Concerning the WTC attacks

ISAW · 18-04-2005 1:17pm

Turley wrote:

The source and evidence may vary but it is a good for people to agree on what is an acceptable source for their discussion.

The SCI.skeptic FAQ should be some help there.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/sci/sci.skeptic.html

The Irish contact is listed in West Yourshire.

I think maybe the members should take a portion each and update the FAQ.

ISAW · 18-04-2005 1:29pm

Turley wrote:

Early in April Myksyk wrote:

I agreed.

I added that some things also become "generally accepted" without the accumulation of convincing (often overwhelming) evidence in favour of the idea or theory.

From the very beginnning it was "generally accepted" that hijackers were blamed for the mass murders of September 11th before any evidence was available.

The evidence was available. People saw the crash live on TV! No doubt they may have thought that it was a suicide by a a mad person say for example a father protesting about not having acces to his child or an anti globalisation protestor (better example given targeting the WTC) but when it happened the SECOND time it had to be organised. then the Pentagon was also targeted. So the evidence was there an organised group were targeting government and bastions of capatilism. People would then generally believe that the group was terrorist (since they killed civilians) and anti American.

Now i didnt know it was Al Khyda. I still havent been totally convinced Bin Laden organised it. But I have no doubt it was a terrorist group which opposed the American State and people.

Now 3 1/2 years later, even after a 9/11 Commission issued a Report, without the supporting evidence being made available to the public, the conspiracy theory remains "generally accepted" and will remain the "truth" for the foreseeable future.

What then, if not actual evidence, is the cause of something to be "generally accepted?"

It had to be an organised group. One person couldnt hijack and pilot four planes! the group had to meet in secret since they would have been prevented from doing it. they attacked the state.

As far as I know a conspiracy is more than one person meeting and planning in secret against the state. That happened ! It isnt a theory.

Turley · 18-04-2005 2:22pm

ISAW wrote:

The evidence was available. People saw the crash live on TV! No doubt they may have thought that it was a suicide by a a mad person say for example a father protesting about not having acces to his child or an anti globalisation protestor (better example given targeting the WTC) but when it happened the SECOND time it had to be organised. then the Pentagon was also targeted. So the evidence was there an organised group were targeting government and bastions of capatilism.

It is true that someone is responsible for the mass murders. Because someone must be responsible for a murder does not mean that anyone is responsible.

ISAW wrote:

People would then generally believe that the group was terrorist (since they killed civilians) and anti American.

True. This is what people would "generally believe" but crime solving ought not be a religion based on faith. Perhaps this is what the perpetrators wanted the public to believe. Guilt should be determined by evidence not by appearances.

ISAW wrote:

But I have no doubt it was a terrorist group which opposed the American State and people.

You might be correct, but evidence should support a conclusion. Do you know what a gambit is? How did you rule this out?

ISAW wrote:

It had to be an organised group. One person couldnt hijack and pilot four planes! the group had to meet in secret since they would have been prevented from doing it. they attacked the state.

As far as I know a conspiracy is more than one person meeting and planning in secret against the state. That happened ! It isnt a theory.

I agree with you that someone planned and committed the mass murders. The conspiracy theory that the 19 men named were responsible was never proven. The public was told, the public believed, and this has become the "generally accepted" fact, without proof.

Turley · 18-04-2005 2:39pm

ISAW wrote:

The evidence was available. People saw the crash live on TV!

I love this quote.

People believe something is true if they see it on TV.
How many boxes of soap have been sold because people, saw it on TV?

Could this be how some things become "generally accepted"?

ISAW · 18-04-2005 3:51pm

Turley wrote:

I love this quote.

People believe something is true if they see it on TV.
How many boxes of soap have been sold because people, saw it on TV?

Could this be how some things become "generally accepted"?

Dont be silly!

It was on several NEWS channels at the same time and carried as a newsflash on almost every channel. Just like the Popes death. I assume you believe John Paul II is dead?

Now there is a related point about epistemology. I think what is this thing called Science mentions it. a book written by AF Chalmers. Anyway Berkley and others suggest nothing exists unless it is percieved. A whole field of the perception vs reality has developed. Chalmers posits a view I subscribe to. He points out whether or not we percieve different things there is a thing which is "really" there.

Now there was a plane and there were terrorists and they conspired to Attack State and financial buildings. I dont know if Bin Laden planned the attack but terrorists certainly did. I was first made aware of the incident by someone who had seen it on TV. I thougt she was joking when she told me. Then I saw it on TV. and I believed it. I still do. I do not consider TV a great source of information but I believe it when I see that.

ISAW · 18-04-2005 4:43pm

heres something on the general point about conspircay theories
http://www.clavius.org/holmes.html

Zombrex · 18-04-2005 4:44pm

Turley wrote:

Watergate is "generally accepted" to be what a government cover-up looks like. A lot of effort was expended to sell this to the masses. And it has been so effective, citizens routinely invoke Watergate as an example that government cover-ups cannot succeed.

I have actually studied deception quite a bit with relation to computer crime and social engineering as part of my degree.

But Turley you are living in X-Files land if you believe that Watergate was put out there by the US government to distract the public from the real cover ups.

And asking me to name an on going cover up after you have defined a cover up as something the public never knows about it rather counter productive.

KCF · 18-04-2005 4:48pm

ISAW wrote:

Dont be silly!

It was on several NEWS channels at the same time and carried as a newsflash on almost every channel. Just like the Popes death. I assume you believe John Paul II is dead?

