUOTE
Bush wrong to use pretext as excuse to invade Iraq
With the CIA out of the picture, the Joint Chiefs of Staff saw a grand opportunity for the military to launch an all-out war against Cuba. But they needed a pretext. The answer was Operation Northwoods: The Joint Chiefs would secretly launch a war of terror on the U.S. public — then blame it on Castro.
According to long-hidden top-secret documents I obtained from the National Archives, Operation Northwoods called for innocent people to be shot on U.S. streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk; for waves of terrorism in Washington, Miami and elsewhere. Using phony evidence to blame Castro, the Joint Chiefs would get their needed pretext.
Each member of the Joint Chiefs signed off on the plan. Then the chairman hand-carried it to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara — who promptly rejected it.
Two years later, U.S. generals were looking for another pretext to go to war, this time in Vietnam. In the summer of 1964, President Lyndon Johnson sought to escalate U.S. involvement in Vietnam's civil war. The decision was made to launch hit-and-run attacks against coastal North Vietnamese targets while a slow-moving destroyer, the USS Maddox, sat just off the shore in international waters. Knowing the North Vietnamese would associate the nearby warship with the attacks, the Pentagon likely hoped to provoke a retaliatory strike against the vessel — the perfect pretext for a declaration of war.
Indeed, North Vietnamese patrol boats fired torpedoes at the ship — but missed. The Maddox sailed safely away. McNamara ordered the largely useless coastal attacks to continue and sent the ship back to its original dangerous position.
Two nights after the first attack, the USS C. Turner Joy, escorting the Maddox, sent messages to Washington indicating the ship was under attack. It was later found that no such attack took place; the messages were blamed on nervous crewmembers and radar "ghost images." But it was the excuse Johnson and McNamara sought. They pressed Congress for a declaration of war. Captured by the moment's hysteria, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. An incident that never took place became the pretext for expanding a war that would claim the lives of more than 50,000 Americans as well as a million-plus Vietnamese.
"Many of the people who were associated with the war were looking for any excuse to initiate bombing," recalled George Ball, at the time a State undersecretary. "The sending of a destroyer up the Tonkin Gulf was primarily for provocation. ... There was a feeling that if the destroyer got into some trouble, that it would provide the provocation we needed."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-...n-bamford_x.htm
With the CIA out of the picture, the Joint Chiefs of Staff saw a grand opportunity for the military to launch an all-out war against Cuba. But they needed a pretext. The answer was Operation Northwoods: The Joint Chiefs would secretly launch a war of terror on the U.S. public — then blame it on Castro.
According to long-hidden top-secret documents I obtained from the National Archives, Operation Northwoods called for innocent people to be shot on U.S. streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk; for waves of terrorism in Washington, Miami and elsewhere. Using phony evidence to blame Castro, the Joint Chiefs would get their needed pretext.
Each member of the Joint Chiefs signed off on the plan. Then the chairman hand-carried it to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara — who promptly rejected it.
Two years later, U.S. generals were looking for another pretext to go to war, this time in Vietnam. In the summer of 1964, President Lyndon Johnson sought to escalate U.S. involvement in Vietnam's civil war. The decision was made to launch hit-and-run attacks against coastal North Vietnamese targets while a slow-moving destroyer, the USS Maddox, sat just off the shore in international waters. Knowing the North Vietnamese would associate the nearby warship with the attacks, the Pentagon likely hoped to provoke a retaliatory strike against the vessel — the perfect pretext for a declaration of war.
Indeed, North Vietnamese patrol boats fired torpedoes at the ship — but missed. The Maddox sailed safely away. McNamara ordered the largely useless coastal attacks to continue and sent the ship back to its original dangerous position.
Two nights after the first attack, the USS C. Turner Joy, escorting the Maddox, sent messages to Washington indicating the ship was under attack. It was later found that no such attack took place; the messages were blamed on nervous crewmembers and radar "ghost images." But it was the excuse Johnson and McNamara sought. They pressed Congress for a declaration of war. Captured by the moment's hysteria, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. An incident that never took place became the pretext for expanding a war that would claim the lives of more than 50,000 Americans as well as a million-plus Vietnamese.
