Concerning the WTC attacks

Turley

This discussion topic began just over one month ago.

I tried to examine, “How we do know what we know?”
“How do we form our opinions?” and “How is popular public opinion formed?”

My position has been that the popular public opinion can be false and I offered the official 9/11 conspiracy theory as an example of something that may be false.

Most Irish skeptics here have dismissed this as impossible because they do not accept that a government murder cover-up could succeed.

poisonwood wrote:

Your utterly ridiculous meanderings about…government involvement etc demand us to take a perfectly simple account and twist it to reflect the world view of paranoid conspiracy theorists.

People argued that a U.S. government cover-up of a murder could not succeed.

Wicknight wrote:

Could you imagine the coverup…Thousands of people would have had to be involved…

KCF wrote:

If any really solid evidence of government connivance in the events did emerge, I don't think that it is exaggerating to say that the ideological underpinnings of the US state would dissolve quickly and we would see some sort of radical restructuring of the major state institutions. Considering the number of people who would have to have been 'in' on the plot, the chances of the truth emerging would be close to 100%. Even if you can swear FBI people to secrecy with some degree of success, it is much more difficult to get civilians to do the same and thousands of civilian experts would have to have been bought off. People have consciences. They write memoirs. They have religious turns of faith in the run-up to death and 'confess'. The US state conspiracy theory, although the most plausible alternative, is vastly less plausible than the generally accepted theory.

People have argued that there is not any evidence of an alternative view of history so alternative views are from “crackpots.”

Wicknight wrote:

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…Well on the one had there is the crack pots on the net who claim it was a conspiricy even though they have no evidence for this, and on the other hand there is the commission who claim there wasn't because they have all the evidence.

People have argued forcefully that my allegations that an official version of history might be false were wild, random, and unsubstantiated.

Robindch wrote:

… this discussion is now firmly in the area of wild + random + unsubstantiated allegations and I don't think it's likely to go anywhere useful.

Our moderator and others said that without evidence that whatever is the popular “generally accepted” view of reality is plausible until some “compelling evidence” comes along.

Davros wrote:

My own take on believing what is "generally accepted" is that this is usually a good strategy. We don't have time to evaluate everything for ourselves. As a skeptic, I'm willing to alter my belief on the presentation of compelling evidence…If someone wants me to believe otherwise, let them set out the evidence for a competing theory. It's not enough to pick small holes in the current story.

poisonwood wrote:

I find the generally accepted accounts plausible. Probably because they are plausible.
Until someone comes up with evidence to the contrary I have no good reason to think otherwise.

Wicknight suggested I was a “crackpot” and that I “assumed there must be a government cover-up” when there was “not actual evidence of a government cover-up.”

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.

People demanded that I produce evidence of a government cover-up.

poisonwood wrote:

If you're interested in evidence SHOW US THE EVIDENCE. All we've got is conspiratorial insinuation which is tiresome in the extreme...

Wicknight wrote:

if you have evidence of conspiricies just present them.

I have produced the evidence in the form of a 510-page court document supported by over 600 pages of official documents. I have provided overwhelming evidence that proves there is an ongoing U.S. government cover-up of murder and grand jury witness intimidation.

I have demonstrated that the truth is knowable, even if it is not the popular “generally accepted” view. I have proven that Wicknight CAN know about a government conspiracy that [others do not] know about.

Wicknight wrote:

I would not be in the position to know about a government conspiricy that no one else knows about.

I have demonstrated (see pages 505-506 of the 510-page document) that publications like Newsweek et al are not trustworthy as Robin maintained.

Robindch wrote:

And if you don't believe publications which are considered moderately respectable and truthful by the rest of us, like Newsweek et al, then whom *do* you believe, and how do you make that choice that they are trustworthy?

I maintained that suicide can be used to conceal murder and suggested that the 19 suicides on 9/11 might not be suicides. This should not be unreasonable since we now have proof that the U.S. government has a history of calling murder “suicide” to cover-up criminal activity. The FBI and members of the 9/11 Commission were also participates in the government murder cover-up I have exposed here. Why should we trust these people that have a history of covering-up murder?

Turley wrote:

Suicide is a unique crime because there is never a trial to judge the guilt or innocence. The victim is guilty of self-murder without a trial or evidence presented in court. There is no jury, and no defense is presented to argue for the innocence of the victim.

Every homicide textbook, Vernon Geberth's for example, states that every unattended death is to be treated as a homicide until homicide can be ruled out. Suicide is not to be concluded until homicide is ruled out, precisely because murders are often staged to look like suicide. How did you rule out homicide in the cases of those 19 men you found guilty of self murder, without "ever any reasonable doubt?"

Only Eriugena, while admitting not being an expert on 9/11, offered a comment that demonstrated some knowledge of what I have now demonstrated with proof. That official popular public opinions that are “generally accepted” are not always true.

Eriugena wrote:

…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.

The Irish Skeptics claim to be interested in evidence. They have asked me to give them evidence. Why is there no interest in the evidence I presented? The ISS are, as I have said all along, only interested in whatever is popular and safe. I do not think anyone here has read the proof I have posted on 4/19/2005, and I doubt they will study this evidence. Most people prefer ignorance and believing what is popular and "generally accepted."

It would take to much time to learn the truth so I expect the ISS will believe whatever is “generally accepted.” The mindless gullible masses believe what they are told by Newsweek et all. Some people think by calling themselves “critical thinkers” they somehow ARE critical thinkers. Men frequently think by calling things by different names they change what it is, thus they call murder a “suicide” or perhaps 19 murders, 19 “suicides.”

Where are my critics now?
Who can refute the proof of a U.S. government cover-up I posted on 4/19/2005?

Who will defend the official “truth?”

ISAW

Turley wrote:

snip

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

most people in the US believed (i.e. it was generally accepted that:

1. There were WMD in Iraq ( or possibly similar issues such as Nukes, manufacturing plants of WMD etc.

2. Saddam supported Muslim fundamentalist terrorsim.

I have similar scepticism in relation to Afghanistan. But there is a DIFERENCE to me between that and believeing in a cabal who are controlling some sort of secret world government. The latter is a conspiracy theory.

KCF

Turley wrote:

Where are my critics now?
Who can refute the proof of a U.S. government cover-up I posted on 4/19/2005?

Who will defend the official “truth?”

