Malf, how tasty was the pie? I hope it wasn't Salo-type cuisine. (Good to see you again... even in minimalist mode.)
Last edited:
Conspiracy Theories
- Thread starter gabriel
- Start date
AryaS
Member
I don't think I could write a better response than what Hurmantar has already written here in this post, Silence. And I too don't think I could go back to accepting the official version of 9/11 unless every anomaly set out in the Corbett video were explained or shown to be a complete fabrication (e.g., that the author of the book made up facts not stated in/provided by the official narrative).
One does not have to have technical expertise to know that 9/11 did not happen as told/sold. While much of the focus/in-fighting has been on how the Towers fell, there are many other aspects of the official story that simply do not add up -- many of these have been repeatedly mentioned in this thread. I don't know who I could interview directly who'd be able to give me some direct evidence of a false flag op (do you think Cheney would confess? ;)), but I have also looked to other "primary sources" to verify certain allegations made in the 9/11 truth books (e.g, the firefighter testimonies, FBI website, UA flight manifests, seismic reports, old conflicting news stories, etc.).
I agree that many authors have political leanings and agendas -- but that doesn't necessarily mean that their books don't contain truth. So Webster Tarpley might have certain political leanings, but his book on 9/11 is pretty well written, lays out the problems with the official narrative well, and provides a solid history of false flag operations and other related deep state shenanigans. It was only one of several other books on 9/11 that I read to supplement my understanding -- and it's one I'd recommend someone check out if they are only getting their information from internet sites and are willing to dive deeper. I wish you'd deign to read it, if only so we could have a deeper conversation here, but that seems unlikely.
B
Baccarat
It's funny how people think the government would never lie to you or mislead you, when in life your parents lie to you or hide things from You, your friends, your boss.....they all lie and hide things from you. The government would never lie to you though.
Hurmanetar
New
Ted Gunderson, Fmr FBI chief on CIA and FBI terrorist false flags:
Regarding the '93 WTC bombing which killed 6 and injured many more, it was carried out by a group that was infiltrated by an FBI informant that told the FBI about the plan to bomb the WTC. The FBI had a plan to use the informant to supply a fake bomb, but the FBI claims they pulled him off that plan. Why? The informant had his own recordings of later conversations with the FBI where he claimed he made the bomb under FBI supervision. Either way the FBI let it happen or made it happen.
The '95 OKC bombing is another one, though I don't have time to refresh my memory on all the facts there.
Reece
Member
No question about it, making the Melania statement is ridiculous . . . But it has nothing to do with 9/11. I've read many books on 9/11 - almost all of David Ray Griffin's - and several others. Many who read his material find it very difficult to argue with . . . though, there are those who do, of course.
I'm not trying to open up an endless debate, but to simply respond to the "relying on third party authoritarian figures as 'research'" statement, I would say this: one of my favorite books by DRG is 9/11 Contradictions. There are no arguments going on in the book. He simply points to conflicting stories from primary sources that are completely impossible to reconcile with one another and that completely undermine the whole narrative. As far as who those "experts" are, in more than one case, the experts were the FBI: at the trial for the supposed 20th hijacker, the FBI said that only two phone calls actually took place, whereas the initial story had it at around 35. Importantly, they said there was no connected phone call from Barbara Olsen. In case you don't remember it, Barbara Olsen was the wife of Ted Olsen. Ted Olsen was the lawyer who won the (supposedly disputed) 2000 presidency for Bush. Kinda odd, doesn't it seem, that it was Ted Olsen - rather than some random Joe Blow - who first said what was going on and established the entire 9/11 narrative: that the planes had been hijacked by Muslims. No one knew before he said so, and he found out because his wife was on a hijacked plane and called him. He said initially that Barbara called from a cell phone, then, one might be inclined to take it, because they realized that the phones didn't work from that altitude, changed it to a somewhat elaborated story about her calling the Justice department collect. Sure, I know what someone would say here: it was a tragic occurrence personally and as a nation: wouldn't we expect a big of bungling? Sure, I'd say. Except that the FBI later said the calls lasted zero seconds. The weren't connected; they didn't talk at all.
So my (somewhat rhetorical) questions to you then would be: which of these mainstream, official accounts do you believe? It's a pretty big deal if you say the FBI, because suddenly everything is radically shifted . . . And that would lead to yet another question: why didn't anything air on mainstream TV about such a revelation?
