Concerning the WTC attacks

Turley

Obni wrote:

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...

The discussion is getting off-topic.

We were discussing how beliefs about historic events like 9/11 become "generally accepted" as true. I recently responded to your comments and asked you a question. By changning the topic to "alien overlords" it seems I was correct that the evidence I have offered is far too serious for discussion here so it will be ignored.

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 have told us who was 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.

Poisonwood

Turley wrote:

Knowing the truth about something, a much as reason can discover, is a liberating experience. I know because I have the experience. ...My faith has risen to a higher level.

Turley knows the Truth ... All praise Turley. I really hope Turley just has a fantastic sense of humour and has been pulling our legs with a grand pastiche! If not, this is just pathetic. Is it really possible for a human being to be this far up his own arse and still be able to type???

I was once like you and I thought and reasoned much the same as you do.

Patronising piffle.

The knowledge that the entire American press deliberately deceives everyone to conceal hi-level government corruption involving murder invites us to withhold our trust.

Knowledge???? How do you KNOW this bearing in mind that you are making the utterly implausible statement that the ENTIRE American media (paper, radio, internet, TV,etc) are all in a grand unified plan to deceive everyone.

If we are being deceived, again, about the 9/11 murders, everyone does not have time to examine all the facts

.

Apart from Turley the Truth Seeker.

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.

Well go away and set up your own 'more important' group and stop annoying the crap out of everyone here.

The evidence I have offered is too serious for discussion here so it will be ignored and dismisssed.

Em... No ... we (sorry ... I) just think you're a crackpot conspiracy theorist and couldn't be arsed wasting our valuable time entertaining your paranoia ... do you understand this?? If you do please go away.

davros

I'd like to point out that Turley has been nothing but calm, patient and polite. If other posters can at least learn this much from him, I'm very happy for him to stick around.

Turley

Poisonwood wrote:

Turley knows the Truth ... All praise Turley ... I just think you're a crackpot conspiracy theorist and couldn't be arsed wasting our valuable time entertaining your paranoia ... do you understand this?? If you do please go away.

To be accurate I did not claim to know the truth. I have moved toward the truth.

I only claimed to know the truth about something, as much as reason could discover. More accurately I discovered what is false, namely the official truth about a historic event.

As I have said before calling people names like "crackpot conspiracy theorist" is easier than the time consuming task of examining the thoroughly researched evidence I have presented.

Turley

davros wrote:

I'd like to point out that Turley has been nothing but calm, patient and polite. If other posters can at least learn this much from him, I'm very happy for him to stick around.

Davros-
Thank you but I am not always polite, and we all should try to keep our discussions polite.

I am accustomed to being called "conspiracy nut". For years I have been called names and I am routinely dismissed by people who have not researced the evidence. This is to be expected.

However if people do examine the evidence I have presented it is academic and scholarly research that can not be refuted. No academic institution has or professional historian has done anything comparable on this subject.

Those who disagree are reduced to calling me names. The only thing I have on my side is the irrefutable truth.
-Turley

Obni

Turley wrote:

The discussion is getting off-topic.

I was engaging in the strange activity you humans call humour

Turley wrote:

We were discussing how beliefs about historic events like 9/11 become "generally accepted" as true. I recently responded to your comments and asked you a question.

Which I admit, I mistook for a rhetorical question (or questions).

Turley wrote:

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?

First of all, I am aware of the fact that the Bush administration used the aftermath of 9/11 as leverage to assault Afghanistan and then Iraq. However, you must separate the events of 9/11 and any actions taken after that date justified (however falsely) by the attack of 9/11.

So, can I be too busy to examine the evidence that 3000 people were killed in a terrorist attack in a foreign country? Absolutely!

I'm too busy to fully examine the evidence of the World Banks role in the continued impoverishment of sub-Saharan Africa exacerbating the AIDS epidemic there.
I'm too busy to fully examine the evidence of whether the 100,000+ civilian casulaties of the continuing conflict in Iraq died in a war orchestrated by big business.
I'm too busy to fully examine the evidence of the countless acts of torture reported by Amnesty International year after year.
I could list many more issues of immense importance and scale, costing not 3000 but potentially millions of lives, which I daily fail to pursue; to do so properly would mean dedicating my life to the pursuit of that goal and I don't feel driven to spend my life in that way. If I did feel so driven, 9/11 would not be top of the list.

