liberty student:Like clockwork, I knew you would try to discredit her
I'm not trying to "discredit" anyone, I simply consider her a minor player since she wasn't even in the agency until 9/11.
I'm more interested in people like John O'Neill who actually investigated al Qaeda and was absolutely sure that they'd try to finish the job with the Twin Towers. He died on 9/11 so he obviously wasn't on the government's plan, was he?
liberty student: Natalie: All she did was translating documents, she never had access to top secret schemes. Wrong again.
Natalie: All she did was translating documents, she never had access to top secret schemes.
Wrong again.
Do you have any evidence to back this up with?
liberty student: Natalie:Besides, international ops are CIA area, not FBI. lol. Read another spy novel!
Natalie:Besides, international ops are CIA area, not FBI.
lol. Read another spy novel!
I don't read spy novels. Life is stranger than fiction.
CIA does have its own translators.
liberty student:The Inspector General vetted her claims. Coworkers have corroborated her claims. Her 9/11 testimony was so damning it was sealed. She's twice been gagged by the DOJ under the state secrets executive order which puts her in very exclusive company.
She must be on something regarding corruption in FBI, but did she ever claim that the government was directly involved?
liberty student:The Inspector General vetted her claims. Coworkers have corroborated her claims. Her 9/11 testimony was so damning it was sealed.
I can't find anything about the sealed testimony on her website.
liberty student:I don't think you have a clue who she is, and the debunker sites don't cover her, because she's so legit, they have had to gag her until her deposition last month.
Why is the mainstream media ignoring her too even though at first she had a lot of publicity? Why didn't she say anything about Bin Laden on 60 minutes? You'd think they jum on the opportunity of another Watergate?
liberty student:Ultimately, you are going to believe what you want to believe. I've been down this road. It's an emotional issue for many Americans.
Now you're stramanning me. I have no trouble believing that the government can do all sorts of awful things. But that doesn't mean that any act of violence has to be officially sanctioned by the government. If I have to pay taxes, that doesn't mean that IRS is behind every bank robbery.
What you seem to forget that violence - and everything else - comes from people, individuals as well as groups. Government is one such group with the most available means but that doesn't mean it's the only one.
Life is chaos. The more government tries to control it, the more it fails. That's why I believe in anarcho-capitalism ;)
liberty student:Like I said, you have a blindspot on that.
Care to point out any errors or misrepresentations?
My problem is not with all Muslims as individuals, but with the violence and intolerance that's so prevalent in Islam teachings even today. Anti-libertarian for sure.
liberty student:Hate and fear keep us from thinking clearly.
Who's hating who?
liberty student:They are the tools states have always used to manipulate us.
It's all true, but what we're seeing today is quite the opposite. Western governments keep telling us that it's not a big deal, we'll just have to respect each other and even if you get killed by an islamofascist like Theo Van Gogh - well, tough, you're just not being tolerant enough. Moreover, they come up with "hate speech" laws and even try to prosecute anyone who dares to criticize Islam or the Prophet or simply quotes the texts.
So, why do they want to shut me up? Either the governments are ignorant or they don't want to acknowledge that government-induced multiculturalism is bogus or they care more about electoral votes than anything else. Does oil interests have anything to do with it?
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Natalie: liberty student: Natalie: All she did was translating documents, she never had access to top secret schemes. Wrong again. Do you have any evidence to back this up with?
I watched her 5 hour deposition last month. You're welcome to do so. It is on Vimeo. Again, she's been put under state secrets TWICE. This is exceptional. Her 9/11 testimony was SEALED.
I'm trying not to personalize this, but it takes an incredible amount of intellectual dishonesty to fake this lack of curiosity,
Natalie:I simply consider her a minor player since she wasn't even in the agency until 9/11.
