7/7 London Bombings

billy the squid

Diogenes wrote:

You are not presenting facts, you are presenting videos, theres a difference.

What constitutes facts in your opinion. A webpage, a photograph, all three photos video and text can be bull****, can you prove that it is bull****?

MAYBE its JUST the RANDOM CAPITALISATION of your POSTS. BUT the above AD HOMINEN isn't a rebuttal it's just a PERSONAL ATTACK. SomeTHing you CLAiM those WHO DISMISS conspiracy THEORIES engage IN!

[/quote]

I'm going to say the same thing to you as I have said to tunaman, the use of capital letters is comming accross as agressive, keep a lid on it please.

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

So what's your explanation for him repeating his initial statement?

I haven't offered an explanation for any of his statements, nor o I intend to start now.

I took exception to you once more deciding which information was important for other people to see and which wasn't. I made sure they saw all the information.

One needs all the information to reach a conclusion, doesn't one?

So either he lied, or was he merely mistaken when he twice claimed that the drills were exactly the same as the attacks?

That would be a reasonable conclusion.

Going further, and deciding which of those it was would require a bit more evidence one way or another. We certainly don't have enough information to know for sure either way.

But at least we've gotten this far. A few posts ago, there was no reason to believe it was anything but the truth. Now we're asking if it was the truth, a mis-statement, or a lie. And we got there only by having more facts made available. No misdirection, no theorising, no supposition, no assumption. we just took all the available facts and it became clear that one of these must be the case.

Now, if we can get more facts - like the details about the exercise - we can determine which it is!!!
Until then, we don't know for sure.

I think you need to take it up with the UK government...

They are not the ones complaining about not having all the evidence available and then withiolding evidence .

Thats you, which is why I took it up with you.

Do you really want people to think that anything can be believed, but nothing can be known?

No. I'm saying that from what we know regarding both Romero and Power, there is insufficient information to come to a definite and unquestionable conclusion.

I am not making generalisations about "anything" and "nothing". I am saying that these people made claims which they no longer support. We know this for sure.

Anything beyond that is a question of deciding which interpretation you wish to believe - if either. There's nothing wrong with deciding to believe one interpretation over the other either.

Whats wrong is not making it clear where what we know stops, and what we believe starts. What is wrong is only presenting a subset of what we know, so as to make our beliefs look more certain and make other beliefs less so.

Since when?

Amongst other things: I showed that you only gave half the story with Romero. I showed you only gave half the story with Power. I've showed that quotes about 911 were selectively edited to misrepresent them.

To be honest, a huge amount of (honest) debunking is just that - making it clear what facts have been ignored and overlooked to reach a conclusion.

Dishoenst debunking is omitting facts in order to reach a conclusion. I try not to do that. If I'm guilty of it, I'd appreciate a link to the post.

All you do is continue to parrot cover stories for known liars...
...
Not when you are defending liars...

You've lost me. Lets recap here....

You presented less then the full facts.

I filled in the blanks you left.

I did not drawn conclusions, neither about the truth of the matter in question, nor your motives for offering less then the full facts.

I did admit that its entirely possible that the original statement is the accurate one.

I did make sure that facts you omitted didn't go unnoticed.

What, specifically, is your problem with that? Forget these vague "covering for liars" accusations. Exactly what underhanded tactics am I involved in here? Don't you want people to know all the details before they come to a conclusion?

Is that it? I'm guilty of providing information and suggesting people decide for themselves how to interpret it?

kippy

Okay,
Well I watched the first 15 minutes or so of the video and I'll watch the rest this evening if I have some time.
Again I am highly highly scepticle of any of the claims in it.
I have no doubt that the Government and police have kept things from the general public but I believe the root of what were are told happened that day is true.
Why? Well again, as with all these theories, if there were a number of people in the know, I am sure they would have sold their story at this stage or a member of their family would have sold it. I also believe that the documentary does not have show all of the evidence at its disposal, just the evidence which can be questioned-now, I am not a police officer or an intelligence expert and I dont believe I need to know every single shred of evidence that was involved in the case. I let the experts work on that and give me the details of what actually happened.
Without actually working on the case it is completely impossible to know exactly what evidence was collected, how it was collected and how it fits into the scheme of things. The general public will never ever be given all the evidence. Why-because it is not relevant.
Tunaman, and a few others-you all seem to jump on the bandwagon of any theory which debunks a government. I think you all have serious issues with authority.
I will continue to believe the official story until such a time as solid concrete evidence is available to refute it. What is in that documentary is nothing but speculation, hearsay and pointing out that some evidence is missing.
If its a lie and it turns out that way in year to come-fine. I was fooled-what difference does it make. I believe any many governments act in the long term interests of its citizens anyway.
Kippy

Diogenes

tunaman wrote:

The thread is about the video being presented, so if you have nothing constructive to say about it, then you really have no business here...

