The point of conspiracy theories?
- Thread starter zarathustra
- Start date
Loki said:
On what basis do you work that one out?
For after all, he is happy for thousands of non-american civilians to die at the hands of his decisions. And happy for dozens, hundreds, of his soldiers (his own civilians, with the job title 'soldier') to die at the hands of his warped ideas.
And used to grin and smirk when as governor he refused to pardon those on death row.
The man loves death.
redsquirrel said:
Oh, i can read alright.
I'll try again: try learning to read. Just go back to hammer's post and read what he asked for. He's alread been answered with at least three examples, yet you still can't see them. Take the blinkers off, or go learn to read english properly.
His post was nothing to do with 'irrational speculation'. It asked for examples where theory had become fact in relation to conspiracies.
Do you get it yet or not?
This from someone who's always saying how depressed he is at the ad hominem arguments. Have you been taking condescension lessons from bigfish?fela fan said:
laptop said:
Strikes me that ability to understand this irony is diagnostic of not being a conspiracy theorist.
But expecting someone who just doesn't get Occam's Razor to have a reflective discussion about the word "theory" is an exercise in futility.
Nevertheless, I still want to go back to the original question. What we've had so far is:
Q: "What's the point of conspiracy theories?"
A [from CT types]: "X is too a conspiracy..."
What efffect would it have on the world if it were?
Answering "the world would see that they are lying bastards" will not do, because all the world that's paying attention already knows that, in other thoroughly-proven instances, and the world continues...
White rabbit, get this, and get it one time. I've not put you on ignore button, coz i like to read what people have to say. But i've been ignoring your negative posts alright.
And i will continue to do so until you learn to give a bit of common courtesy and respect for people and their opinions.
I'm only telling you coz i think it polite to do so.
And i will continue to do so until you learn to give a bit of common courtesy and respect for people and their opinions.
I'm only telling you coz i think it polite to do so.
Fuck off, you prick.
How about that.
How about that.
fela, I'd never even heard of Vialls until someone mentioned him here - almost certainly DrJazzz, in fact I'm sure of it.fela fan said:
DrJazzz then posted up another thread about the supposed "missing flights" which turned out to be equally poorly researched and just as plain wrong as Vialls' own outpourings of BS.
I'm sure there are people out there doing serious, rigid, evidence-backed-up, research on whatever we don't know about 9/11, I didn't say there aren't....
But the conspiracy threads we get on here aren't based on the meticulous findings of credible investigators are they?
They're based on the words of nobodies who do sloppy, incomplete research, ignore facts which are inconsistent with their theories, and loudly announce their findings with sweeping statements that with a bit of probing turn out to be complete bollocks.
PS. I'll look at that website you pointed to me now...
Idris2002 said:
Hi Idris
I will happily provide that evidence for LIHOP, but before we can move on to that area, it is helpful to agree that THEY KNEW, because unless we accept that they are lying when they say they could not have anticipated these attacks, it is harder to demonstrate they LIHOP.
When you are aware of the evidence that I keep referring to that I believe demonstrates THEY KNEW chapter 4 of Nafeez's book War on Freedom you may be more ready to accept the idea that the only explanation (for me)of the otherwise inexplicable air defense failures is that they let it happen on purpose.
As for the problem some people have imagining that the US government could kill their own citizens to further their foriegn policy goals, I would refer you to the Operations Northwoods document (it is available on line, if you really struggle to find it, I will dig it up) and in terms of understanding why 9/11 (as a convenient Pearl Harbour type event) furthered these foriegn policy goals I refer you to THE GRAND CHESSBOARD – American Primacy And It’s Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski and the National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSS) announced by Bush in Sept 2002, the implications of which are described here by the latest alternative pnobel peace prize winner.
I know imagining that what I'm saying might be true is hard for many people to imagine, but I believe the evidence is there. The war on freedom cites mainly mainstream media sources. As I have asked before if this does not count as legitimate evidence what does?
For those of you who believe that such a crime could not be hidden or covered up, I refer you to the evidence again contained in Nafeez's book and found elsewhere of senior intelligence staff who have come forward. As one example I refer to the testimony of David P. Schippers (U.S. attorney, former Chief Investigative Counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against former President Bill Clinton. His long record of impeccable expertise and extensive experience makes him a highly credible source)
Hope this help
Ian
Just as a side point, to those that ridicule the idea that the CIA or MI5 could be arsed to contribute/disrupt to political discussion forums, I found this link and this article on Why is the Internet not controlled by the authorities? that I found interesting. Am I being paranoid or has the apparently outrageously named "in support of Urban 75" been removed? If so why?
welcome spart.
fela, yoohoo
I tried to look up that website you asked me to look at, is it this one?