I've written a little programme that will continue one half of this dreadfully pointless argument.

set_mode("turley")

while(time() != $the_end_of_days){

echo("How do you know that JP actually ever existed? Did you ever personally inspect his DNA?? Why are you such a moron that accepts everything that you are told by $them. I know this webpage written by some guy in a militia in South Dakota which proves that JP was actually a Jewish Alien acting on behalf of the CIA.");

}

Turley · 18-04-2005 9:48pm

Wicknight wrote:

I have actually studied deception quite a bit with relation to computer crime and social engineering as part of my degree.

Good. Knowledge, especially knowledge of successful criminal activity can help.

Wicknight wrote:

But Turley you are living in X-Files land if you believe that Watergate was put out there by the US government to distract the public from the real cover ups.

Please, let's not characterize with terms like "X-files land." I never even saw the program, make-believe is not my interest.

Before you dismiss an alternative view of the Watergate scandal consider that when fighting a forest fire, one technique used by firefighters is a controlled fire. A fire that the firefighters start to control the larger blaze. Similarly in deception coming half-clean, also known as "confession and avoidance" little crimes, like a burglary or sex-scandals can be used to hide much bigger crimes like murder. When we do not understand the magician's principle of "sucker tricks" it is difficult to understand Watergate.

Most people know about the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War. That was the U.S. atrocity during the Vietnam war that got plenty of press and it became "The Atrocity" that masked all the others that went unreported. My Lai is "generally accepted" to have happened. By holding Lt. William Calley accountable for My Lai, it was "generally accepted" that if there were other war crimes the public would know about them the same as My Lai. However the experience of James Robert "Cotton" Hildreth is a story never widely told like My Lai and it is not "generally accepted" because it is not known. If you read it here, it may be the first time you learn about it. It may make you weep.
http://www.dcdave.com/article1/061098.html

Wicknight wrote:

And asking me to name an on going cover up after you have defined a cover up as something the public never knows about it rather counter productive.

I did not say a cover-up is something the public never knows. Read carefully, I wrote, "A cover-up, by definition is not known, it is a, cover-up. A successful cover-up is not known to the public, though it may be known to a few." Just because YOU do not have knowledge of an ongoing government cover-up does not mean that cover-ups do not exist and some government cover-ups are known to some of the public.

You recently wrote:

Wicknight wrote:

I define crackpots as those make wild assumptions about things they actually know nothing about or who assume there must be a government coverup even though there is not actual evidence of a government cover up.

Again I would not call you a crackpot because do not know of an ongoing government cover-up.

There are ongoing government cover-ups of crimes more serious than burglary or sexual misconduct, there is proof of ongoing cover-ups of high-level criminal activity involving MURDER.

Surley we are not so naive to believe there are no actual government cover-ups fooling the public? Are you able to give me an example of an on-going government cover-up?

Turley · 18-04-2005 10:13pm

ISAW wrote:

Dont be silly!

It was on several NEWS channels at the same time and carried as a newsflash on almost every channel....Now there was a plane and there were terrorists and they conspired to Attack State and financial buildings. ...Then I saw it on TV. and I believed it. I still do. I do not consider TV a great source of information but I believe it when I see that.

I am not being silly.

Think about what you are saying. I do not dispute that planes crashed into buildings or that mass murder was committed. I accept that you saw the plane actually crash into the building on TV.

But where does this statment come from, "Now there was a plane and there were terrorists and they conspired to Attack State and financial buildings."?

I don't think anyone saw any terrorist on the plane on TV nor did anyone see any terrorists conspire on TV. Television media juxtaposed images of the 19 "hijackers" or sometimes hooded men running obstacle courses with images of the 9/11 disasters and the public was told muslim terrorists were responsible. The connection between the disaster and "who was responsible" was made for the public on television.

Let's be clear. When people saw the disaster occur in real live time, the public did NOT see who was actually responsible at the same time. The public was TOLD who was responsible. And the public believed, just like you believe, as if it were a religious dogma.

Turley · 18-04-2005 10:41pm

ISAW wrote:

heres something on the general point about conspircay theories
http://www.clavius.org/holmes.html

The the holmesian maxim at the link you gave is precisely what was used by the conspiracists to sell the 19 hijackers conspiracy theory.

Zombrex · 19-04-2005 9:46am

Turley wrote:

Before you dismiss an alternative view of the Watergate scandal consider that when fighting a forest fire, one technique used by firefighters is a controlled fire.
...
Surley we are not so naive to believe there are no actual government cover-ups fooling the public?

Turley you seem to be taking the view point that if something is possible, no matter how unlikely (the President would be sacrafised to deflect the public) then there is a probability it happened.

There is absolutly no real evidence that Watergate was put out as a deflection policy. Saying fire fighters use controlled burning to stop fires doesn't change that.

My problem with these unlikely alternative views of history (that i would classify as crack pot), is that they are not actually based on any evidence themselves, but rather based on the apparent weakness of the "generally accepted" view.

For example people who try to prove that 9/11 was a government coverup don't actually have any evidence for this but instead attack the established evidence. Example would be claiming the families lied about in flight phone calls because some of the details don't match (collect calls being made on planes that can't make collect calls), or people claiming that a large plane couldn't have made the hole in the pentagon.

What the theorist fail to realise is that none of this actually supports, as evidence, any other view. When seen in isolation this might cast a bit of doubt on the particular piece of evidence. But a more likely explination is that the family member simply miss-understood what his wife was saying on the other end of the line, or that people looking at the pentagon crash actually dont know what the plane crash should look like. There is no evidence they lied or attempted to cover anything up.

Likewise with the holocaust. The whole idea that the holocaust was faked comes not from any actual evidence that it was faked, but from attacking the evidence that it happened. Examples would be the testimony of Jews. Historians look at the testimony and say that a lot of it is exaggerated or people can't remember exactly what happened (understandable) but the common thread running through them is that they all experienced mass killings on a systamatic scale. So when the Nazi documents state that millions of Jews are simply being "moved" to east germany that is not what happened.