What parts of the video do you believe or not believe tunman?

Are you trying to claim that these drills happen all the time?

If so, then what evidence are you basing this on?

Hmmm the fact that it's true

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/press-releases/press-releases-content.asp?prID=384

website wrote:

Each year London Underground is legally required to hold an emergency exercise on the network. A different line takes turns in hosting the event.

or this

transport for london wrote:

We hold regular emergency exercises,

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/using/useful-info/safety/safety-tips.asp

Why should I write them down for you, when they are presented in the video...

Tell me do you believe everything in the video? Everything, without fail?

If you still believe in the official conspiracy theory, then tell us what facts and evidence are you basing this on?

The fact that your conspiracy video is a poorly put together tissue of lies for starts.

Diogenes

billy the squid wrote:

What constitutes facts in your opinion. A webpage, a photograph, all three photos video and text can be bull****, can you prove that it is bull****?

There are plenty of facts, and truth in the video. There is also alot of conjecture and speculation gussied up to look like facts. For example it presents the "fact" that the Police haven't released the DNA evidence as proof that there is something suspicious about this evidence. I don't think Police are in the habit of releasing DNA evidence in crimes, just because someone asks them to, I see it as common sense no suspicious behaviour.

The film presents the "fact" that Khan's video confession has not been released in full as "suspicious". Al-Jazeera have possession of the tape so I cannot see how the lack of seeing the whole tape, can be viewed as suspicious.

It presents the time stamp of the CCTV cameras discrepency as "Fact" that the bombers were in different places at impossible times. However the film makers don't seem interested in contemptlating that the CCTVs camera internal clocks could have different times. See the conspiraloons all live in a world where CCTV cameras are all linked to an atomic clock.

[/quote]

I'm going to say the same thing to you as I have said to tunaman, the use of capital letters is comming accross as agressive, keep a lid on it please.

We don't get sarcasm?

I have watched the initial video on the 7/7 bombings, And I have to say that it came accross as something you might find on Indymedia about "the man" watching everything you do.

Hmmm even Indymedia has a low tolerance for this claptrap.

Jocksereire

Exclusive: confessions of a secret agent turned terrorist
By Neil Mackay



KEVIN Fulton is very clear about where the orders were coming from. 'I was told that this was sanctioned right at the top,' he says, sipping a Pepsi in the bar of a Glasgow hotel. 'I was told 'there'll be no medals for this, and no recognition, but this goes the whole way to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows what you are doing.'
This was 1980, and if Margaret Thatcher knew about the activities of military intelligence agents such as Fulton, then she was also aware her own military officers were planning to infiltrate British soldiers as 'moles' into the IRA. These moles were ordered by their handlers to carry out terrorist crimes in order to keep their cover within the Provos so they could feed information on other leading republicans back to security forces.

For almost two years the Sunday Herald has been investigating the activities of the FRU -- the Force Research Unit, an ultra-secret wing of British military intelligence. Fulton worked for the FRU for much of his career as an IRA mole. This unit, which has been under investigation by Scotland Yard commissioner Sir John Stevens for more than a decade, was involved in the murder of civilians in Northern Ireland.

Nicholas Benwell, a detective sergeant formerly attached to the Stevens Inquiry, says the Scotland Yard team came to one conclusion: that military intelligence was colluding with terrorists to help them kill so-called 'legitimate targets' such as active republicans. FRU handlers passed documents and photographs to their agents operating within paramilitary groups detailing targets' movements and the whereabouts of their homes. Pictures were also handed over to help gunmen identify their victims. But there was a problem. The targeting was far from professional and many of the victims of these government-backed hit squads were innocent civilians.

In 1989 the FRU passed information to the UDA which the loyalist gang used to murder the Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane, who was shot dead in front of his wife and children. Last week, Prime Minister Tony Blair pledged that the Government was determined to uncover the truth about Finucane's murder. The Canadian judge Peter Cory who was called in by the government to investigate the case is expected to recommend a public inquiry. The Irish government is also pressing for an inquiry of its own.