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/project.jsp?project=911_project
If so what article do u want me to look at, looks like a pretty big site. ta
fela, yoohoo
I tried to look up that website you asked me to look at, is it this one?
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/project.jsp?project=911_project
If so what article do u want me to look at, looks like a pretty big site. ta
You will have to help me with a priori grounds. What does it mean?
What knew. I say they knew more than is stated here
“We’ve been focusing on this perpetrator Osama bin Laden for 3 years, and yet we didn’t see this one coming,” said Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorism operations. A U.S. Air Force General described the attack as “something we had never seen before, something we had never even thought of.” FBI Director Robert Mueller further declared that “there were no warning signs that I’m aware of.” Senior FBI officials insisted that in terms of intelligence warnings received prior to 11th September: “The notion of flying a plane into a building or using it as a bomb never came up.”[1] According to this official version of events, no one in the Bush administration had the slightest idea of the identities of those who orchestrated the 11th September attacks, the nature of their plans, or their targets.
This is provable nonsense as demonstrated by the over 100 mainstream news sources cited. Read the link and you will have a very good idea what they knew. In one sentence that OBL was planning to attack key sites including the pentagon and WTC using hijacked planes as bombs as found here
"Then we found another document that discussed a second alternative to crash the 11 planes into selected targets in the United States instead of just blowing them up in the air. These included the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia; the World Trade Center in New York; the Sears Tower in Chicago; the TransAmerica Tower in San Francisco; and the White House in Washington, DC… I submitted my findings to NBI officials, who most certainly turned over the report (and the computer) either to then Senior Superintendent Avelino Razon of the PNP [the Philippine National Police] or to Bob Heafner of the FBI… I have since had meetings with certain U.S. authorities and they have confirmed to me that indeed, many things were done in response to my report.”
Garcia, Raphael M., ‘Decoding Bojinka,’ Newsbreak Weekly, 15 November 2001, Vol. 1, No. 43. Also see Cooley, John, Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, American and International Terrorism, Pluto Press, London, 1999, p. 247.
But then if you had done even the most basic research you would know this stuff exists.
In light of this evidence (to me) it is impossible to accept the incompetence theory
Anyway you believe what you want. If you can show me how the evidence I'm using is inaccurate please show me where
Thanks
Ian
What knew. I say they knew more than is stated here
“We’ve been focusing on this perpetrator Osama bin Laden for 3 years, and yet we didn’t see this one coming,” said Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorism operations. A U.S. Air Force General described the attack as “something we had never seen before, something we had never even thought of.” FBI Director Robert Mueller further declared that “there were no warning signs that I’m aware of.” Senior FBI officials insisted that in terms of intelligence warnings received prior to 11th September: “The notion of flying a plane into a building or using it as a bomb never came up.”[1] According to this official version of events, no one in the Bush administration had the slightest idea of the identities of those who orchestrated the 11th September attacks, the nature of their plans, or their targets.
This is provable nonsense as demonstrated by the over 100 mainstream news sources cited. Read the link and you will have a very good idea what they knew. In one sentence that OBL was planning to attack key sites including the pentagon and WTC using hijacked planes as bombs as found here
"Then we found another document that discussed a second alternative to crash the 11 planes into selected targets in the United States instead of just blowing them up in the air. These included the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia; the World Trade Center in New York; the Sears Tower in Chicago; the TransAmerica Tower in San Francisco; and the White House in Washington, DC… I submitted my findings to NBI officials, who most certainly turned over the report (and the computer) either to then Senior Superintendent Avelino Razon of the PNP [the Philippine National Police] or to Bob Heafner of the FBI… I have since had meetings with certain U.S. authorities and they have confirmed to me that indeed, many things were done in response to my report.”
Garcia, Raphael M., ‘Decoding Bojinka,’ Newsbreak Weekly, 15 November 2001, Vol. 1, No. 43. Also see Cooley, John, Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, American and International Terrorism, Pluto Press, London, 1999, p. 247.
But then if you had done even the most basic research you would know this stuff exists.
In light of this evidence (to me) it is impossible to accept the incompetence theory
Anyway you believe what you want. If you can show me how the evidence I'm using is inaccurate please show me where
Thanks
Ian
Loki said:
Yes it's recently been binned. And i actually cannot disagree with that sparticus.
