Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
*looks up bleerily* You're gunna hafta get up pretty early in the mornin to beat me, pilgrim. *hic*
United 93 - Accident Investigation
- Thread starter hambone
- Start date
*looks up bleerily* You're gunna hafta get up pretty early in the mornin to beat me, pilgrim. *hic*
flyingbum
Needz Re-Edjamacayshun
It's a two way street. Do you really need someone else to answer that for you? If you want to cherry pick or gerrymander my post that's fine, I really don't care.
Qutch
Question everything
Public Announcement
- O.K. you lonely debunkers. . We know your faces are pressed up against your computer screens 24/7, anxiously waiting to pounce on anyone who dares question the 911 Report. . Get ready. . The next one is about to be posted. . And its going to be a doozy. . Don't let Darren embarrass you again by posting a debunking response before he's read it. . Let's clean up those amateur ambush tactics of yours. . Don't pull "a Darren" and post your critical responses before we're finished posting it. . This time, wait long enough that you can at least pretend to have studied the post and considered the facts before bashing it. . Then go ahead and post your canned nonsensical off-point responses. .
whatchoogot going on?
Qutch
Question everything
****************************************************************************
(Note: This Post is a continuation of Posts #276 and #284. Those posts dealt with the admissions of the Warren/JFK Commission members, President Lyndon Johnson, the Dallas Chief of Police and other government officials who began to suspect a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK.)
****************************************************************************
You Don't Want to Miss this . . This is going to be embarrassing for the conspiracy bashers
(if they bother to view these videos and listen carefully to the government officials on them, which they probably will not)
Thread Recap -
This battleground thread began when hambone posed questions regarding the investigation of United Flight 93. . Inherent in his questions, and echoed by other posters, were serious questions and doubts about the reliability of the 911 Commission Report, and the related report (or lack of one) on United Flight 93. . These questions have irritated the owner of this site, Doug Taylor. . The questions have angered many other posters who have joined in ridiculing and belittling these questions and those who ask them. . They've tried flooding the thread with trivia as well as cut-and-paste document dumps to obscure efforts to communicate. . They've even called for the death of anyone questioning the Official 911 story, while the moderators stood by and did nothing to curb it. . Finally, Darren got caught posting a sarcastic post-reply so quickly that he was forced to admit that he hadn't actually seen all of the posted evidence before responding . . Never-the-less, these self-appointed "conspiracy debunkers" and "defenders of the 911 Report." stand firm, doing what they know is right and patriotic…. ignoring any and all evidence submitted by the accused "conspiracy theorists." And in doing so they've joined their leader, Darren, in demonstrating that once they make up their mind, all fact-checking stops. .
I don't know what happened on 911. . But my research here tells me one thing. . If the JC conspiracy bashers had listened to hambone, jet, flyingbum, staledog, pullup, PugetSoundMan and others who tried in vain to explain it to them, they'd have discovered that while they were throwing tantrums defending Commission findings, their supreme leaders, the 911 Commissioners themselves were switching sides . . The lengthy post I submitted regarding the Warren Commission, and my own personal experience with D.C. investigations should have been a hint. . Another hint they ignored was delivered by "Military Moderator" MikeD's experienced hand (see post #282). .