Holocaust deniers look at the testmony and from the inconsitencies claim they are all lying, and as such none of what they claim can be true. From that they claim that the millions of Jews were simply moved to east europe but not killed (even though this is not supported by evidence) and from that they claim the holocaust was faked and any evidence of it must also be faked (Eurigen has claimed all documents detailing "liquadation" of the Jews, or dealing with the final solution, are either faked or simply mean they were moved). What they don't actually have is any evidence that the holocaust was actually faked, no documents with an allied plan detailing a mass propaganda campaign. So they ignore the most likely explination which is supported by the other evidence, that the Jewish witnesses simply did not fully remember or understand at the time, what exactly was happening to them (i couldn't tell you who I sat beside on the bus this morning, but I know I was on a bus).

Eurigen has already mentioned himself why he and others would wish to ignore this most likely explination, he wants to restore the good name of the German people which he believes is being slandered by a Jewish holocaust conspiricy. He is coming from a bias position and he wants to see things that aren't there.

Zombrex · 19-04-2005 9:57am

Turley wrote:

The the holmesian maxim at the link you gave is precisely what was used by the conspiracists to sell the 19 hijackers conspiracy theory.

But the idea that 19 hijackers from Al Queda took control of the 4 planes and crashed them into targets across the eastern coast of america is actually not improbable. If fact it is the post probable theory by a long long way, supported by all the evidence. The evidence does not support any other theory.

The thing about the government cover up theories is that they actually ignore the most probable explination for most of the evidence. For example the phone call of the senetors wife. He claims the second time she called he though she was calling collect because she had trouble getting through. "Crack pots" have claimed he is lying about this because you can't call collect from a UA flight (i don't know if this is actually true or not), and therefore he is lying about the whole converstation, therefore anything he says is a lie, and by the mear fact he is lying shows there is a government conspircy.

What the theorist fail to factor in is that the senator could simply have not understood what his wife was saying to him. If your wife rang you from a plane being hi-jacked would you remember exactly what you said. I had to book a pizza last night and I got flustered.

The fact that there is inconsitencies in his testimony is not evidence what he claimed wasn't happening or even that he lied about the phone call.

It is this anti-evidence (theories based not on evidence but on the weakness of evidence) that seem to form the vast majority of theories like the 9/11 coverup or the holocaust denial. They are based on assumptions, assumptions people are lying, assumptions plane crashes don't look like this etc etc. And most of them are highly improbable when put beside a much more likely assumptions.

Turley · 19-04-2005 11:28am

Wicknight wrote:

Turley you seem to be taking the view point that if something is possible, no matter how unlikely (the President would be sacrafised to deflect the public) then there is a probability it happened.

There is absolutly no real evidence that Watergate was put out as a deflection policy. Saying fire fighters use controlled burning to stop fires doesn't change that.

My problem with these unlikely alternative views of history (that i would classify as crack pot), is that they are not actually based on any evidence themselves, but rather based on the apparent weakness of the "generally accepted" view.

For example people who try to prove that 9/11 was a government coverup don't actually have any evidence for this but instead attack the established evidence. Example would be claiming the families lied about in flight phone calls because some of the details don't match (collect calls being made on planes that can't make collect calls), or people claiming that a large plane couldn't have made the hole in the pentagon.

What the theorist fail to realise is that none of this actually supports, as evidence, any other view. When seen in isolation this might cast a bit of doubt on the particular piece of evidence. But a more likely explination is that the family member simply miss-understood what his wife was saying on the other end of the line, or that people looking at the pentagon crash actually dont know what the plane crash should look like. There is no evidence they lied or attempted to cover anything up.

Likewise with the holocaust. The whole idea that the holocaust was faked comes not from any actual evidence that it was faked, but from attacking the evidence that it happened. Examples would be the testimony of Jews. Historians look at the testimony and say that a lot of it is exaggerated or people can't remember exactly what happened (understandable) but the common thread running through them is that they all experienced mass killings on a systamatic scale. So when the Nazi documents state that millions of Jews are simply being "moved" to east germany that is not what happened.

Holocaust deniers look at the testmony and from the inconsitencies claim they are all lying, and as such none of what they claim can be true. From that they claim that the millions of Jews were simply moved to east europe but not killed (even though this is not supported by evidence) and from that they claim the holocaust was faked and any evidence of it must also be faked (Eurigen has claimed all documents detailing "liquadation" of the Jews, or dealing with the final solution, are either faked or simply mean they were moved). What they don't actually have is any evidence that the holocaust was actually faked, no documents with an allied plan detailing a mass propaganda campaign. So they ignore the most likely explination which is supported by the other evidence, that the Jewish witnesses simply did not fully remember or understand at the time, what exactly was happening to them (i couldn't tell you who I sat beside on the bus this morning, but I know I was on a bus).

Eurigen has already mentioned himself why he and others would wish to ignore this most likely explination, he wants to restore the good name of the German people which he believes is being slandered by a Jewish holocaust conspiricy. He is coming from a bias position and he wants to see things that aren't there.

Thank you taking time to write a long and thoughtful response.

How is it possible that I can think so differently from how you are thinking? I have told you that I once shared your views with confidence. Aren't you curious about what has changed my thinking?

My reasoning does not make sense to you. Why do you suppose this is so? Could I know something?

Consider a hypothetical situation. What if you were falsely charged with a crime and the press loudly proclaimed your guilt daily, and you were convicted and sent to prison for a crime you did not commit. Everyone would know you were "guilty." How would this experience change your view of others proclaimed guilty in the press and prosecuted by government officials? Reality might look different. Thankfully I have not had this experience but I think it woud change my perspective. Do you agree?

