|
9/11 RIP to the Fallen & F*CK the US GOV (pg. 35)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
In case you guys missed it...
==============================================================
The British MP Michael Meacher appears to be backing down a bit from his fantastic allegations. In this ITV interview with Andrew Harvey, he says he is just asking questions.
AH: You do quote that, you suggest that the American forces stood by while that attack took place.
MM: I did not say that, it is absolutely not my view.
AH: Well, as this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding or being ignorant of the evidence?
MM: I ask questions. I literally do not know the answers to all of these matters and my view is we need much further investigation, we need a new Congressional investigation that is much more thorough than the last one. There are legitimate issues that I don't purport to answer.
That is not a very accurate description of what he did in his letter. His questions are more of the type "have you stopped beating your wife," a fallacy known as complex question. In the original Guardian letter, he makes a number of claims that are not correct, and based on these claims he asks what he calls 'just questions.'
Here are a number of Meacher's unproven and false assertions:
The US had been planning an attack in Afghanistan at that time before 9/11, something which would only be possible if there was specific foreknowledge of the attacks.
I am sure there exists operational plans for an attack on virtually any place on the planet somewhere in the Pentagon. Geopolitical situations can change virtually overnight, so I expect no less. The US had already, under Clinton, launched missile strikes on Afghanistan, so obviously it was in its sights.
But what Meacher claims, is that specific plans and intentions for a September attack on Afghanistan existed before 9/11. He has, by his own admission, relied on various Internet pages to "research" the issue, and he repeats allegations which have been long debunked, that the US had given the Taliban an ultimatum to accept a pipeline through their country or else. The sources he relies on are, to put it mildly, not very credible.
That no fighter planes were scrambled on 9/11
While he is somewhat truthful with facts (if deceptive by omission) in his Guardian letter, in the ITV interview he is outright lying:
Why were no planes on the day itself put into the air for an hour and a half after the Pentagon knew that a hijack had taken place, when there is a routine intercept procedure which is always operated when an airliner goes off course? It had operated 67 times in the last year. On this particular day it did not operate. Why?
As we have seen, fighter planes were scrambled, immediately after NORAD was made aware of the hijackings, but it was too late to intercept the airliners. The Guardian letter shows that Meacher is somewhat aware of the actual facts, yet choose to use deceptive wording to mislead his audience (this is evident in other news sources' interpretation of his article, where they say no fighters whatsoever was scrambled before the Pentagon was hit, a direct lie).
If Meacher wants to implicate NORAD in the massive neocon conspiracy, he should perhaps be aware that the person in actual command of NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain HQ on 9/11-01 was Canadian Brig. Gen. Jim Hunter. But I am sure Meacher can implicate Canada in the big bad conspiracy, too.
That the US didn't want to kill Bin Laden
By very disingenious use of selective quotations, Meacher makes it look like the US did not want to capture Bin Laden. That is a rather absurd proposition. If you look beyond the short quotations he shares with his readers, you will see that rather than being an indication that the US did not want Bin Laden dead or alive, it shows the US commanders in the war on terror realised that they needed to do more than capture one man. Here is one example of Meacher's dishonesty:
The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002).
Now, here is the q & a session with General Myers in context, and we can see how deceptive and dishonest MP Meacher is:
Hunt: The Big Question for General Myers: One embarrassment for the U.S. has been that, in almost seven months after 9/11, we still haven't captured Osama bin Laden. With the apprehension this week of one of his top lieutenants, have we gotten enough information to be any closer to maybe finally getting bin Laden?
Myers: Well, if you remember, if we go back to the beginning of this segment, the goal has never been to get bin Laden. Obviously, that's desirable.
Interesting, I just read a piece by some analysts that said you may not want to go after the top people in these organizations. You may have more effect by going after the middlemen, because they're harder to replace. I don't know if that's true, or not, and clearly we would like to eventually get bin Laden.
But I think the fact that we've been able to disrupt operations, get a lot of the people just under him and maybe just a little bit further down, has had some impact on their operations. We know have disrupted, you know, four, five, six, seven active operations that they had planned and probably more that we don't know about.