The JC debunkers were so busy taking cheap shots that they missed every clue they were thrown . . While Captain Darren of the JetCareers Debunking Team was busy ridiculing anyone questioning the 911 Commission, the 911 Commissioners were joining the JetCareers Alternative Theory team. . What you are about to see below is a small sample of 911 Commissioner statements raising the same questions about the 911 Commission that hambone tried in vain to ask here. . The 911 Commissioner "conspiracy theorists" are joined below by former FBI Director Louis Freeh and Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham in questioning Commission findings. . Fox News's Senior Legal Analyst, Judge Anthony Napolitano plays clean up by stating "we should be suspicious of everything the government tells us," particularly with regards to JFK and 911. . 911 Commissioner MaxCleland called the Commission "a scam" and "disgusting." Commissioner Kerry called it part of "a 30 year old conspiracy." (For those who want to see more, contact me privately and I'll send you more. . )
When it came to the 911 Commission, 'things were not as they seemed'. .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtQY4u8gHTo This didn't get much press coverage for some mysterious reason. . One of the 911 Commissioners eventually quit the Commission suggesting a cover-up. . He called it a "scam" and "disgusting." He is former Senator and 911 Commissioner Max Cleland. . Vietnam War vet and former Director of the Veteran's Administration. . Later head of the Import-Export Bank. . So the question is, if this guy didn't trust the Commission and refused to remain on it, why are U.S. citizens denied the right to question the Commission's findings without being ridiculed? .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0LBARGBupM&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DhvSC4Sbv0 Commission Chairman(s) Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean have both begun to complain publically that the Commission was manipulated and "set up to fail" by those who appointed them. . Kean claims they were appointed by "the most partisan people" in Washington D.C. . Not exactly a ringing endorsement of their own Commission. .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDfm3NroVG8 911 Commissioner Bob Kerrey tells a symposium participant that 911 is part of "a 30 year old conspiracy."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsY59SHcshcSenator Graham (Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee) has been complaining for years that he is prevented by law from telling the American people about the conspiracies, cover-ups and backroom deals involved in 911. . Now, to avoid violating the law regarding disclosure of classified material, Senator Bob Graham has written a sort of "tell-all" book in novel form to skirt disclosure rules. .
Operation Able Danger -
After 911 a group of military officers, lead by Lt. Colonel Anthony Schaffer, stepped forward and reported that they had identified the 911 hi-jackers prior to 911 but were denied permission to pursue them. . Then after 911 Schaffer claims he personally approached the 911 Commission and offered his documents and testimony. . The Commission declined the information. . The Senate Judiciary Committee attempted to investigate, but the Pentagon ordered witnesses not to testify. . Then, in the Wall Street Journal, former FBI Director Louis Freeh joined the attack on the 911 Commission for ignoring or suppressing the Operation Able Danger information, which would have revealed that U.S. Intelligence was on to the 911 plot, but was handcuffed and forced to stand by and watch it happen. . Colonel Shaffer and FBI Director Freeh are both alleging that even if the suppression of Operation Able Danger wasn't evidence of a 911 conspiracy, the cover-up of information and its exclusion from the 911 Commission Report was a conspiracy. . http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/17/122900.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7suTyXGybU&feature=relatedOperation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXO8tULizxs&feature=relatedOperation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2RKXE2iAO8&feature=related Fox News's Senior Legal Analyst, Judge Anthony Napolitano talks about the connection he sees between 911 and the JFK assassination. . Judge Napolitano believes "we should be suspicious of everything the government tells us," that there is no doubt the US government "executed" JFK. . Judge Napolitano believes that the Government will get away with lies regarding 911 because we tolerate their lies. .
We do not know what happened to United Flight 93. . Its unlikely that the 911 Commissioners know. . And with the help of Darren and the entire JetCareers Conspiracy Debunking team, the government may never have to tell us. .
I don't know what happened to United Flight 93. . But I suspect that the answers do not lie in the 911 report. . "Questioning" seems to me to be the best way to honor the dead of 911, and those of the resulting wars that came after. . If merely asking questions makes hambone a "conspiracy theorist", at least he's in very distinguished company. .
(now we can sit back and watch all the non-sensical, hysterical response posts arrive from those who never, ever question)
cc: For later re-posting to JC. .
seperate copies sent to - hambone, jet, flyingbum, staledog, pullup, PugetSoundMan
(Note: This Post is a continuation of Posts #276 and #284. Those posts dealt with the admissions of the Warren/JFK Commission members, President Lyndon Johnson, the Dallas Chief of Police and other government officials who began to suspect a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK.)