I am a firm believer of LIHOP, but you were somewhat, er, ott with the beginning of that thread! I don't often agree with editor on this topic, but he was pretty lenient towards you.
LIke i said, don't go too over the top, coz your knowledge is worth having round here.
But how one says things is just as important as what one is saying.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Sparticus...having read thru your link, while I agree that they LIH, whether that gives you enough ammunition for 'On Purpose' is another matter.
The section I found most interesting was the one on the response of the FAA and airlines to the initial warnings in July about a possible skyjack attempt. From the look of it it reads as departmental laziness and industry denial rather than a clear abrogation of responsibility.
I don't think the section on wargames is evidence one way or the other - Tom Clancy wrote a book about a plane being flown into a building as well as there being recorded exmaples of it happening.
The section on the FBI trailing Atta...well it's not an entirely unknown process to let surveillance subjects through with waived visas etc. as it makes them complacent and easier to keep an eye on. Works on the principle keep you friends close, and your enemies closer (one of the reasons someone like Hamza doesn't get deported...it's easier to keep tabs on someone when you can see them...), so while it might seem like laxity/deliberate ommission it's plausible...
As to the rest...having read it I came away more convinced of it being subject to the cock-up theory than LIHOP.
The section I found most interesting was the one on the response of the FAA and airlines to the initial warnings in July about a possible skyjack attempt. From the look of it it reads as departmental laziness and industry denial rather than a clear abrogation of responsibility.
I don't think the section on wargames is evidence one way or the other - Tom Clancy wrote a book about a plane being flown into a building as well as there being recorded exmaples of it happening.
The section on the FBI trailing Atta...well it's not an entirely unknown process to let surveillance subjects through with waived visas etc. as it makes them complacent and easier to keep an eye on. Works on the principle keep you friends close, and your enemies closer (one of the reasons someone like Hamza doesn't get deported...it's easier to keep tabs on someone when you can see them...), so while it might seem like laxity/deliberate ommission it's plausible...
As to the rest...having read it I came away more convinced of it being subject to the cock-up theory than LIHOP.
Loki said:
Prior warnings:
http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essaytheytriedtowarnus.html
This following one I read, is the first of five under the link of ‘period’ on the right hand side of the main page. It is long, and took me maybe half an hour, then I realised there were four more parts! Which I’ve yet to read. But there’s so much on this site, I’m going to do bits at a time.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/...=complete_911_timeline&timeperiod=1979 - 2000
But the thing about this site is that everything the chap writes about has been sourced from mainstream media. On the main page, and yes that’s the link that you put in there, just scroll down a bit and you’ll see him explaining his ideas for the site.
You’ll need time and motivation to read these links but if you read his introduction on the link you just posted, then you’ll be able to judge whether it’s worth it mate.
But the two above links are the ones I’ve read so far, and also the timeline of the flight 93 and 175.
Idris2002
Stay Alive in '25
Sparticus - when we argue on a priori grounds that means we're assuming that certain things are the case without actually investigating, or having evidence that they are they case.
E.g. the idea that there must be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe simply because the universe is so vast is an example of a priori argument.
And so is the idea they knew and lihop.
E.g. the idea that there must be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe simply because the universe is so vast is an example of a priori argument.
And so is the idea they knew and lihop.
kyser_soze said:
Kyser, just read the first link in my post just above in reply to loki.
It extensively details all the warnings the USG had from a dozen countries or so leading up to the attacks.
What's impressive is that the author of the site only uses sources from mainstream media, precisely coz he wants to avoid the 'conspiracy' tag.
Let me know if you read it and change your mind mate...
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Still halfway between - it is clear that people knew stuff, but it's the lack of action that is the 'surprise' to everyone. There are a number of assumptions made about who received specfic forms of intelligence, when and how they were recevied (e.g. was it all collated in one central spot as it is here or spread over a range of field offices etc).
As well as this you have to take into account (as no one seems to be doing here) the types of intelligence that the US were taking seriously at the time. It's known that Condi Rice was and is a Cold Warrior at heart (her first 2 big NSA reports both stated that Russia was still the key threat, hence Bushies engagement with Putin), and if that is the intelligence framework you've got, warnings of the kind received would not have been given credence.
