United 93, opening old wounds and exposing some truth?

[Azure]

nm.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

So whose right Lanny? You, or someone that has worked with the SS?

Wow, your "buddy" worked a whole four hours interfacing with the Secret Service? Yup, that makes him an expert. That's only a 100th of the time my agency and I had to deal with them preping for the Presidential visits in the city over the past two years. Hate to break it to you, but the Secret Service doesn't take a crap without having multiple pre-planned routes and contingencies. When a President is involved, they can move him instantaneously. Having him sit there for "five minutes" while they get their **** together and "plan a route" is a joke. Jesus, I don't know why I am debating this with a 16 year old kid, and since when did CSIS move the center of Canadian Intelligence to Pincher Creek, Alberta?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Where does this nut job claim to work? (Lanny)

[Knut]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195702,00.html

Good news.... should solve this thing... or will conspircy theorists proclaim that these videos are doctored...

Anyways,.... sorry to reopen a tired argument.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Hesla

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195702,00.html

Good news.... should solve this thing... or will conspircy theorists proclaim that these videos are doctored...

Anyways,.... sorry to reopen a tired argument.

Well, in theory it should solve matters. The trouble is, conspiracy theorists WILL claim the videos are doctored. Why? Because they're conspiracy theorists. They've chosen to believe in a certain version of events, for whatever reason, and nothing will convince them that they're wrong. Video evidence will probably just add fuel to the fire--and my guess is it won't be long before we're hearing about how these videos are "obviously" faked.

I don't mean to generalize--no-one should take this personally--but the problem with conspiracy theorists generally is that they claim to be skeptics, but are usually only skeptical about information that contradicts what they already believe.

In point of fact, that's probably true of a lot of people.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Hesla

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195702,00.html

Good news.... should solve this thing... or will conspircy theorists proclaim that these videos are doctored...

Anyways,.... sorry to reopen a tired argument.

standard misdirection.

discredit the entire 9/11 truth movement by debunking a planned straw-man argument.

the pentagon story is all but ignored by the pros of the movement, for that EXACT reason.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't mean to generalize--no-one should take this personally--but the problem with conspiracy theorists generally is that they claim to be skeptics, but are usually only skeptical about information that contradicts what they already believe.

An article at BBC.com dated Sept. 24, 2001, only days after the 9/11 attack, where a psychology professor predicted the paranoia to come:

According to Psychology Professor Cary Cooper we are trying to stave off fear of random violence and unpredictable death.

"They do that because they can't come to terms with the fact that it could be just a few people," said Professor Cooper, who lectures at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.

"If you think it's a rogue person or an unsophisticated group you start worrying about your daily life. If this can happen, what sense of security can you have?"

Professor Cooper predicts that, in the weeks ahead, US terror attack theories will expand and become attributed to an ever larger group of culprits.

"We simply can't believe a small number of people could be behind it," he says, adding that a similar ripple effect followed the John F Kennedy shooting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1561199.stm

A scientific look at the psychology of the typical conspiracy theorist.

http://www.economist.com/science/Pri...ory_ID=1648616

More:

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Pyschology Today on the topic:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...25-000003.html

The A to Z of Conspiracy Theories:

http://www.conspiracybomb.com/azconspiracy.htm

A famous 1964 essay on paranoia in American politics:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/conspir...oid_style.html

An updated interpretation of that essay:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...24_page2.shtml

standard misdirection.

discredit the entire 9/11 truth movement by debunking a planned straw-man argument.

the pentagon story is all but ignored by the pros of the movement, for that EXACT reason.

Looger

You couldn't have done more to confirm IowaFlamesfans post if you'd tried.

Cowperson

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You couldn't have done more to confirm IowaFlamesfans post if you'd tried.
Cowperson

efforts are already underway to centralize the entire '9/11 debate' and paint any and all dissenters with the same brush:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pen...deo/index.html

Finally, we hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77...

this debate is tackled by the major media outlets to put 'the conspiracy' to rest 'once and for all'.

meanwhile, the major questions, the provable stuff, the hundreds of small clues like insider trading, building seven, warning calls, the hijackers that are alive and well, etc. etc. etc. are not debated by the paid pundits whatsoever.

there are always whackjobs that chase these geese down, it is a money tactic. in another little while there will be clear video released that shows flight 77 hitting the pentagon and all these 'conspiracy theorists' will be proven wrong in the public arena, and we will all wake up tomorrow in a safer world, and go back to sleep.