****************************************************************************
You Don't Want to Miss this . . This is going to be embarrassing for the conspiracy bashers
(if they bother to view these videos and listen carefully to the government officials on them, which they probably will not)
Thread Recap -
This battleground thread began when hambone posed questions regarding the investigation of United Flight 93. . Inherent in his questions, and echoed by other posters, were serious questions and doubts about the reliability of the 911 Commission Report, and the related report (or lack of one) on United Flight 93. . These questions have irritated the owner of this site, Doug Taylor. . The questions have angered many other posters who have joined in ridiculing and belittling these questions and those who ask them. . They've tried flooding the thread with trivia as well as cut-and-paste document dumps to obscure efforts to communicate. . They've even called for the death of anyone questioning the Official 911 story, while the moderators stood by and did nothing to curb it. . Finally, Darren got caught posting a sarcastic post-reply so quickly that he was forced to admit that he hadn't actually seen all of the posted evidence before responding . . Never-the-less, these self-appointed "conspiracy debunkers" and "defenders of the 911 Report." stand firm, doing what they know is right and patriotic…. ignoring any and all evidence submitted by the accused "conspiracy theorists." And in doing so they've joined their leader, Darren, in demonstrating that once they make up their mind, all fact-checking stops. .
I don't know what happened on 911. . But my research here tells me one thing. . If the JC conspiracy bashers had listened to hambone, jet, flyingbum, staledog, pullup, PugetSoundMan and others who tried in vain to explain it to them, they'd have discovered that while they were throwing tantrums defending Commission findings, their supreme leaders, the 911 Commissioners themselves were switching sides . . The lengthy post I submitted regarding the Warren Commission, and my own personal experience with D.C. investigations should have been a hint. . Another hint they ignored was delivered by "Military Moderator" MikeD's experienced hand (see post #282). .
The JC debunkers were so busy taking cheap shots that they missed every clue they were thrown . . While Captain Darren of the JetCareers Debunking Team was busy ridiculing anyone questioning the 911 Commission, the 911 Commissioners were joining the JetCareers Alternative Theory team. . What you are about to see below is a small sample of 911 Commissioner statements raising the same questions about the 911 Commission that hambone tried in vain to ask here. . The 911 Commissioner "conspiracy theorists" are joined below by former FBI Director Louis Freeh and Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham in questioning Commission findings. . Fox News's Senior Legal Analyst, Judge Anthony Napolitano plays clean up by stating "we should be suspicious of everything the government tells us," particularly with regards to JFK and 911. . 911 Commissioner MaxCleland called the Commission "a scam" and "disgusting." Commissioner Kerry called it part of "a 30 year old conspiracy." (For those who want to see more, contact me privately and I'll send you more. . )
When it came to the 911 Commission, 'things were not as they seemed'. .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtQY4u8gHTo This didn't get much press coverage for some mysterious reason. . One of the 911 Commissioners eventually quit the Commission suggesting a cover-up. . He called it a "scam" and "disgusting." He is former Senator and 911 Commissioner Max Cleland. . Vietnam War vet and former Director of the Veteran's Administration. . Later head of the Import-Export Bank. . So the question is, if this guy didn't trust the Commission and refused to remain on it, why are U.S. citizens denied the right to question the Commission's findings without being ridiculed? .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0LBARGBupM&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DhvSC4Sbv0 Commission Chairman(s) Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean have both begun to complain publically that the Commission was manipulated and "set up to fail" by those who appointed them. . Kean claims they were appointed by "the most partisan people" in Washington D.C. . Not exactly a ringing endorsement of their own Commission. .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDfm3NroVG8 911 Commissioner Bob Kerrey tells a symposium participant that 911 is part of "a 30 year old conspiracy."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsY59SHcshcSenator Graham (Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee) has been complaining for years that he is prevented by law from telling the American people about the conspiracies, cover-ups and backroom deals involved in 911. . Now, to avoid violating the law regarding disclosure of classified material, Senator Bob Graham has written a sort of "tell-all" book in novel form to skirt disclosure rules. .
Operation Able Danger -
After 911 a group of military officers, lead by Lt. Colonel Anthony Schaffer, stepped forward and reported that they had identified the 911 hi-jackers prior to 911 but were denied permission to pursue them. . Then after 911 Schaffer claims he personally approached the 911 Commission and offered his documents and testimony. . The Commission declined the information. . The Senate Judiciary Committee attempted to investigate, but the Pentagon ordered witnesses not to testify. . Then, in the Wall Street Journal, former FBI Director Louis Freeh joined the attack on the 911 Commission for ignoring or suppressing the Operation Able Danger information, which would have revealed that U.S. Intelligence was on to the 911 plot, but was handcuffed and forced to stand by and watch it happen. . Colonel Shaffer and FBI Director Freeh are both alleging that even if the suppression of Operation Able Danger wasn't evidence of a 911 conspiracy, the cover-up of information and its exclusion from the 911 Commission Report was a conspiracy. . http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/17/122900.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7suTyXGybU&feature=relatedOperation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXO8tULizxs&feature=relatedOperation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2RKXE2iAO8&feature=related Fox News's Senior Legal Analyst, Judge Anthony Napolitano talks about the connection he sees between 911 and the JFK assassination. . Judge Napolitano believes "we should be suspicious of everything the government tells us," that there is no doubt the US government "executed" JFK. . Judge Napolitano believes that the Government will get away with lies regarding 911 because we tolerate their lies. .