An interesting note is whether or not those tasked with assessing pre-9/11 intel were convinced that such an attack could be made. Even tho there is evidence that people HAVE planned such attacks, it is entirely conceivable that either this Pentagon report hadn't been read by the Bushies OR they were convinced that it wouldn't happen. Don't forget, you are talking about an arrogant administration here - how do you think Cheney or Rumsfeld would have reacted if told 'The Egyptians are saying some ay-rabs are gunna fly a plane into the WTC'...think about it...if you can put yourself in their heads (make sure you have a wash afterwards)...
Gross negligence and incompetence on a massive scale - certainly enough to prosecute, but it's the 'On Purpose' bit that I can't get beyond reasonable doubt.
As well as this you have to take into account (as no one seems to be doing here) the types of intelligence that the US were taking seriously at the time. It's known that Condi Rice was and is a Cold Warrior at heart (her first 2 big NSA reports both stated that Russia was still the key threat, hence Bushies engagement with Putin), and if that is the intelligence framework you've got, warnings of the kind received would not have been given credence.
An interesting note is whether or not those tasked with assessing pre-9/11 intel were convinced that such an attack could be made. Even tho there is evidence that people HAVE planned such attacks, it is entirely conceivable that either this Pentagon report hadn't been read by the Bushies OR they were convinced that it wouldn't happen. Don't forget, you are talking about an arrogant administration here - how do you think Cheney or Rumsfeld would have reacted if told 'The Egyptians are saying some ay-rabs are gunna fly a plane into the WTC'...think about it...if you can put yourself in their heads (make sure you have a wash afterwards)...
Gross negligence and incompetence on a massive scale - certainly enough to prosecute, but it's the 'On Purpose' bit that I can't get beyond reasonable doubt.
hammerntongues
Well-Known Member
fela fan said:
I shouldn`t get bogged down with specifics but was the Watergate issue theorised about before it`s exposure ? were there rumblings or accusations of undercover operations to re-elect Nixon ? I don`t think so , it was a conspiricy no doubt but when was it Theory ? The first thing the world new about the whole issue was after Woodward and Bersntein exposed it , a totally different matter.
My recollection of the Iran contra scandal is not so clear but was there talk of drug links prior to Olllies comming out ? I`,m not saying there wasnt by the way I just cant recall.
Yes, fela, that website has everything Joe Vialls doesn't have: Every statement backed up with an article and even a link to it (you listening Vialls?)fela fan said:
And the first article (prior warnings) acknowledges the phenomenon of "warning fatigue"; this I suspect myself is what was at the root of why the US did not act.
It's more than likely the US had some sort of prior warning In fact I think Condoleeza Rice was called to explain why no action was taken about a report she received. But the problem is: there are always warnings that something's about to happen, but it doesn't; hence "warning fatigue".
Loki said:
But they heeded some warnings. Bush stayed overnight on the aircraft carrier while at the Genoa summit while Italian planes patrolled the skies.
Ashcroft stopped flying on normal jets a few months before 911 and went by his own, failing to answer any questions on the subject.
While in the midst of all these warnings, the reaction was to reduce the fighter jets able to intercept in emergencies in US airspace from 100 to 14.
So there certainly were reactions to all these warnings, but not quite the ones expected.
And we must remember that all those warnings were from other countries and don't even consider what US intelligence was hearing for itself.
So i conclude that warning fatigue is just a small possibility. But on the other hand, those in the appropraite organisations (NORAD, FBI) perhaps should have concluded, 'fuck men, so many warnings, from all our allies too, perhaps we should ensure we're prepared'.
I wonder how the american public would react to the knowledge that their government had had so many warnings (and many quite specific, not just the general ones) leading up to the attacks, and yet had so spectacularly let them go? And that the USG in the midst of these warnings significantly reduced their capabilities of reacting to such emergencies by reducing their fighter jet squadron from 100 to 14?
And how might they react when they recall various members of the administration lying through their teeth by saying after the attacks that there was just no way they could have imagined planes being used as hijacked missiles flying into buildings? When it's clear they knew all about such a scenario.
Sorry everyone, but warning fatigue looks less and less likely the more you try to accept it.
And how might they react when they recall various members of the administration lying through their teeth by saying after the attacks that there was just no way they could have imagined planes being used as hijacked missiles flying into buildings? When it's clear they knew all about such a scenario.
Sorry everyone, but warning fatigue looks less and less likely the more you try to accept it.
Here’s what I consider rather specific warnings, and not very long before the events:
“In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols which stand out." Within the American intelligence community, "the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified" but "there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented." This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01]”
and
“In late summer 2001, Jordan intelligence intercepted a message stating that a major attack was being planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was Big Wedding, which did in fact turn out to be the codename of the 9/11 plot. The message was passed to US intelligence through several channels. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02]”
The likes of Israel, or the UK, certainly don’t react to such intelligence by not only not reacting, but having a seriously reduced capability of defending their skies in the face of so much intelligence they could be attacked in such a huge way.