Turley, I do not believe that anybody here claimed that the US government has never been involved in covering things up. I claimed that it is extraordinarily implausible that they could get away with orchestrating something like 9-11 and most people here, being realistic individuals, agree with this claim. Your 510 page document is about a completely unrelated 'cover-up' and even if it did happen as you believe, it says exactly nothing about 9-11. The document also suffers from a fatal flaw. It concentrates on apparent flaws in the investigation. It does not advance an alternative version of what happened and thus it 'proves' nothing.

You really should sit down and think about your whole approach to knowledge. It is completely worthless to dismantle theories unless you have a more plausible alternative to advance. As I noted before, all history, no matter how recent is incomplete and full of apparent inconsistencies. If you want people to go against the 'generally accepted' versions, you _need_ to offer positive arguments for your theories rather than merely critiqueing other theories.

For example, those who criticised Bush and Blair's crusade against WMD in Iraq in advance of the war not only picked holes in the stated reasons for war, but they also advance a very plausible alternative motivation (oil and other imperial spoils). Hence it was not a 'conspiracy theory' as commonly understood, it was an institutional and political critique - something that is very worthwhile. Conspiracy theories, on the other hand are entirely worthless. In my opinion they often serve as a psychological excuse for inaction. You sit around speculating about how powerful *they* might be, rather than doing anything about the problems of the world. Conspiracy theorists also actively and annoyingly seek out audiences of people who have no interest in their twaddle rather than setting up their own resources, since nobody would look at them. It is behaviour that is certainly within the spectrum of paranoid schizophrenia and I would advise you to get out a bit as dwelling upon your obsessions is a sure way to spiral ever further into mental illness.

Obni

You posting was of necessity rather fragmented as you attempted to address a number of points, I have tried to group some of them together in what I hope is a fair summary of your points.

Turley wrote:

My position has been that the popular public opinion can be false and I offered the official 9/11 conspiracy theory as an example of something that may be false.

Most Irish skeptics here have dismissed this as impossible because they do not accept that a government murder cover-up could succeed.

People argued that a U.S. government cover-up of a murder could not succeed.

There is a marked difference between saying the idea that 9/11 was a government murder cover-up is impossible, and saying that any government cover-up is impossible. The logistics of covering up the murder of a Whitehouse aide and those involved in 9/11 are several orders of complexity apart.
It also doesn't follow that if someone admits that governments do murder their own staff or citizens and then attempt to cover-up the evidence, that any murder can then be pinned on the government.

Turley wrote:

People have argued that there is not any evidence of an alternative view of history so alternative views are from “crackpots.”...
... I have demonstrated (see pages 505-506 of the 510-page document) that publications like Newsweek et al are not trustworthy as Robin maintained.

I would have no issue with anyone raising doubts about any suspicious death. My problem is that you jump from 9/11 to the Foster case without differentiating between the two.

Turley wrote:

I maintained that suicide can be used to conceal murder and suggested that the 19 suicides on 9/11 might not be suicides. This should not be unreasonable since we now have proof that the U.S. government has a history of calling murder “suicide” to cover-up criminal activity. The FBI and members of the 9/11 Commission were also participates in the government murder cover-up I have exposed here. Why should we trust these people that have a history of covering-up murder?

I'm afraid I would consider it unreasonable.
To cast doubts on the offical report, and claim that it is not 100% accurate in every detail is reasonable. To say that the FBI rushed to report details of the attack that they may not have been sure of themselves is reasonable. What is unreasonable is to say that because the Whitehouse (under Clinton) may have covered-up the murder of an individual, that the Whitehouse (under Bush) covered-up the truth behind 9/11, in which, you seem to imply, they even had a hand.

Turley wrote:

Only Eriugena, while admitting not being an expert on 9/11, offered a comment that demonstrated some knowledge of what I have now demonstrated with proof. That official popular public opinions that are “generally accepted” are not always true.

If you had posted a message declaring "That official popular public opinions that are “generally accepted” are not always true." , I don't think you would have had many dissenters, but what your postings have claimed far, far more than that.

Turley wrote:

The Irish Skeptics claim to be interested in evidence. They have asked me to give them evidence. Why is there no interest in the evidence I presented?

Because its a 500 page document about an alleged cover-up of the murder of a Whitehouse aide, and frankly I don't care enough about it to invest the time and effort. I only downloaded it because I thought it was related to 9/11, the subject of the postings immediately prior to your proffering the link to the document.

Turley wrote:

The ISS are, as I have said all along, only interested in whatever is popular and safe. I do not think anyone here has read the proof I have posted on 4/19/2005, and I doubt they will study this evidence. Most people prefer ignorance and believing what is popular and "generally accepted." It would take to much time to learn the truth so I expect the ISS will believe whatever is “generally accepted.”

Can't speak for the ISS; my main interest is science.
I think some people like to believe what is sensationalistic and counter-culture, regardless of merit.
What takes all my time is trying to get into my thick skull the contents of the books I have read on evolution, quantum physics, human conciousness, etc...

Turley wrote:

The mindless gullible masses believe what they are told by Newsweek et all. Some people think by calling themselves “critical thinkers” they somehow ARE critical thinkers. Men frequently think by calling things by different names they change what it is, thus they call murder a “suicide” or perhaps 19 murders, 19 “suicides.”
Where are my critics now?
Who can refute the proof of a U.S. government cover-up I posted on 4/19/2005?
Who will defend the official “truth?”

Don't mistake the silence caused by lack of interest, for the stunned silence of vanquished foes.

ISAW

Turley wrote:

This discussion topic began just over one month ago.

I tried to examine, “How we do know what we know?”
“How do we form our opinions?” and “How is popular public opinion formed?”

My position has been that the popular public opinion can be false and I offered the official 9/11 conspiracy theory as an example of something that may be false.

Most Irish skeptics here have dismissed this as impossible because they do not accept that a government murder cover-up could succeed.

the point is not that it is impossible! It is possible that there are Aliens buzzing the Earth in UFO's and that the Moon landings were faked and the US government is in a secret cabal involving the aliens and that x files is all true.

OCCAMS RAZOR suggests however that for example the 911 attack was not some complicated move by the cabal but was actually a terrorist attack!

People argued that a U.S. government cover-up of a murder could not succeed.

Nope. It probably could succeed. the cover up of it probably wouldnt. And there are more likely explanations. The whole human race could have been planted here by aliens who are watching us in invisible UFO's but there are more likely explainations which are generally accepted.