We do not know what happened to United Flight 93. . Its unlikely that the 911 Commissioners know. . And with the help of Darren and the entire JetCareers Conspiracy Debunking team, the government may never have to tell us. .
I don't know what happened to United Flight 93. . But I suspect that the answers do not lie in the 911 report. . "Questioning" seems to me to be the best way to honor the dead of 911, and those of the resulting wars that came after. . If merely asking questions makes hambone a "conspiracy theorist", at least he's in very distinguished company. .
(now we can sit back and watch all the non-sensical, hysterical response posts arrive from those who never, ever question)
cc: For later re-posting to JC. .
seperate copies sent to - hambone, jet, flyingbum, staledog, pullup, PugetSoundMan
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
To be fair, I don't think the JC Conspiracy team is exactly top on the list of trooth-tellers to be Silenced by Them. But you bring up some interesting points. IMHO, what makes all of this so difficult is that our political apparatus is set up to lie. It's second nature. Any good political appratchik is almost comically amused when someone just tells the simple, unvarnished truth...even if that truth is that they don't know. This leads (I suspect) to a lot of things sounding plausible that aren't, in point of fact, true. Because someone was protecting their fiefdom or funding..."doing the dance", as they say. Even if our system of government isn't a monsterous Conspiracy to keep the proles in line (and I confess that I don't think it is...not consciously, anyway), it takes on that appearance due to simple, old-fashioned greed and short-sightedness. Which, if you think about it, might be even worse.
Qutch
Question everything
And the single point that I'd like to highlight now is this ....If hambone or jet or anyone else had made the statements, in this forum, that you heard in those videos by 911 Commissioners, public officials and other public figures, would they be treated respectfully here? . Or would they be denounced as raving lunatics? . Would they be allowed to continue their dialogue here with respectful moderators maintaining order? . Or would the thread be bombarded with cartoons, unrelated videos and cut-and-paste document dumps in order to break up the flow? .
Are the participants in this forum permitted to make the identical statements, and ask the identicle questions asked by the 911 Commissioners themselves without being ridiculed? We'll see what transpires from here.
flyingbum
Needz Re-Edjamacayshun
Great info Qutch. I'll post some tomorrow. Here are a couple recent videos from truthers. It's interesting to watch these bureaucrats run like scared little mice when they are confronted by REAL questions.
[video=youtube;HkoZjvQi8ms]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkoZjvQi8ms[/video]
[video=youtube;8XNksDoQ5CM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=8XNksDoQ5CM[/video]
[video=youtube;HkoZjvQi8ms]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkoZjvQi8ms[/video]
[video=youtube;8XNksDoQ5CM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=8XNksDoQ5CM[/video]
Bumblebee
Commodore
People may ridicule, that is still within the rights, and you may continue to offer points that those who want to will be able to hear. I would suggest getting up off the moderation, no one has gone in and edited your posts even though that is within our capability. Don't worry about the ridicule, or the criticism. I may ridicule your beliefs but I am not allowed to be insulting towards you personally, and you sir are coming very close towards being insulting towards those who have allowed you free reign to make arguments...just a reminder, this website is not subject to the first amendment, yet we truly try to create space for all of our members.
I'm sure there are other places where your point of view would be welcomed with open arms.......remember, after all it is an aviation website.
I'm sure there are other places where your point of view would be welcomed with open arms.......remember, after all it is an aviation website.