At the worst, this is criminal negligence, and court cases should be occurring.
Meanwhile Bush emerges yesterday from the congressional hearings into the attacks by saying (I guess with an air of pride), ‘I answered all the questions they put to me’.
Why aren’t all their media gathering a sum of all their own investigations since 911, and putting them into a whole?
http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essaytheytriedtowarnus.html
“In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols which stand out." Within the American intelligence community, "the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified" but "there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented." This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01]”
and
“In late summer 2001, Jordan intelligence intercepted a message stating that a major attack was being planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was Big Wedding, which did in fact turn out to be the codename of the 9/11 plot. The message was passed to US intelligence through several channels. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02]”
The likes of Israel, or the UK, certainly don’t react to such intelligence by not only not reacting, but having a seriously reduced capability of defending their skies in the face of so much intelligence they could be attacked in such a huge way.
At the worst, this is criminal negligence, and court cases should be occurring.
Meanwhile Bush emerges yesterday from the congressional hearings into the attacks by saying (I guess with an air of pride), ‘I answered all the questions they put to me’.
Why aren’t all their media gathering a sum of all their own investigations since 911, and putting them into a whole?
http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essaytheytriedtowarnus.html
Loki said:
eh? Joe Vialls is way off the mark with 9-11, he believes that flight77 hit the Pentagon, flight175 hit the South Tower, and that it wasn't an inside job. Nuts. And I will be the first to say so.
However that doesn't mean I don't have respect for him, he is prepared to think differently.
Misrepresentation people's positions is a classic disinformation tactic. You taking your cues from MI6 Loki, or are you just being lazy?
DrJazzz said:
Of course, I'm an MI6 plant, I've aready explained that!
As for Vialls he was spectacularly off the mark with Huntley as you probably recall. It's a good thing the jury didn't subsribe to his fantastic version of events or a child murderer would be a free man right now.
I can't recall what else Vialls has speculated on; but far as I'm concerned he is utterly discredited; his words mean nothing.
fela fan will get back to you in a bit; off for a walk.
fela: In order to put all of this into context, we need to know the overall picture: ie. how many warnings at what threat levels did the USA recieve over the year?fela fan said:
If 9/11 was the only event they had intelligence on then of course failing to take any action is nothing short of impeachable.
But more likely they recieve dozens, if not hundreds of warnings in the course of the year. If they reacted to each one airports would be shut down half the time, normal life would be endlessly disrupted.
We need to know just how often such warnings occur before we can say categorically that the USG was negligent about 9/11.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Spot on Loki - this ties with my comments about how, when and where this intel came in, who it was seen by, whether it was all bought together in one single place the way it has been for us!
Can I just point out as well that the thing with the planes was actually a policy decision that had been made previously and was being done to save money (and of course it's hysterical that lefties are in fact criticising the USG for flying less planes - can you imagine if the US had taken the threats seriously and had whole fleets of planes up? Then they'd have been accused of paranoia and warmongering and scarfication of the peoples
)
Can I just point out as well that the thing with the planes was actually a policy decision that had been made previously and was being done to save money (and of course it's hysterical that lefties are in fact criticising the USG for flying less planes - can you imagine if the US had taken the threats seriously and had whole fleets of planes up? Then they'd have been accused of paranoia and warmongering and scarfication of the peoples
)Loki said:
I can only post at the minute through my friday evening beers, not so many tonight though, but i may be more lucid tomorrow, let's see...
But look man, warnings are warnings, intelligence is in operation to deal with such things. It's why they exist. In 1997 they took the decision to reduce the number of jets defending US airspace culminating in only 14 jets in 2001, from 100 jets.
The warnings were coming in before this year. Yet the jets were reduced.
As for how many warnings they had, fucking plenty!! From all over the shop.
How often? Bloody often, all the time!
And you don't shut airports down because of a warning. But what you do do is be prepared.
Ask yourself: with so many warnings, from so many countries, why do you have such unpreparedness when the attacks begin? Why don't you reverse the decision to reduce the number of jets defending US airspace?
And why did members of the US administration find it so necessary to tell us they had no ability to imagine such a kind of attack? When they'd had so much intelligence telling them that planes would be used as flying bombs?
Similar threads