People have argued that there is not any evidence of an alternative view of history so alternative views are from “crackpots.”

Nope. People have argued that small isolated groups of conspiracy theorists with scant evidence are probably crackpots. Courtroom opinion in a single case which is unrelated to others e.g. Whitewater unrealated to 911 IS evidence. It is scant and it is on one area only. Even a 500 page document (which you already accepted contained flaws) which IN PART refers to the evidence is TINY compared to the VAST amounts of other evidence that the Moon landings were not faked that the holocaust happened that UFO are not buzzing the earth, that psi powers have not been shown to exist etc.

Skeptics are more concerned with whether ther is any evidence of UFO's for example than the SOCIAL aspects of whether the UFO builders have a plan to control the world. Note however that if one believes in the social aspect in this case one already believes there MUST BE UFO's.

People have argued forcefully that my allegations that an official version of history might be false were wild, random, and unsubstantiated.

nope. revision is acceptable when supported by evidence and when the generally accepted view needs challenging. for example the GAA just changed rule 42 to allow "garrison games" But the fenians of the 1850 were artizans and middle class and played CRICKET as their game. Also Hurling was supported by the LANDLORDS. this would run counter to the generally accepted view that Cricket was a garrison game played by an occupying army and hurling was a sport for Irish people supported by rebels. But evidence can be found for this.

Our moderator and others said that without evidence that whatever is the popular “generally accepted” view of reality is plausible until some “compelling evidence” comes along.

and you supplied ONE document from a conspiracy site though I will grant you it does refer to court records. Have you verified these are the ACTUAL court records and nothing was changed? One would need more widespread evidence. Even the absence of it. for example the Dublin Monaghan bombings. There was a file the Gardai had and a copy kept by the Dept of Justice. Now the Garda file is missing . When they went to look for the Department file THAT TOO was missing. It DOES suggest a conspiracy of sorts.

Wicknight suggested I was a “crackpot” and that I “assumed there must be a government cover-up” when there was “not actual evidence of a government cover-up.”

People demanded that I produce evidence of a government cover-up.

I have produced the evidence in the form of a 510-page court document supported by over 600 pages of official documents. I have provided overwhelming evidence that proves there is an ongoing U.S. government cover-up of murder and grand jury witness intimidation.

You have provided a SINGLE source not OVERWHELMING evidence as you claim. such claims usually result in the claimant being branded a crackpot.
Nevertheless you HAVE provided a document which deserves attention because it is an official source and NOT originally from a makey uppey looper source though it might well be posted to the net by them.

I have demonstrated that the truth is knowable, even if it is not the popular “generally accepted” view. I have proven that Wicknight CAN know about a government conspiracy that [others do not] know about.

I have demonstrated (see pages 505-506 of the 510-page document) that publications like Newsweek et al are not trustworthy as Robin maintained.

One five hundreth of you SINGLE SOURCE suggests Newsweek is not a good source of evidence. Give me a break! I accept Newsweek isnt a bad source but I dont think it is the most reliable. Nor do I think Newsweek actively goes about promulgating what it knows to be lies!

By the way I plead ignorance here since I havent read all 500 pages but your source seems to relate to Whitewater. what has that to do with a 9/11 coverup by the US government who actually planned the 9/11 attack in secret?

I maintained that suicide can be used to conceal murder and suggested that the 19 suicides on 9/11 might not be suicides. This should not be unreasonable since we now have proof that the U.S. government has a history of calling murder “suicide” to cover-up criminal activity. The FBI and members of the 9/11 Commission were also participates in the government murder cover-up I have exposed here. Why should we trust these people that have a history of covering-up murder?

Oh so that is the link. You suggest 911 didnt involve a suicide attack because the governemt are capable of covering up murder by feigning suicide?

The government have feigned suicide. (this premise is unproiven though you have provided some evidence)

911 was a "suicide attack"

Therefore the government feigned 911.

Are you affirming a consequent?

Look at it this way

All communists have beards (i.e. governments feign swicide)
ISAW has a beard ( 911 was suicide)
Therefore ISAW is a communist (911 was a government feign)

The premise is not true though might be
But the logic does not follow even if all communists have beards.

Only Eriugena,

wouldnt know about him he is on my ignore list

The Irish Skeptics claim to be interested in evidence. They have asked me to give them evidence. Why is there no interest in the evidence I presented?

There is. I am interested. i will look into it. But it isnt the thing I am mainly interested in e.g. paranormal claims; astrology; CAM etc. You see even if there IS a government cover up interesting and all that it may be it does not change the laws of the universe. Now covering up a UFO is different. Or a sceret cable working with aliens? see what I mean?

The ISS are, as I have said all along, only interested in whatever is popular and safe. I do not think anyone here has read the proof I have posted on 4/19/2005, and I doubt they will study this evidence. Most people prefer ignorance and believing what is popular and "generally accepted."

And your evidence for this completly unsupported opinion is? The ISS (in MY opinion) is interested in whatever it cares to be interested in. I have explained above what that leans to paranormal and not social claims.

Where are my critics now?
Who can refute the proof of a U.S. government cover-up I posted on 4/19/2005?

Who will defend the official “truth?”

It was You who quoted an OFFICIAL court document. Otherwise I wouldnt bother with you. But give it time and someone may be interested. Dont get uppity, your government conspiracy claims are not rated very highly and come way down the pecking order. Now if the government were in a conspiracy which challenged the laws of the univrse as we know it e.g. ET UFO the Philadelphia experiment, the Bermuda triangle etc. then your claim might be elevated. But for now you will probably be put in the "Kennedy killed by the government" pigeon hole.

KCF

Obni wrote:

I only downloaded it because I thought it was related to 9/11, the subject of the postings immediately prior to your proffering the link to the document.

I know, me too I was very disappointed to discover it was about a completely unrelated topic that I have absolutely no interest in. Turley, bad show.

Turley

ISAW wrote:

By the way I plead ignorance here since I havent read all 500 pages but your source seems to relate to Whitewater. what has that to do with a 9/11 coverup by the US government who actually planned the 9/11 attack in secret?

Well, at least we can agree about the fact that you are ignorant. Therefore it is no surprise that what you seem to think is wrong. And you have no grasp of the significance of what I have shared with you. As I correctly said, real facts and real evidence are too much for people like you.