"Many of the people who were associated with the war were looking for any excuse to initiate bombing," recalled George Ball, at the time a State undersecretary. "The sending of a destroyer up the Tonkin Gulf was primarily for provocation. ... There was a feeling that if the destroyer got into some trouble, that it would provide the provocation we needed."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-...n-bamford_x.htm
That's right, contrary to American popular opinion, the facts say the Gulf of Tonkin never actually happened the way we were told it did. The president lied the American people into Vietnam. People still argue with me about this. Vietnam was about the control of drugs in the golden triangle.
Back on topic, the Northwoods document shows how when the ends justify the means, American citizens are expendable pawns.
Here's what Northwoods purposed (excerpts from original document):
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the attached Memorandum for the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, which responds to a request* of that office for brief but precise description of pretexts which would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba.
1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized.
2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.
a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):
(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- naphthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).
b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.
3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.
5. A "Cuban-based, Castro-supported" filibuster could be simulated against a neighboring Caribbean nation (in the vein of the 14th of June invasion of the Dominican Republic).
6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.
7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.
8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.
9. It Is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of you people who think the US governement would never kill 3,000 of it's own citizens are being naive. This proves that our government thinks false flag attacks justify attacking another country. America attacks itself, blames it on their enemy, spreads propaganda to the US citizens, and then use that to justify going to war with our enemies. They seem to imply in the document that the "Remember the Maine" event was a false flag attack also. They talk about painting planes so witnesses think they saw Cuban planes instead of Americans. Even carrying out terrorist attacks in US cities against innocent civilians. (Terrorist attacks against American civilians) Why could this not happen on 9/11? What's different. It provided justification for war in Afganistan, Iraq, Patriot act, the war on terror, etc. If Northwoods was carried out, you would be giving me all sorts of scientific reports and news articles telling me it happened like the propaganda tells you but the truth is completely differnent.
If you don't believe me, you can read the document yourself. Start at page 10:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
compilation of eyewitnes testimony from 9/11
continue your denial
Pyschologists call it cognitive dissonance when there are beliefs that threaten your previous beliefs that you find it impossible to reconcile, and denial becomes the role that you adopt.
continue your denial
QUOTE
Pyschologists call it cognitive dissonance when there are beliefs that threaten your previous beliefs that you find it impossible to reconcile, and denial becomes the role that you adopt.
QUOTE(hazzard @ May 29 2006, 03:53 PM) [snapback]1209665[/snapback]
I dont think that anyone here is saying that there has never been a conspiracy on Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_th...#Assassinations
Buy after looking at the scientific evidence I know two things, that we have been on the moon and that nineteen men affiliated with al-Qaeda were crashing planes in the US on September 11 -01.
seems to me that your 9/11 conclusions has been smoked out and which could also mean you are wrong about the other.
"Why such inaccurate news coverage? Wells points to the media's "almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information" — as well as "reluctance to question official pronouncements on 'national security issues.'"
"We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261
Here's an example of corporate news passing government propaganda off as news
Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle621189.ece
The news drives me crazy as it should any science based skeptic. We simply aren’t given enough facts. We’re given just enough to warrant an emotional response (usually anger) and that’s it!
About conspiracies in general; some of us have been fortunate/unfortunate enough to be privy to some irrefutable evidence therefore it’s not a question of belief. However, getting the irrefutable evidence in the hands of the public is another question entirely, so on the surface some of us will sound like conspiracy theorists.
Keep the irrefutable evidence away from the public and your conspiracy will always be safe. Non verifiable is the keyword and the hardcore skeptics will do the rest!
The moonhoax, 911 Conspiracy theory, if true, is fooling experts world-wide, yet ineptly unable to pull the wool over the eyes of a few ideologues on some fringe web site!?
I dont think so.
I dont think so.
QUOTE(hazzard @ May 29 2006, 01:52 PM) [snapback]1209882[/snapback]
The moonhoax, 911 Conspiracy theory, if true, is fooling experts world-wide, yet ineptly unable to pull the wool over the eyes of a few ideologues on some fringe web site!?
I dont think so.