So who was the overall controller of the FRU with its 'licence to kill' republicans? Until now it seemed that responsibility for the activities of the FRU rested on the shoulders of one man -- Brigadier Gordon Kerr, the Scottish officer who led the unit and is now the British military attachŽ to Beijing. A two-part BBC Panorama programme, concluding tonight, much of it based on the Sunday Herald's previous investigations, puts Kerr squarely in the frame.

But if Fulton's claims are correct, then Kerr, soon to be questioned by the Stevens team, was just one link in a chain of command which went all the way to the cabinet and the Prime Minister. As Fulton says: 'Kerr was just following orders. Soldiers don't make up the rules, they just do as they're told.'

Fulton's story begins in 1979. He was 19, and had just enlisted in the First Battalion Royal Irish Rangers. Kevin Fulton isn't his real name, but a pseudonym used to protect his identity since turning whistle-blower on the activities of the British military, the RUC and the security services in Ulster's 'dirty war'. His work for military intelligence has been confirmed by FRU sources.

Fulton's military file quickly found its way onto the desks of the Intelligence Corps, the regiment which includes the FRU. It made interesting reading. Here was a Catholic from Newry, in the heart of a republican strong-hold, who seemed a loyal servant of the Crown. After only a few weeks in the army, Fulton's staff sergeant approached him. 'I was told that some guys from military intelligence wanted to speak to me,' Fulton says. 'They asked me if I'd like to work for them and I said 'no' as I wanted to remain in uniform. They told me to think about the offer. They added that I shouldn't tell anyone about the visit and that if I was asked I should say they were from a military welfare group. The next time we met they asked me if I'd go to Newry with them. We looked through pictures of local characters and I put names to faces, saying if they had a republican background or not.'

The two FRU officers, one of whom was Scottish, continued to try and persuade him to work with them. 'They confessed they needed guys like me -- Catholics from that part of Northern Ireland -- in order to get inside the Provos,' he says.


Fulton was still unsure, so the FRU asked him if he could help recruit a Catholic civilian in Newry who might be willing to go inside the IRA. He did. It was an old friend, who he refers to as Agent Washington. He and Fulton accompanied FRU members to the army training camp at Ballykinlar in County Down. 'He was given weapons training. They taught him how to fire an M16, AK-47s, Remington wingmaster shotguns, Sterling sub-machine guns and a Browning 9mm,' says Fulton. 'Remember that this was a civilian going inside the IRA.'

Fulton finally decided he'd work with military intelligence. In 1981, he was officially given a compassionate discharge from his regiment on the fictitious grounds that his father was seriously ill. He also received papers claiming he'd been thrown out for republican sympathies -- a great document to present to the IRA men he would soon befriend.

From then until 1995, Fulton remained on full army pay as he worked his way through the ranks of the IRA. He began drinking in republican bars in Dundalk and socialising with senior IRA officers, including Patrick Joseph Blair, who the Sunday Herald named this year as one of the men behind the Omagh bombing. Blair later went on to became Fulton's 'mentor'.

Not long after his discharge, he told one prominent IRA man that he wanted to join the organisation. He was taken to a room above a bar and confronted by a number of men in balaclavas. 'I'd told them that I'd been kicked out of the army and they started shouting at me saying 'So you're telling us you'd shoot your f***ing comrades if you saw them in Crossmaglen?' I said 'Yes, of course'.

'They started calling me a tout (republican slang for an informer) and saying they were going to shoot me. Eventually, they dragged me outside. They told me to kneel and say the Act of Contrition. I heard a huge bang behind me. It was them banging a big bit of wood on the ground to pretend to be a gunshot. They were testing me. They told me to come back when I was ready.

'My handlers thought this was great. I offered my services to the IRA saying I'd help carry out robberies to fund them. This was all with the knowledge of my handlers in the FRU. I made pals with a prominent Sinn Fein councillor in Newry who suggested I hijack a lorry carrying TVs. I knew that this would give me credibility, so that's what I did. I took a lorry in Belfast with about £100,000 of TVs inside.'

Fulton was later arrested for the robbery and served a year in the Crumlin Road prison in Belfast. Because of his republican connections he was denied the usual privileges of an ODC -- an ordinary decent criminal. This also gave him additional credibility with the IRA.