You have some frim opinions about something you know nothing about. You continue to characterize, calling what I have presented a "single source." Clearly you have not examined the 630 pages of supporting documents of the sources including senators, congressmen, FBI agents, federal judges, medical doctors, police, citizens, lab reports, medical documents, etc. You know nothing about the sources.

ISAW wrote:

The government have feigned suicide. (this premise is unproiven though you have provided some evidence)

Really? How so, given that you admit not reading the proof?

I am not surprised to find you are like the masses of people. Your admission that you are ignorant of the facts has not stopped you from declaring that you are "right" and I am "wrong."

Turley

KCF wrote:

Turley, I do not believe that anybody here claimed that the US government has never been involved in covering things up.

you argued that a cover-up would not be possible because it could not succeed. See your own words in my previous post.

KCF wrote:

The document also suffers from a fatal flaw. It concentrates on apparent flaws in the investigation.

You are incorrect. Please discuss the evidence I presented and do no characterize. What flaws are you talking about? How was the press involved specifically? Have you read the evidence I presented? What do you disagree with?

KCF wrote:

It does not advance an alternative version of what happened and thus it 'proves' nothing.

I have presented evidence. If the Irish Spkeptics are interested in evidence let us discuss the evidence and the parallels to 9/11. Which 9/11 commissioners were involved in the evidence of the cover-up I presented? Anyone can ignore the facts and simply declare the other side has proven nothing.

KCF

Turley wrote:

you argued that a cover-up would not be possible because it could not succeed. See your own words in my previous post.

Oh dear oh dear. Are you really incapable of reading the text that you quoted? I obviously said no such thing. Governments are involved in covering up information all the time and I doubt that anybody in the world would deny that. On the other hand, there is no evidence to suggest that the US governments could cover up the murder of thousands of its most powerful citizens and get away with it. Thinking that one proves the other is simply barking mad.

Turley wrote:

You are incorrect. Please discuss the evidence I presented and do no characterize. What flaws are you talking about? How was the press involved specifically? Have you read the evidence I presented? What do you disagree with?

I read half the first page where it says that the document does not advance any evidence for 'who did it'. Then I realised that you had posted a link to a completely unrelated article and so, of course I didn't read the 510 pages. I have zero interest in the subject. Why on earth would any sane person read it?

Turley wrote:

I have presented evidence. If the Irish Spkeptics are interested in evidence let us discuss the evidence and the parallels to 9/11. Which 9/11 commissioners were involved in the evidence of the cover-up I presented? Anyone can ignore the facts and simply declare the other side has proven nothing.

I'm sorry but there is nothing more to say beyond the observation that you are a serious fruitloop and you really should run along and find somebody who _is_ interested in discussing this stuff. As you have pointed out again and again, scientific skeptics are not.

Myksyk

I agree that Turley should set up as soon as possible his own group with its own interests and stop telling other groups what they should or should not be interested in.

ISAW

Turley wrote:

You have some frim [firm?]opinions about something you know nothing about.

So you didn't notice the word "seem" in the phrase "you seem to think"?
A request for clarification about what you are actually claiming is in order.

You continue to characterize, calling what I have presented a "single source." Clearly you have not examined the 630 pages of supporting documents of the sources including senators, congressmen, FBI agents, federal judges, medical doctors, police, citizens, lab reports, medical documents, etc. You know nothing about the sources.

the 500 plus pages seem to have grown! there are 630 now! The SOURCE you posted is a conspircay site. It is a secondary source. The OFFICIAL document on it which you suggested people read IS as far as I can tell, a transcript related to the Whitewater investigation.

What has whitewater to do with 911?
[/qoute]

Really? How so, given that you admit not reading the proof?

I am not surprised to find you are like the masses of people. Your admission that you are ignorant of the facts has not stopped you from declaring that you are "right" and I am "wrong."

I didnt say I was ignorant of the facts. I am ignorant of all 500 plus pages of the transcript you mentioned. It is not for me to read it all. It is for YOU to quote from it in support of YOUR argument. Otherwise people can come here and state it is all in the Bible and one has only to read ALL 1,500,000 words to understand their theory!

And you did not post PROOF! You posted evidence from ONE SOURCE.
The transcripts of others are part of that source and used as SUPPORT for that source. Please list any of them that stand alone and NOT as part of that source and I will consider them as well. Someone giving evidence in court is NOT a seperate source. Nor is validating a police report in the court. It is all part of the court record and therefore part of THAT SOURCE! Now ANOTHER DIFFERENT case or a validated sepetate independent event IS a seperate source.

You seem to refer to other sources. what are they? I am only aware at this time of one (orignnale and not other source) which is an OFFICIAL court record. Court opinions are NOT scientific proof by the way. The scopes monkey trial springs to mind.

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

The document also suffers from a fatal flaw. It concentrates on apparent flaws in the investigation. It does not advance an alternative version of what happened and thus it 'proves' nothing.

You are way of course here. There is no fatal flaw. Turley et al have shown that the official story cannot be believed. The next step then, is to raise the question of what actually happened. They did not address this in their work because the primary task of that study was to demonstrate the mendacity of the official story. In this they have succeeded.

You really should sit down and think about your whole approach to knowledge. It is completely worthless to dismantle theories unless you have a more plausible alternative to advance.

No it is not. If something is false then it is false. Showing that it is false is a great advance because we now know that whatever it is (the official story in this case) can be ruled out. Refutation constitutes an advance in knowledge.

As I noted before, all history, no matter how recent is incomplete and full of apparent inconsistencies.

Turley et al documented outright lies. . .

If you want people to go against the 'generally accepted' versions, you _need_ to offer positive arguments for your theories rather than merely critiqueing other theories.

No you don't. It is necessary to refute falsehood before proper inquiry can begin.

Turley

Obni wrote:

There is a marked difference between saying the idea that 9/11 was a government murder cover-up is impossible, and saying that any government cover-up is impossible. The logistics of covering up the murder of a Whitehouse aide and those involved in 9/11 are several orders of complexity apart.
It also doesn't follow that if someone admits that governments do murder their own staff or citizens and then attempt to cover-up the evidence, that any murder can then be pinned on the government.

You are correct, there is a difference. But there are also some very interesting similarities including the same members of the press, the same FBI and same government officials. And both employ similar methods. Sadly if you are not familar with one cover-up of criminal activity, you cannot see the connection to the other.

I never said "any" murder can then be pinned on the government.

Obni wrote:

Because its a 500 page document about an alleged cover-up of the murder of a Whitehouse aide, and frankly I don't care enough about it to invest the time and effort.