I don't know about the moon. I'm on the side that we made it. As far as 9/11 it took around a year for Bush to even start an investigation. How were they able to know who the hijackers were without an investigation? Is it possible they manufactured evidence. They claim they found the DNA that linked the hijackers, but some of the hijackers they identified are alive. How could they had found DNA for someone still alive?
We should create a thread about all the evidence available to prove that it really was the Arabs. How can you prove that the Arabs were not infiltrated by an undercover agent like in 1993. What if the Arabs were dupes. That's how all covert ops work.
How come the news never questions anything 9/11 related? If they have a quesiton, they ask the government press secretary.
i like your sig hazzard, atleast your not in denial about that.
From what I've read, all the accounts of hijackers still being alive are mistaken identity or people with similar names.
http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html
Saudi Arabia even admitted that 15 of the hijackers were Saudi citizens. Why would they do that if they were still alive?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html
Saudi Arabia even admitted that 15 of the hijackers were Saudi citizens. Why would they do that if they were still alive?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
QUOTE(frenat @ May 29 2006, 09:17 PM) [snapback]1209982[/snapback]
From what I've read, all the accounts of hijackers still being alive are mistaken identity or people with similar names.
Saudi Arabia even admitted that 15 of the hijackers were Saudi citizens. Why would they do that if they were still alive?
Critics ,like me, of conspiracy theories sometimes argue that many of them are not falsifiable and so cannot be scientific. This accusation is often accurate.
Failure to observe the phenomenon can always be the result of looking in the wrong place or looking at the wrong time — that is, having been duped by the conspiracy. This makes impossible any demonstration that the conspiracy does not exist.
QUOTE(frenat @ May 29 2006, 04:17 PM) [snapback]1209982[/snapback]
From what I've read, all the accounts of hijackers still being alive are mistaken identity or people with similar names.
http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html
Saudi Arabia even admitted that 15 of the hijackers were Saudi citizens. Why would they do that if they were still alive?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
Could you provide the identity of the 19 hijackers. It's easy to find, but I want you to do it.
Why?
QUOTE(frenat @ May 30 2006, 09:44 AM) [snapback]1210880[/snapback]
Why?
The point is that, yes, it probably was a mistaken identity. The real hijackers (if there were any) used the identity (passports) of a few people who are alive today. The point is that the identity of the real hijackers have never been made available. In fact the FBI still has the original pictures on thier website. I want the names of the real hijackers, not the ones the FBI apologized to for the mistake in claiming they were the hijackers.
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
Look at this. Some of the suspected hijackers named in the 9/11 attacks, were using aliases of people still alive. So who were they? Who was using the faked identities? Do you have the answer?
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/27/inv.suspects/
Not to mention the fact that the passanger lists do not have any Arab names. Is is possible this is all manufactured evidence?
From what I understand, the stories about living hijackers and mistaken identities stopped after the FBI released their list as of 27 Sept 01. The story you linked to was from 4 days before that.
IIRC, the "passenger" lists don't have any arab names because they were released as "victims' lists. They had a fewer number of people on them because of that.
http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_arabs.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/cnn_passenger_lists.html
The full passenger lists are available but harder to find on the net because that's not an interesting story that could possibly point to government involvement.
http://www.911myths.com/html/passenger_manifests.html
IIRC, the "passenger" lists don't have any arab names because they were released as "victims' lists. They had a fewer number of people on them because of that.
http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_arabs.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/cnn_passenger_lists.html
The full passenger lists are available but harder to find on the net because that's not an interesting story that could possibly point to government involvement.
http://www.911myths.com/html/passenger_manifests.html
QUOTE(frenat @ May 30 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]1211005[/snapback]
From what I understand, the stories about living hijackers and mistaken identities stopped after the FBI released their list as of 27 Sept 01. The story you linked to was from 4 days before that.
IIRC, the "passenger" lists don't have any arab names because they were released as "victims' lists. They had a fewer number of people on them because of that.
http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_arabs.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/cnn_passenger_lists.html
The full passenger lists are available but harder to find on the net because that's not an interesting story that could possibly point to government involvement.
http://www.911myths.com/html/passenger_manifests.html
So like I said, can you give me the names of the 19 hijackers. The story I posted is of the man who's picture to this day is shown on American news as one of the hijackers. He is alive, and pissed about it. Who was in his place. Does anyone know, because the government never told us. I guess we are supposed to trust them. Well if you studied false flag attacks, you would not trust them.