Fulton was released in 1986 and inducted straight into the IRA. 'My handlers told me to do anything to win their confidence. That's what I did. My brief was that if I got into a situation where I couldn't get to my handlers but I had to break the law, I was to try not to take a life. I was to shoot high or blow up a bomb prematurely. But that isn't always possible. If I f***ed up all the time, then the IRA would shoot me. Don't forget I also ran the risk of getting shot by the army and the police. I mixed explosive and I helped develop new types of bombs. I moved weapons. If you ask me, 'Did I kill anyone?' then I will say 'no'. But if you ask me if the materials I handled killed anyone, then I will have to say that some of the things I helped develop did kill.

'I reiterate, my handlers knew everything I did. I was never told not to do something that was discussed. How can you pretend to be a terrorist and not act like one? You can't. You've got to do what they do. The people I was with were hard-hitters. They did a lot of murders. If I couldn't be any good to them, then I was no use to the army either. I had to do what the man standing next to me did.'

This took an especially dark turn when Fulton became a member of the IRA's 'internal security squad' -- also know as the 'torture unit' -- which interrogated and executed suspected informers. 'I remember once when a guy had been questioned for three days in a safe-house in the Republic,' says Fulton. 'They eventually rolled out a sheet of plastic and decided we were going to 'nut' him. We drew straws to decide on who would do the shooting. Luckily, I didn't draw the short straw.'


In 1992, Fulton told his handlers -- this time in both the FRU and MI5, that his IRA mentor Blair was planning to use a horizontally-fired mortar for an attack on the police. His handlers did nothing. Within days, Blair fired the device at an armoured RUC Land Rover in Newry, in the process killing policewoman Colleen McMurray. Another RUC officer lost both his legs.

Fulton then travelled to the US and helped develop light-sensitive bombs, activated by photographic flashes, to overcome the problem of IRA remote-control devices having their detonation signal jammed by army radio units.

'I broke the law seven days a week and my handlers knew that. They knew that I was making bombs and giving them to other members of the IRA and they did nothing about it. If everything I touched turned to **** then I would have been dead. The idea was that the only way to beat the enemy was to penetrate the enemy and be the enemy. At the time I'd no problem with this way of thinking.'

The claim that the cabinet and Thatcher knew of these types of operations is startling. Thatcher's office has refused to comment on Fulton's claims. It is known, though, that intelligence supplied by other British army moles inside the republican movement was being read at cabinet level. One such mole, Willie Carlin, was flown out of Northern Ireland in Thatcher's Prime Ministerial jet in 1985 after his cover was blown. As chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, which met weekly at Number 10, Thatcher was kept informed of FRU activities. Whether this ran to the day-to-day details of agent-handling is not known. Thatcher did grant the FRU extra funding to recruit agents in the wake of the IRA's Remembrance Day bombing in Enniskillen.

Fulton split with both the IRA and military intelligence in the mid-1990s after a number of terrorist operations went disastrously wrong. Once his handlers told him to get a mobile phone and a car for a planned hit in 1994 on a senior RUC officer in Belfast. The IRA team was arrested on its way to carry out the murder.

Fulton believes his handlers thought he had outlived his usefulness and deliberately linked him to the operation before tipping off the police about the plan. By then, the army had secured a far more highly-placed mole within the IRA -- a man still active and codenamed Stakeknife. Fulton is sure that he was compromised, so the IRA would kill him and believe they were free of informers, allowing Stakeknife to pass top-grade information to the military without risk of being detected. 'If I was dead that would have been the end of it,' he says. 'There would have been no embarrassment to the army.'

From 1995 until now Fulton has been fighting the MoD -- demanding they clear his criminal record, give him a new identity, a relocation package and provide a military pension. 'If they hadn't screwed me, then I wouldn't be screwing them now,' he says. 'If the IRA ever find me I'm dead. I accept I'm a marked man, but I intend to take everyone down with me who was in on this -- no matter how high up the stink goes.'

http://www.sundayherald.com/25646

kippy

Not sure what the article above is supposed to demonstrate, but double agents are rife in the intelligence industry as are placing moles into various organisations.
Kippy

bonkey

Its meant to demonstrate nothing about 7/7, thats for sure.

Jocksereire

[snip]

first and last warning jocksereire , miju

Jocksereire

.

Jocksereire

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4757274759497686216&q=terror+storm

kippy

Jock,
If you'd care to expand on the linked article and also the video so that the rest of us can understand what point you are trying to make?
I think someone in this thread or possibly another thread in the same forum has mentioned how pointless it is to either link to a video or paste in text from somewhere else without actually explaining the relevance of it in relation to the discussion.
Kippy

billy the squid

Jocksereire banned for one week.