[Azure]

Really Looger, even if someone proved you wrong on everything you mentioned, you still wouldn't be happy.

To you, it will always be a conspiracy.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Looger

efforts are already underway to centralize the entire '9/11 debate' and paint any and all dissenters with the same brush:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pen...deo/index.html

Finally, we hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77...

this debate is tackled by the major media outlets to put 'the conspiracy' to rest 'once and for all'.

meanwhile, the major questions, the provable stuff, the hundreds of small clues like insider trading, building seven, warning calls, the hijackers that are alive and well, etc. etc. etc. are not debated by the paid pundits whatsoever.

there are always whackjobs that chase these geese down, it is a money tactic. in another little while there will be clear video released that shows flight 77 hitting the pentagon and all these 'conspiracy theorists' will be proven wrong in the public arena, and we will all wake up tomorrow in a safer world, and go back to sleep.

Okay, I guess you CAN do MORE to confirm IowaFlamesFan's post.

Cowperson

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Okay, I guess you CAN do MORE to confirm IowaFlamesFan's post.

Cowperson

wow, good comeback, and a scathing point-by-point indictment.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Azure

Really Looger, even if someone proved you wrong on everything you mentioned, you still wouldn't be happy.

To you, it will always be a conspiracy.

as long as systems of power exist as they are, there ALWAYS is conspiracy.

conspiracy is two or more men with power conspiring to keep it over the rest, and history is totaly rife with it. things change, things stay the same. the checks and balances are centuries old and oligarchies form, it is the nature of the beast.

the problem is, most of the people that suspect malfeasance on 9/11 do so on absolutely every other issue.

i think that the vast majority of individuals in the US (and other countries') government are genuinely interested in helping safeguard the interests of the common man, but collectively systems of control get out of control. 'power is the ultimate aphrodesiac' kissinger once said, and the ruling class of the united states is simply another example of old and mouldy empire that rots from the inside out.

black ops, government sponsored terror, the school of the america's, deathsquads, all of this is happening right under the noses of the people but as long as some idiot in montana says it's the 'Zionist Overlord Government' or 'the Race Wars are coming' then the line between truth and fantasy becomes very visible, very easy for systems of control to be on the correct side.

black and white?

we live in a gray world boys and girls.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Looger

as long as systems of power exist as they are, there ALWAYS is conspiracy.

conspiracy is two or more men with power conspiring to keep it over the rest, and history is totaly rife with it.

Well, that's a broad definition of conspiracy--and I have no problem with it, as far as it goes. Standard Marxist theory since the Frankfurt school (also Althusser, and more recently Fredric Jameson and a few other notables) has held that power is housed, systematically, in institutional form, and one way or another serves the interests of capital against the interests of the masses. I'm no Marxist, but I do think that under advanced capitalism, the powerful do conspire to stay powerful. Enron, the 2000 U.S. Election, Jack Abramoff--there are many examples of "conspiracy" that one could point to. These conspiracies have one thing in common, though: as much as they may be rooted in, or authorized by larger systems of power, they are perpetrated by small groups of people--and the larger the group, the more transparent the conspiracy.

9/11 conspiracies are a different animal--generally positing huge numbers of people either complicit in or helpless to prevent a giant fraud being perpetrated on an entire nation--or better yet, an entire globe. That isn't really in keeping with the definition you cite, in my opinion--and assumes a higher level of organization than is possible in the simple "conspiracy to power" that you allude to. In any case, that "conspiracy" of the powerful against the weak is more or less transparent in Western society, and needs no video evidence to substantiate it.