Why can't the names be the same? That's the whole point of the mistaken identity stories. Their names are not uncommon and there are multiple spellings.
Specific page for the picture you posted
http://www.911myths.com/html/waleed_al-she...till_alive.html
Specific page for the picture you posted
http://www.911myths.com/html/waleed_al-she...till_alive.html
QUOTE(frenat @ May 30 2006, 12:52 PM) [snapback]1211089[/snapback]
Why can't the names be the same? That's the whole point of the mistaken identity stories. Their names are not uncommon and there are multiple spellings.
Specific page for the picture you posted
http://www.911myths.com/html/waleed_al-she...till_alive.html
Who does this website? I read that everyonce in a while, and it's lame. They always have "our take".
Give me a picture of the hijackers then. Sure they may have the same names, but why continue putting the pictures of the wrong person on the TV news and documentrys about 9/11. Don't they know they are lying to the public? Don't you know that? I think you do, but you are just an apologist for the government.
Whatever man. You're too funny. How insecure do you have to be when everybody that doesn't agree with you has to be an apologist for the government?
Don't you realize that all of the stories about hijackers still being alive stopped when the official list was released on 27 Sep 01? There were none after that. Doesn't that really seem like the mistaken identity was based on bad info spread early by the news agencies? If there were still any problems, don't you think those people would still be saying something? Every story came from before that list was released. That should tell you something. And you still haven't commented on the fact that Saudi Arabia admitted that 15 of the hijackers were Saudi citizens.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
This happened 5 months after 911. Why would they do that if they were still alive and therefore innocent?
Don't you realize that all of the stories about hijackers still being alive stopped when the official list was released on 27 Sep 01? There were none after that. Doesn't that really seem like the mistaken identity was based on bad info spread early by the news agencies? If there were still any problems, don't you think those people would still be saying something? Every story came from before that list was released. That should tell you something. And you still haven't commented on the fact that Saudi Arabia admitted that 15 of the hijackers were Saudi citizens.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
This happened 5 months after 911. Why would they do that if they were still alive and therefore innocent?
QUOTE(frenat @ May 30 2006, 02:12 PM) [snapback]1211197[/snapback]
Whatever man. You're too funny. How insecure do you have to be when everybody that doesn't agree with you has to be an apologist for the government?
Don't you realize that all of the stories about hijackers still being alive stopped when the official list was released on 27 Sep 01? There were none after that. Doesn't that really seem like the mistaken identity was based on bad info spread early by the news agencies? If there were still any problems, don't you think those people would still be saying something? Every story came from before that list was released. That should tell you something. And you still haven't commented on the fact that Saudi Arabia admitted that 15 of the hijackers were Saudi citizens.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
This happened 5 months after 911. Why would they do that if they were still alive and therefore innocent?
yet you still can't provide a list of the hijackers names and pictures can you. It was never updated.
And yes you are an aplogist for the government. When ever we point out a lie, you come in with damage control. I see deliberate lies, you see honest mistakes.
Maybe you should take over for Tony Snow
Its not that I can't. Rather it is more fun yanking your chain. Why do you think I would want to play your little game? Is it really such a stretch that the info that came out before the official list was flawed? That the news media contributed to the innaccuracies? Again, there have been no stories of living hijackers since the official list was released. Doesn't that point to mistakes that were cleared up?
And again, you still haven't commented on the fact that Saudi Arabia admitted that 15 of the hijackers were Saudi citizens.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
This happened 5 months after 911. Why would they do that if they were still alive and therefore innocent?
And again, you still haven't commented on the fact that Saudi Arabia admitted that 15 of the hijackers were Saudi citizens.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
This happened 5 months after 911. Why would they do that if they were still alive and therefore innocent?
QUOTE(frenat @ May 30 2006, 02:47 PM) [snapback]1211251[/snapback]
Its not that I can't. Rather it is more fun yanking your chain. Why do you think I would want to play your little game? Is it really such a stretch that the info that came out before the official list was flawed? That the news media contributed to the innaccuracies? Again, there have been no stories of living hijackers since the official list was released. Doesn't that point to mistakes that were cleared up?