Turley wrote:

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?

First of all, the use of "we" and "us" here would indicate to me that you are a U.S. citizen. You are probably not aware of how little coverage Forest's death received outside of the U.S.
Was Forest murdered by agents of his own government? Possibly.
Would the fact that he was murdered in that way cause me and the rest of the mindless masses to re-evaluate our understanding of the nature of governments? I think not. Even the most mindless among us have seen and read enough Tom Clancy/Le Carre/Ludlum to know that governments are full of shadowy intrigue. Even among the ever-gullible ISS some members may have had a first reaction of "Hello! That's a bit too convenient!" when Dr. David Kelly was found dead.
Would U.S. government involvement in the attack on 9/11 or involvement in a cover-up of the attack on 9/11 cause an almost global re-evaluation of the nature of government? Unquestionably.
To return to your question, no-one has suggested that you don't have the right to investigate the facts of the 9/11 attack, please critically examine it to your heart's content. However, don't expect we of the mindless masses to be swayed by your current argument. Involvement of some personnel in the investigation of an alleged (however substantially) murder cover-up, who also were involved in the report on the 9/11 attack may form the basis for an attack on aspects of the report, but is a long way from casting doubt on the nature of the attacks.

TURLEY wrote:

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.

This is an important point that brought me to what I feel is an interesting revelation (but then I think everything I have to say is interesting).
New thread if you're as interested as I am.

Turley

Obni wrote:

First of all, I am aware of the fact that the Bush administration used the aftermath of 9/11 as leverage to assault Afghanistan and then Iraq.

It is a popular belief to fault the Bush administration, but the fact is Bush's "opponent," John Kerry and the "opposition party" also endorsed the American invasion of both countries.

In March I wrote:

Most dictionaries define a "skeptic" as a person who doubts what is generally accepted and questions accepted beliefs. See Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=skeptic
But here at the Irish Skeptics boards the norm is to never question the accepted beliefs.

Then you responded saying

Obni wrote:

There is a difference between questioning accepted beliefs, finding them to be largely true, and then accepting some or all of those beliefs, and the idea that any accepted belief must by definition be wrong.

I am curious what "accepted beliefs" have you ever questioned? and are any "accepted beliefs" largely false?

The vast majority of people don't have time to ever examine generally accepted beliefs, including you.

Obni wrote:

So, can I be too busy to examine the evidence that 3000 people were killed in a terrorist attack in a foreign country? Absolutely! I'm too busy to fully examine the evidence of the World Banks...I'm too busy to fully examine the evidence of whether the 100,000+ civilian casulaties...I'm too busy to fully examine the evidence of the countless acts of torture reported...I could list many more issues of immense importance and scale, costing not 3000 but potentially millions of lives, which I daily fail to pursue...

The alleged attack by "19 terrorists" did take place in a foreign country and the war and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are also in foreign countries. However Shannon airport, in "neutral" Ireland, is used to transport warplanes, troops, and munitions for war and occupation that are "justified" by the "attack by 19 terrorist hijackers." Irish troops guard the U.S. troops, planes and supplies that move through Ireland.

Obni wrote:

First of all, the use of "we" and "us" here would indicate to me that you are a U.S. citizen. You are probably not aware of how little coverage Forest's death received outside of the U.S.

By "we" and "us" I include all citizens of the world because war affects all men. I know how little coverage there has been. The murder has not even been reported in the USA. I am an Irish citizen.

Obni wrote:

Was Forest murdered by agents of his own government? Possibly.

We need not guess. The truth is knowable. We know agents of his own government and the entire American media are concealing his murder. BTW the victim was Vincent W. Foster.

Obni wrote:

Would the fact that he was murdered in that way cause me and the rest of the mindless masses to re-evaluate our understanding of the nature of governments? I think not. Even the most mindless among us have seen and read enough Tom Clancy/Le Carre/Ludlum to know that governments are full of shadowy intrigue.

Clancy,Le Carre, and Ludlum write fiction. Do you think the "19 terrorists hijackers" are fiction?

Obni wrote:

Even among the ever-gullible ISS some members may have had a first reaction of "Hello! That's a bit too convenient!" when Dr. David Kelly was found dead.

Shouldn't we know the truth about David Kelly's death?