I fully understand. Unfortunately all of us have a limited amount of time, so we place our trust in others. Aquinas rightly said the truth, "such as reason could discover would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of errors."

Because we do not have the time, we place our trust in others and thus make ourselves vulnerable to deception. What distinguishes me from others here is that I have taken the time to examine the facts behind what we are told. It would take at least weeks to understand the significance of the evidence I and others took six years to gather and assemble.

The fact is no one will be swayed by a few posts in a discussion group and no one has the time for the research necessary to know the truth. Although men cannot examine everything to the fullest, men would be wise, if just once in their life they would examine the facts surrounding one event that interests them. It could be the Gunpowder Plot, the holocaust, 9/11 or something else.

Knowing the truth about something, a much as reason can discover, is a liberating experience. I know because I have the experience. Without this experience our knowledge of reality is very much limited to what we are told by other men. Faith in men can serve us well, for example, when we expect to board a train. Faith in men can also invite deception and when thousands of people die, we might suspect something is wrong, be skeptical, and investigate further. My faith has risen to a higher level.

Obni wrote:

Don't mistake the silence caused by lack of interest, for the stunned silence of vanquished foes.

I do not think of you as vanquished or a foe. I was once like you and I thought and reasoned much the same as you do. I was comfortable with my view.

The knowledge that the entire American press deliberately deceives everyone to conceal hi-level government corruption involving murder invites us to withhold our trust. It should be disturbing when the same hi-level officials and journalists are tell us who is responsible for mass murder to justify the invasion of two countries and even more mass murder on a larger scale.

When so many innocent lives are at stake and so many people are murdered can we really be too busy to examine the facts and evidence? If we are being deceived, again, about the 9/11 murders, everyone does not have time to examine all the facts. Should this mean than none of us should critically examine what we have been told by those who have lied to us before about murder?

It is safer to concern ourselves with the trivial paranormal, hypnotists, homeopaths, and psychics than the serious deception that brings about the massive destruction and horrible suffering of war.

The evidence I have offered is too serious for discussion here so it will be ignored and dismisssed. Whatever is "generally accepted" as true shall be regarded as "true" and whatever most are skeptical of, the ISS shall be skeptical of.

Turley

ISAW wrote:

the 500 plus pages seem to have grown! there are 630 now! The SOURCE you posted is a conspircay site. It is a secondary source. The OFFICIAL document on it which you suggested people read IS as far as I can tell, a transcript related to the Whitewater investigation.

Nothing has grown except your ignorance of what we are talking about. A 511-page document with 908 footnotes are referenced to 630 pages of official documents.

ISAW wrote:

What has whitewater to do with 911?

I found Whitewater has very little to do with anything. You introduced the term "Whitewater"" you tell me what it has to do with anything.

ISAW wrote:

I didnt say I was ignorant of the facts. I am ignorant of all 500 plus pages of the transcript you mentioned. It is not for me to read it all. It is for YOU to quote from it in support of YOUR argument.

You are wrong. The documents are my argument. It is the evidence and the proof. The evidence is overwhelming isn't it? You would prefer to discuss something you have not read. You prefer to hold opinions about something that you know nothing about.

ISAW wrote:

And you did not post PROOF! You posted evidence from ONE SOURCE....You seem to refer to other sources. what are they?

You are a typical uninformed member of society. I spent six years with others assembling the proof. You have spent perhaps six minutes, if that, scanning a few pages of something you know nothing about and you have formed your opinion. You can ignore what I have presented. You can form your opinion independent of the facts, most people do.

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

I agree that Turley should set up as soon as possible his own group with its own interests and stop telling other groups what they should or should not be interested in.

Now you tell me I am not welcome here. What happened to the lofty goals stated in this forum's charter like these:

This forum is for discussing and investigating remarkable claims of any kind...
Everyone's opinion is welcomed - skeptic, astrologer, reflexologist, etc.
To promote the active questioning of claims in a variety of areas, which is noticeably absent at present.
To provide a forum for debate, discussion and rational argument on a range of relevant topics.
To provide an access point for media for skeptical responses to questionable claims.
To promote the teaching and application of critical thinking skills.

The charter does not say we must all agree to believe whatever is "generally accepted" by the group. I am interested in what the charter states this forum is interested in. I am not interested in accepting whatever is popular and limiting my skepticism to whatever is in fashion to question.

Turley

KCF wrote:

Oh dear oh dear. Are you really incapable of reading the text that you quoted? I obviously said no such thing. Governments are involved in covering up information all the time and I doubt that anybody in the world would deny that. On the other hand, there is no evidence to suggest that the US governments could cover up the murder of ...

Oh dear oh dear. Since you are knowledgeable that governments are involved in covering up information all the time, such that you doubt anyone in the world would deny this, can you share some examples. Keep in mind that the topic is MURDER, as in 9/11 (the mass murders). Give me some evidence of successful ongoing government cover-ups of murders.

This should be no problem for you because as you say, government cover-ups (of murders) go on all the time and everyone knows. Oh dear oh dear.

ISAW

Turley wrote:

Nothing has grown except your ignorance of what we are talking about. A 511-page document with 908 footnotes are referenced to 630 pages of official documents.

Would you mind reposting teh SOURCE of this 511 page document, the 908 footnotes and the other additional 630 pages of official documents?

I found Whitewater has very little to do with anything. You introduced the term "Whitewater"" you tell me what it has to do with anything.

page 451 of your reference
The obvious Justice Department cover-up
of the facts of Mr. Foster's death is approaching its sixth
anniversary.

and maybe this:
[url] http://www.apfn.org/apfn/vince.htm [/url]

But less than a month after the Washington Times Dec.
'93 revelation that Whitewater documents had been removed from
Foster's office the night he died...

You are wrong. The documents are my argument. It is the evidence and the proof.

EVIDENCE is NOT necessarily proof. And the DOCUMENT to which you seem to refer is ONE document. You seem to claim that Foster could have been murdered and this covered up. But you use this as a BASIS to suggest that this somehow PROVES that 911 was a US government plan. There is no way that the evidence you presented proves any such thing!

The evidence is overwhelming isn't it?

Rhetorical argument. and it isn't! There is scant evidence that 911 was a government plan. In spite of your 600 or 900 or whatever pages there is nowhere I am aware of in what you persent where EVIDENCE exists for 9/11 being a government conspiracy.

