Press behaviour

[Junai]

Yep, that was the trial I was looking for, Junai. Good work man. You will single handedly bring down the government and replace it with something better. In fact, rule by petition would be great!

 

Between your lines I read; We have to trust what the establishment presents us with, since the only alternative - having to realize that there is actually such a thing as press mis-behaviour - is something I won't even contemplate!

 

Well, contemplate this official statement then:

 

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media "

- William Colby, former Director of the CIA, from David McGowan's Derailing Democracy.

 

 

G'nite.

 

J.

[Aristes]

Yep, your quote proves your case. Now must get folks to sign your petition and you've got a rock solid case. No pesky judge. No jury. No one to advocate both sides. Just you and the quotes in isolation you can dredge up. Anyone who questions the method must either be one of the sheep or one of the conspirators. haha Keep reading between the lines and you'll get my take on your foolish argument. Not that I'm calling you foolish, you understand. Just your argument.

[Aristes]

I don't wish to be rude, but I have very little time for any claim that supposes a conspiracy where incompetence is a viable option. Conspiracy in general is nonsense for the very simple reason that ALL human organised endeavour is generally a nonsense.

 

As I said originally, my instinct is that the reports are genuine. However, without any verification how can one take the reports seriously? It can be reported as news, if only as an illustration of the contentious nature of the issue. But my point is that reporting it without mentioning the issue of credibility is deliberately misleading.

 

I suppose one might construe hypocrisy in my two statements above. I am contradicting myself by assuming a conspiracy where incompetence is possible.

who's to say they didn't verify the sources? I mean we don't exactly see everything they told us.

Much better! The sources might be legitimate, therefore they must be believed! Huzzah! That's how everyone should evaluate the news! Wow, four!!!!

[Gorth]

It is safer to assume that everybody (and I mean everybody) is lying to a smaller or larger degree to further their own interests, whatever they may be. If you can dillute the lies by adding a quantity of truth, so much the better, makes for an easier sell

[Aristes]

Anyhow, Junai, I think I've been overly harsh. I mean that. There really are conspiracies and there are rumors of conspiracy that aren't true. It's undoubtedly a good thing to have folks on both ends of the spectrum looking at the facts.

[Walsingham]

I don't wish to be rude, but I have very little time for any claim that supposes a conspiracy where incompetence is a viable option. Conspiracy in general is nonsense for the very simple reason that ALL human organised endeavour is generally a nonsense.

 

As I said originally, my instinct is that the reports are genuine. However, without any verification how can one take the reports seriously? It can be reported as news, if only as an illustration of the contentious nature of the issue. But my point is that reporting it without mentioning the issue of credibility is deliberately misleading.

 

I suppose one might construe hypocrisy in my two statements above. I am contradicting myself by assuming a conspiracy where incompetence is possible.

who's to say they didn't verify the sources? I mean we don't exactly see everything they told us.

 

I only know what I read in the papers. They might well have verified the sources as existing. In which case

 

a) my sources have been misleading me

b) the contrary sources have missed an opportunity to attack their opponents for deception

[Junai]

Yep, your quote proves your case. Now must get folks to sign your petition and you've got a rock solid case. No pesky judge. No jury. No one to advocate both sides. Just you and the quotes in isolation you can dredge up.

 

Ok, so this is how it works. If you can't even get OJ for killing his wife, or Clinton for humping Lewinski, you're never gonna get prominent rich families pinned down in court for killing 3k of their own citizens (or, something similar, involving prom. members of society or foreign trade-affiliates, or even terrorists with a link to the adminis. which proves admin. incompetence etc.) What you do after you realize you've been lied to, is that you start an organization and slowly start to put pressure on the government. The bigger the organization, the more often they'll listen to you. It's voters, after all. After a while, even mainstream-media can't ignore it anymore, or they'll look like sellouts, so they have to report on what's going on. Now, if you get a few good academics from solid universities to back you as well, you're making progress. A few nutters on YouTube will never succeed, but an org. with thousands of people and some financial backing might. The end goal isn't necessarily a trial, but a new investigation where large parts of the evidence is not swept under the rug, or where people quit the commission in protest because of official misconduct etc. like they did in the 4 previous "investigations", but a thorough and independent investigation which is believable.

 

One lie can be spread through the mainstream propaganda-machine in seconds, but it takes decades to rectify things.

Just because you refuse to swallow everything you see on tee-vee doesn't mean you're a conspiracy-theorist.

 

Junai-gasbag rhetorics isn't representative with regards to the work the aforementioned org. does, it's simply a result of my own impatience with folks who are unwilling to look.

 

 

J.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Junai

[GreasyDogMeat]

Oh brother, conspiracy theorists. The same gov. that handled Katrina, the war in Iraq etc. also masterminded the most dasterdly attack on U.S. soil and no one can come up with any solid proof.