Obni wrote:

To return to your question, no-one has suggested that you don't have the right to investigate the facts of the 9/11 attack, please critically examine it to your heart's content. However, don't expect we of the mindless masses to be swayed by your current argument. Involvement of some personnel in the investigation of an alleged (however substantially) murder cover-up, who also were involved in the report on the 9/11 attack may form the basis for an attack on aspects of the report, but is a long way from casting doubt on the nature of the attacks.

Our difference is that I have provided evidence that proves U.S. officials and the U.S. press are currently covering-up a murder. You believe the same U.S. officials and press can be trusted to tell us who is responsible for the 9/11 mass murders yet neither you nor they have presented evidence to prove it.

I have a large quantity of evidence to support my lack of faith in the authorities and press. You have little evidence to support your faith in the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

You admit, you do not have time for evidence. Thus your opinion is formed based on whatever is popular and “generally accepted” to be true. You rely on faith in other men. “19 terrorist hijackers” is a religious dogma and you have no reason to be skeptical, you haven’t time for evidence.

ISAW

Turley wrote:

It is a popular belief to fault the Bush administration, but the fact is Bush's "opponent," John Kerry and the "opposition party" also endorsed the American invasion of both countries.

Fallacy asserting the alternative. If A or B can lead to C and I show you that A caused C it does NOT mean that B couldnt cause it. It is not an EXCLUSIVE or. the point here though that if the Democrats were in power they might well have invaded iraq. As would the Tories if they were in power in the UK. But Bush and Blair ARE in power! They ARE responsible.

In March I wrote:

Most dictionaries define a "skeptic" as a person who doubts what is generally accepted and questions accepted beliefs. See Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=skeptic
But here at the Irish Skeptics boards the norm is to never question the accepted beliefs.

Then you responded saying I am curious what "accepted beliefs" have you ever questioned? and are any "accepted beliefs" largely false?

A scientific "skeptic" is a horse of a differrent colour. we are mainly interested in critical thought around ideas which violate science as we know it. Even then miracales are not of huge interest ( but some people may be interested) nor are conspiracy theories ( though no doubt some people are interested in the theories and why others believe in JFK government coverups to space aliens in league with the illumanati to control the gnomes of Zurich.

The vast majority of people don't have time to ever examine generally accepted beliefs, including you.

The alleged attack by "19 terrorists" did take place in a foreign country and the war and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are also in foreign countries. However Shannon airport, in "neutral" Ireland, is used to transport warplanes, troops, and munitions for war and occupation that are "justified" by the "attack by 19 terrorist hijackers." Irish troops guard the U.S. troops, planes and supplies that move through Ireland.

So what? The idea that some world government is in cahoots with the Irish cabinet is ludicrous!

By "we" and "us" I include all citizens of the world because war affects all men. I know how little coverage there has been.

So do you rule out most of the people in the world ? those who live in dictatorships like China?
How about the Afghans imprisioned in Cuba? they came from a fundamentalist State so they arent citizens of there are they?
Point being there are no "world citizens" in law as far as I know. There are internationally accepted standards of human rights (which the powerful tend to violate when it suits them).

Now we are back into natural justice and natural law see the thread on that. My point here is that skeptics are in general more interested in you claiming the government can violate the laws of physics than the violate the legal or natural rights of individuals.

Our difference is that I have provided evidence that proves U.S. officials and the U.S. press are currently covering-up a murder. You believe the same U.S. officials and press can be trusted to tell us who is responsible for the 9/11 mass murders yet neither you nor they have presented evidence to prove it.

And I hav pointed out to you that even if the US authorities covered up something that DOES not mean they cover up everything. NOR does it mean they can violate the laws of physics!
There is a difference between making people believe something untrue and actually changing the laws of the universe.

I have a large quantity of evidence to support my lack of faith in the authorities and press. You have little evidence to support your faith in the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

I dont need evidence for the former since I have written for them and know how hard it is to build a relationship with editors. As to the latter you have a VERY tenuous link between an alleged coverup of the foster murder which EVEN IF TRUE does not prove a 9/11 conspiracy! Furthermore if you claim that 9/11 is a conspiracy it is not for others to prove YOUR CLAIM.

You admit, you do not have time for evidence. Thus your opinion is formed based on whatever is popular and “generally accepted” to be true. You rely on faith in other men. “19 terrorist hijackers” is a religious dogma and you have no reason to be skeptical, you haven’t time for evidence.