I didn't read all of your post. I may later. You're not interested in stepping through facts, you're interested in strawmen and stories that support your preconceived ideas of muslims and american foreign policy. It's like Ayn Rand going on about Reds. There is a point where reason becomes subordinate to passions, and that's where I lose interest fast. I'm not into ideology. I'm into knowledge (and the limits of knowledge).
No hard feelings.
Natalie: wilderness:people shooting people, irrationality reins so grab the nearest gun - kill or be killed, government's are more sophisticated streets gangs, etc... there's people who like dialogue and then there's people that like to physically push their way through life. There has always been a struggle between coercion and cooperation in any society. No one is blameless and big governments of today do tend to distort behavior a lot.
wilderness:people shooting people, irrationality reins so grab the nearest gun - kill or be killed, government's are more sophisticated streets gangs, etc... there's people who like dialogue and then there's people that like to physically push their way through life.
There has always been a struggle between coercion and cooperation in any society. No one is blameless and big governments of today do tend to distort behavior a lot.
yeah the State has been pictured in such a way even back to and before the story of King Minos of Crete and the Minotaur. The King is supposed to step down and let another rise up to bring anew to the State. But Minos goes insane and builds walls and walls to protect his fear. Traps the Minotaur - the supposed new king in the maze, if i remember correctly. My point is the fear, the walls and walls of mazes due to the insecurity of the individuals partaking of the State. Building fortresses of psychological walls letting less and less of any true knowledge penetrate their confused swagger. Criminals and gangs all over the place, the big bah-ge-bah, the State, locks it's scary'dee cat claws into the individual minds, trying desperately to brave the winds of truth - meanwhile it can't brave life and grows ever-larger in fear and pain. And what's so dangerous about the State and other criminals is their privation of truth and thus inclination towards blindness. It's no wonder politicians are known for their insecure grasping of some kind of public support. Criminals swinging blindly trying desperately to stay alive, but they know not what they do!
Natalie: ...that violence - and everything else - comes from people, individuals as well as groups. Government is one such group with the most available means but that doesn't mean it's the only one.
...that violence - and everything else - comes from people, individuals as well as groups. Government is one such group with the most available means but that doesn't mean it's the only one.
Exactly. That's why I love liberty and justice. I'm not feelin' the contrary - coercion - it's just not for me.
liberty student:That said, Sibel Edmonds has some interesting things to say about Bin Laden. Sibel Edmonds: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11
Sibel Edmonds: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11
Under oath she says no such thing. She only makes this mention about Osama Bin Laden.
Sibel Edmunds Testimony Under Oath Before the Ohio Elections Commission (PDF)
Q Now, one of the other entries indicates, it says 911 For Knowledge, and I'll just read it. It says, "She claims that the FBI received information in April 2001 from a reliable Iranian intelligence asset that Osama bin Ladin was planning attacks on four to five cities with planes. Some of the people were already in the country, and the attacks would happen in a few months." Did you -- did you make that claim? A I took the language specialist, [...] who worked right next to me, to the 9/11 Commission and Inspector General's Office, and he testified on this. [...] I was not part of that translation. I was not involved.
A I took the language specialist, [...] who worked right next to me, to the 9/11 Commission and Inspector General's Office, and he testified on this. [...]
I was not part of that translation. I was not involved.
Sibel Edmunds exposed no conpiracy, her claims are to security breaches and incompetence at the FBI.
FBI Whistleblower Claims Confirmed (CBS News)
"The problems were systemic problems that existed within the FBI's translation units that involve security breaches and also incompetence. These were the problems I reported," - Sibel Edmunds
Yawn
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Poptech: Under oath she says no such thing. She only makes this mention about Osama Bin Laden. Sibel Edmunds Testimony Under Oath Before the Ohio Elections Commission (PDF) Q Now, one of the other entries indicates, it says 911 For Knowledge, and I'll just read it. It says, "She claims that the FBI received information in April 2001 from a reliable Iranian intelligence asset that Osama bin Ladin was planning attacks on four to five cities with planes. Some of the people were already in the country, and the attacks would happen in a few months." Did you -- did you make that claim? A I took the language specialist, [...] who worked right next to me, to the 9/11 Commission and Inspector General's Office, and he testified on this. [...] I was not part of that translation. I was not involved.