And again, you still haven't commented on the fact that Saudi Arabia admitted that 15 of the hijackers were Saudi citizens.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
This happened 5 months after 911. Why would they do that if they were still alive and therefore innocent?
No it doesn't mean it's been cleared up. Nothing involving the inconsistansies of 9/11 have been reported in the mainstream American news. It's all been covered up, and continues to this day.
I read the article from USA today. From what I gathered, the names the US provided to the Saudi government were probably names of Saudi citizens at one point. I would like to see those names and pictures if possible. I would also like to see the pictures of the hijackers updated so the news doesn't continue to post the picture of a man who is alive today.
Let me clarify something.
I don't really care who the hijackers were or who they were mistaken for. As I mentioned before, it is more fun yanking your chain. I do see it as possible though that the stories of living hijackers were just mistaken identities. This seems more likely as the stories stopped after the official list was released. But does it really matter to me? No. Even if the names are completely correct, it doesn't prove who they were working for. That's why none of this really matters.
I don't really care who the hijackers were or who they were mistaken for. As I mentioned before, it is more fun yanking your chain. I do see it as possible though that the stories of living hijackers were just mistaken identities. This seems more likely as the stories stopped after the official list was released. But does it really matter to me? No. Even if the names are completely correct, it doesn't prove who they were working for. That's why none of this really matters.
QUOTE(frenat @ May 30 2006, 03:08 PM) [snapback]1211304[/snapback]
Let me clarify something.
I don't really care who the hijackers were or who they were mistaken for. As I mentioned before, it is more fun yanking your chain. I do see it as possible though that the stories of living hijackers were just mistaken identities. This seems more likely as the stories stopped after the official list was released. But does it really matter to me? No. Even if the names are completely correct, it doesn't prove who they were working for. That's why none of this really matters.
Does it bother you that the CIA were preparring to attack Afganistan and the Taliban for there refusal to accept the oil pipeline deal. The plans were on Bush's desk on September 10th. Then one day later, that pretext for going to war in Afganistan was justified by the attacks on 9/11 convienetly blamed on Muslim extremists in Afganistan.
Does it bother you that 9/11 also provided justification to carry out the project for the new American century that planned to prevent anyone from challenging our global dominance by starting with taking over Iraq?
Who has benifited the most from 9/11. Who had the motive? Who had the means?
Answer: the military industrial complex.
You may say Bin Laden wanted to start a Jihad with America, well the neo conservatives wanted to start a war in the middle east. Who wanted war in the middle east more? ONly the military industrial complex along with the inteligence agencies could have carried this out.
QUOTE(scoobysnack @ May 30 2006, 08:18 PM) [snapback]1211318[/snapback]
ONly the military industrial complex along with the inteligence agencies could have carried this out.
Some people just cant accept that a bunch of "third world loonies" could kick the mighty US in the balls. HARD.
Deal with it.
QUOTE(DEBUNKER @ May 31 2006, 02:51 AM) [snapback]1212071[/snapback]
Some people just cant accept that a bunch of "third world loonies" could kick the mighty US in the balls. HARD.
Deal with it.
And some people can't accept the fact that the FBI hired a bunch of Muslim extremists to blow up the WTC twin tower in 1993. The FBI even gave them the bomb. All caught on tape. Deal with it.
QUOTE(scoobysnack @ May 31 2006, 04:59 PM) [snapback]1212407[/snapback]
And some people can accept the fact that the FBI hired a bunch of Muslim extremists to blow up the WTC twin tower in 1993. The FBI even gave them the bomb. All caught on tape. Deal with it.
Any proof with that Scooby, or are we going to take your word for it.
QUOTE(hazzard @ May 31 2006, 01:35 PM) [snapback]1212506[/snapback]
Any proof with that Scooby, or are we going to take your word for it.
here it is-- its also good to know the facts surrounding the oklahoma 95 murrah bombing-- also an inside job where demolitions were used-- i suppose your going to want links for that too
QUOTE
THE NEW YORK TIMES
* * * * *
Thursday October 28, 1993 Page A1
"Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart
Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast"
By Ralph Blumenthal
Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building
a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center,
and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting
harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after
the blast.