Nope! As I can see it he admitted he didnt have time to go into the evidence of everything he thinks is true. Look are you sitting down? Did you check the chair you are sitting on was not going to collapse? some people do that. If they did it all the time you might think them a bit odd. Anyway I happen to accept (in addition to the laws of physics working) that the engineering and the standards to make a chair mean it wont collapse.

Now when I hear a chair collapsed I think it probably was bad workmanship though it might well be a false claim. I would be really much more interested if someone claim the molocules in part of the chair were temporarily teleported to somewhere else, or that the law of gravity changed. If they could provide evidence for that sort of claim I would be really really interested. Of course I might also be interested in evidence of a government conspiracy to cover up shoddy workmanship or to get people to give up chairs but not nearly as interested as the teleportation claim. It doesnt mean I am not a skeptic and rely only on faith.

Obni

I was rather "tired and emotional" while typing last night, and I apologise for the mistake over Vincent Foster's name. I should have re-read the text before posting it.
I am also aware that these posts are growing in scale and will soon become if not unreadable, then at least unread. I'll try to stick to the main topic.

So, the stuff about Kerry and Shannon. Non-sequiturs.

Turley wrote:

I am curious what "accepted beliefs" have you ever questioned? and are any "accepted beliefs" largely false?

God.
Value of human life, other than that which we give it.
Nature of conciousness.
Responsibility to our fellow humans.
I could go on, most belong on another board, or at least another topic.

Turley wrote:

By "we" and "us" I include all citizens of the world because war affects all men.

If you want to keep bringing up the Foster case and the FBI's handling of it, then your audience is very much confined to the U.S. Are you a U.S. resident? If not, then for an Irish citizen living outside the U.S. the interest in the Foster case seems bizarre.

Turley wrote:

Our difference is that I have provided evidence that proves U.S. officials and the U.S. press are currently covering-up a murder. You believe the same U.S. officials and press can be trusted to tell us who is responsible for the 9/11 mass murders yet neither you nor they have presented evidence to prove it.

I have a large quantity of evidence to support my lack of faith in the authorities and press. You have little evidence to support your faith in the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

For the umpteenth time, suspecting or proving anything about Foster's death does not disprove the generally accepted belief that 19 suicide hijackers executed the 9/11 attacks.
My dragging the names of political/espionage thriller writers into my last post was to illustrate that you would shock very few people if you proved that Foster or Kelly were murdered. I would argue that it is already a generally accepted belief that security and intelligence groups world-wide bump-off rogue members of their own departments or private citizens, and then cover-up the deaths. In fact, popular culture has so ingrained this theme in the public conciousness that this mainstay of fiction is probably accepted has happening in the real world more often than it actually does.

Are the majority of my beliefs "generally accepted beliefs"? Well, yes. However I don't equate "generally accepted" with "generally accepted but false". Some of them may be false; after all I believed in god for the first fifteen years of my life.
Does my world-view depend on information recieved from other people? Of course, but the selection of those in whom you place that trust is part of the development of any intellect. Whether they are dead philosophers, living science writers, or journalists, the same onus is placed on me to apply what judgement I have to evaluate the source. If I'm wrong I refine the selection.

Turley wrote:

“19 terrorist hijackers” is a religious dogma.

No. It requires no acceptance of the supernatural, and it may be true. Neither of these can be said of any religion.

Turley

ISAW wrote:

Fallacy asserting the alternative. If A or B can lead to C and I show you that A caused C it does NOT mean that B couldnt cause it. It is not an EXCLUSIVE or. the point here though that if the Democrats were in power they might well have invaded iraq. As would the Tories if they were in power in the UK. But Bush and Blair ARE in power! They ARE responsible.

You neglect the fact that both parties are participating on the ongoing cover-up of murder. You ignore false opposition. The appearance professsional wrestlers fighting should not rule out that the outcome of the fight is predetermined.

ISAW wrote:

A scientific "skeptic" is a horse of a differrent colour. we are mainly interested in critical thought around ideas which violate science as we know it. Even then miracales are not of huge interest ( but some people may be interested) nor are conspiracy theories ( though no doubt some people are interested in the theories and why others believe in JFK government coverups to space aliens in league with the illumanati to control the gnomes of Zurich.

One of the first principles of rational reasoning is that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. You ignore the evidence that violates this principle. You set up straw men by introducing illumanati, gnomes and space aliens which are not the subject of discussion.