I watched the entire deposition that you linked to. That is not what I linked when I talked about her statements on Bin Laden. If you had gone to my link, you could see there was a recording of her interview.
Please, I have no time for debunker strawmen. If you don't understand the premise of my argument, ask for clarification. Do not construct strawmen to debunk.
Poptech:Sibel Edmunds exposed no conpiracy, her claims are to security breaches and incompetence at the FBI.
I watched her deposition, she exposed a massive conspiracy of treason within the US government, involving the Congress and the Executive. She has been silenced twice by the DOJ using the executive state secrets privilege. They don't do that to just anyone, or any whistle blower ONCE, let alone TWICE.
Her 9/11 Commission testimony has also been sealed.
http://www.antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=3151
I'm not offering a theory of a conspiracy. I am offering you the facts from the public record.
You would do well to watch her deposition. You're not going to be able to challenge my knowledge on this topic (which I have been following for some time now) with some random googling in order to discredit her. Again, her claims have been vetted by the IG and her own coworkers at the FBI. She's as credible as they come.
liberty student:I watched the entire deposition that you linked to. That is not what I linked when I talked about her statements on Bin Laden. If you had gone to my link, you could see there was a recording of her interview.
Really? I don't have to watch the deposition as I can search the transcript. I linked to the transcript of the entire deposition and that is the only place Osama Bin Laden is mentioned. Show me the transcript of the deposition under oath she took with her words about Osama Bin Laden.
The word "conspiracy" comes up ZERO times in the transcript.
Poptech:Really? I don't have to watch the deposition as I can search the transcript. I linked to the transcript of the entire deposition and that is the only place Osama Bin Laden is mentioned. Show me the transcript of the deposition under oath she took with her words about Osama Bin Laden.
Re-read what I wrote.
Liberty Student:That is not what I linked when I talked about her statements on Bin Laden. If you had gone to my link, you could see there was a recording of her interview.
Reading carefully will help you avoid posting strawmen.
Was the interview under oath? Show me where she testified under oath to these claims.
Poptech:Was the interview under oath?
No, it was not. Her 9/11 Commission Testimony is sealed.
Poptech:Show me where she testified under oath to these claims.
She didn't and I never claimed she did. Her deposition was not regarding why she was silenced under state secrets, although she was questioned on it. She testified in Ohio relating to a disagreement between two candidates over relations between Turkey and the USA. You will have to go through the entire deposition to understand her claims.
You can't casually pick this up and debunk it.
You have no testimony of her under oath in relation to these claims. The interview doesn't even have proper transcripts. You have unsubstantiated claims, which is effectively nothing.
She clearly states in her deposition that it was someone who worked with her who made the Osama Bin Laden claims NOT her to the 911 commission.
liberty student:I watched her 5 hour deposition last month. You're welcome to do so. It is on Vimeo. Again, she's been put under state secrets TWICE. This is exceptional. Her 9/11 testimony was SEALED.
I'll promise to watch it if you look at that timeline I posted.
liberty student:I'm trying not to personalize this, but it takes an incredible amount of intellectual dishonesty to fake this lack of curiosity,
There're plenty of people who testified or were involved. Do you find it unreasonable that I want to look first at more important people than an FBI translator who hadn't even been there prior to 9/11? For example, how about Buzz Patterson, Clinton's aid, claims that Clinton failed to strike at Bin Laden or get him from Sudan and even had a memo on hijackings but didn't act on it? Why didn't he testify for the Commission, I wonder?
liberty student:You're not interested in stepping through facts,
Aren't you the one ignoring everything that I posted and now attacking me?
you're interested in strawmen and stories that support your preconceived ideas of muslims and american foreign policy.