I have asked if anyone has knowledge of an ongoing government cover-up of high level criminal activity. No one has responded yet most people here think they know about what a government cover-up looks like. Watergate we like to say is a good example, but that is the one we were told about. I am are talking about the cover-ups we are not told about. The cover-ups we are not told about would be similar to us being in prison for a crime we did not commit.

It is difficult to proceed if I know things that you do not know. This is the source of our inability to find common ground. I have asked if anyone knows what a "sucker trick" is? Can someone define this term? Should we know how people fool us? I have asked what is the one characteristic of every magician's trick without exception and no one has responded.

Can we agree that we all can be fooled?

How do things become "generally accepted"? We thought it was through supporting evidence and this might be true for science but not for 9/11 where no evidence was available from the beginning or even till today. Some things are generally accepted because we believe what we read in the papers, but should we? Have they fed us propaganda in the past? If so, when did they stop?

Do I know about an ongoing government cover-up of a high-level criminal activity? How would that change things? Would it change anything?

If the media withholds information from the public, how would the public know? Who would tell the public?

If we use deductive reasoning with incomplete information or a false premise what will happen?

Turley · 19-04-2005 11:41am

Wicknight wrote:

But the idea that 19 hijackers from Al Queda took control of the 4 planes and crashed them into targets across the eastern coast of america is actually not improbable. If fact it is the post probable theory by a long long way, supported by all the evidence. The evidence does not support any other theory.

What evidence? Show us the specific documents, testimony, financial records and other proof. The evidence supporting the footnotes to the 9/11 Report are not available to the public so what do you have?

The press reported Hani Hanjour could not even fly a propeller plane and his instructors said he was "not capable" of flying so how probable is it that he flew a passenger jet at full throttle into the Pentagon after making a 270 degree turn "like a fighter pilot" (Washington Post)? What specific evidence proves Hanjour was the pilot?

Zombrex · 19-04-2005 12:02pm

Turley wrote:

My reasoning does not make sense to you. Why do you suppose this is so? Could I know something?

It is not that your reasoning doesn't make sense it is that I don't know your reasoning, I don't understand how you have come to your conclusions, I am not even sure what your conclusions are. You seem vague on specific events beyound saying we should question everything

Turley wrote:

How would this experience change your view of others proclaimed guilty in the press and prosecuted by government officials? Reality might look different. Thankfully I have not had this experience but I think it woud change my perspective. Do you agree?

Well it is only really the tabloids that go on "witch hunts" like the type you describe (the girlfriend of the Soham kill springs to mind), and to be honest I don't put much heed in the tabloids. Despite what you think I think we are quite a sceptical society, we realise papers will print things to sell papers, that aren't necessarily backed up.

Turley wrote:

I have asked if anyone has knowledge of an ongoing government cover-up of high level criminal activity. No one has responded yet most people here think they know about what a government cover-up looks like.

I have knowledge of a large number of government and corporate conspiricies that have been found out, but I am not an investigator, a reporter or a police officer. I would not be in the position to know about a government conspiricy that no one else knows about.

Turley wrote:

Watergate we like to say is a good example, but that is the one we were told about. I am are talking about the cover-ups we are not told about. The cover-ups we are not told about would be similar to us being in prison for a crime we did not commit.

You would have to be part of the coverup then. So they question you should be asking isn't do we know of any cover ups that haven't been reported, but are any of us involved in any cover ups that haven't been reported

Turley wrote:

It is difficult to proceed if I know things that you do not know.
...
Do I know about an ongoing government cover-up of a high-level criminal activity?

Turley not to be rude but these continuous mysterious statements kinda make you sound like the guy on Dawson St. who thinks the CIA is trying to kill him. Without any idea of your background or why you could be in the possession of such information, and without even knowing what the information is, it is impossible to understand your point with such questions.

Turley wrote:

I have asked if anyone knows what a "sucker trick" is?
...
Can we agree that we all can be fooled?

I pressume you are talking about a confidence trick (a "con") in which a person tricks you by first making you feel confident that you know what is happening and are in control. Then they steal your watch.

The point I am making is just because some people out there are con men, doesn't mean everyone is. It is wise to be skeptical of situations you don't know, but you don't need to be skeptical of every single person you meet. It is possible that the Guard you stop on the street because you wallet is stolen is actually a fake guard in league with the robber to stop you making a real statement. But the likelyhood is small, and it not a reason to not go to the guard.

The most important thing to question is the motive for someones actions. Why are the holocaust deniers claiming it didn't happen. What would be the motive for the 9/11 commission to lie. Is that motive likely. etc

Turley wrote:

How do things become "generally accepted"? We thought it was through supporting evidence and this might be true for science but not for 9/11 where no evidence was available from the beginning or even till today.

It is not true that no evidence is available.

Turley wrote:

Some things are generally accepted because we believe what we read in the papers, but should we? Have they fed us propaganda in the past? If so, when did they stop?

Again, motive and background. I totally admit that some of American news is propaganda based. Fox News for example is really just a propaganda tool for the Republican Party, they tried to convince people the war in Iraq was going good, and that Sadam was behind 9/11.

It is important to look at the motivation for a story. The Irish Times for example does not answer to a corporation. i would believe that they right about someone like Eircom a lot more than the Independent because the Independent has such close ties to Eircom.

Like I said, I think the general public is more skeptical than you believe.

Turley wrote:

If the media withholds information from the public, how would the public know? Who would tell the public?

Well technically the media is the public. But I know what you mean. But "the media" is not one entity. One of the critisims with american media is that it is become owned all by the same companies. It is important for a sense of self regulation that you have a wide and diverse media pool. So if Fox News is lying to you CNN will probably be reporting something closer to the truth.

I don't accept that at the moment (or in 9/11) that it was possible for the US government to control all media outlets.

