Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
Pentagon 911 Conspiracy?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 89, 90, 91  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jefflovestoneOffline
Paddington - peace be upon Him
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Total posts: 1087
Age: 46
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 10-08-2007 13:23    Post subject: Reply with quote

lupinwick wrote:
Or this term...

Quote:
A bellwether is any entity in a given arena that serves to create or influence trends or to presage future happenings. The term is derived from the Middle English bellewether and refers to the practice of placing a bell around the neck of a castrated ram (a wether) in order that this animal might lead its flock of sheep.

In sociology, the term is applied in the active sense to a person or group of people who tend to create, influence or set trends.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellwether


I was kind of thinking that too when I mentioned herds of animals in general - but admittedly not specifically sheep. The way birds or fish take their cues from near neighbours: just a case of influencing one or two in the right way...
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 10-08-2007 14:15    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry_B wrote:
...

The conspiracist take on 9/11 is that it was a staged event, created with the sole purpose of giving the neo-cons an excuse to invade Iraq, and various other plans on their agenda. And as a staged event it had to be cataclysmic, in order to shock the US public into going along with neo-con follow up. This despite the fact that conspiracists in general seem to imply that people in general are cowed and cajoled quite easily and that the media is merely a puppet of the Nefarious Powers That Be. But if people are in fact as cowed as conjoled as is assumed, and the media is a slave to certain interests, there would be no need to manufacture something as cataclysmic as 9/11 (and to have to go to all the trouble to set it up, carry it out and keep it entirely leakproof). A much lesser incident would've sufficed.

It's basic illogicalities in the conspiracy theory like that strike me as being one reason for not taking it seriously. The theorists seem to be contradicting themselves.

That's merely your take on the Conspiracy Theory. There are actually several Conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. Some interrelate, some are contradictory and some are downright weird. But, very few suggest that "people in general" were "cowed," before the event, although, "people in general" now put up with indignities, invasions of privacy and curtailments of freedom by the State, that they might have fought tooth and nail, on 9/10.

If you're looking for "basic illogicalities", I suggest you go back and look over the US and British Governments' case for the Invasion of Iraq, in the weeks and months before it took place. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile 
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 950
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 10-08-2007 14:18    Post subject: Reply with quote

wembley8: "I can't see many people agreeing with that!"
I can! Read Black List and Media Control. Tetimonies of journalists who were harassed by this system. In the 60s and the 70s, media grew certainly more independant. But it led to a backlash. The Reagan era was a regression in any area of the US society. The public, as much as the media. Greatly helped by their concentration. They prefer to concentrate on trivial matters. Other countries followed. In the instances widely covered by the media, as Darfur, it is mostly because it is in agreement with official propaganda: there were few mentions of a civil war in Irak prior to Nov. 2006 elections, when it suddenly became 'politically correct'. And even then, the public tries to put those disturbing question in a corner of his mind. They are so tiresome... I could cite many other examples. Obvious official lies relating to the Toulouse explosions are not commented by the media. The help to UCK in Kosovo and Macedonia was only briefly mentionned. As were the plots relating to oleoducs in Central Asia. The possibility of frauds in US November 2004 election was ignored (but not in Ukrain, where for some 'unknown' reasons, exit polls were seen as incontrovertible evidence while deemed valueless in the US). Despite the fact that the Lebanese government produced serious evidence of Israeli guilt in some political assassinations those last two years, the Western media don't mention it and keep accusing Syria systematically etc...

The internet is neutral. Any claim generates a counter-claim and so on, eding in a cacophony. It is a tool in official hands too, and in the hands of all kinds of manipulators. The public usually can't discriminate. And it rarely triggers an answer from the mainstream media.

Jerry_B: "Er... no - I didn't say that nor was I implying that 'Bush and the 'conspiracists' share basically the same vision of humankind."
In fact, It was more Bush as imagined by the conspiracists, not the true Bush. But I believe that the true Bush does describe the world in terms of dark and evil forces assaulting the USA. He is the greatest conspiracy theorist in the world!
"but the ones it mentions were way, way less intricate than that needed for a supposed plot."
Well, the Northwoods operation was convoluted... Had it happened, would we know the truth? Probably not more than about the JFK assassination.

Pietro_Mercurios: "Nice to see you admit that there are such things as false flag operations, though."
False flags attacks, LIHOP or manipulations are maybe more common than usually thought. A short list of suspected or proven ones:
Bombings of British and French embassies in 1956 by Israelis, to frame Egyptians prior to the Suez crisis.
Some attacks during the Algerian war, to discredite the FLN.
The Tonkin Incident, in 1964.
The attack on USS Liberty, in 1967.
During the 70s and 80s, various bombings in Italy by the Gladio; including Piazza Fontana (1969), Peteano (1972), or Bologna (1980). The Red Brigads, too, are suspected of having been manipulated.
From 1983 to 1985, the Cellules Combattantes Révolutionnaires in Belgium. Followed by the Brabant Killers (Nijvel Gang).
The La Belle discothec bombing in Berlin, in 1986.
1992 and 1994: bombings of the Israeli Embassy and the Mutual Jewish Association in Buenos Aires, to frame Iran and the Hizbullah.
The Moscow bombings, in 1999.
During the Second Algerian War and maybe after (1992 - ? ), a great number of attacks attributed to the GIA, and more recently, to the GSPC.
Explosions in Toulouse, september 2001.
From 2005 to now: a number of political assassinations in Lebanon, to frame Syria.
And I didn't mention the Madrid or London bombings !
Back to top
View user's profile 
Timble2Offline
Imaginary person
Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Total posts: 5358
Location: Practically in Narnia
Age: 59
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 10-08-2007 14:22    Post subject: Reply with quote