You would prefer to discuss something you have not read. You prefer to hold opinions about something that you know nothing about.

Some people believe jesus was cruxified. I dont see you attacking them. Most gynochologists are male and not capable of having children. One does not have to be on the plane and have personal experience of the attack to have an informed opinion that it was terrorists did it. When you hear galloping
think horses not zebras.

You are a typical uninformed member of society. I spent six years with others assembling the proof. You have spent perhaps six minutes, if that, scanning a few pages of something you know nothing about and you have formed your opinion. You can ignore what I have presented. You can form your opinion independent of the facts, most people do.

I dont intend to ignore it! It just isnt very interesting to me.I will however ignore you (and I assume everyone other skeptic in this forum will) if you continue your ad hominal tirade. you are welcome to start a 9/11 fake thread and be ignored if you wish.

Some people spend years believing in all sorts of things. when there is scant evidence for the end of the world or whatever else they predict they still hold on to these beliefs. Don't expect a medal for spending six years collecting data.

If you unearth a government coverup by the CIA of a murder then fair play to you. But I don't think you have PROVED 9/11 was a government conspiracy much as you like to believe that.

You could have saved a bit of time Google "knowlton foster starr whitewater" and you have nearly six hundred hits. So dont claim you are in the wilderness with htis conspiracy. news media and other conspiracy theorists have covered it years ago.

ISAW

Turley wrote:

Give me some evidence of successful ongoing government cover-ups of murders.

This should be no problem for you because as you say, government cover-ups (of murders) go on all the time and everyone knows. Oh dear oh dear.

Where did he state OF MURDERS?

Turley

ISAW wrote:

Would you mind reposting teh SOURCE of this 511 page document, the 908 footnotes and the other additional 630 pages of official documents?

see post 161 from April 19, 2005

ISAW wrote:

and maybe this:
[url] http://www.apfn.org/apfn/vince.htm [/url]

This is an interesting link because you have found one of the rare articles that has some accurate facts. Your link is to three articles. The second by Sarah Foster is the best of the three. I recommend it. The first and third are disinformation by Carl Limbacher, who is closly associated with Christopher Ruddy, the leading false critic who aided the FBI in the cover-up of the murder. Ruddy is now editor of Newsmax, the online news outlet. Limbacher's articles are full of errors and misstatements and he consistently blames the Clinton's, Democrats, and others always concealing the role of the press and the FBI in the murder cover-up. Limbacker and Ruddy will not write about the proof I have offered.

ISAW wrote:

EVIDENCE is NOT necessarily proof. And the DOCUMENT to which you seem to refer is ONE document. You seem to claim that Foster could have been murdered and this covered up.

We have proven Foster was murdered. What evidence do you dispute?

ISAW wrote:

But you use this as a BASIS to suggest that this somehow PROVES that 911 was a US government plan.

Don't be silly. I never said one proves the other. You made this up.

I have only demonstrated that U.S. government officials with the help of the press have successfully covered-up a murder. The same press and the same officials that lied about one murder are the source for what is "generally accepted" to have happened on 9/11.

These same journalists and officials may be telling the truth about 9/11, but they have lied before and are currently concealing a murder. That is all I am saying. I neither accept nor deny the official version of 9/11. I do not know the truth about 9/11.

ISAW wrote:

I dont intend to ignore it! It just isnt very interesting to me.I will however ignore you (and I assume everyone other skeptic in this forum will)....

Do you think I care if you ignore me? Do you think being popular is important to me? The approval of others is important to you. Thus you believe what the masses believe and you are skeptical of what the masses are skeptical.

I value the truth and this does not make my views popular. So ignore me, I've already gotten over it.:)

ISAW wrote:

Don't expect a medal for spending six years collecting data.

A medal, like being popular, is also important to you, thus you believe what you are told. You would be a good soldier. I have never pursued any medals, money, or fame. "Among all human pursuits, the pursuit of wisdom is more perfect, more noble, more useful, and more full of joy." --St. Thomas Aquinas

ISAW wrote:

But I don't think you have PROVED 9/11 was a government conspiracy much as you like to believe that.

Well at least we agree completely about something. I never believed I proved 9/11 was a government conspiracy either. You are refuting something you imagined.

ISAW wrote:

You could have saved a bit of time Google "knowlton foster starr whitewater" and you have nearly six hundred hits. So dont claim you are in the wilderness with htis conspiracy. news media and other conspiracy theorists have covered it years ago.

There is one difference between your 600 hits and what I have offered you. I have offered you court documents, and official records that prove MURDER. One particular document, found no where else on the web, was handed down from three federal judges on the U.S. court of appeals, the only higher court is the Supreme Court. Are the honorable David B. Sentelle, with Richard D. Cudahy and Peter T. Fay now "conspiracy theorists?"

The 20-page historic document, with evidence of the MURDER was ordered to be made public on October 10, 1997. You will not find mention of this document in ANY American newspaper then or now. (It is available from the U.S. government printing office for those that know it exists, and few do) This and the additional proof of the murder is "in the wilderness." Not one of your 600+ hits on google actually proved the murder cover-up. I am still safely in the wilderness.

If the truth about this murder cover-up were "generally accepted," even you would know about it because you believe whatever is popular.

Turley

ISAW wrote:

Where did he state OF MURDERS?

He didn't. He tried to change the subject. My post #171 referred to the government cover-up of MURDER.

KCF responded in part, "I do not believe that anybody here claimed that the US government has never been involved in covering things up."

The topic at hand is not covering-up THINGS. The subject is the government covering-up MURDER. We should not dilute the subject to cover-ups of THINGS, but stay on the topic of MURDER cover-ups by the U.S. officials and press.

I am waiting for KCF to offer some evidence of these on-going government cover-ups of MURDER.

ISAW

Turley wrote:

see post 161 from April 19, 2005

Don't be silly. I never said one proves the other [i.e murder coverup proves 9/11 conspiracy]. You made this up.

This thread began ( and I dont mean the first post) with ou suggesting 911 was a government plan. You later moved on to your document about the government coverup of a murder. And you suggest that if they can coverup a murder they can coverup mass murder. Did you not do that?

The politicians, Tony Blair, George Bush, and even Bush's opponent John Kerry all told their populations that 19 terrorist hijackers attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 and there is no visible dissent. From day one this has been the dogma. Only a "nut" would want evidence.
... [same post]
Many people might accept that the U.S. and British populations were fed propaganda during WW2 as part of the war effort, if true, did this practice ever end? if so, when? Effective propaganda would not appear to be propaganda, would it?