The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb
and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by
an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer,
Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.
The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of
hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his
talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as
being in a far better position than previously known to foil
the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers.
The explosion left six people dead, more than a thousand people
injured, and damages in excess of half-a-billion dollars.
Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court
[on charges of involvement] in that attack.
Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian Army officer, was used
by the Government [of the United States] to penetrate a circle
of Muslim extremists who are now charged in two bombing cases:
the World Trade Center attack, and a foiled plot to destroy
the United Nations, the Hudson River tunnels, and other
New York City landmarks. He is the crucial witness in the
second bombing case, but his work for the Government was
erratic, and for months before the World Trade Center blast,
he was feuding with th F.B.I.
Supervisor `Messed It Up'
After the bombing, he resumed his undercover work. In an
undated transcript of a conversation from that period,
Mr. Salem recounts a talk he had had earlier with an agent
about an unnamed F.B.I. supervisor who, he said,
"came and messed it up."
"He requested to meet me in the hotel,"
Mr. Salem says of the supervisor.
"He requested to make me to testify, and if he didn't
push for that, we'll be going building the bomb with
a phony powder, and grabbing the people who was
involved in it. But since you, we didn't do that."
The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to
complain to F.B.I. Headquarters in Washington about the
Bureau's failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by
an agent identified as John Anticev.
Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev had told him,
"He said, I don't think that the New York people would
like the things out of the New York Office to go to
Washington, D.C."
Another agent, identified as Nancy Floyd, does not dispute
Mr. Salem's account, but rather, appears to agree with it,
saying of the `New York people':
"Well, of course not, because they don't want to
get their butts chewed."
* * * * *
Thursday October 28, 1993 Page A1
"Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart
Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast"
By Ralph Blumenthal
Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building
a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center,
and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting
harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after
the blast.
The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb
and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by
an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer,
Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.
The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of
hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his
talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as
being in a far better position than previously known to foil
the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers.
The explosion left six people dead, more than a thousand people
injured, and damages in excess of half-a-billion dollars.
Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court
[on charges of involvement] in that attack.
Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian Army officer, was used
by the Government [of the United States] to penetrate a circle
of Muslim extremists who are now charged in two bombing cases:
the World Trade Center attack, and a foiled plot to destroy
the United Nations, the Hudson River tunnels, and other
New York City landmarks. He is the crucial witness in the
second bombing case, but his work for the Government was
erratic, and for months before the World Trade Center blast,
he was feuding with th F.B.I.
Supervisor `Messed It Up'
After the bombing, he resumed his undercover work. In an
undated transcript of a conversation from that period,
Mr. Salem recounts a talk he had had earlier with an agent
about an unnamed F.B.I. supervisor who, he said,
"came and messed it up."
"He requested to meet me in the hotel,"
Mr. Salem says of the supervisor.
"He requested to make me to testify, and if he didn't
push for that, we'll be going building the bomb with
a phony powder, and grabbing the people who was
involved in it. But since you, we didn't do that."
The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to
complain to F.B.I. Headquarters in Washington about the
Bureau's failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by
an agent identified as John Anticev.
Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev had told him,
"He said, I don't think that the New York people would
like the things out of the New York Office to go to
Washington, D.C."
Another agent, identified as Nancy Floyd, does not dispute
Mr. Salem's account, but rather, appears to agree with it,
saying of the `New York people':
"Well, of course not, because they don't want to
get their butts chewed."
link
The result of the explosion:
# 6 civilians killed
# Over 1,000 injured
# 105 firefighters injured - 5 admitted to local hospitals
# reinforced floors almost 30 inches think blasted away on 3 levels below grade, plus a concourse level floor, leaving a crater about 150 feet in diameter at it's largest point.
# On the B1 level, the operations control center of the Port Authority Police Department (and the fire command station forthe complex) was heavily damaged and rendered out of service.
# On the B2 level, various walls of elevator shafts and freshair plenums severely damaged, allowing smoke to enter and rise through the cores of both towers.