/grad student mumbo-jumbo. Sorry guys.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

9/11 conspiracies are a different animal--generally positing huge numbers of people either complicit in or helpless to prevent a giant fraud being perpetrated on an entire nation--or better yet, an entire globe. That isn't really in keeping with the definition you cite, in my opinion--and assumes a higher level of organization than is possible in the simple "conspiracy to power" that you allude to. In any case, that "conspiracy" of the powerful against the weak is more or less transparent in Western society, and needs no video evidence to substantiate it.

/grad student mumbo-jumbo. Sorry guys.

a higher than plausible level of organization would be required to line up ALL facets of something as complex as the 9/11 attack, agreed.

but to me it just doesn't need to have thousands or hundreds or even dozens of directly complicit individuals.

all that is required is a central focus of a group of individuals that believe in something larger than themselves, and not getting in the way of something that they see coming. a few monkeywrenches get tossed in the works from the highest levels, and some long-standing goals get near enough to touch.

it's not the dozen, or hundred, or whatever number of high-level officials that had any combination of prior knowledge or direct involvement.

it's their extensions, their aquaintances, the people one or two levels of organization down that know of some purpose but don't make any decisions in it. these are the people that sold stocks and sent warning e-mails and phoned people to warn them not to fly in the days leading up to the attacks, they heard the news, got in their expensive cars, and drove to work like any other day.

some part of them knew and they did not care.

[Frank the Tank]

Did you guys hear there is a new video out?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Looger

wow, good comeback, and a scathing point-by-point indictment.

I spent most of 2001, 2002, 2003 and a lot of 2004 in point-by-point 9/11 conspiracy theory arguments on this board.

How do you think I got to 22,700 posts?

Use the search feature if you want a point by point discussion. It's all been done before. There isn't anything you're saying that hasn't been argued here in depth before.

Sadly, as we've already seen with any committed conspiracy theorist, a point-by-point discussion would be rather pointless.

That's my point.

These days, it's far more interesting to look at the psychology of the conspiracy theorist than the conspiracy itself.

Face it Looger, you're fascinating.

Cowperson

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

These days, it's far more interesting to look at the psychology of the conspiracy theorist than the conspiracy itself.

Face it Looger, you're fascinating.

Cowperson

yeah, i know.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Wow Cow, 7 instances of the word point in one post. You sir are a hero.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I spent most of 2001, 2002, 2003 and a lot of 2004 in point-by-point 9/11 conspiracy theory arguments on this board.

How do you think I got to 22,700 posts?

Use the search feature if you want a point by point discussion. It's all been done before. There isn't anything you're saying that hasn't been argued here in depth before.

Sadly, as we've already seen with any committed conspiracy theorist, a point-by-point discussion would be rather pointless.

That's my point.

These days, it's far more interesting to look at the psychology of the conspiracy theorist than the conspiracy itself.

Face it Looger, you're fascinating.

Cowperson

Here's how the psychology of the "conspiracy theorist" works - lack of trust in the government and media. Hence the "conspiracies" (what one side of the fence calls them) or the "quest for clarity and openess" (those who tend to question stories that don't always add up, such as why was there no evidence of a plane crash with United 93). I think if you want to satisfy both you hold an official inquiry right away and make all of the evidence public to satsiate both sides. That's what didn't happen in the wake of 9-11, in contrast to, for example, the Madrid and London bombings.

Seems pretty dull to me. Maybe conspriacy theorists are simply higher maintenance or harder to please. Or maybe (shock) they're onto something!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Looger

as long as systems of power exist as they are, there ALWAYS is conspiracy.

No that is not a conspiracy. To most people its called reality. Everyone knows that in a capitalist system, the government goes as the money goes. Why do you think the US government won't pass an immigraton bill barring illegal Mexicans from staying in the US?

But a conspiracy is an all together different item. One where if you believe if you have no concept of reality and no matter how well it is explained to you(I looked up Cowperson's posts, you should too) you still won't believe reality, as in what people saw. That is why there is no point in starting this arguement all over again.

To some people a simple arguement as Islamic fanatics taking over a plane and flying it into the WTC isn't good enough. There HAS to be more to the arguement. That is why they search for a conspiracy theory.

Of course, hatred for the US or even Bush has "nothing" to do with it, right?