You mean like real events in the past 1400 years? Or the Islamic books like Qur'an, Sunna and Hadith?
Why don't you enlighten me then? Why is there so much violence in the name of Allah? Is it just an insignificant fringe that hijacked "the religion of piece" as our government thinks?
Since when Islam and its adherents are beyond criticism?
liberty student:It's like Ayn Rand going on about Reds.
So, have you forgotten that Bezmenov documentary you've posted?
liberty student:I'm not into ideology. I'm into knowledge (and the limits of knowledge).
Really? So you wouldn't know more about Mein Kampf to understand what drove Hitler? Isn't libertarianism an ideology itself?
liberty student:I'm not offering a theory of a conspiracy. I am offering you the facts from the public record.
No you are trying to fabricate a "conspiracy" from testimony alleging incompetence, corruption charges and security breaches and you have been unable to substantiate even these.
I looked at Cybil's website and blog and it doesn't seem that she supports the "inside job" version.
Natalie: I looked at Cybil's website and blog and it doesn't seem that she supports the "inside job" version.
I never claimed it did. Although this
Natalie:the "inside job" version
is a strawman. It presumes that there is one version.
Poptech:No you are trying to fabricate a "conspiracy" from testimony alleging incompetence, corruption charges and security breaches and you have been unable to substantiate even these.
Again, let the public record speak. I'm only sourcing her statements in a radio interview, and her deposition. And the known facts that the executive branch has twice gagged her under state secrets privilege (which is exceptionally exceptional), her whisteblower claims have been substantiated by the IG and FBI, and her 9/11 testimony was sealed.
There is no need to fabricate a conspiracy. She lays out a portion of it in her desposition. Again, it is a lot of material, you can't just wish it away because you are too lazy to commit to analyzing it. I did my homework, and if you want to judge it, you had best do yours.
The sad thing is, I haven't even seen a challenge to Eric Margolis, who is a LRC contributor, and a world reknowned foreign policy expert, who specializes on things related to Afghanistan and Kashmir.
liberty student: Natalie:the "inside job" version is a strawman. It presumes that there is one version.
But that's what the truthers claim! They say "inside job" and proceed to talk about "controlled demolition". What exactly does "inside job" mean?
Natalie: liberty student: Natalie:the "inside job" version is a strawman. It presumes that there is one version. But that's what the truthers claim! They say "inside job" and proceed to talk about "controlled demolition". What exactly does "inside job" mean?
You really need that phrase explained? Anyone whose seen an action movie could tell you what might mean, & most likely be correct. Google is your friend, go talk to it.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Natalie:But that's what the truthers claim!
Who are the truthers? Can you name them?
liberty student:Who are the truthers? Can you name them?
Whoever says it's an "inside job", I suppose. Plenty of them on this site.
I just can't get a straight definition out of anyone.
They are insensitive?
To whom are they insensitive?
Would being sensitive to the fact that "thousands of people died" preclude one from questioning the actions, real or alleged, of their government?
Should we not question WWI? WWII? Korea? Vietnam? Iraq? Or should we be sensitive that millions of people died in those events, because "speculating about whether the government (or Morgans, Rockefellers, FDRs, Bushes, Central Banks, etc) did it for purposes of entertainment seems somewhat wrong"?
What are the consequences of not asking questions?
"La cuestión es siempre la misma: que el gobierno o el mercado. No hay tercera solución." -Ludwig von Mises
liberty student:Examples? Try to avoid strawmen.
9/11 truthers would be the best example. Look, even ignoring their factual inconsistency what they're essentially doing is telling people to stop looking at the fact that occupying Saudi Arabia has unintended consequences. As has been pointed out by Sage, the premise of most conspiracy theories is that government employees can be benevolent, but that some are evil and when they are we get things such as 9/11. This to me, sounds like a silly idea. What's far more cogent in the notion that government employees are like most other people in that they respond to incentives and that ideology matters. In regards to the former all one needs is some notion of rent seeking, which goes on right under our noses, to illustrate the point. Not some grand scheme by government conspirators to blow up two American monuments that can never proven. In regards to the latter, all one needs to pay attention to is the work of Bob Higgs in his Crisis and Leviathan.
liberty student: GilesStratton:Moreover, they're just insensitive, thousands of people died in 9/11, speculating about whether the government did it for purposes of entertainment seems somewhat wrong in my view. Like this strawman.