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

I haven't offered an explanation for any of his statements, nor o I intend to start now.

So you don't want to go there?

I took exception to you once more deciding which information was important for other people to see and which wasn't. I made sure they saw all the information.

No you didn't.

All you did was tell people that he later changed his story...

You forgot to tell them that he repeated his initial statement, on the day...

So he was either telling the truth on July 7th, which is the logical and rational conclusion...

Where as you are trying to say that he either lied twice or was very strangely mistaken about what had happened a few hours earlier...

Your irrational explanation makes absolutely no sense...

One needs all the information to reach a conclusion, doesn't one?

Having an incredibly small amount of information hasn't stopped many people from blindly believing the official conspiracy theory...

That would be a reasonable conclusion.

I asked you the question, which you have avoided answering...

You have also dishonestly tried to twist my question into supporting your agenda...

Now, if we can get more facts - like the details about the exercise - we can determine which it is!!!
Until then, we don't know for sure.

So he comes out on the very day of the bombings, and twice very clearly tells the media that they were running an exercise exactly the same as what happened...

Then after awhile he comes out and changes his story...

When somebody changes thier story it's immediately suspicious, nevermind changing a story he was so definite about on the day of the bombings...

They are not the ones complaining about not having all the evidence available and then withiolding evidence .

Thats you, which is why I took it up with you.

They are the one's withholding all the evidence...

They don't need to present any real evidence, as the majority naively believe their impossible story...

No. I'm saying that from what we know regarding both Romero and Power, there is insufficient information to come to a definite and unquestionable conclusion.

In a court of law beyond reasonable doubt is enough...

Amongst other things: I showed that you only gave half the story with Romero. I showed you only gave half the story with Power. I've showed that quotes about 911 were selectively edited to misrepresent them.

I linked to an article, which included the Romero retraction, so your revisionist BS is delusional...

How have they been misrepresented?

To be honest, a huge amount of (honest) debunking is just that - making it clear what facts have been ignored and overlooked to reach a conclusion.

Ignoring and overlooking facts is what the official conspiracy theories presented by the US and UK governments are all about...

You presented less then the full facts.

I filled in the blanks you left.

So why didn't you present the Power interview later that same day?

Don't you want people to know all the details before they come to a conclusion? Is that it? I'm guilty of providing information and suggesting people decide for themselves how to interpret it?

I have no problem with you or anybody else providing information...

The problem is when you then try to use this information, i.e. the incredibly suspicious Romero and Power retractions, as evidence to support the official conspiracy theory...

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

So you don't want to go there?

I don't engage in speculation as to motives as it is possible to come up with one for any given explanation of events.

In short, no matter what you believe, you can interpret his statements in a manner consistent with your belief. I don't do that.

No you didn't.
All you did was tell people that he later changed his story...
You forgot to tell them that he repeated his initial statement, on the day...

YOu're right. I also didn't tell them what he had for dinner, where he went after the interviews and a whole host of other information that I didn't see as being relevant.

I don't see someone repeating a claim in successive interviews as suspicious or noteworthy. Indeed, I'd have been surprised if he didn't do so.

I don't see someone making more than one statement in a day as being suspicious either, so in short, I'd expect him to have made the "exactly" comment more than once on the day in question.

But you're right. I didn't mention it. I just caused you to do so. either way, my actions led to more information being brought to light, showing that its far from the "he said this" that you started with.

So he was either telling the truth on July 7th, which is the logical and rational conclusion...

You can call speculation whatever you like, its still speculation.

I also notice that you haven't explained why its the only logical and rational conclusion.

Where as you are trying to say that he either lied twice or was very strangely mistaken about what had happened a few hours earlier...

I never used the words "very strangely", so no....I am not trying to say that.

Having an incredibly small amount of information hasn't stopped many people from blindly believing the official conspiracy theory...

Do you or do you not believe that people should, for any reason, withold information when presenting their case?

If so, what are valid reasons for withholding information?

If not, then why did you not give the full details about Power, rather than just an edited set of relevant facts to make it appear that he unconditionally supported the notion of similarity?

I asked you the question, which you have avoided answering...

I did answer your question. That you disagree with or don't like my answer is a seperate issue. You asked if it was a lie or a mistake. I answered that concluding it was one or the other is reasonable, but that deciding that it is one and not the other is not reasonable.