# Numerous concrete walls destroyed or damaged.
# 200,000 cubic feet of water poured into the lowest grade from damaged refrigeration unit supplies (from the Hudson River), sewer lines, fresh domestic water lines, steam pipes, and condensate return. Water 1.5 feet deep across the B6 level.
# 124 parked cars destroyed, 102 damaged.
# Partition walls blown out onto PATH train mezzanine.
# Numerous telephone conduits collapsed from ceiling onto cars (but phone service was not cut, miraculously).
# Fire alarm and public address systems out of service.
# Elevators out of service.
# Water cooled emergency generators shut down due to overheating when their water supply was cut. This disabled the emergency lighting.
# Sprinklers & standpipes out of service.
# 2,500 tons of rubble removed.
# Clean up effort involved 2,700 workers per day, plus a total of 160,000 gallons of cleaning fluid and 200,00 gallons of detergent.
# Restoration cost: $250,000,000.
***************************************************************************
Cheney Links Saddam to '93 World Trade Center Attack
Friday, July 2, 2004
Speaking in New Orleans on Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney drew direct connection between Iraq and al Qaida's efforts to destroy the World Trade Center, noting that one of the key operatives in the first attack on the Twin Towers was granted sanctuary by Saddam Hussein.
"After the 1993 World Trade Center attack, Iraq gave sanctuary to one of the bombers, Abdul Rahman Yasin," Cheney told a gathering at the city's D-Day Museum. [NewsMax]
If the above is true then why didn't the U.S. go after Iraq following the 1993 WTC bombings?
QUOTE(Sunofone @ May 31 2006, 11:21 PM) [snapback]1212805[/snapback]
here it is-- its also good to know the facts surrounding the oklahoma 95 murrah bombing-- also an inside job where demolitions were used-- i suppose your going to want links for that too
link
The result of the explosion:
# 6 civilians killed
# Over 1,000 injured
# 105 firefighters injured - 5 admitted to local hospitals
# reinforced floors almost 30 inches think blasted away on 3 levels below grade, plus a concourse level floor, leaving a crater about 150 feet in diameter at it's largest point.
# On the B1 level, the operations control center of the Port Authority Police Department (and the fire command station forthe complex) was heavily damaged and rendered out of service.
# On the B2 level, various walls of elevator shafts and freshair plenums severely damaged, allowing smoke to enter and rise through the cores of both towers.
# Numerous concrete walls destroyed or damaged.
# 200,000 cubic feet of water poured into the lowest grade from damaged refrigeration unit supplies (from the Hudson River), sewer lines, fresh domestic water lines, steam pipes, and condensate return. Water 1.5 feet deep across the B6 level.
# 124 parked cars destroyed, 102 damaged.
# Partition walls blown out onto PATH train mezzanine.
# Numerous telephone conduits collapsed from ceiling onto cars (but phone service was not cut, miraculously).
# Fire alarm and public address systems out of service.
# Elevators out of service.
# Water cooled emergency generators shut down due to overheating when their water supply was cut. This disabled the emergency lighting.
# Sprinklers & standpipes out of service.
# 2,500 tons of rubble removed.
# Clean up effort involved 2,700 workers per day, plus a total of 160,000 gallons of cleaning fluid and 200,00 gallons of detergent.
# Restoration cost: $250,000,000.
***************************************************************************
Cheney Links Saddam to '93 World Trade Center Attack
Friday, July 2, 2004
Speaking in New Orleans on Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney drew direct connection between Iraq and al Qaida's efforts to destroy the World Trade Center, noting that one of the key operatives in the first attack on the Twin Towers was granted sanctuary by Saddam Hussein.
"After the 1993 World Trade Center attack, Iraq gave sanctuary to one of the bombers, Abdul Rahman Yasin," Cheney told a gathering at the city's D-Day Museum. [NewsMax]
If the above is true then why didn't the U.S. go after Iraq following the 1993 WTC bombings?
Your information doesn't match the claim you made.
You said that the FBI HIRED the people to blow up the tower and even gave them the bomb.
Your linked article says no such thing.
And this fact from your source..
QUOTE
and for months before the World Trade Center blast,
he was feuding with th F.B.I
he was feuding with th F.B.I
..adds a twist to his information.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.