GilesStratton:Moreover, they're just insensitive, thousands of people died in 9/11, speculating about whether the government did it for purposes of entertainment seems somewhat wrong in my view.
Like this strawman.
You're taking me too literally. I'm not actually saying that the people enjoy the belief that the government killed thousands of people. Just that conspiracy theorists tend to take the vast death that occured that day less seriously than they should. Idle speculation is not only disrespectful to the families of those who died but the people they're implicating.
liberty student:Not all conspiracy theories are equal. A conspiracy theory, is a theory about a conspiracy, not a conspiracy about a theory, although many people have been socialized to believe the latter definition over the former. The oldest trick in the book, is declaring a truth teller or seeker as a kook or nut.
Conspiracy theorists often are kooks and nuts. Look, for you claim as onebornfree has that the family and friends of people such as Poptech are lying or on drugs you've got to be pretty sure of yourself. I agree with you that not all conspiracy theories are equal and that it isn't true that they're all bullshit. But the fact is that they do emphasize the wrong things by their very nature and more often than not they're more speculative than they are factual.
liberty student:Historical revisionism in the style of the Austrian school has exposed a great many conspiracy theories as conspiracy fact.
There's no such thing as "historical revisionism in the style of the Austrian school". If you believe otherwise, I'd like to see some of the conspiracy theories they've "exposed" as "conspiracy fact".
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: There's no such thing as "historical revisionism in the style of the Austrian school". If you believe otherwise, I'd like to see some of the conspiracy theories they've "exposed" as "conspiracy fact".
Uh, the Great Depression? I would honestly call that a conspiracy, one partially of outright ignoring other competing information explaining the Great Depression, & partially out of ignorance to adhering to only one or two explanation (Keynesian & Neo-Classical explanations). It's certainly been molded to fit accordingly to the mythologies of each respective political party & their various agendas.Others that come to mind: World War II as the "good war", Pearl Harbor ( FDR most certainly utilized economic sanctions against the Japanese before their Pearl Harbor strike).
Nitro, I'm probably one of the people on these fora who would disagree with what you're saying most. If for no other reason than that I think there is some truth in the Keynesian explanation of depressions. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, there are many scholars who are pursuing the truth who nonetheless adhere to Keynesian teachings and use them to intepret TGD.
Of course, you may be talking about how politicians have used the falsehoods propogated by Keynesian economics with regards to the Great Depression to justify their policies. But, this has nothing to do with Austrian economics (although, I suppose it would relate to Public Choice economics in a way) and everything to do with political theory. Same applies to Pearl Harbor.
Natalie:I just can't get a straight definition out of anyone.
Then why do you use it? You wouldn't answer me clearly on the NAP, so I stopped regarding you as a libertarian.
I don't think we get anywhere assuming knowledge or positions.
Natalie:Whoever says it's an "inside job", I suppose. Plenty of them on this site.
You need to name them. Who? You are attributing a position to a group, and then that group designation (and opinions) to individuals. But in many cases, I suspect you have constructed a strawman.
For example, I lean towards Bin Laden being a CIA fiction but I have no opinion on controlled demolition. Does that make me a truther? Were the Pakistani students in the GMA video I posted "truthers"?
I also think the US government didn't conduct sincere investigation. The heads of the 9/11 commission agree with that. Are we all truthers?