Eriugena · 19-04-2005 1:38pm

Turley wrote:

What evidence? Show us the specific documents, testimony, financial records and other proof. The evidence supporting the footnotes to the 9/11 Report are not available to the public so what do you have?

Belief, pure and simple. I haven't followed the 911 story in any great detail, I must confess, but the official story is controverted by so many known facts that it is not possible to believe it. As to what really went on, I cannot say. However, I am certain that the official story cannot stand.

Turley · 19-04-2005 2:46pm

Wicknight wrote:

It is not that your reasoning doesn't make sense it is that I don't know your reasoning, I don't understand how you have come to your conclusions, I am not even sure what your conclusions are. You seem vague on specific events beyound saying we should question everything

Although nothing is certain, some things are more certain than others. Agreed?

Wicknight wrote:

Well it is only really the tabloids that go on "witch hunts" like the type you describe (the girlfriend of the Soham kill springs to mind), and to be honest I don't put much heed in the tabloids. Despite what you think I think we are quite a sceptical society, we realise papers will print things to sell papers, that aren't necessarily backed up.

"Selling papers" is a popular belief that has been publicized by the media in the same way magician's have convinced the public that "the hand is quicker than the eye." This is false. The hand can not move as fast as the eye. What purpose in served by this false explanation?

Wicknight wrote:

I have knowledge of a large number of government and corporate conspiricies that have been found out, but I am not an investigator, a reporter or a police officer. I would not be in the position to know about a government conspiricy that no one else knows about.

Actually you are. Much evidence is available to you. However it would take you and several friends years to gather the evidence and arrange it in an intelligent form. OTOH if others gathered the evidence for you it would be a great deal of evidence, and it would require at least a couple of weeks to study and understand it. I do not think you would want to bother. It is easier to just accept what we are told and believe the popular public opinion. Little effort is required and we will not be called names like "conspiracy nut" if we believe what we are told. Most people follow this popular method of thinking. If I offered you evidence of an actual unreported government cover-up, do you think you would want to bother reading a 510-page document supported by 908 footnotes, referenced to 630 pages of official government documents? Why would you want to bother learning about something that is not popular?

Wicknight wrote:

You would have to be part of the coverup then. So they question you should be asking isn't do we know of any cover ups that haven't been reported, but are any of us involved in any cover ups that haven't been reported

You would not necessarily have to be involved in the cover-up per se. You could also be a victim of the cover-up. You could be a researcher of government records. Or you could have knowledge through work in the courts. There are a number of ways to gain such knowledge beyond being part of the crime or being told by the press.

Wicknight wrote:

Turley not to be rude but these continuous mysterious statements kinda make you sound like the guy on Dawson St. who thinks the CIA is trying to kill him.

You are letting you imagination run here.

Wicknight wrote:

Without any idea of your background or why you could be in the possession of such information, and without even knowing what the information is, it is impossible to understand your point with such questions.

We can possess such knowledge in the ways I mentioned above. I can give you a concrete example if you wish.

Wicknight wrote:

I pressume you are talking about a confidence trick (a "con") in which a person tricks you by first making you feel confident that you know what is happening and are in control. Then they steal your watch.

Yes. And once our confidence is gained we are especially vulnerable to deception. Think about what you have confidence in. Do you have confidence in the sources of information that form your opinion? Would this make you vulnerable to deception if information was withheld? Did the Watergate scandal gain public confidence that the press will expose government corruption?

If you carefully scrutinze the press you will find superficial differences but on some big issues they are uniform. No American paper or news outlet opposed going to war in Iraq, not even the "liberal" "Bush opposing" Washington Post or NY Times. Where is the dissent in this "free country". Even Bush's opponent Kerry did not oppose the "popular" war.

Wicknight wrote:

The point I am making is just because some people out there are con men, doesn't mean everyone is. It is wise to be skeptical of situations you don't know, but you don't need to be skeptical of every single person you meet.

I agree completely. But if you knew members of the 9/11 investigation, for example Richard Ben-Veniste and Michael Chertoff, were part of a con before, though not reported and publicly known, shouldn't you be skeptical of them?

Wicknight wrote:

The most important thing to question is the motive for someones actions. Why are the holocaust deniers claiming it didn't happen. What would be the motive for the 9/11 commission to lie. Is that motive likely. etc

I disagree. Motive is something we assign later. Remember Aristotle said we must first know that it is before we ask why it is.

Wicknight wrote:

It is not true that no evidence is available.

there was no evidence available on September 11th that proved 19 hijackers were responsible for the mass murders yet the conclusion was reached immediately. The only evidence available was that a mass murder had been committed.

Wicknight wrote:

I totally admit that some of American news is propaganda based.

How can propaganda be effective if only be "some" of the news media is involved? Would they only be interested in fooling "some" of the population? Why not all? Which news outlet has exposed a government cover-up of a high-level criminal activity, like murder, that the others have not?

Wicknight wrote:

Like I said, I think the general public is more skeptical than you believe.

They are skeptical of what ever it is popular to be skeptical of.

Wicknight wrote:

So if Fox News is lying to you CNN will probably be reporting something closer to the truth.

They would not all conceal a government cover-up of a murder would they? Because someone would tell us. Who? Would you believe governments would never cover-up a crime like murder?

Wicknight wrote:

I don't accept that at the moment (or in 9/11) that it was possible for the US government to control all media outlets.

They would not all conceal a government cover-up of a murder or would they?

Turley · 19-04-2005 2:54pm

Eriugena wrote:

Belief, pure and simple. I haven't followed the 911 story in any great detail, I must confess, but the official story is controverted by so many known facts that it is not possible to believe it. As to what really went on, I cannot say. However, I am certain that the official story cannot stand.

We share a common experience here that others have not. We have taken a great deal of time (thousands of hours) to examine official records and evidence and we discovered some popular beliefs were not true.