 

I'd find it all amusing if the real terrorists weren't laughing in their caves as we turn on ourselves and some ahole kid with no time on his hands wanders the street telling widows and orphans their own gov did this to them.

[Humodour]

Oh brother, conspiracy theorists. The same gov. that handled Katrina, the war in Iraq etc. also masterminded the most dasterdly attack on U.S. soil and no one can come up with any solid proof.

 

I'd find it all amusing if the real terrorists weren't laughing in their caves as we turn on ourselves and some ahole kid with no time on his hands wanders the street telling widows and orphans their own gov did this to them.

 

That's a very common sense post. Unfortunately this means Junai will have to promptly ignore it.

[Calax]

I don't wish to be rude, but I have very little time for any claim that supposes a conspiracy where incompetence is a viable option. Conspiracy in general is nonsense for the very simple reason that ALL human organised endeavour is generally a nonsense.

 

As I said originally, my instinct is that the reports are genuine. However, without any verification how can one take the reports seriously? It can be reported as news, if only as an illustration of the contentious nature of the issue. But my point is that reporting it without mentioning the issue of credibility is deliberately misleading.

 

I suppose one might construe hypocrisy in my two statements above. I am contradicting myself by assuming a conspiracy where incompetence is possible.

who's to say they didn't verify the sources? I mean we don't exactly see everything they told us.

 

I only know what I read in the papers. They might well have verified the sources as existing. In which case

 

a) my sources have been misleading me

b) the contrary sources have missed an opportunity to attack their opponents for deception

Well, I'd guess the paper that released this is one of those that is very bias, thus they have a very specific bent on how things work and they don't give the opposing view a slot in their publication. And I wasn't saying that I believed the entire thing was factual, only that a lack of public confirmation does not necessairly mean a lack of confirmation overall.

[Junai]

Oh brother, conspiracy theorists. The same gov. that handled Katrina, the war in Iraq etc. also masterminded the most dasterdly attack on U.S. soil and no one can come up with any solid proof.

 

I'd find it all amusing if the real terrorists weren't laughing in their caves as we turn on ourselves and some ahole kid with no time on his hands wanders the street telling widows and orphans their own gov did this to them.

 

That's a very common sense post. Unfortunately this means Junai will have to promptly ignore it.

 

Speaking of widows; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Girls

 

I'm tired of popping 15 yr old neocon pimples.

Get informed or I won't reply to any more of this nonsense.

 

J.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Get informed... .

 

Coming from a conspiracy theorist that gets news from people/sites with agendas who manipulate bits of information to make them sound suspicious of an overall conspiracy and then claims its the mainstream media doing so.

 

I DON'T have a problem with people wanting more information about what happened. Its the idiots who take something and don't give the whole story and then scream "CONSPIRACY"! The owner of Tower 7 took out an insurance policy against terrorism before 9-11. OOOO... HE WAS IN ON IT! Rabid conspiracy theorists forget to mention that the insurance policy is against a whole host of other events & accidents and he would not have been allowed to purchase the building otherwise.

 

It just goes on and on and on. Its a horrible tragedy and people are shocked a handful of scum could do such damage. So their addled brains turned to mush over years of X-Files, UFO stories etc. turn to the evil government.

 

The irony is that if there was a conspiracy, it will be lost in all the BS lies of the conspiracy theorists who have cried wolf a million tiems on flimsy evidence that has been refuted left and right.

[Aristes]

The irony is that if there was a conspiracy, it will be lost in all the BS lies of the conspiracy theorists who have cried wolf a million tiems on flimsy evidence that has been refuted left and right.

I haven't wanted to pile on Junai, but this is really the case. Even conspiracy theorists claim different causes, sometimes diametrically opposed causes, for certain events. Every conspiracy theorist I've known has argued just as vehemently for his own view as each of the others. They can't all be right.

 

The point is that there are conspiracies. However, the threshold for claiming a conspiracy must remain high. Otherwise we either have the mere claim of a conspiracy gain weight of its own or we dilute the meaning of the word so it loses all traction.

 

I think the 9-11 investigation was certainly flawed, and my reasons are probably quite different from a lot of folks and similar or the same as others. However, it had sufficient oversight and broad support that I'm willing to accept its views. Are there about a million websites out there that pick at various flaws in the commission? Yes. Are there petitions that castigate the commission? Of course. Are there folks who support creating a new commission? Absolutely. However, the 9-11 commission is sufficient and there is no need to spend the time, money, and resources keeping the issue alive for folks who will never be satisfied with the outcome no matter how long the investigation takes.