GilesStratton: Nitro, I'm probably one of the people on these fora who would disagree with what you're saying most. If for no other reason than that I think there is some truth in the Keynesian explanation of depressions. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, there are many scholars who are pursuing the truth who nonetheless adhere to Keynesian teachings and use them to intepret TGD. Of course, you may be talking about how politicians have used the falsehoods propogated by Keynesian economics with regards to the Great Depression to justify their policies. But, this has nothing to do with Austrian economics (although, I suppose it would relate to Public Choice economics in a way) and everything to do with political theory. Same applies to Pearl Harbor.
Actually, you are right on. I was referring more to a political conspiracy than an economic one, but indeed, it has little to do with actual Austrian economics.The appearance of an "economic" or scholarly conspiracy would be better & more simply explained by the nature of indoctrination many economists go through via public schools, schools that are subsidized by the state, etc. In this light, it's pretty much expected that state education will support that which supports the state, however indirectly & never truly explicitly labelled (i.e. it is assumed the state is legit, & all other areas this is implicated, whether it be activism, revolutions, law, philosophy, etc.) Despite this though, I still think just like any other economic school of thought, it is worth studying Keyenesian & the Neo-Classical school merely so one may be able to "speak their language", decipher other's reasoning by knowing these schools, & eventually being able to better challenge or debunk the allotted schools of economic thought themselves, especially when it is invoked by a "charming" (wo)man in a suit running for office. In order to solve the puzzle, you have to know how to work with all of the pieces, not just some. This will involve knowing more information beyond our own preferred boundaries and/or preferences, methinks.
GilesStratton:9/11 truthers would be the best example.
What is a 9/11 truther?
GilesStratton:Look, even ignoring their factual inconsistency what they're essentially doing is telling people to stop looking at the fact that occupying Saudi Arabia has unintended consequences.
Strawman. Actually, two. I highlighted them.
GilesStratton:As has been pointed out by Sage, the premise of most conspiracy theories is that government employees can be benevolent, but that some are evil and when they are we get things such as 9/11.
Which is also a strawman. It's just a conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories.
GilesStratton:Not some grand scheme by government conspirators to blow up two American monuments that can never proven.
I don't think it can't be disproven. Whether it is true or not is another matter. But conspiracies are not like religion, they don't exist in a realm beyond our perception of reality.
GilesStratton:Just that conspiracy theorists tend to take the vast death that occured that day less seriously than they should.
Another strawman. Now I will say this, We Are Change, which is a "truther"-esque organization, works its ass off for the victims of 9/11 and the first responders the government won't provide aid for. So if We Are Change is a truther organization as you define truther (still not obvious) then you're wrong that they take it less seriously. Many family members of people who died on 9/11 are in the "truth movement". They are the ones who forced the 9/11 Commission. Not the media, not liberal democrats, not politicos and not college professors. The victims families.
GilesStratton:Conspiracy theorists often are kooks and nuts.
There are kooks and nuts in religion, in politics, in education, in entertainment. Conspiracy theory attracts its share of nuts for sure, but they are not exclusive to conspiracy theory, and conspiracy theory is not exclusive to kooks and nuts.
GilesStratton:But the fact is that they do emphasize the wrong things by their very nature and more often than not they're more speculative than they are factual.
Strawman again. You need to stop making broad generalizations that are not true.
GilesStratton:There's no such thing as "historical revisionism in the style of the Austrian school".
Rothbard, DiLorenzo, Woods and Riggenbach might disagree with you.
GilesStratton:But, this has nothing to do with Austrian economics (although, I suppose it would relate to Public Choice economics in a way) and everything to do with political theory.
You'll have to accept that economics is not divorced from politics, any more than economics can be divorced from human action.
liberty student:You wouldn't answer me clearly on the NAP, so I stopped regarding you as a libertarian.
I though I said I do agree with NAP.
liberty student:You need to name them. Who?
Like the no-planers, for example.
liberty student:For example, I lean towards Bin Laden being a CIA fiction but I have no opinion on controlled demolition. Does that make me a truther?