There is irony that our critics claim to value evidence, but NONE have spent the years required carefully examining official evidence that is publicly available. They chose to believe what is "generally accepted" as their religious dogma.

Zombrex · 19-04-2005 3:57pm

Which news outlet has exposed a government cover-up of a high-level criminal activity, like murder, that the others have not?
...
Would you believe governments would never cover-up a crime like murder?
...
They would not all conceal a government cover-up of a murder or would they?

Turley I don't mean to be rude but you are really wrecking my head with all these retorical questions. If you have a point to make just make it, if you have evidence of conspiricies just present them. I asked you to do this in my last post. I don't have time to respond to your questions and then wait for the point you are actually making to emerge.

Turley · 19-04-2005 6:14pm

Wicknight wrote:

, if you have evidence of conspiricies just present them.

I did not want to burden you with the actual evidence since I seriously doubt you will take the time to examine it. The document is, as I said, 510-pages and downloadable in Adobe Acrobat here
http://www.fbicover-up.com/report/report.pdf (5.3 MB)

Or you can order a bound copy from Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/096735210X/qid%253D965229245/104-7140698-5070321 or from any bookstore with the ISBN number is 0-9673521-0-X

If you would like the underlying exhibits of official records that support the footnotes I can send you an Acrobat file (30 MB). I have a copy here I can send you in the mail if you want to pay the shipping. It is a collection of documents that you would not be able to assemble without the investment of many years of independent research.

I will defend everything written in the 510-page Report. Since it was published in 1999 I have found additional documents that show I was wrong about a few details, but I doubt you can find these small errors.

As I said in my previous message, I do not think you would want to bother reading this much material. It is easier to just accept what we are told and believe the popular public opinion. Little effort is required and we will not be called names like "conspiracy nut" if we believe what we are told. Most people follow this popular method of thinking.

I have now offered you evidence of an actual unreported government cover-up of a murder. Some of the participants included members of the 9/11 commission, former presidential candidate John Kerry, and judges appointed by President Bush. I do not think you will bother to read about this unreported scandal at the highest levels of the American government, ignored by the press, Fox, CNN, et all. You can either read it or you can ignore it.

Now you can actually examine evidence as the ISS claim they do, or you can believe what whatever is popular as I maintain the ISS actually do.

Any questions?

Eriugena · 20-04-2005 9:57am

Turley wrote:

I did not want to burden you with the actual evidence since I seriously doubt you will take the time to examine it. The document is, as I said, 510-pages and downloadable in Adobe Acrobat here
http://www.fbicover-up.com/report/report.pdf (5.3 MB)

Bravo! I have started reading this and already I am struck by the depressing familiarity of this:

Because Patrick did not heed the warning regarding his grand jury testimony and continued to tell the truth, including his account of the bizarre harassment he suffered, his testimony was discredited. Patrick was harassed in an effort to make him look unbalanced or dishonest. Since that time, he has been defamed by numerous individuals, most of whom are journalists. He has been attacked as a delusional conspiracy theorist, a homosexual, and
as an outright liar. Patrick has been fighting to reestablish his credibility for the past two years. Patrick did nothing to deserve the outrageous treatment he received at the hands of the OIC and its FBI agents. He did nothing to deserve being yanked into this FBI debacle, having his life turned upside down, and having to endure this fight for his reputation. Patrick's only "crime" was reporting to the authorities what he had seen at Fort Marcy Park, consistent with his understanding of his duties as a good citizen.

I do have one question which may be unanswerable. In a review I read on Amazon, the reviewier said:

You will not learn in these 511 pages who murdered Vincent Foster or why . . .

The who and why are interrelated. Sometimes answering one of these automatically answers the other. My question is this; are there any answers (hypothetical or otherwise) to this question which you believe are worth considering?

btw, I just saw your question which no one has answered about professional magicians. The answer is, of course, Misdirection; the essential first principle of stage magic. Broadly speaking this means employing a variety of subtle means whereby the magician is able to direct attention away from one aspect of what is happening on stage towards another. Master of misdirection is the key to a magicians success.

Turley · 20-04-2005 11:08am

Eriugena wrote:

I do have one question which may be unanswerable. In a review I read on Amazon, the reviewier said:
The who and why are interrelated. Sometimes answering one of these automatically answers the other. My question is this; are there any answers (hypothetical or otherwise) to this question which you believe are worth considering?

You have asked the always asked questions. People naturally want to know who committed the murder and why. The scope of our research was "what" it is. And we have proven "that it is" MURDER. This is significant because the U.S. government and more importantly the press (universally) have called this death a "suicide." Aristotle rightly said before we seek to know "why" or "how" something is we must first know that "it is."

We can safely say we know "who" covered-up the MURDER. The cover-up was accomplished by Kenneth Starr's Office of independent counsel and his men Brett Kavanugh, John Bates, and Mark Touhey. And the murder cover-up succeeded because of the complicity of the press, especially the gatekeepers like Arthur Sultzberger of NY Times, Pete Yost of the Associated Press and so on. "Why" each individual acted in this manner is another question, perhaps self-interest. Starr became dean of law school at Pepperdine, Bates and Kavanaugh have been appointed by Prez Bush to become federal judges.

I do not think the question you ask is unanswerable. However those with the power to investigate, as well as the public, are not asking your question because it is "generally accepted" that it was not a murder.

Eriugena wrote:

btw, I just saw your question which no one has answered about professional magicians. The answer is, of course, Misdirection; the essential first principle of stage magic. Broadly speaking this means employing a variety of subtle means whereby the magician is able to direct attention away from one aspect of what is happening on stage towards another. Master of misdirection is the key to a magicians success.