ISAW wrote:

So what? The idea that some world government is in cahoots with the Irish cabinet is ludicrous!

Where have I said this? You are arguing with yourself.

ISAW wrote:

And I hav pointed out to you that even if the US authorities covered up something that DOES not mean they cover up everything. everything.

I was not so vague to say that the U.S. authorities cover-up "something." I have said the U.S. authorites are covering-up MURDER. When did I say they cover-up everything? You continue to argue against things I have not said.

ISAW wrote:

And As to the latter you have a VERY tenuous link between an alleged coverup of the foster murder which EVEN IF TRUE does not prove a 9/11 conspiracy! Furthermore if you claim that 9/11 is a conspiracy it is not for others to prove YOUR CLAIM.

Again I have never claimed there is a 9/11 conspiracy. You continue to argue against things I have not said. The only 9/11 conspiracy that I know of is the official conspiracy that 19 men plotted with Osama and committed the mass murders defeating the U.S. air defense system with box cutters. Where is the proof of this conspiracy?

ISAW wrote:

As I can see it he admitted he didnt have time to go into the evidence of everything he thinks is true. Look are you sitting down? Did you check the chair you are sitting on was not going to collapse? some people do that. If they did it all the time you might think them a bit odd. Anyway I happen to accept (in addition to the laws of physics working) that the engineering and the standards to make a chair mean it wont collapse.

Do you enjoy arguing with yourself? You have won the debate that we need not check our chairs. You are arguing with yourself. No one has claimed we must check if our chairs will collapse. You introduce the absurd and then refute your own idea. You are very clever and will never lose a debate

ISAW

Turley wrote:

You neglect the fact that both parties are participating on the ongoing cover-up of murder. You ignore false opposition. The appearance professsional wrestlers fighting should not rule out that the outcome of the fight is predetermined.

YOU brought the opposition into the debate when you stated:

It is a popular belief to fault the Bush administration, but the fact is Bush's "opponent," John Kerry and the "opposition party" also endorsed the American invasion of both countries.

This had NOTHING to do with the FOSTER case! It is YOUR words suggesting that government and opposition supported the invasion. I pointed out to you that whether or not the opposition support the government does not mean the government is not responsible for the actions they take.

Your "false opposition" point was NOT mentioned and does NOT hold true in any case. First the "opposition" didnt oppose (nor do they have to even in the UK the whip can be off and a free vote taken). Second whether or not someone NOT in charge agrees with a decision or not the PERSON IN CHARGE is responsible for the decision.

One of the first principles of rational reasoning is that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. You ignore the evidence that violates this principle. You set up straw men by introducing illumanati, gnomes and space aliens which are not the subject of discussion.

You have it wrong way around. YOU introduced a particular case i.e. Foster and YOU linked this to the idea that 9/11 is a government created story and the truth is being covered up by them. It isnt linked! What I introduced was not a straw man. I pointed out that when you argue as you do about what is "generally accepted" and what is a government conspiracy skeptics may be interested in the Foster case but they are more interested in evidence for a 9/11 coverup. They are however Much much much more interested in a suggestion that the government are involved in a conspiracy to cover up something which violates the generally accepted laws of physics.

Where have I said this? [ie even if the US authorities covered up something that DOES not mean they cover up everything]
You are arguing with yourself.

You suggest the foster murder was a cover up and you LINKED that to a 9/11 coverup. I already posted the reference go back and read it.

I was not so vague to say that the U.S. authorities cover-up "something." I have said the U.S. authorites are covering-up MURDER. When did I say they cover-up everything? You continue to argue against things I have not said.

Ditto.

Again I have never claimed there is a 9/11 conspiracy. You continue to argue against things I have not said. The only 9/11 conspiracy that I know of is the official conspiracy that 19 men plotted with Osama and committed the mass murders defeating the U.S. air defense system with box cutters. Where is the proof of this conspiracy?

I posted AGES ago about the terrorist stuff. I don't know about the Osama link. you AGAIN mention the "official conspiracy". Who are these "officials" who are they conspiring against? For what reason?

Do you enjoy arguing with yourself? You have won the debate that we need not check our chairs. You are arguing with yourself. No one has claimed we must check if our chairs will collapse. You introduce the absurd and then refute your own idea. You are very clever and will never lose a debate

The point was to illustrate what is "generally accepted". Now do you check your chair is alright every time you sit?

robindch

> Who are these "officials" who are they conspiring against? [...]
> The point was to illustrate what is "generally accepted".