Jet
Well-Known Member
Very well said Qutch. You brought up some really good points and some sides of the story that I didn't even know about. I agree with you that the best honor for those who have fallen from 9/11 is the truth. Unfortunatly for every professional, educated and well spoken 911 truther/conspriracy theorist or whatever you may call them, there are more who embarrass the group. The same can be said for our government, don't let the select few responsible for lying about finding the black boxes, etc cause you to label the whole government as corrupt, since that is not the case. I group myself somewhere in the middle, choosing to not believe some of the extreme conspiracy theories but not denying the obvious holes in the official story (which a lot of people who support the official commission report haven't even taken the time to actually read it).
There was a biased, strictly controlled and low budget investigation performed, which has proved to be disrespectful to the ones who lost their lives. Although, covering up a crime scene does make one look involved in some way, I refuse to make any conclusions with only circumstancial evidence and no direct evidence. I promote a good civilized debate involving only the facts and leaving out personal attacts. Unfortunately whatever has been covered up has been covered up with too much power and money behind it and will most likely never be exposed to the general public. After 10 years, we need to move forward as a whole, remember the fallen and honor the friends and families who still live with this tragic loss.
There was a biased, strictly controlled and low budget investigation performed, which has proved to be disrespectful to the ones who lost their lives. Although, covering up a crime scene does make one look involved in some way, I refuse to make any conclusions with only circumstancial evidence and no direct evidence. I promote a good civilized debate involving only the facts and leaving out personal attacts. Unfortunately whatever has been covered up has been covered up with too much power and money behind it and will most likely never be exposed to the general public. After 10 years, we need to move forward as a whole, remember the fallen and honor the friends and families who still live with this tragic loss.
staledog
Well-Known Member
darrenf
resident denizen
More conspiracy theorist behavior. They won't answer questions. It's not cherry picking to ask you a question on the part of your post I had a question on. Like I said, nothing new here with your and Qutch's tactics and methods. Cherry pick the facts, ad hominem your adversary, and don't answer direct questions when asked. Your not fooling anyone who's not a fool.
darrenf
resident denizen
Here is a list of what makes a conspiracy theorist that I did not write but I can agree with. I'm posting from my iphone so please forgive any formatting wackiness.
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's
darrenf
resident denizen
Hmmm, guess there is a limit to how much you can post via Tapatalk. ( must be a conspiracy)!
Here is 9 & 10 from the list again.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's happened before.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
Here is 9 & 10 from the list again.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's happened before.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
flyingbum
Needz Re-Edjamacayshun
Darren, I wasn't trying to get under your skin on anything. When I said it's a two way street, It was actually meant to agree with you and also say that it could be flipped. I honestly thought your question was self evident, therefore It appeared (to me) as if you were asking my opinion. I really don't want to argue about trivial things like this, it's detracting from the thread IMO. If I upset you I apologize.
flyingbum
Needz Re-Edjamacayshun
Darren, look at the link, It says conspiraloon. This is exactly what I was talking about in a previous post. That list is like the poster-child for how mass-media handles people who ask questions. Are detectives who solve murders conspiracy loons? Of course not. When 3,000 people are murdered and the "Official" explanation has more holes than swiss cheese, don't you think it's OK to ask questions?
I really think you should just let us be. Let us post some more information.
I really think you should just let us be. Let us post some more information.
darrenf
resident denizen
Conspiraloon is not the domain, it is the name of that page. It is obviously one persons opinion, that I happen to agree with. Stop acting like I am trying to hide my motivations . You are free to post whatever you like, but I refuse to stop ridiculing you for your methods and faulty conclusions. It dishonors those lost to let that run unchecked.
flyingbum
Needz Re-Edjamacayshun
What faulty conclusions? I have not posted any conclusions. So far a few people have only posted information.
No one has said, " I believe the CIA did it underground with a candlestick".
In case you haven't noticed, we are having this discussion because the 9/11 commission report has some gaping holes in it. Have you looked at any of the information that has been posted? Any of it? Don't come in here talking about faulty conclusions, that's what initiated this public debate.
Underlined... Just stop right there, it's too easy, and I don't wanna tongue slap you with something loaded full of acrimony.
My suggestion to you is just stop. Stop! Just leave it be. I can honestly say that debating politics in the lavatory with wacofan is a lot more fun than exchanging posts with you.