Again, what does every magician's trick have in common? By what universal principle do magician's tricks fool an entire audience?

This suggests 911 was covered up.

... think you have. Your theory is the accepted conspiracy theory, "that a bunch of religiously-inspired nutcases took advantage of a close-to-non-existent security system to clobber the USA" and these 19 men conspired with a bearded man in a cave to commit mass murder with a plan that somehow knew the U.S. Air force would stand down and not intercept hijacked passenger planes flying around in U.S. air space. The conspirators planned that the hijacked American Airlines flight #77 would fly from Kentucy, over West Virginia, and Virginia, to Washington for 45 minutes, after planes had crashed in NYC, while the U.S. air force would do nothing to stop them. And the conspirators planned that Hani Hanjour, unable to fly a single engine Cessna (Prince George's Journal), would crash a jetliner into the Pentagon. The Washington Post reported the jet was flown with "extraordinary skill" and "like a fighter pilot," making "a 270 degree turn at full throttle." According to the BBC, NY Times, and Washington Post some of the hijackers are still alive and one is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines. This man did take flying lessons in the U.S. and his name and photo did appear in the U.S. press naming him as one of the suicide pilots. He and other living "hijackers" were still officially named as some of the hijackers in the official 9/11 Report. Since some of the official suicide hijackers are still alive I would call it a "wild conspiracy theory."

this actually says the 19 suicide attackers is a conspiracy theory.
But you added to that with a tacid denial of the suicied hijackers explaination..

And what is the best evidence that the hijackers named in the official 9/11 Report were guilty? What convinced you? Consider "there was never any reasonable doubt" with Mr. Waleed Al Shehri pictured here ALIVE,

and later:

From the very beginning the premise is that there were "19 terrorist hijackers." This premise is unproven.

You then made the point that:

But in the end when the 9/11 commission Report (available online) confirmed the original "belief" and the very first solution became the official conclusion.

You asked people to CONSIDER i.e. supporting EVIDENCE or a BASIS for you claim the warren commission Report and the JFK assination. You THEN brought up the following (remember to be CONSIDERED in relation to what you earlier outlined as a conspiracy 911 explaination)

Consider asst. U.S. attorney Miquel Rodriguez who resigned in disgust because he was told what the result was going to before his investigation began into the death of White House counsel Vincent Foster. Rodriguez said he knew what the result would be because he was told what the result would be. His successor Brett Kavanaugh reached the "correct" conclusion of "suicide" and became a U.S. federal judge.

this clearly LINKS the Foster case to your claim of a 911 conspiracy and suggests the 911 was covered by offering the foster case as EVIDENCE.

does that answer your above allegation namely:

Don't be silly. I never said one proves the other [i.e murder coverup proves 9/11 conspiracy]. You made this up.

Do you think I care if you ignore me?

Evidently yes. If you dont care whether I ignore you why are you expressing an opinion about me?

Do you think being popular is important to me? The approval of others is important to you. Thus you believe what the masses believe and you are skeptical of what the masses are skeptical.

What I think or whether you care is beside the point. You SNIPPED

You snipped the end of my quote and thus CHANGED the context.

Having insulted me I posted that I would ignore you
[bold]***if you continue your ad hominal tirade.***[/bold]

How are people to be assured that if you snip out the conditional clauses you dont do it elsewhere?

I value the truth and this does not make my views popular. So ignore me, I've already gotten over it.:)

If you have gotten over it then that is an ommision that it DID bother you.
What is far worse however is your claim to value truth. Does your value of truth stretch as far as posting of the words like "I will ignore you.." but ommitting the IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING WORDS "if you continue your personal attacks"?

It would seem there is a relitive definition of truth here. I prefer to subscribe to the generally accepted version than your variety.

A medal, like being popular, is also important to you, thus you believe what you are told. snip

More ad hominem and the conclusion does not follow fronm the Premise which itself is unproven.

Well at least we agree completely about something. I never believed I proved 9/11 was a government conspiracy either. You are refuting something you imagined.

See above

There is one difference between your 600 hits and what I have offered you. I have offered you court documents, and official records that prove MURDER. One particular document, found no where else on the web, ...

first you cant be certain it is no where else. Second it is secondary evidence. I dont doubt it is a valit transcript of a court record but since people might generally accept that why dont you tell me where I can get the original. and since you claim to have spent six years at this have you gone and compared your web version to the original?

The 20-page historic document, with evidence of the MURDER was ordered to be made public on October 10, 1997. You will not find mention of this document in ANY American newspaper then or now. (It is available from the U.S. government printing office for those that know it exists, and few do) This and the additional proof of the murder is "in the wilderness." Not one of you other 600+ hits on google actually proved the murder cover-up. I am still safely in the wilderness.

If the truth about this murder cover-up were "generally accepted," even you would know about it because you believe whatever is popular.

Like you believe documents posted on the web? joking.

I found this in less than 60 seconds
http://www.bigeye.com/wowcvsty.htm
From Wednesday on the Web: 10-27-99
cover story
even has a link to your fbicoverup page

When your story becomes accepted and popular will you suggest people don't believe it?

My point is NOT that I dont accept your story but you brought it in as support for the government coverup og 911 conspiracy theory.

robindch

> I found this in less than 60 seconds
> http://www.bigeye.com/wowcvsty.htm

Anybody got any suggestions as to why so many paranoid conspiracy theorist websites use Times + Courier typefaces, with lashings and lashings of bold and bright red text, and are invariably almost impossible to read? Has anybody done any online research into this?

- robin.

Turley

ISAW wrote:

And you suggest that if they can coverup a murder they can coverup mass murder. Did you not do that?

More precisely, if the press and government officials DO cover-up murder and hi-level criminal activities they CAN cover-up mass murder.

The same officials and journalists that are concealing a murder are the source of the "19 suicide hijackers" explanation of the mass murders therefore some skepticism is reasonable.

I do not think it is possible to know who was responsible for the mass murders on 9/11 until evidence is presented that proves who was responsible. No matter how often we are told that "19 terrorist hijackers" were responsible the fact remains evidence that proves this is unavailable.

I do not know who was responsible for the mass murders but few people are asking who was responsible, because the official story is "generally accepted" to be true.