With my new, non-tinfoil, moderator's hat on, I'd like to point out that the suggestion of conspiracies, of one kind or another, surrounding the WTC attacks has already been covered in detail and I don't think that further postings on the topic are going to produce agreement, where it's not been reached before.

OTOH, the thread topic of "What does 'generally accepted' mean?" is still mostly unaddressed and rather than attempt to work it out indirectly by reference to contentious examples, it might instead be worth discussing it directly to see if there's any room for agreement upon its meaning. My own postings here and here tried to address the issue somewhat, but were mostly ignored

- robin.

KCF

robindch wrote:

With my new, non-tinfoil, moderator's hat on,

:eek: Oh no, they've got him too. Never go out without your tinfoil hat people.

On a more serious note, Robin, your initial post defining 'generally accepted' was probably ignored as it pretty much said all that needed to be said on the matter and, to be honest, I don't think that anybody really wanted to discuss the semantic nuances of the phrase anyway.

Turley

ISAW wrote:

I don't know about the Osama link. you AGAIN mention the "official conspiracy". Who are these "officials" who are they conspiring against? For what reason?

I have never said any officials are conspiring. The only conspiracy I know of is the official conspiracy story that "19 terrorist hijackers" conspiring because they "hate America" and they conspired with Osama to use box cutters to defeat the U.S. air defense system and commit mass murder. The U.S. officials and the U.S. press have repeated this conspiracy theory involving these 19 men (some who are still ALIVE) and this is the official conspiracy theory and it is aTHEORY because this CONSPIRACY has never been proven with evidence. The official conspiracy theory is the official story of what happened on 9/11. To my knowledge the officials are not conspiring, only the 19 men conspired with themselves and Osama's vast terrorist network including the "Hamburg cell" et all. That is the popular conspiracy theory publicized by the media and it is the conspiracy theory the masses believe in, tinfoil hats excluded.

A self-confessed non-tinfoiled hatter confessed:

I don't believe there was ever any reasonable doubt about who committed the act -- it was the suicide pilots who flew the planes into the building.

The official conspiracy theory is "generally accepted" to be "true" and not, as Mark twain would say, because people "have reasoned things out for themselves or because they are derived from first hand experience, but because a person 'must feel and think with the bulk of his neighbors, or suffer damage in his social standing and in his business properties.'"

robindch

Turley -

You've already written, many times, that the "official" story of the WTC attacks is "a conspiracy". Continually restating this, in the absence of a credible alternative explanation, is neither bringing the argument forward, nor is it compatible with scientific skepticism. It's also, no doubt, contributing to the annoyance that some posters are feeling.

If people wish to continue posting about the WTC attacks, I'll split the thread and leave the 'generally accepted' thread as it remains. However, in line with the slight shift in board policy mentioned recently, I'll see if it's possible to enforce a tighter control on the thread content, so that the it can work towards an agreement, rather than the slagging matches that some recent threads have decayed into.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

Turley -

You've already written, many times, that the "official" story of the WTC attacks is "a conspiracy". Continually restating this, in the absence of a credible alternative explanation, is neither bringing the argument forward, nor is it compatible with scientific skepticism. It's also, no doubt, contributing to the annoyance that some posters are feeling.

If people wish to continue posting about the WTC attacks, I'll split the thread and leave the 'generally accepted' thread as it remains. However, in line with the slight shift in board policy mentioned recently, I'll see if it's possible to enforce a tighter control on the thread content, so that the it can work towards an agreement, rather than the slagging matches that some recent threads have decayed into.

- robin.

I know I have stated before that officially 9/11 was a conspiracy, however someone has misunderstood this to mean that officials have consipired. The 9/11 Conspiracy theory is being used in this discussion as an example of something that is "generally accepted." Therefore splitting the thread will not facilitate this discussion.

If you are not happy that everyone does not agree I suppose with your new power as moderator you can split the discussion, end the discussion or do whatever pleases you.

I did respond to your earlier posts that you claimed were ignorned. Please go back and reread my responses.

If you wish to split something into a new thread this earlier off-topic post about conspiracy websites would be a more logical topic to split:

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?