The FBI also said that there was no hard evidence that Osama Bin Laden was connected in anyway to 9/11, and that's why he wasn't listed on their top ten most wanted people for 9/11. Which mainstream account do you believe? Bush admin or FBI? And why didn't our journalists at least lightly probe such a thing? Might that not be a bit of a scoop, as they say?
What about the hijackers (about half) who showed up alive all over the world? What about the hijackers' names not being on the flight manifests? You asked Hurmanetar if he could consider being wrong about the conspiracy and that the official one about hijackers and such is right, as you consider the fact that you might be wrong. My answer would be, in the general sense, of course . . . except that the examples like those above are so numerous and insane that one realizes there's literally no official story to come back to.
I think your point about Tarpley is definitely a great one (though I would still probably agree with Tarpley concerning 9/11), and it's nice to hear that you're open minded enough to consider that you might be wrong . . . But I was like you and would've at one point thought it silly people using the term "research," because of what I viewed that being. But, anyway, I don't anymore.
If your curiosity was ever piqued on the subject and you found that you did want to read something about it, I'd certainly not suggest starting with google and such, but rather with 9/11 Contradictions by DRG.
. . . On a different note that came up earlier - I think by you: I came to Skeptiko initially because of psi. I still love the subject, but I see most of it as Tricksterish . . . and that makes it hard for me to say much about it any of it . . . And that leads me to say that one of the best books on psi that I've ever read is also, oddly, by David Ray Griffin:
https://www.amazon.com/Parapsycholo...onstructive/dp/0791433161/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
Last edited:
Silence
Member
A couple thoughts:
- I'm not an adherent to any official story as it relates to 9/11 or any of these events. I should have clarified this much earlier. What I struggle with are a couple of things: 1) the sheer magnitude of complicit behavior required to pull something off like this and 2) the notion that Government agents would order innocent American citizen deaths/harm to further an agenda. Again, neither of these "points of struggle" are insurmountable but seem unlikely to me.
Now, Hurm's reference to Operation Northwoods has been quite interesting to me. Surprising to me is that I had never heard of this prior to Hurm's reference. (Yes, I realize the ironic aspect to that. ;) ) Does anyone know what, if any, actions were taken by any branch of the U.S. Government once this came to light in 2001/2? It is a very weighty piece of evidence to refute my second "point of struggle". Shocking quite frankly.
- Reece, appreciate your post very much. As I tried to clarify above, I'm not asserting any particular official story is the truth. Again, its more my disbelief that a sitting American president (buck stops here and all) along with the massive number of staff, etc would order the deaths of 5k American citizens to further a political agenda. Setting aside that level of evil for a second, what about the myriad of folks required to execute such an event. Perhaps one had a loved one who worked in lower Manhattan? Did they leave them to die? If not, what would they tell that loved one? How would what they say stop there? Etc, etc. Could be I'm just a Pollyanna. Who knows?
Oh, and I would clarify the reason I came to Skeptiko: Refutation of Scientific Materialism. (Which makes me a conspiracist in some circles. ;) )
- I'm not an adherent to any official story as it relates to 9/11 or any of these events. I should have clarified this much earlier. What I struggle with are a couple of things: 1) the sheer magnitude of complicit behavior required to pull something off like this and 2) the notion that Government agents would order innocent American citizen deaths/harm to further an agenda. Again, neither of these "points of struggle" are insurmountable but seem unlikely to me.
Now, Hurm's reference to Operation Northwoods has been quite interesting to me. Surprising to me is that I had never heard of this prior to Hurm's reference. (Yes, I realize the ironic aspect to that. ;) ) Does anyone know what, if any, actions were taken by any branch of the U.S. Government once this came to light in 2001/2? It is a very weighty piece of evidence to refute my second "point of struggle". Shocking quite frankly.
- Reece, appreciate your post very much. As I tried to clarify above, I'm not asserting any particular official story is the truth. Again, its more my disbelief that a sitting American president (buck stops here and all) along with the massive number of staff, etc would order the deaths of 5k American citizens to further a political agenda. Setting aside that level of evil for a second, what about the myriad of folks required to execute such an event. Perhaps one had a loved one who worked in lower Manhattan? Did they leave them to die? If not, what would they tell that loved one? How would what they say stop there? Etc, etc. Could be I'm just a Pollyanna. Who knows?