ISAW wrote:

this clearly LINKS the Foster case to your claim of a 911 conspiracy and suggests the 911 was covered by offering the foster case as EVIDENCE.

The only link I know of between the murder of Foster and the 9/11 mass murders is that the same officials and the same press have determined what is "generally accepted" to be the truth. In one case we know that these officials and the press covered-up a murder. Should we trust them to tell us the truth about the other is a valid question?

ISAW wrote:

My point is NOT that I dont accept your story but you brought it in as support for the government coverup og 911 conspiracy theory.

Don't accept my story. I am not selling some new religion that you should believe like the 9/11 dogma of "19 hijackers." The truth is knowable. Examine the facts and evidence and make up your own mind. IF facts and evidence are not available consider withholding your opinion.

I do not hold any government conspiracy theory re: 9/11. The only 9/11 conspiracy theory is the popular one, the "generally accepted" conspriracy that 19 men conspired with Osama and even though some are still alive and some could not fly they defeated the US Air Force with box cutters. That is your 9/11 official conspiracy theory. Silly, but popular, and therefore "generally accepted to be "true."

Turley

robindch wrote:

> I found this in less than 60 seconds
> http://www.bigeye.com/wowcvsty.htm

Anybody got any suggestions as to why so many paranoid conspiracy theorist websites use Times + Courier typefaces, with lashings and lashings of bold and bright red text, and are invariably almost impossible to read? Has anybody done any online research into this?

- robin.

I don't know. I seldom visit conspiracy theorist websites.

If the information we receive to form our opinions was controlled, how would things look any different than they are?

KCF

Turley wrote:

I don't know. I seldom visit conspiracy theorist websites.

You're quite wise. They're idiots.

Turley wrote:

If the information we receive to form our opinions was controlled, how would things look any different than they are?

ya wha? Taking a guess at what you wanted this question to mean, I'd say that the answer is along the lines of "we would be able to see that the lizards are our masters" or something.

ISAW

Turley wrote:

I don't know. I seldom visit conspiracy theorist websites.

No wonder you took six years to compile the Foster evidence. Had you looked to the conspiracy theorists you could have had it before that.

If the information we receive to form our opinions was controlled, how would things look any different than they are?

this is a bit like the argument in the homeopathy thread i.e. If the effect of taking something presents similar symptoms then that something is a cure for someone with those symptoms. The two DIFFERENT causes might result in the same effect . That does not mean they are related.

So you argue that a conspiracy theory controlling the media and NO conspiracy might result in the same outcome. So why not use occam's razor and assume the simpler mechanism i.e. NO CONSPIRACY?

By the way I dont accept that there is a conspiracy with the government or aliens or men in black. I DO believe the media is controlled. But censored by spooks who are capable of covering up the Moon landings? ...nah. There is plenty of evidence otherwise. By the way one does not have to have physical evidence to prove something nor to have a body for a murder. Except in Texas.

davros

robindch wrote:

Anybody got any suggestions as to why so many paranoid conspiracy theorist websites use Times + Courier typefaces, with lashings and lashings of bold and bright red text, and are invariably almost impossible to read? Has anybody done any online research into this?

OK, I'll hazard a guess... using Times calls to mind the trustworthy content of a venerable broadsheet newspaper. For legibility, it doesn't work so well on a computer screen as it does on the printed page.

Courier suggests manual typewriters and that movie cliche of the dogged reporter risking his career/life to shake out the true story.

You reminded me of Cryptome which I suppose is a paranoid website but is actually rather good.

Obni

robindch wrote:

Anybody got any suggestions as to why so many paranoid conspiracy theorist websites use Times + Courier typefaces, with lashings and lashings of bold and bright red text, and are invariably almost impossible to read? Has anybody done any online research into this?

- robin.

1. As everyone knows Windows 3.x onwards (when Bill Gates was elected to the illuminati), the Windows OS contains CIA sanctioned code in the OS to inform the authorities of suspicious documents/activities on a PC. (Why else do you never get 56K from a 56K modem? Because the 10K drop in bandwidth is taken up by surveillance software built-in to Internet Explorer).

2. The lasers in laser printers are uplinks to the motherships of our alien overlords, which monitor our brain-waves. The cover name of this activity is operation Apple. The eye-catching, yet slightly freaky, appearance of their other products serve to familiarise us with the appearance of their alien technology. That way we won't feel so threatened when they reveal themselves at the real millenium (2010, as the freemasons modified all calendars by 10 years in 1833, fact A.C.Clarke was trying to communicate with Space 2001 and Space 2010 - watch the 2001 psychedelic final backwards, it's all there!) The brain tumours caused by the constant monitoring by laser printers, forced the aliens to create their greatest abomination - the mobile phone - to cast supicion elsewhere.

So, to keep your identity secret you have to avoid Apple products, use Windows 2.0 with Aldus Pagemeaker and a dot matrix printer. With this technology courier and times roman fonts and primary colours are all you have. It's one of the classic ways to spot CIA stooge conspiracy sites, stylish fonts etc....
JUST LIKE THIS SITE!!!
OH MY GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE!!!!! :eek:

Turley

>>Originally Posted by Turley
>>I don't know. I seldom visit conspiracy theorist websites.

KCF wrote:

You're quite wise. They're idiots.

I am not wise.
Nor would I conclude necessarily that “they’re idiots,” though they may be idiots or maybe useful idiots. Perhaps they are intentionally muddying the waters and poisoning the well by deliberately mixing nonsense, rumors, and wacky theories with some truth.

> Originally Posted by Turley
>If the information we receive to form our opinions was controlled, how would things look any different than they are?

KCF wrote:

ya wha? Taking a guess at what you wanted this question to mean, I'd say that the answer is along the lines of "we would be able to see that the lizards are our masters" or something.

Some might see through propaganda but effective propaganda would be “generally accepted” by the masses.
Effective indoctrination would not appear to be indoctrination, would it?

Turley

ISAW wrote:

No wonder you took six years to compile the Foster evidence. Had you looked to the conspiracy theorists you could have had it before that.

A court would not accept evidence drawn from internet web sites, nor would I. All of the evidence we gathered came from the official records available.

We have been the leading source of official documents concerning the murder of Foster. Documents we unearthed and decided to put online have reappeared at numerous websites where they have been displayed with nudity, UFO theories, iluminati conspiracies, etc. These sites are often self-discrediting and one might wonder who funds these sites and for what purpose.