 

...But the real problem is that, if we have some shadow organization that has sufficient power to control the media and the government while keeping its actions hidden, then we're sunk anyhow. I mean, I've read the conspiracy sites and heard the arguments and evidence. There's still no smoking gun. If the best the most avid conspiracy investigators can do is what they've done so far, then they've lost.

 

I don't want to be obnoxious to you Junai. Once I realized you seriously believed all of this, I just kind of felt sympathy for you. It is undoubtedly a scary world out there with Fox news literally being in on the great conspiracy, virtually the entire news media in the hip pocket of shadowy government forces, and our lives under the complete control of some unseen force. I'm not facetious. Going through life with that outlook must be quite grim indeed.

 

In theory, could that outlook be true? *shrug* I suppose. ...But there is no rock solid evidence, only cherry-picked bits of information that have been strung in a specific line to lead to a particular conclusion. Since that's the case, without solid proof, we're better off enjoying our lives and living as best we can. Keep fighting the good fight, Junai, but I think you're wrong and, regardless, I think you do more harm than good. Most folks have already accepted the 9-11 commission report and moved on with life. That's undoubtedly what a conpirator would want, assuming it's a lie. Assuming it's the best a hodpodge assortment of interests could do under the circumstances, it's probably what the vast majority of the people want as well.

[Humodour]

Oh brother, conspiracy theorists. The same gov. that handled Katrina, the war in Iraq etc. also masterminded the most dasterdly attack on U.S. soil and no one can come up with any solid proof.

 

I'd find it all amusing if the real terrorists weren't laughing in their caves as we turn on ourselves and some ahole kid with no time on his hands wanders the street telling widows and orphans their own gov did this to them.

 

That's a very common sense post. Unfortunately this means Junai will have to promptly ignore it.

 

Speaking of widows; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Girls

 

I'm tired of popping 15 yr old neocon pimples.

Get informed or I won't reply to any more of this nonsense.

 

J.

 

Are you honest to god calling me a 15 year old neoconservative because I don't buy into your conspiracy theories?

 

Here's the political party I identify the closest with. Have a bit of a read and see if you still want to call me a neocon.

 

I'm sorry, but it turns out one doesn't need to be any sort of conservative to find your posts to be a load of fringe extremist tosh.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Krezack

[Gorgon]

So, you actually believe that the Bush administration and the military industrial complex orchestrated 9/11 to get paid, and that somewhere a secret cadre still knows what really went on.

 

I don't.

 

You see taking those inconsistencies and conflicting statements about 9/11 to their logical conclusion is not as easy as merely pointing out that they exist.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Gorgon

[Junai]

Have I singled out a perpetrator anywhere? Is it insane to look at evidence which doesn't support a story? Are all crime-scene investigators and those listen to them crazy conspiracy-theorists? It's the most classic debunking-techique, calling someone a conspiracy-theorist just because they have an alternative non-mainstream view. It's like the jews screaming anti-semite just because you criticize the politics of Israel.

 

What I've been saying all along - which is directly related to the topic - is; we've been manipulated to believe something which is not the case reg. 9/11. Why do I believe this? Because of the overwhelming evidence reg. misconduct and manipulation under the four "independent" investigations. I get all of you over me, and you still haven't watched the 2 hr documentary I provided a link to earlier, a 2 hr talk by one of the most prominent architects in the US, a man who refers to professors from Berkely and other major academics in the US who have raised questions about the official story. If you won't even give it a chance, you just refuse to accept alternative views.

 

Also, when it comes to the bereaved, well, it's mostly THEY who have demanded a new and fuller inquiry!

 

Don't stand with your feet planted in this mainstream media-created defiance, snarling at invisible Al-Qaeda threats, imaginary weapons of mass destruction and naughty Pashtun tribes. You think some guy in a cave in Afghanistan could produce advanced Thermate and have NORAD stand down for hours while private airliners crash into NY-buildings? You REALLY believe that?

 

Of course, if you want to believe the story and move on, fine. Be a sheep and become part of the problem.

 

J.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Junai

[Gorgon]

What is your opinion on what happened then, if as you say there are indications of a cover up and prior knowledge, of the towers not 'collapsing like they should'. What does it mean if not government conspiracy, martians ?.

[Walsingham]

Er... you're in a logic whirlpool: 9/11 was caused by an evil government, combating an evil government requires ending credibility of said government, ending credibility means accepting they are evil, they are evil because they perpetrated 9/11

 

You need to understand that i have an extremely good friend who is a world expert in structure engineering under attack. His quick capsule review was that counter-culture testimony on the attacks was balls. Two large airplanes flew into the goddamn buildings. The buildings fell down. There is nothing in the least bit surprising about this. Farting around with additional explosives or other effects is totally unnecessary.