Oh, and I would clarify the reason I came to Skeptiko: Refutation of Scientific Materialism. (Which makes me a conspiracist in some circles. ;) )
Hurmanetar
New
Operation Northwoods is certainly an eye opener.
Don't have much time, but some more interesting reading:
http://journals.gmu.edu/NandC/article/download/601/1170
https://wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Speci...ocedures_for_Special_Forces,_FM_31.20-3,_2003
AryaS
Member
When I wrote about my feeling that those of us who have accepted that 9/11 was a false flag op have undergone a "growth in consciousness" it's because I feel like we have all now gone through the five stages of grief on this (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance), and finally come out on the other side. It is not easy to change long-held beliefs about the way the world works. I fought it every step of the way and had the same thoughts about (1) the magnitude of complicity required and (2) the disbelief that "our" government leaders/agents would kill innocent "Americans" (like we're so special....). But the more I read and educated myself on the history of false flags and deep state operations, the more these final incredulity hurdles were overcome. There are some good articles that specifically speak to these two final psychological hurdles out there.
The "growth in consciousness" also referred to what Hurmantar wrote above too -- how 9/11 was just the tip of the iceberg that leads to questioning and exploring other things and opens your mind to wanting to understand how the world really works. It really does feel like the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit together in a way they didn't before. And one of the reasons I'd like to get past the "mundane" level of the 9/11 false flag operation is because I'm interested in moving to the more esoteric/metaphysical questions about it.
Hurmanetar
New
That's interesting... I only read DRG's 9/11 stuff a long time ago. Didn't know about his Psi/Consciousness/philosophy books. I'll have to check them out!
Reece
Member
That's the only one I know of by him, but I thought it a really good read.
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
"Facism allowed John Amery to convince himself that perhaps the causes of his unhappiness and insecurity might be located outside himself - in the actions of the wicked Jews, the exploitative capitalists and the sclerotic governments. It expanded his world - providing a home for his inchoate sense of rage and resentment, his narcissist's desire to be acclaimed - at the same time as it shrank it by prescribing the narrow and rigid doctrines of anti-Semitism and authoritarianism."
-'Traitors' by Josh Ireland
-'Traitors' by Josh Ireland
Hurmanetar
New
This article contains deceptive falsehoods. It states:
This led me to believe the "official list" released on 9/27 contained corrections and clarifications and for the first time, pictures, whereas the previously released info only contained names. But the two lists from 9/14 and 9/27 are the same (I just compared every name.)
The FBI initially released personal details, birth dates, and pictures and that is what led all these alleged hijackers to come forward and state their innocence and outrage.
From the 9/23 Telegraph article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.../Revealed-the-men-with-stolen-identities.html
And this BBC article from 9/23 shows another released picture. It is from the FBI and still can be seen on the FBI's website linked to the 9/27 press release.
From the 9/23 BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
So no, the FBI didn't simply clear it all up on 9/27 by adding pics and more details.
911Myths speculates about a possible answer to the questions around Waleed Al-Shehri here:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Waleed_al-Shehri_still_alive?
Just to clarify my position here: I do think there were Saudi operatives involved in 9/11. Whether they were hijackers or not, I don't know. It is possible to remotely control the aircraft, so I'm not sure why hijackers would be needed if it were an inside job other than as a cover story. But if everything happened simply as we were told, why so much confusion about the identity of the hijackers? There would be the flight manifests of all flights, there might be ticket stubs or receipts, security camera footage of them going through airport security and boarding the planes, etc.
Last edited:
Vortex
Member
Sciborg, have you read this brilliant article? It must a mandatory reading for any modern "liberal".
And your psychologisation attempts do not work, BTW. The basic skill of any radical is rejection of claims to describe his rage against the system as his own fault. For such staunch critic of psychiatry as me, such rhetoric is entirely futile. There are countless times when the cause of our woes is in fact external; sometimes it is the genuine injustices of the modern social system and real misdeeds of the people on its top.
I should also add that objective claims cannot be refuted by subjective dismissals; the latter are simply irrelevant for the former. To reject 9/11 Truth claims, you should present a evidential and coherent rebuttal to their statements, not an insulting pathologisation of their personalities.
