Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Conspiracy theories

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >

Fross Posts: 71 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,20:07    I read today that 75 "academics"  are coming out in support of 911 being an inside job done by people in the White House. (Project for a New American Century)   This reminded me of the DI always touting their list of  "scientists" who are anti-evolution.   The problem with conspiracies is they don't work. (unless it's the CIA or a gang of Chuck Norris clones)  Humans make too many mistakes.  Look at the efforts of the D.I.  They had their Wedge strategy and their hidden agendas.  By all definitions it was a conspiracy type project and look at how miserably that failed.  To think that a group could wire 3 buildings to explode and pull it off successfully is pretty absurd. -------------- "For everything else, there's Mastertard"

mcc Posts: 110 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,22:25    The funny thing is, the real-life PNAC* has basically proven conspiracies are useless. People don't trust cover-ups, if you act secretive about what you're doing people will consider that more worrisome than whatever it is you're actually doing. If you want to do something truly horrible in America today, what you want to do is do it way out in the open, and be very public and loud about what you're doing. * You know, the one that's a think tank with incredibly good connections that for a time wrote policy papers that appear to have significantly either impacted or reflected the thinking of the current presidential administration in its first term... as opposed to a shadowy entity with the ability to make entire airplanes vanish into thin air and fire missles at the pentagon unnoticed

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,02:43    Quote if you act secretive about what you're doing people will consider that more worrisome than whatever it is you're actually doing. Thats the problem though, with things like 911 the government generally lies about some part of it or witholds evidence, probably to cover up their own incompetence, which just feeds into the hands of the conspiracy theorists. And of course PNAC saying in a statement that we need another 'Pearl Harbour event' so they can get the people on side probably doesn't help either.

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,05:00    I've heard it said that any major event will inspire conspiracy theories. Sounds like the sort of thing that should be recognized as [Someone's] Law... Is it? Theories about anything other than those planes taking those buildings down are just dumb. The reality of what happened is sufficiently bad. Besides, what is more dangerous to us at this point, inside guys sneaking into buildings to set explosives to go off when planes fly into them, or, just guys flying planes into buildings. I'm gonna go with just the guys flying planes into buildings- it's a lot easier. I also tend to think W would be slogging around in Iraq right now whether 911 happened or not- though he continues to try to use it as an excuse for being there, direct connection or not.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,05:01    That doesn't sound like PNAC. Surely a true-blue American conspiracy would say "Pearl Harbor event". Uh-oh, now we apparently have the Brits controlling the Bush administration. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,06:49    The other problem with this type of conspiracy theory is that so many people have been caught lying. And they keep doing strange things. And they are Cheney / Rove who are well known to be dastardly Machiavellian types. And and and. It's too easy of a target. The conspiracy theories are as plausible as the "official" accounts so people who have never experienced massive ineptitude are forced to believe them. I just googled 9-11 conspiracy and wow. Lot's of sites. And, they are often plausible given few facts. I have never read much about this before so I don't have my info straight but the Conspiracy researchers appear to be using better math and so forth than the News and Gov't reports. What are you going to believe? You are Joe mechanic, you know a little about the vote rigging, the secret energy task force, the NSA wiretapping, the lies before the war, etc. and someone points out the obvious inconsistencies in the official accounts so, being in need of an explanation, you take the one offered. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,10:09    Also, keep in mind that the official story is just as much a "conspiracy theory" as any of the other "conspiracy theory." Personally, I've always been skeptical of the story of 19 Arab hijackers, almost all of whom were known to the FBI, many of whom were actually under surveillance, and all of whom were operating in the U.S. for months if not years beforehand, who were nevertheless able to bring off such a complicated operation, maintaining perfect operational secrecy after having mostly purchased their own tickets under their real names, leaving a paper trail a mile wide for days prior to 9-11, rendering our trillion-dollar defense establishment absolutely powerless to do anything about it. And official statements ("no one could have predicted anything like this happening") in the immediate aftermath certainly didn't inspire confidence in the official story either. I don't know how many of you have read the official 9-11 report, but it lays most of the blame for the events that actually transpired on 9-11 at the feet of the FAA. This is the same organization that was able to do something never before attempted in history: the immediate grounding of all flights, foreign and domestic, in less than five hours, without causing a single casualty. Strange that the same agency could be hyper-competent and utterly incompetent simultaneously. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,10:20    I'm surprised nobody mentioned the recent Bush revelation that the CIA has been holding a dozen or so suspects in the 9/11 event incognito, and is just now deciding to reveal them to the public and move them to Guantanamo. Fact is stranger than fiction. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/07/bush.europe.ap/ On a positive note, I hear Blair plans to step down. Now if only there was some parallel event on our side... -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,10:49    There was a long interview with ol' Shrub on TV last night, with some network talking-head, they all look the same to me, anybody else see that? It was,er, quite a performance. Best line: "One of the hardest parts of my job, see, is connecting Iraq to 9/11." Priceless. I laughed until I cried. As far as 9/11 conspiracies go, I'm here in Berkeley, which is probably ground zero for that stuff (forgive the pun). And it's pretty screwed up, because I talk to people about it, and there's this typical polarization that goes on. I express my doubts (which extend to all such speculation), and I'm immediately labeled an apologist for the administration or some kind of sympathizer. I can't get people to take of the tinfoil headgear and understand that it's not that Bush and his cronies are somehow above such a horrible act. They're plenty evil. The question is one of risk/benefit. Did they NEED such a disaster to acheive their goals (presumably, the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq)? It's hard, IMO, to make a case that they needed it badly enough to risk exposure and execution as history's worst traitors. The bottom line is, the bigger and more reprehensible the aims of the conspiracy, the more likely someone gets cold feet and talks, or there's a leak. Now, if there were a pattern of mysterious deaths in the administration following the event or something, there'd be more of a case. But the idea that a couple of operatives could pull off something like this is just stretching. And, of course, as eric points out, the official account is pretty shady as it is. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,17:45    Just remember this: Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out t'get ya!