What more do you expect? That I then go on to make the choice I just argued was unreasonable to make? That I choose whichever seems more logical, based on what I believe happened that day? Such an approach would involve starting from a conclusion and working backwards...something which we both have previously agreed is unacceptable methodology.

If you assume there is no conspiracy, then he has no reason to lie, and the inevitable conclusion is that he was mistaken.
If you assume tehre is a conspiracy, then depending on whether or not he was somehow involved, then the conclusion could be either a mistake or a lie.

If you assume that you don't know whether or not there was a conspiracy, then you can't conclude anything meaningful about his statements.

When somebody changes thier story it's immediately suspicious, nevermind changing a story he was so definite about on the day of the bombings...

Why is it immediately suspicious? Are you saying that there are very few reasonable grounds for people to change their position, particularly on something they have been definite about?

Lets look at a simlpe example: your stance on 757s hitting the Pentagon. Could you explain what is suspicious about your having changed position on this, despite claiming to have been previously so definite? I see nothing suspicious in it at all, but you clearly do, so maybe you could explain to me what I'm overlooking.

In a court of law beyond reasonable doubt is enough...

And you believe that you have established beyond reasonable doubt that his revision on the match of events can only be a lie?

Ignoring and overlooking facts is what the official conspiracy theories presented by the US and UK governments are all about...

But you keep saying this is unacceptable, despite engaging in the same tactics.

So why didn't you present the Power interview later that same day?

"Man doesn't change position when asked for the same type of commentary from a different news source" isn't terribly noteworthy in my book.
"Man changes position when later questioned no the absolute accuracy of his statements", on the other hand, is.

The problem is when you then try to use this information, i.e. the incredibly suspicious Romero and Power retractions, as evidence to support the official conspiracy theory...

Except that I haven't used either retraction as evidence to support anything other than my claims that you didn't present all the relevant information.

I've also pointed out that I haven't even offered my position regarding 7/7.

You started this post by asking me if I was going to do so, and are now concluding it by claiming that I have done so. That sounds like you're revising your position, even within a single post. Didn't you say that position-changing should be seen as suspicious?

billy the squid

@tunaman

While you are free to disagree with someone on this board, calling someone a liar, by subtle means or otherwise will not be tolerated.

Chose your words carefully in future, and i would suggest an apology to bonkey.

tunaman

billy the squid wrote:

@tunaman

While you are free to disagree with someone on this board, calling someone a liar, by subtle means or otherwise will not be tolerated.

Even when I have a perfectly good reason to call him out as a liar?

The reason being, that he has made the blatantly false accusation, more than once, that when presenting evidence of Van Romero's explosive statement, I failed to acknowledge that he retracted his initial statement...

This is the link I presented at the time...

http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html

If you or anybody else clicks on that link, staring you in the face (in capital letters) is a note informing you that he retracted his explosive statement...

He has accused me of failing to provide this information, which you can see for yourself is a blatant lie...

Chose your words carefully in future, and i would suggest an apology to bonkey.

If anybody should be apologising it's him, not me...

kippy

Tunaman,
I think the point being made above about you "lying" may not be fully accurate-you failed to point out a major part of the article and only discussed the parts that were relevant for you.
I think it has been mentioned before about the pointlessness of posting links without dicusssing them in the relevance of the thread. Now, you have discussed them, but you failed, when discussing them to mention the part in bold, which I believe is a pretty vital part of the link.
Kippy.

bonkey

kippy wrote:

Tunaman,
I think the point being made above about you "lying"

Hold on there hoss. I never accused anyone of lying. No-one has made any claim that tunaman is lying.

What is at stake here is tunaman levelling such accusations at other people (and now defending them)

tunaman wrote:

He has accused me of failing to provide this information

I accused you of misrepresenting the evidence about Romero and not noting, pointing out or acknowledging the fact in your presentation of the evidence.

I did this after pointing a link to the retraction and seeing your response, which was not to say "yah - that retraction was mentioned in passing at the top of my link" but rather (and I quote) "It's fairly obvious you know very little about the man, so I will let you in on some information I uncovered"

I then said that you didn't note his withdrawal. Link is there for anyone who wants to see my full post. I hunted it down cause search is broken.

I also said the following:

Again, I'm not suggesting it was anything but an honest error on your part... In keeping with my tradition of not making assumptions about the existence of non-necessary motives, I asked you to clear it up.....something you still haven't done.

For all I knew, you could have overlooked the retraction at the top of the page and didn't know that Romero had retracted the statement you were presenting as evidence. maybe you knew he retracted it but saw no need to check up the details. Perhaps you knew all the details, but didn't want to point them out for any of a multitude of reasons.