I am sorry. The answer is not misdirection. Although it is the most popular answer, perhaps because of the popular saying, "the hand is quicker than the eye." John Mulholland, a well-known American magician, worked for the CIA. He once wrote that it is not the eye that is fooled, magicians fool the brain. Some tricks may employ misdirection to fool the brain, not all do. What all magic tricks have in common is a false premise. The audience is led to believe something that is false. Often this is done by withholding some information, perhaps an extra card is in a deck of cards.

Once the audience accepts the false premise, often by a lie of ommission, what they do not know destroys their deductive reasoning. Everything will move logically to the conclusion when there is a surprise ending. At that point the magician might say, "the hand is quicker than the eye," another lie, that actually would distract the pubilc from the truth.

Knowledge of how deception is accomplished can be useful in understanding how we accept things that are not true. The ISS take pride in their use of logic but like most of us we carry a lot of premises that we have been taught of accept. People really are very easy to fool, they actually fool themselves.

I have not researched the events of the holocaust. From your experience, can you think of a premise which is "generally accepted" to be true that is demonstrably false? Then, how does the public use this false premise to reason to a wrong conclusion?

Eriugena · 20-04-2005 12:44pm

Turley wrote:

You have asked the always asked questions. People naturally want to know who committed the murder and why. The scope of our research was "what" it is. And we have proven "that it is" MURDER. This is significant because the U.S. government and more importantly the press (universally) have called this death a "suicide." Aristotle rightly said before we seek to know "why" or "how" something is we must first know that "it is."

We can safely say we know "who" covered-up the MURDER. The cover-up was accomplished by Kenneth Starr's Office of independent counsel and his men Brett Kavanugh, John Bates, and Mark Touhey. And the murder cover-up succeeded because of the complicity of the press, especially the gatekeepers like Arthur Sultzberger of NY Times, Pete Yost of the Associated Press and so on. "Why" each individual acted in this manner is another question, perhaps self-interest. Starr became dean of law school at Pepperdine, Bates and Kavanaugh have been appointed by Prez Bush to become federal judges.

Perhaps if we knew more about the murdered man something could emerge from that? What was he working on, who was he connected with and so on. Clearly he stepped on someone's toes, someone powerful enough to brign about the state of affairs you document in your work.

I do not think the question you ask is unanswerable. However those with the power to investigate, as well as the public, are not asking your question because it is "generally accepted" that it was not a murder.

Quite.

I am sorry. The answer is not misdirection. Although it is the most popular answer, perhaps because of the popular saying, "the hand is quicker than the eye."

I was thinking of misdirection in the wider sense including the examples you give below.

John Mulholland, a well-known American magician, worked for the CIA. He once wrote that it is not the eye that is fooled, magicians fool the brain. Some tricks may employ misdirection to fool the brain, not all do. What all magic tricks have in common is a false premise. The audience is led to believe something that is false. Often this is done by withholding some information, perhaps an extra card is in a deck of cards.

Once the audience accepts the false premise, often by a lie of ommission, what they do not know destroys their deductive reasoning. Everything will move logically to the conclusion when there is a surprise ending. At that point the magician might say, "the hand is quicker than the eye," another lie, that actually would distract the pubilc from the truth.

Knowledge of how deception is accomplished can be useful in understanding how we accept things that are not true. The ISS take pride in their use of logic but like most of us we carry a lot of premises that we have been taught of accept. People really are very easy to fool, they actually fool themselves.

Jacques Ellul in his book about Propaganda is very intersting on this. He describes how propaganda works on the premise that people not only want it but need it. When I get a moment later I will transcribe some relevant passages.

I have not researched the events of the holocaust. From your experience, can you think of a premise which is "generally accepted" to be true that is demonstrably false?

Here are two examples:
It is "generally accepted" that St. Paul said "Money is the root of all evil" for this saying has common currency, whereas he actually said "The love of money is the root of all evil."
It is "generally accepted" that Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors in 1998.

"But as U.N. weapons inspectors prepare to return to Iraq for the first time since Saddam kicked them out in 1998, the U.S. faces a delicate balancing act: transforming the international consensus for disarmament into a consensus for war." --Randall Pinkston, CBS Evening News (11/9/02).

But they were ordered out by the director Butler because the US-UK were about to start bombing on a major scale.

The inspectors, led by Richard Butler, actually left voluntarily, knowing that a U.S. bombing campaign was imminent. This was reported accurately throughout the U.S. press at the time: "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night" (Washington Post, 12/18/98).
And more documented examples of "generally accepted" things about Iraq at http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-myths.html

Then, how does the public use this false premise to reason to a wrong conclusion?

These myths about Iraq were incorprated into public discourse as incontestable facts which were invoked as justifications for visiting yet more misery on that unfortunate country. Apart from a few lone marginalised voices, those myths were "generally accepted" facts. As I write his I am aware that someone is probably going to pop up and repeat a load of "generally accepted" stuff about Saddam and Iraq whilst ignoring what has been documented in the article.

Turley · 20-04-2005 4:49pm

Eriugena wrote:

Jacques Ellul in his book about Propaganda is very intersting on this. He describes how propaganda works on the premise that people not only want it but need it. When I get a moment later I will transcribe some relevant passages.

I am interested in seeing more about Ellul's book. Who is Jacques Ellul?

I agree with you that the quote of St. Paul has become generally accepted. And I think you are right that it has also become somewhat generally accepted that Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors.

The link you provided to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) that referenced the Washington Post article that the director Butler ordered the inspectors out of Iraq is good as far as it goes. But like a clever magician that tells you "how the trick is done" FAIR does not always tell all. FAIR introduces another level of the deception and like a good confidence game a lot of people trust FAIR, and why not trust FAIR they told the truth about Butler ordering the inspectors out of Iraq.