I maybe wrong, but from the truthers website it seems that they're the ones who are already convinced that Bush (or whoever in the government) is behind it.
liberty student:Were the Pakistani students in the GMA video I posted "truthers"?
As for CIA, they sure duped a lot of people.
liberty student:I also think the US government didn't conduct sincere investigation. The heads of the 9/11 commission agree with that.
It certainly was whitewashed and incomplete. Who would watch the guardians?
liberty student:There is no need to fabricate a conspiracy. She lays out a portion of it in her desposition.
Please show me in her deposition where she refers to a "conspiracy" and is not alleging incompetence, corruption charges or security breaches.
liberty student:You need to name them.
Anyone who believes the "government" (who this is, is never explained) either knew about the attacks and let them happen or planned and executed the attacks. Prominent members, Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage and James H. Fetzer. The "911 Truth movement" call themselves the "911 Truth Movement". The cynical name for them is "Truthers". It is not a strawman.
liberty student:Does that make me a truther?
Only if you believe the "government" (who this is, is never explained) either knew about the attacks and let them happen or planned and executed the attacks.
Poptech:Please show me in her deposition where she refers to a "conspiracy" and is not alleging incompetence, corruption charges or security breaches.
I spent 5 hours watching the video tape. You read it, or watch the videotape. I'm not here to do your research for you. You've got everything at your fingertips. Do the work. Stop being lazy.
Natalie:I though I said I do agree with NAP.
No, you dodged. More than one person picked up on it too.
Natalie:Like the no-planers, for example.
So are all truthers no-planers?
Natalie:I maybe wrong, but from the truthers website it seems that they're the ones who are already convinced that Bush (or whoever in the government) is behind it.
I wasn't aware there was a central truthers website. Which one is it?
Natalie:As for CIA, they sure duped a lot of people.
Absolutely meaningless. Particularly if you are aware of Dr. Robert Pape's work for the Pentagon.
Natalie:It certainly was whitewashed and incomplete. Who would watch the guardians?
If the official story was true, then what incentive is there to whitewash it?
Poptech:Anyone who believes the "government" (who this is, is never explained) either knew about the attacks and let them happen or planned and executed the attacks.
But it's a known fact that the FBI knew in advance. That's from the 9/11 Commission Report IIRC.
Poptech:Prominent members, Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage and James H. Fetzer. The "911 Truth movement" call themselves the "911 Truth Movement". The cynical name for them is "Truthers". It is not a strawman.
It is a strawman, because they do not all hold homogenous views. For example, the no-planers and several 9/11 activists hold nothing but contempt for Alex Jones and his views. Where does Jesse Ventura fit into this? He holds views similar to Alex Jones, without pointing the finger of blame, engaging in inquiry. I think Charlie Sheen is the same.
Poptech:Only if you believe the "government" (who this is, is never explained) either knew about the attacks and let them happen or planned and executed the attacks.
As stated, it's public record that the FBI knew, and the White House was warned (Condi Rice testified that they were warned), and they did absolutely nothing to prevent it. You can go on YouTube and watch Rice's testimony. And I am pretty sure the 9/11 Commission report is available as a PDF.
It's not a matter of belief. It seems to me that people who won't acknowledge what is on record, are the ones clinging to some sort of belief, instead of being honest and rational.
liberty student:But conspiracies are not like religion, they don't exist in a realm beyond our perception of reality.
Of course they are religion, conspiracy theorists ignore the facts they claim to be seeking. They only way the conspiracy is supported is by ignoring reality.
Watch this debate
Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas (Loose Change) vs. Mark Roberts (9/11 Researcher) (1/2) (30min)
Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas (Loose Change) vs. Mark Roberts (9/11 Researcher) (2/2) (30min)
Giles Stratton said: 'Look, for you claim as onebornfree has that the family and friends of people such as Poptech are lying or on drugs you've got to be pretty sure of yourself"
Mr Stratton , this is what myself [and M.Reynolds] are absolutely sure of : the laws of physics, [i.e hard science] , that is, those pesky, fundamental, "immutable" laws of physics.