Again, I won't second-guiess your motives.

This is the difference between tunaman and myself in this respect. I am not willing to assume what his motives are. This is a practice I argue must be used in analysing evidence, so it would be remiss of me to do otherwise when analysing arguments from posters. If we have something that can be interpreted two ways, and each interpretation favours a conclusion, then neither interpretation can be used to support the conclusion.

Tunaman, on the other hand seems willing to make such assumptions, both on how the evidence should be interpreted and on what my motives for various things are.

He has argued that its reasonable to conclude that people who change their statements believe in the abandoned position (when it agrees with his view of what happened) and have changed their position for some suspicious reason. But this dopesn't lead to the conclusion that there's a conspiracy, it stems from it. The interpretation doesn't support the conclusion, but rather is entirely dependant on it.

Tunaman is willing to claim I'm a liar. He is willing to claim that my refusal to answer a question is dishonest. (I'll come back to these allegations in a sec.)

Now - and again I won't make assumptions here - either tunaman believes these various claims are reasonable, or he doesn't.

If he does believe they're reasonable, I believe its a suitably damning indication of his standards of reasoning. You cannot use conclusion-dependant interpretation to support the conclusion. If you believe otherwise, Lisa Simpson has a tiger-scaring rock to sell you.

If he doesn't believe they're reasonable, I believe its a suitably damning indication of his standards of integrity and honesty by the fact that he still uses them.

I'm not making assumptions as to which it is. I'm just showing that even without such assumptions his approach only undermines his argument because only the nature of how it undermines will change.

So back to the case in point.

Tunaman inaccurately believes that I have accused him of not providing this evidence, which is not what I have done - in the Romero case. I have made such accusations about Powers' statements in the (more thread-relevant) 7/7 case, and I believe they are true. If tuna would like to show which of his links in this thread acknowledged that Powers has withdrawn from his statement, I'll admit to being mistaken in this regard.

Not only that, but he suggests that I know my line of reasoning is false, and am deliberately trying to mislead people. Thats what a lie is, folx. Its not just something thats wrong. Its something being used to deliberately mislead. So for me to be lying, I'd have to know that tunaman did not do what I'm accusing him of. T

Thats what I'm accused of.

To know or conclude I'm lying, tunaman would have had to known that I was aware of the mention at the top of his post, that I knew he was aware of it. He would have to be able to show that I've repeatedly accused him of not providing this information at all despite knowing that he did.

None of this is demonstrably the case. One could assume that we both saw the reference and that we both were aware the other had seen it...despite neither of us ever mentioning it.

One could assume that when I said "you didn't note" or "you didn't acknowledge" what I meant was "you didn't provide any information in any form anywhere". And one could assume taht I was aware all of these assumtpions were true but still wanted to chance my arm and con some people to get them on my side.

I don't do assumptions. Tunaman does.

So is it reasonable to conclude that I'm dishonest and a liar? Tunaman obviously thinks it is.

kippy wrote:

You failed to point out a major part of the article and only discussed the parts that were relevant for you.

This is exactly what I was referring to.

While tunaman did provide the link, he provided a quote of the material relevant to his argument in the post as well as a description of the quality of the source, but without noting that the credibility of the source was questionable because the person in question no longer claims to hold the statement they did previously.

Thus, the argument - as presented in this thread - was misleading and contains no indication that Tunaman had seen or considered the comment at the top of the page.

You'll similarly note that I've been recently accused of dishonestly trying to twist a question. Note that tehre's no explanation of how I tried to twist it, or why what I did was dishonest. Its just a flat-out accusation of dishonesty, suggesting that my motives here somehow lack honesty. Again, assumptive reasoning. Tunaman's defence of this suggests that he believes (or wants us to believe) that this is a reasonable approach to take.

I disagree.

You decide.

jc

civdef

Bonkey, you're in good company. Tunaman called me a liar - he's on my ignore list now.

I think the basic plan is to respond to an argument he doesn't like by alledging dishonesty - like when he doesn't like being told by a fire engineer that tall steel buildings can in fact collapse under fire conditions. I suppose it's much easier to call someone a liar than go off and get a relevant qualification so he could be in a position to make judgements on technical issues.

Why bother argue with fools? They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

bonkey

civdef wrote:

Tunaman called me a liar - he's on my ignore list now.

I don't see that as an effective counter to his posts. It gives him a (more) free forum in which to present his version of events unchallenged.