The discussion here has been polite so I don't see the need for a moderator to interfere. Some of us do not agree but that is healthy in my opinion because we can exchange our thoughts back and forth. Some things are repeated because they are clarified or restated for others who joined late.

I never cared for moderated discussions since moderators often decide what is an acceptable point of view. Since my views are often the minority view, it is popular to silence me. You historically have favored the majority and popular view so now that you are moderator you can more easily silence unfavorable opinions that you dislike.

Earlier in this discussion you asked me the following question:

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?

It was a good question to ask, how do I decide not to "believe publications" considered respectable and trustworthy by the majority (the rest of us). I spent an extraordinary amount of time gathering all of the official facts and evidence available and then I presented the official facts and evidence to the leading American journalists and editors of publications, including Newsweek. I knew the facts and I made sure they also knew the facts. They suppressed the evidence of MURDER and they supressed the truth. Therefore, I gradually came to no longer believe in publications "the rest of [you]" still consider "moderately respectable and truthful."

On this thread I have presented evidence that publications like Newsweek have concealed the evidence of a MURDER of a White House official. Newsweek's investigative reporter Michael Isikoff played a prominent role in the MURDER cover-up from the beginning while he was at the Washington Post. Should we consider a publication that does not report evidence of a White House MURDER, even after it is made public by three Federal judges, David Sentelle, John Butzner and Peter Fay, to be even moderately respectable and trustworthy? I think we can all agree covering up MURDER is not respectable.

When I presented Ted Gest, of Newsweek evidence of the FBI intimidation of grand jury witness Patrick Knowlton, Gest responded by saying, "Our publication covers consumer issues, that is not the kind of story we cover, try one of the daily papers."

Newsweek, Newsweek polls and similar publications and polls shape public opinion and determine what is "generally accepted." They have publicized the official version of Foster's death as well as the 9/11 hijacker conspiracy theory. Based on the evidence I have presented http://www.fbicover-up.com/report/report.pdf, I do not trust Newsweek.

The majority of "skeptics" here will ignore the evidence I presented. It takes too long to review 511 pages of research and even more to review the underlying official records. The easier path is to simply declare that I am "nuts" since I do not think and act like "the rest of us." I do not believe what is "generally accepted" and I am skeptical of the "moderately respectable and truthful" Newsweek. Are you going to close the discussion now?

KCF

Turley wrote:

The discussion here has been polite so I don't see the need for a moderator to interfere. Some of us do not agree but that is healthy in my opinion because we can exchange our thoughts back and forth. Some things are repeated because they are clarified or restated for others who joined late.

I think that it is quite possible to use polite language while carrying on in a manner that is extremely impolite. For example, repeating oneself endlessly, using inaccurate generalisations about those who disagree with you and, most annoyingly, ignoring everything that anybody says to you.

Turley wrote:

The majority of "skeptics" here will ignore the evidence I presented. It takes too long to review 511 pages of research and even more to review the underlying official records. The easier path is to simply declare that I am "nuts" since I do not think and act like "the rest of us." I do not believe what is "generally accepted" and I am skeptical of the "moderately respectable and truthful" Newsweek. Are you going to close the discussion now?

This is what I mean. Nobody who has responded to your posting of this mammoth document has responded in the way that you describe here. Several people have - most eloquently Obni above - accepted that there may be reason to this particular conspiracy hypothesis. Nobody has said that Newsweek is not something to be skeptical of, etc, etc.

Turley

KCF wrote:

ignoring everything that anybody says to you.

I am not ignoring you. I am sorry you thought I was.

KCF wrote:

Nobody has said that Newsweek is not something to be skeptical of...

Compare.

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,..

Turley

KCF wrote:

Nobody has said that Newsweek is not something to be skeptical of, etc, etc.

Are you skeptical of Newsweek? If so, what are you skeptical of, and based on what evidence?

robindch

This has been spun off from the 'generally accepted' one, since there appeared to be little or no chance that the discussion was going to return to the thread topic.

> I don't see the need for a moderator to interfere

Please see this thread where those who posted upon the thread topic of moderation, more or less agreed upon the usefulness of a more active style of moderation to keep threads as on-topic, and scientifically skeptic, as reasonably possible.

- robin.

ISAW

robindch wrote:

This has been spun off from the 'generally accepted' one, since there appeared to be little or no chance that the discussion was going to return to the thread topic.
- robin.