That's it, end of story !
In the case of 911 you/we/ I are all asked to choose between unverified, non cross examined, "witness testimony" provided by the media and the government, and time tested, simple laws of physics that any high school student is aware of and understands.
My money is on the laws of physics.
P.S. In economics "hard science" would, I suppose, centre around the laws of supply and demand, possibly the law of comparative advantage , maybe others.
You are probably more of an expert in that area than myself.
The question is: do you disregard say, the law of supply and demand when assessing claims the government might make with regard to something like, say, health care? [e.g. everything will be wonderful under universal care because we say so and we have witnesses] .
Or, do you stick with those unchangeable [ or as LVM said "immutable" ] laws of economics and human action, such as the laws of supply and demand?
In economics , I'm "with" the law of supply and demand.
With regard to 911, I , just like Morgan Reynolds, still trust the laws of physics [specifically Newton's 3rd law on motion] , not the alleged testimony of unknown, non cross -examined , mostly unverified witnesses [many of whom have been shown to have direct media connections or have been discovered to most likely be professional actors.
Maybe you will understand my deliberate, conscious choice in this matter one day
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Mr Stratton , this is what myself [and M.Reynolds] are absolutely sure of : the laws of physics, [i.e hard science] , that is, those pesky, fundamental, "immutable" laws of physics.
Maybe if you actually understood the laws of physics such as buildings fall in the direction of gravity, hollow aluminum aircraft hitting high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns will not leave a cartoon cutout. And other such "basic" things you never understood.
liberty student:I spent 5 hours watching the video tape. You read it, or watch the videotape. I'm not here to do your research for you. You've got everything at your fingertips. Do the work. Stop being lazy.
No I'm not watching 5 hours of a deposition, I have more important things to do. You are making the claims of a "conspiracy", show me in her words from the deposition where she is making this claim of conspiracy that is not an allegation of incompetence, corruption charges or security breaches. If you cannot backup your claims, don't make them.
liberty student:No, you dodged. More than one person picked up on it too.
I believe in it. Is that enough for you, Mr. Inquisitor?
Speaking about dodging... do you believe that terrorists commit aggression?
liberty student:So are all truthers no-planers?
How do I know? You talked about truthers and debunkers yourself.
liberty student:I wasn't aware there was a central truthers website. Which one is it?
Haven't you posted some yourself?
liberty student:Absolutely meaningless. Particularly if you are aware of Dr. Robert Pape's work for the Pentagon.
You posted that clip to show that no one believes in Bin Laden. This shows that a lot of people do (whether he's behind al Qaeda or not).
liberty student:If the official story was true, then what incentive is there to whitewash it?
Negligence, incompetence, corruption, some "state secrets" they want to hide?
liberty student:More than one person picked up on it too.
Personally, I find statements like this offensive. It's not the end all to come out to say this. I'm not looking for a confrontation, but wonder how Natalie perceives such comments being on the receiving end of this. I say all kinds of whacky things from time to time, I'm not perfect, and I'm called out for it - so be it. I'm wrong occasionally and I try to exclaim when I have been wrong. And like any other person I'm stubborn when I think I'm rooted in a particular truth or at least I would hope somebody would be that way even towards me. Truth is noble, honorable, and virtuous.
Shady comments like this would make me, if I was being hotly interrogated (as obviously comments of distrust and unlibertarian have sounded off starboard make this sound), would trouble me. It would make me wonder who's out to get me. Who are these mysterious "more than" that "picked up on" this *Russian*. I've figured Natalie to be an NAP person and never doubted it. I think the from a "third person perspective" which I've tried to instill in the discussion is coercion versus liberty. There are criminals and they are holding the guns killing people - initiating the violence. Whoever is backing who it comes down to individuals holding guns initiating violence - and that's wrong. I think Natalie has been saying this. I haven't seen anything in the discussion that would differ.