Last edited:
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Eh, I think if you look at my posts "liberal" is hardly a description that fits, neither does "conservative". As for being smug, it seems to me this type of ad hominem often arises when the conspiracy theorist is challenged. The challenger is unwilling to see The Truth, cannot handle The Truth, and other psychological defects. I don't doubt this is the case for some issues though it seems to me one can just as easily make the claim against the conspiracy theorist.
If you look at the Donald Trump thread, I posted "conservatives" who promote a Russian/Trump collusion charge and "liberals" who promote the idea that this particular conspiracy theory is a farce. There's a reason I do that, it's so we can ideally get past at least some of the expected bias.
And that quote doesn't say anything about 9/11, I was thinking of a variety of conspiracy claims regarding the Jews, Marxists, Atheists making Luciferian pacts, Holocaust Denial, etc. Perhaps some conspiracy theories are true, and I've said as much, but I've tried digging into a few of these and the proof is always weaker.
As for objective claims and subjective dismissals, how many debates on this forum come down conspiracy theories "just making sense", a way to connect disparate dots with a varnish of misanthropy? @Alex is probably to blame for the increasingly low threshold of proof needed to claim one is following the data given the downturn this show has taken - so long as one can villianize those Alex sees as claiming he's going to Oblivion or Hell the door seems quite open to every pseudo-scholar.
Vortex
Member
Well, I never said you are a "liberal" in the sense which is common for the USA - that is, "moderate Left". I assume you're a centrist (which would be close to the meaning of the word "liberal" in Russia). Am I correct?
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Not familiar with the Russian context enough to say one way or another. I find myself something of a contextualist guided by some objective moral principles, by which I mean I'm willing to look at circumstances of history and current needs while not falling into pure expedience...it's probably irrelevant for the conversation though. :)
B
Baccarat
Is it possible the proof gets weaker because of so much disinformation on the internet?
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
I think there's an obvious parallel between "skeptic" smug dismissal of Psi and smug dismissal of conspiracy theories, but I think assuming a binary rather than a spectrum on this paints an inaccurate picture. For example this concept of knowing - to whom does this apply, the conspiracy theorist or the doubter?
It seems one can just as easily recast the parts, so that the conspiracy theorist is like the religious fundamentalist who only needs a few disparate data points - "something something Intelligent Design something something Aquinas" - to buttress more than the evidence/logic suggests.
Beyond that the paranormal has, AFAICTell, two classes of criticism - that paranormal phenomenon are impossible and that the data is terrible. The first, I think any regular on this forum would have to concede, can be asserted but cannot be seen as a reasonable conclusion given the questions that remain about two fundamental components of paranormal phenomenon - Consciousness & Causality.
The data can be disputed, but these claims [that it can be outright dismissed] seem exceedingly shrill when the same people who make them ignore all the corporate ties to GMOs and worse yet managed to gloss over if not outright miss/dismiss the issues affecting the other fields in the Sciences. Regardless, however, the data exists and continues to be collected. There's at least an attempt to impose some kind of structure on the study of the paranormal whether that's lab testing or the work in collecting, and to an extent verifying, the aspects of the paranormal not conducive to the lab.
I believe it was Johannes who posted the spectrum of proponent to skeptic, with the extremes of either side being to willing to swallow/dismiss a variety of claims regarding the nature of reality. I would say we would need a similar spectrum with an evaluation of which conspiracy theories are merely misanthropy as per the Traitors quote above and which have some legitimate claims that might warrant further investigation.
I doubt it will happen but Skeptiko could have some conspiracy theory skeptics invited on the show along with a few more people who also don't think Jesus is a myth invented by the Romans...
Then how does one sort out the truth from what people want to conveniently believe?
A good way to see what might be plausible is to investigate the spectrum between outright believer and outright skeptic. Ideally someone in academia is willing to hear the case of a conspiracy theory if the evidence is there, given we see some willing to go out on a limb for aspects of the paranormal.
Last edited by a moderator:
B
Baccarat
Discernment, cross-checking and INTUITION. Make sure you have a reliable source, not all sources are 100 percent accurate, but that's where the work you do comes in.
The "paranormal" for me is well a label, I've had PSI, Pre-cog and seen TK.....