Hear hear. Lets leave the 9/11 coverup discussion for that thread. I am not particularly in debating it much more and I doubt others will be. It is interesting and I probably will get around to reading the material supplied when I get confirmation that it is the official documentation ( in this thread).
[snip]

The rest of this has been moved to the "generally accepted" thread

Obni

ISAW, that link didn't seem to work for me.
Anyone else having trouble might like to try http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eric.chopin/

ISAW

Sorry wrong thread see materials for kids thread

http://www.mwls.co.uk/gurus.htm
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/education/case.html
http://www.case-network.org/

The aim was to:

INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF RAISING GENERAL LEVELS OF THINKING AMONGST AVERAGE STUDENTS AGED ABOUT 10 - 14 YEARS

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

I think we can all agree covering up MURDER is not respectable.

I have read through some of your report and to be honest it is very weak. It is full of the normal conspircy line "this is what should have happened, it didn't happen, therefore someone is lying"

Or the bullets would have to be "reloads", and that is not mentioned in the offical report, therefore someone is lying.

The same tatic is used in 9/11 all over the place. The hole in the Pentagon should look like this, it doesn't therefore it wasn't a commersal plane etc

For example your "evidence" that he was shot rather than shot himself is based on what you believe a suicide gun shot should look like. Do you not understand that that is not evidence

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

I have read through some of your report and to be honest it is very weak. It is full of the normal conspircy line "this is what should have happened, it didn't happen, therefore someone is lying"
...

Do you not understand that that is not evidence

Could we not split the Foster murder conspiracy theory off into another thread? It came in as a suggestion that like 9/11 it was a coverup.

As regards it NEVER being covered in a newspaper:

what about this?:
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
May 4, 1997


McDougal never questioned about Foster
By Christopher Ruddy
FOR THE TRIBUNE-REVIEW (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review May 4, 1997 )

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Key Whitewater figure James McDougal,
recently sentenced to three years in prison after cooperating with
investigators for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, was never
once questioned about Vince Foster Jr.'s involvement in or knowledge
of the scandal, according to a source close to the Starr probe.

[snip the rest]

The Electronic Telegraph Monday 10 July 1995
World News


America's top newspaper has pointed the finger
at our man in Washington.
Now it's his turn...


Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has been accused of 'conspiracy theorism'
over the death of the White House aide, Vincent Foster.

[snip the rest]

Or this website which cas plenty of references?

http://members.aol.com/orwell1950/

London Times via Randi:


Patrick Leman, a psychologist at Royal Holloway College, London, who has been studying why conspiracy theories are so appealing, said: "Conspiracy theories feed into a feeling of disconnection with government. People don't like gaps in their accounts; they have a need to believe them. They invent fantastical things that protect them from the real world."
In one experiment, he showed people footage of a fictional president who was shot at, and provided fictional newspaper articles. People were more likely to believe that there was a conspiracy behind the shooting if he was killed than if he was uninjured. He concluded: "People think that a big event must have a big cause, but often things are caused by cock-up or accident, not conspiracy."

Thousands of people die in Europe every year in car accidents resulting from fast driving and too much alcohol. But when Diana, Princess of Wales died, many could not accept that such an important event could have such a simple cause. Many believed that she was assassinated by the secret services to stop her marrying a Muslim.

Lone gunmen kill hundreds of people a year in the United States, but when the victim was President Kennedy, few wanted to accept such a simple explanation. It had to be a conspiracy.

From Thomas Gray (1716-1771): "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."

robindch

> Could we not split the Foster murder conspiracy theory
> off into another thread?

Foster's death has already been the subject of a discussion, which, unfortunately, didn't reach any conclusion.

- robin.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

"People think that a big event must have a big cause, but often things are caused by cock-up or accident, not conspiracy."

That is a very good point. Turley believe that the US Air Force could not have "cocked-up" and allowed the planes to crash into the WTC. To be honest I would be amazed if the Air Force did manage to stop it.

Conspiricies are more often than not based on the persons belief of what should have happened, and if the reality doesn't fit this they refuse to accept the reality.

robindch

> To be honest I would be amazed if the Air Force did manage to stop it.

Likewise! Hanlon/Heinlein's razor, which says that you shouldn't attribute to malice, what can be adequately explained by stupidity seems appropriate, given that most of us human beings spend more of our time doing silly things, than malicious things