FAIR is the liberal or "left-wing" version of an American media watchdog. The "right-wing" or conservative media critic can be found in the form of the Media Research Center (MRC). These organizations for their part keep their criticism in the arena of left versus right.

The media critics in U.S. are demonstrably false critics and they keep everything neatly divided into the left versus the right. This is a fundamental false premise that misleads the public to believe each side is holding the other accountable. The public believes the Democrats would tell them if the Republicans covered-up a murder. No one suspects both sides would be involved in the same criminal activities. Scandals like Watergate and Lewinsky reinforce this false premise. In these two popular examples each side held the other accountable, therefore, the public concludes there is accountability.

No grand conspiracy is needed where eveyone has the plan, players are motivated by self-interest to do their job, which is basically don't embarass your colleagues (Watergate & Lewinsky excepted), and everyone is rewarded.

FAIR plays the liberal role that opposes Bush and thus they fault Bush for the Iraq war, while always maintaining the larger "truths" that "Oswald killed JFK," "Foster killed himself" and "19 terrorists attacked the US." These truths are universal and eternal. Except we have proved Foster was murdered.

The murder we exposed took place during the Clinton administration. If you search the victim's name at FAIR they found it was a "suicide" and called the right wing press that (also avoided the truth by blaming the Clintons) "conspiracy theorists." The issue was reduced to Democrats versus Republicans and in the end they all agreed it was a "suicide."
See: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1236

If you search the media research center site they will defend Bush but they also find the victim's death a "suicide." http://www.mediaresearch.org/MainSearch/Search.htm

So much for media critics. They are more like professional wrestlers that can appear to really be fighting while the outcome is never in doubt.

If citizens were to visit libraries throughout the U.S. every newspaper, magazine, and book published repeated the suicide story leaving out all of the evidence of murder. There is really no way for citizens to uncover the facts without going to the two seperate buildings of the national archives in both Washington and Marlyand and going through what is now nearly 250 boxes of documents, that are scattered in an unintelligible order. It would take a single person 8-10 years and since the 9/11 event, the restrictions on access make the task even more unsurmountable.

When the public is left to read only what is published and popularly distributed to the masses they are at a disadvantage when information is withheld. Who has the time to find the truth AND even if someone did take the time to find the truth, who would they tell? The ISS? They would more likely be called names or ignored.

KCF · 20-04-2005 5:08pm

Eriugena wrote:

These myths about Iraq were incorprated into public discourse as incontestable facts which were invoked as justifications for visiting yet more misery on that unfortunate country. Apart from a few lone marginalised voices, those myths were "generally accepted" facts. As I write his I am aware that someone is probably going to pop up and repeat a load of "generally accepted" stuff about Saddam and Iraq whilst ignoring what has been documented in the article.

I wouldn't exactly call the vast majority of global public opinion "a few marginalised voices". The tens of millions or so who protested on a single day - marking the largest every global protest - might also not agree.

Turley · 20-04-2005 6:11pm

KCF wrote:

I wouldn't exactly call the vast majority of global public opinion "a few marginalised voices". The tens of millions or so who protested on a single day - marking the largest every global protest - might also not agree.

You make a valid point. When something is "generally accepted" it is nearly universally the "truth" and it becomes the widely held public opinion. The details of the U.S. war and what Saddam did or did not do are not "generally accepted" in the same way that the conspiracy theory that 19 terrorist hijackers attacked the U.S. has become accepted as "the truth." And you rightly point out when tens of milions of the public disagree then the term "generally accepted" should not apply. The Holocaust is something "generally accepted" to be true. Tens of millions do not dispute things that are "generally accepted."

Finding an example of something "generally accepted" that is demonstrably false is very difficult, but not impossible. Can you think of an example KCF?

KCF · 20-04-2005 7:02pm

Turley wrote:

Finding an example of something "generally accepted" that is demonstrably false is very difficult, but not impossible. Can you think of an example KCF?

It all depends on what you mean by 'demonstrably false'. Outside of pure mathematics, there is pretty much nothing whose truth or falseness is possible to prove absolutely - and even maths probably depends upon some unprovable assumptions. So, the question is better phrased (and rendered meaningful) as finding something that is generally accepted which the evidence, in my opinion, strongly suggests is not true.

In this category there are many, many things that I can think of. For example:

god and other sky-pixies
the meaningfulness of parliamentary elections
the 'paranormal'
the efficacity of CAM
The notion that we live in a free and reasonably just society
The existance of race in any meaningful sense
The idea that religion leads people to be better in general

How's that for a starter? If I was to drop my standard of evidence slightly, to cover things generally-accepted things that I'm reasonably sure about, the list would be enormous.

Eriugena · 20-04-2005 8:36pm

KCF wrote:

I wouldn't exactly call the vast majority of global public opinion "a few marginalised voices". The tens of millions or so who protested on a single day - marking the largest every global protest - might also not agree.

I take your point here, but by "generally accepted" I meant two things, which I should have perhaps made clear initially:
public discourse; which for the most part is a pantomime anyway, and, the views of many people who turned out to protest against the war but who nevertheless did not dispute such "facts" because they were not aware of their falsehood. In other words,the pantomime does have an effect on people, even when they are opposed to what is being pushed at them. They are at the same time absorbing, unbeknownst to themselves, false premises. So they don't dispute that "he kicked out the inspetcors" but they are still against the war. There was a number of times that I had to point these things out to people who were quite against the war.

davros · 20-04-2005 10:25pm

Eriugena wrote:

Jacques Ellul in his book about Propaganda ...

I regularly see book references in these threads (Turley has supplied quite a few, as I recall). If you think they are generally useful and of interest to posters here, you might like to add them to the sticky books thread (the thread is sticky, not the books).

Concerning the WTC attacks

Comments