So basically, there aren't any terrorists and it's all false flag operations...
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 10-08-2007 14:30    Post subject: Reply with quote

Timble2 wrote:
So basically, there aren't any terrorists and it's all false flag operations...

There are Terrorists, loads more than before 9/11, Afghanistan, or especially Iraq. But, not as many, or as organised, as advertised. There seems to have been a wheen of exaggeration. The Threat of Terrorism seems to have been more profitable to Bush, Blair and Co. than it has to the Terrorists. So far.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Jerry_BOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Total posts: 8072
PostPosted: 10-08-2007 14:52    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:
That's merely your take on the Conspiracy Theory.


I wouldn't say so. The general flavour of conspiracy theory is that most of us are in the dark and only a few actually know the 'truth' Wink

Quote:
If you're looking for "basic illogicalities", I suggest you go back and look over the US and British Governments' case for the Invasion of Iraq, in the weeks and months before it took place. Wink


And if you go back and study the Iraq threads, you'll see I voiced concerns about the case for the invasion.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Jerry_BOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Total posts: 8072
PostPosted: 10-08-2007 14:54    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:
Timble2 wrote:
So basically, there aren't any terrorists and it's all false flag operations...

There are Terrorists, loads more than before 9/11, Afghanistan, or especially Iraq. But, not as many, or as organised, as advertised. There seems to have been a wheen of exaggeration. The Threat of Terrorism seems to have been more profitable to Bush, Blair and Co. than it has to the Terrorists. So far.


But Analis seems to be implying that more recent events, such as the attacks in Madrid and London, were also false flag operations...
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
crunchy5Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Total posts: 1756
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 10-08-2007 15:00    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:
Jerry_B wrote:
...

The conspiracist take on 9/11 is that it was a staged event, created with the sole purpose of giving the neo-cons an excuse to invade Iraq, and various other plans on their agenda. And as a staged event it had to be cataclysmic, in order to shock the US public into going along with neo-con follow up. This despite the fact that conspiracists in general seem to imply that people in general are cowed and cajoled quite easily and that the media is merely a puppet of the Nefarious Powers That Be. But if people are in fact as cowed as conjoled as is assumed, and the media is a slave to certain interests, there would be no need to manufacture something as cataclysmic as 9/11 (and to have to go to all the trouble to set it up, carry it out and keep it entirely leakproof). A much lesser incident would've sufficed.

It's basic illogicalities in the conspiracy theory like that strike me as being one reason for not taking it seriously. The theorists seem to be contradicting themselves.

That's merely your take on the Conspiracy Theory. There are actually several Conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. Some interrelate, some are contradictory and some are downright weird. But, very few suggest that "people in general" were "cowed," before the event, although, "people in general" now put up with indignities, invasions of privacy and curtailments of freedom by the State, that they might have fought tooth and nail, on 9/10.

If you're looking for "basic illogicalities", I suggest you go back and look over the US and British Governments' case for the Invasion of Iraq, in the weeks and months before it took place. Wink


Quote:
Although the evidence offered by addicts of the marvelous for the reality of the phenomena they accept must be critically examined, it is equally necessary on the other side to scrutinize just as closely and critically the skeptics' allegation of fraud, or of malobservation, or of misinterpretation of what was observed, or of hypnotically induced hallucinations. For there is likely to be just as much wishful thinking, prejudice, emotion, snap judgement, naivete, and intellectual dishonesty on the side of orthodoxy, of skepticism, and of conservatism, as on the side of hunger for and belief in the marvelous.

C.J.Ducasse
Back to top
View user's profile 
Jerry_BOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Total posts: 8072
PostPosted: 10-08-2007 15:12    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you're attempting to paint me with 'skeptic' brush Crunchy5, I suggest you check the link in my sig...

Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 950
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 10-08-2007 16:23    Post subject: Reply with quote

Timble2: "So basically, there aren't any terrorists and it's all false flag operations..."
And I didn't mention that stay-behind nets are suspected in strategy-of-tension operations in Greece and Turkey too... Or that some Palestinian nets, like Abu Nidal's; were probably infiltrated by the Mossad... But I don't say that all terrorist acts are state-sponsored. I think that kamikaze islamists do exist. And in any case, in my mind, people involved in false flag attacks are true terrorists. I believe that the attacks of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the hijacking of Flight 93 were genuine terrorist acts.
I'll note that some have no trouble to supose the existence of state-spoensored terrorism, when it comes to accuse Syria of assassinations in Lebanon. Troubles begin only when it comes to other countries... Cognitive dissonance...