If all of the skeptics left, who'd point out the counter-arguments?
To who's benefit would that loss be, if not those supporting the opposing point of view?

Whether or not thats the intent, it would be the result if we all adopted your approach.

I think the basic plan is to respond to an argument he doesn't like by alledging dishonesty - like when he doesn't like being told by a fire engineer that tall steel buildings can in fact collapse under fire conditions.

I suppose it's much easier to call someone a liar than go off and get a relevant qualification so he could be in a position to make judgements on technical issues.

Thats an assumptive explanation for it. As I said...I don't do those.

At the end of the day, I'd prefer to out-argue someone by showing up their methodology to be weak rather than adopting the practice I'm criticising.

I don't care why tunaman does what he does.

I believe that I can show that what he does irrevocably undermines his position, regardlses of how it is explained. Deliberate provocation, an emotional outburst, or something else....there is no explanation that benefits him that I can see.

Why bother argue with fools? They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Come on now...

You can't complain about people insulting you if you return the favour.

civdef

I think in this case it's a fairly charitable understatement.

As to the counter-argument thing, it's a fair point, but I reckon at this stage if anyone falls for his line of argument, they are also beyond redemption.

Maybe I just ran out of tolerance and patience. I'll consult my Zen advisor about at our next meeting.

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

I accused you of misrepresenting the evidence about Romero and not noting, pointing out or acknowledging the fact in your presentation of the evidence.

I presented the link as part of my evidence...

Again, I won't second-guiess your motives.

You have done so numerous times already...

Tunaman, on the other hand seems willing to make such assumptions, both on how the evidence should be interpreted and on what my motives for various things are.

You are the one who continues to plead about how the evidence should be interpreted, not me...

He has argued that its reasonable to conclude that people who change their statements believe in the abandoned position (when it agrees with his view of what happened) and have changed their position for some suspicious reason.

Whatever the reason the retraction was incredibly suspicious...

You also repeated the claim that the author of the article you presented made, about how Romero had spoken to other experts and they had made him see the error of his ways...

However, the only direct quotes Romero made when he retracted his explosive statement were the following...

http://911review.com/coverup/romero.html

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail"

On conspiracy theorists emailing him...

"I'm very upset about that"

"I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen."

So we should ignore what he just said on his certainty about fire being the cause?

The interpretation doesn't support the conclusion

Since when?

So back to the case in point.

Good thinking, as your rambling defence was really getting out of hand...

Tunaman inaccurately believes that I have accused him of not providing this evidence, which is not what I have done - in the Romero case.

That is exactly what you have done...

I have made such accusations about Powers' statements in the (more thread-relevant) 7/7 case, and I believe they are true.

So why didn't you back up your accusations with a link?

When I provide links you claim I am misrepresenting the evidence, but when you made the claim without even a link, that wasn't an issue...

Double standards yet again I'm afraid...

If tuna would like to show which of his links in this thread acknowledged that Powers has withdrawn from his statement, I'll admit to being mistaken in this regard.

The reason I haven't provided any link, is because I haven't seen any...

I did read about it awhile ago, but you are the one making the claim, so it really should be up to you to back it up...

I don't doubt his retraction, but would be very interested in his explanation...

To know or conclude I'm lying, tunaman would have had to known that I was aware of the mention at the top of his post, that I knew he was aware of it. He would have to be able to show that I've repeatedly accused him of not providing this information at all despite knowing that he did.

Of course you knew both of us were aware of his retraction...

I'm not going to through the thread, as I have already made my point...

So is it reasonable to conclude that I'm dishonest and a liar? Tunaman obviously thinks it is.

You keep claiming I misrepresent the evidence, when you claim the evidence doesn't even exist...

Where is all the evidence that makes you believe these conspiracy theories?

You'll similarly note that I've been recently accused of dishonestly trying to twist a question. Note that tehre's no explanation of how I tried to twist it, or why what I did was dishonest.

Stating the obvious to you is a waste of time...

Its just a flat-out accusation of dishonesty, suggesting that my motives here somehow lack honesty. Again, assumptive reasoning.

Your continual refusal to even discuss evidence and important issues are what I find so dishonest...

billy the squid

tunaman, I have already warned you about questioning the honesty of another poster.

I'm actually sick of this ****. locked. Next time there will ba a banning in store for you.

Anyone wishing to continue this discussion feel free to start a new thread. this one is too full of bitching to be of any use.