So we're going to keep the hunt on. Finding one person, as we've talked about before, is a very difficult prospect, but we will keep trying.
Obviously, Myers is not supporting Meacher's crazy conspiracy idea, he is simply pointing out that the war on terror has a much broader scope than catching one man. Note that Meacher conveniently left out Gen. Myers folliowing sentence. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by gummybear
Who the hell cares about WTF the site is named..why don't you check out the CONTENT rather than picking on the name...holy ..are you serious? |
It's a pretty basic principle that, as a consumer of research, one should take into account the credibility of the source. It's absolutely short-sighted to critically examine content without considering the source. How else are you going to identify and analyze bias?? |
|
|
| exraver |
| quote: | | 9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. |
Not sure what are you talking about, these were actual facts from wikipedia, you think I just changed world history in last 100 years and wrote these articles so I'll have leverage in conversation?
Now, who's being silly? :) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by exraver
Not sure what are you talking about, these were actual facts from wikipedia, you think I just changed world history in last 100 years and wrote these articles so I'll have leverage in conversation?
Now, who's being silly? :) |
How pathetically stupid are you? Which part of my comment didn’t you understand?
What relevance are previous conspiracies to 911? What does the gulf of Tonkin have to do with 911? Previous conspiracies aren’t ing evidence you juvenile little turd. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by exraver
Not sure what are you talking about, these were actual facts from wikipedia, you think I just changed world history in last 100 years and wrote these articles so I'll have leverage in conversation?
Now, who's being silly? :) |
He's pointing out a logical fallacy in your argument.
IF EVENT A IS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY, THEN EVENT B MUST ALSO BE A CONSPIRACY.
-->FALSE<-- |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
| I wish teh c0r was here for the G20 thread. |
|
|
| exraver |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
How pathetically stupid are you? Which part of my comment didn’t you understand?
What relevance are previous conspiracies to 911? What does the gulf of Tonkin have to do with 911? Previous conspiracies aren’t ing evidence you juvenile little turd. |
Hey boy, I was serving in Russian army from 1987 till 1989, what were YOU doing during this time?
I bet it was getting your diapers changed, punk. |
|
|
| gummybear |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
It's a pretty basic principle that, as a consumer of research, one should take into account the credibility of the source. It's absolutely short-sighted to critically examine content without considering the source. How else are you going to identify and analyze bias?? |
I realize that but the site contains links to sources, written and video statements, official documents..etc. So in many cases the site itself can be a vehicle for further information and a starting point. If it was a site that only existed for the sole purpose of commentary, I would agree that it would not be credible. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by exraver
Hey boy, I was serving in Russian army from 1987 till 1989, what were YOU doing during this time? |
I was in primary school, getting a proper Western education not available to peasants in the mother country of failed economic experiments. Which is one of the reasons I’m sure I know the difference between credible and conspiracy theory. I’m sorry you lacked the suitable upbringing in education.
| quote: | Originally posted by exraver
I bet it was getting your diapers changed, punk. |
Now I just feel even more sorry for you. Not only were you born in one of the arse ends of the world, but you’re also far, far too old to have an excuse for entertaining childish conspiracy theories. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by gummybear
I realize that but the site contains links to sources, written and video statements, official documents..etc. So in many cases the site itself can be a vehicle for further information and a starting point. If it was a site that only existed for the sole purpose of commentary, I would agree that it would not be credible. |
Any of that professionally or academically peer-reviewed? You know, the only acceptable medium of scientific inquiry? In 9 years, you 9/11 truthers haven't had published ONE single document in any mainstream academic or professional peer-reviewed journal. And you expect us to take you seriously? |
|
|
| thesauce23 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
He's pointing out a logical fallacy in your argument.
IF EVENT A IS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY, THEN EVENT B MUST ALSO BE A CONSPIRACY.
-->FALSE<-- |
P(BIA)= P(A^B)/P(A) if and only if 2 events are dependent
^ <-- is supposed to be an upside down "U" meaning intersection |
|
|
|
|