Jerry_B: "But Analis seems to be implying that more recent events, such as the attacks in Madrid and London, were also false flag operations..."
I believe that the Madrid bombings were comitted by the Islamists who are currently judged (plus the ones who comitted suicid one week after the attacks). But it is true that the Spanish anti-terrorist police was warned by informants. And didn't move, for unexplained reasons. Uncanny, because they had proved very efficient in previous instances. Sadly, this fact was not adressed by the trial.
As for the London bombings of 7/7, I believe that the perpetrators were probably the four people filmed by security cameras. But there remain shadowy areas. Notably, the chief of the commando is said to have been monitored, much more closely than it was previously admitted. And to have had previous involvment with British security (maybe he was a double-agent). Perhaps, both instances have other explanations, like a failed surveillance. But in both cases, a LIHOP or a manipulation can't be ruled out either.
Back to top
View user's profile 
lupinwickOffline
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Total posts: 1645
PostPosted: 10-08-2007 16:38    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But Analis seems to be implying that more recent events, such as the attacks in Madrid and London, were also false flag operations...


Is that concrete proof that given outrage was a false flag operation or just hope that it was a false flag operation?

It may be worth while contemplating Patrick Leman's article (New Scientist - 2612). This is just a snippet near the end - I don't think I can post the whole lot.

Quote:
Other research has examined how the way we search for and evaluate evidence affects our belief systems. Numerous studies have shown that in general, people give greater attention to information that fits with their existing beliefs, a tendency called "confirmation bias". Reasoning about conspiracy theories follows this pattern, as shown by research I carried out with Marco Cinnirella at the Royal Holloway University of London, which we presented at the British Psychological Society conference in 2005.

The study, which again involved giving volunteers fictional accounts of an assassination attempt, showed that conspiracy believers found new information to be more plausible if it was consistent with their beliefs. Moreover, believers considered that ambiguous or neutral information fitted better with the conspiracy explanation, while non-believers felt it fitted better with the non-conspiracy account. The same piece of evidence can be used by different people to support very different accounts of events.

This fits with the observation that conspiracy theories often mutate over time in light of new or contradicting evidence. So, for instance, if some new information appears to undermine a conspiracy theory, either the plot is changed to make it consistent with the new information, or the theorists question the legitimacy of the new information. Theorists often argue that those who present such information are themselves embroiled in the conspiracy. In fact, because of my research, I have been accused of being secretly in the pay of various western intelligence services (I promise, I haven't seen a penny).

It is important to remember that anti-theorists show a similar bias: they will seek out and evaluate evidence in a way that fits with the official or anti-conspiracy account. So conspiracy theorists are not necessarily more closed-minded than anti-theorists. Rather, the theorist and anti-theorist tend to pursue their own lines of thought and are often subject to cognitive biases that prevent their impartial examination of alternative evidence.



Bolds are mine Smile In the end we don't know whether the US government blew up the WTC itself or allowed the plot to go ahead with a view to using it as a springboard to invade. Can we pick the bits of theories to to suit or own world views? Of course we can and do. Do we ignore the bits which don't match? You bet? Is the bellwether (the thing which sets the conspiracy trends) the media, the various internet sites, the hidden organisations (MI5 et al) or just a useful term to try and describe and explain where ideas and trends come from?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 10-08-2007 23:05    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry_B wrote:
...

And if you go back and study the Iraq threads, you'll see I voiced concerns about the case for the invasion.

I remember, I used to agree with you, quite a lot. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile 
crunchy5Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Total posts: 1756
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 11-08-2007 09:12    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry_B wrote:
If you're attempting to paint me with 'skeptic' brush Crunchy5, I suggest you check the link in my sig...

Rolling Eyes


I've done so in the past, what does it prove or to put it another way how does it advance your argument that you aren't a "skeptik", I prefer the double K version, ? Confused
Back to top
View user's profile 
Jerry_BOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Total posts: 8072
PostPosted: 11-08-2007 15:45    Post subject: Reply with quote

A skeptik wouldn't have such a website - unless they were using such information as part of a wider skeptical approach, which I am most certainly not.

Just because I remain uncovinced by this conspiracy theory, please stop labelling me as a skeptic (or however you want to spell it) - I take it as an insult. It would be the same as me labelling you as a 'tin-foil hatter'. Permit me and perhaps other people to hold views perhaps contrary to your own without you simply dismissing them as 'skeptiks'.

If you prefer it that everyone agrees with you and your beliefs without question, these forums are probably not the right place for you
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
crunchy5Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Total posts: 1756
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 11-08-2007 16:08    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry_B wrote:
If you prefer it that everyone agrees with you and your beliefs without question, these forums are probably not the right place for you



Keep your hair on mate, I never feel any stress about the site it's all just a laugh init, I've taken the time to look at your Fortean timeline, like the title, but just couldn't see how it proved or even indicated that you weren't a skeptik, as you have mentioned it in that context a few times, my interjection was genuine. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 89, 90, 91  Next
Page 90 of 91

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group