 

Combine that fact with previous Al Qaeda attempts on the twin towers, and Al Qaeda's generally bloodthirsty credentials, PLUS prior experience with hijacking planes... I mean do I have to go on?

 

I genuinely want to communicate this, because you're wasting your life worrying about a fiction.

[Junai]

What is your opinion on what happened then,

Well, it's pretty obvious that explosives were used. Beyond that.. ?

If I start guessing, I'm a conspiracy theorist.

 

Give this one a chance, I don't think they would mind. On the contrary, it's in low-res on their website.

 

I need to take a break from this thread before I develop an ulcer.. lol.

Thanks for a nice discussion.

 

J.

[Humodour]

What is your opinion on what happened then,

Well, it's pretty obvious that explosives were used.

 

No it's not. It is pretty obvious two giant ****ing aeroplanes planes crashing into the buildings caused structural instability and FIRES. Do you know what happens when buildings catch fire after they've been hit by jumbo jets? THEY COLLAPSE.

 

You're a conspiracy theorist for making that ridiculous claim. You don't need to jump to any conclusions after that - you've already qualified.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Krezack

[Guest PoziomyPion]

[Walsingham]

What is your opinion on what happened then,

Well, it's pretty obvious that explosives were used. Beyond that.. ?

 

Sorry. Wrong. I can't say this any nicer. I know there's some cool sounding people who will show you modelling and data that indicates explosives, but *fanfare* according to teacher their shown working is WRONG.

 

Now, for one moment, let's play a game. If you will imagine that I'm telling you the gospel truth and tell me how you feel, I'll try to do the reverse and tell you how I feel.

[Junai]

Sorry. Wrong. I can't say this any nicer. I know there's some cool sounding people who will show you modelling and data that indicates explosives, but *fanfare* according to teacher their shown working is WRONG.

How can you know they're wrong if you've never ever listened to what they have to say? There are Reagan Republicans with PhDs in architecture and construction engineering who have given hour-long presentations, providing rock solid proof that enormous amounts of Thermite and explosives have been used. You think I'll take your ignorant word over theirs? You don't think I'd listen to a prof. from Berkely rather than some kid from a games-board who refuses to listen to the truth. You really believe that?!

 

Now, for one moment, let's play a game. If you will imagine that I'm telling you the gospel truth and tell me how you feel, I'll try to do the reverse and tell you how I feel.

I've played enough games with you Walsingham. People like you believe Bernanke is the greatest blessing since Moses, and that waterboarding is a sex-game. You can't be reasoned with. It is, however, very funny to watch you flare up when you're confronted with something you can't deal with..

 

 

J.

[Humodour]

Now, for one moment, let's play a game. If you will imagine that I'm telling you the gospel truth and tell me how you feel, I'll try to do the reverse and tell you how I feel.

I've played enough games with you Walsingham. People like you believe Bernanke is the greatest blessing since Moses, and that waterboarding is a sex-game. You can't be reasoned with. It is, however, very funny to watch you flare up when you're confronted with something you can't deal with..

 

You clearly don't know anything about Wals if you're willing to make those accusations about his character.

 

I've come to the conclusion that you're delusional and when faced with cognitive dissonance (i.e. everyone who's sane pointing out that you're a conspiracy theorist) you chose to reconcile it by launching attacks on the supposed political affiliations of your critics rather than face the notion that you believe in absolute fantasy.

[Walsingham]

Now, for one moment, let's play a game. If you will imagine that I'm telling you the gospel truth and tell me how you feel, I'll try to do the reverse and tell you how I feel.

I've played enough games with you Walsingham. People like you believe Bernanke is the greatest blessing since Moses, and that waterboarding is a sex-game. You can't be reasoned with. It is, however, very funny to watch you flare up when you're confronted with something you can't deal with..

 

You clearly don't know anything about Wals if you're willing to make those accusations about his character.

 

I've come to the conclusion that you're delusional and when faced with cognitive dissonance (i.e. everyone who's sane pointing out that you're a conspiracy theorist) you chose to reconcile it by launching attacks on the supposed political affiliations of your critics rather than face the notion that you believe in absolute fantasy.

 

That's a very kind thing to say, Krez. And, for the record, I've followed links to the counter-evidence before. It seemed convincing so I asked my friend, who is a specialist in the field of damaged buildings and structures, what he thought of the counter-evidence and he said it was poor quality. Well, actually, he said it was "bollocks" to be precise. Now, I'm not going to cross the line by involving him directly, so you'd be within your rights to ignore this argument. However, I do believe I have sufficient credibility (as Krezack says) for you to consider what I'm saying. I suggest that it is you who is unwilling to consider the counter-evidence to your counter-evidence. Unless you want to contradict me by showing you've read and understood the vanilla version?

 

Incidentally, I'm running with this 9/11 thing since I believe it qualifies as on topic.