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,20:12    ericmurphy Quote And official statements ("no one could have predicted anything like this happening") in the immediate aftermath certainly didn't inspire confidence in the official story either. Everyone seemed surprised.  When I heard about it my first thought was "why weren't they prepared for this?  Didn't anyone read Tom Clancy?"  TC used this exact scenario in one of his books.  I think it was called "Rising Sun" or something like that.  Vintage early 90's. But I guess its a little like the anthrax scare--scientists had warned for a couple decades about how simple it would be to pull off that type of attack.  They did nothing until a couple people died and the outcry of the public was great. I don't know (obviously) who did the anthrax thingie, but I have often thought about the ruthless logic behind the attacks.  No one can get anything done any more without some sort of public outrage. Last year Popular Mechanics did a pretty good series on the  9/11 conspiracy theories.  Here's a link: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,02:47    Thanks Scary, I was just going to offer the link for the Popular Mechanics article, it pretty much destroys any thought of conspiracy.  Also, as Eric pointed out, the 9-11 Report is a great source; although, I'd spread the blame beyond the FAA.  My read of the report tells me there was a total breakdown at all levels that allowed 9-11 to occur.  Even looking back on what we know now I doubt if another American airliner will ever be hijacked again, ala Robert Reid.  Its very telling that if a Hurricane Katrina Report was issued and laid side-by-side with the 9-11 Report we'd say that it was the same story with different actors.

PennyBright Posts: 78 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,16:50    What always astonishes me about conspiracy theorists (and particularly 'government conspiracy' theorists)  is how willing they are to assume an inhuman degree of competency on the part of massive groups. That's really become one of my basic tests for the reasonability of any such theories that people try and sell to me. -------------- Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,17:02    Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 08 2006,08:47) Even looking back on what we know now I doubt if another American airliner will ever be hijacked again, ala Robert Reid. If you follow security issues closely, you're really pissed off about the stupid, stupid, stupid approach to security we're taking. Confiscating nail clippers and makeup? Making air marshalls wear conspicuous suits and ties? (that's been changed, finally) long lists of "terrorist" names that flag school teachers and babies? Fortunately, terrorism's a nuisance rather than an existential threat, so it's not like this stupidity is ultimately going to cost us the game.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,18:37    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 08 2006,22:02) Fortunately, terrorism's a nuisance rather than an existential threat, so it's not like this stupidity is ultimately going to cost us the game. I'm not sure I can agree with that.  For those personally affected I'm sure you wouldn't characterize it as a nuisance.  But for the vast majority of us the true danger is the effect it has on how we live our lives, how we govern and what sacrifices we are willing to accept to avoid further "nuisances".  If I remember correctly, John Kerry equated terrorism to a nuisance during the 04 elections and he paid dearly for it.

don_quixote Posts: 110 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,01:13    Talking of conspiracy theories, I just read this: False Flag Operations: Declassified Military Documents Show How US Government Planned Terrorist Attacks Against its Own Citizens I think the main problem with CT's, already mentioned above, is that the more people required to facilitate a 'false flag' operation, the less chance it has of succeeding, or staying secret. Presuming for a moment that Bush et al came up with the plan to attack their own country with commercial aircraft, what do you think would be the least amount of people that would have to be 'in on it'? Also, how would one ensure that such people didn't tell (or if they did tell, wouldn't be believed)?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,04:41    Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 09 2006,00:37) Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 08 2006,22:02) Fortunately, terrorism's a nuisance rather than an existential threat, so it's not like this stupidity is ultimately going to cost us the game. I'm not sure I can agree with that.  For those personally affected I'm sure you wouldn't characterize it as a nuisance.  But for the vast majority of us the true danger is the effect it has on how we live our lives, how we govern and what sacrifices we are willing to accept to avoid further "nuisances".  If I remember correctly, John Kerry equated terrorism to a nuisance during the 04 elections and he paid dearly for it. Obviously getting murdered is not a nuisance for the victim. It's a nuisance at the nation level. The number of people killed on 9/11 are killed every month in car crashes. I don't remember what Kerry said about it, but I don't dispute what you say. People are really bad at understanding risk and statistics.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,10:27    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,09:41) Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 09 2006,00:37) Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 08 2006,22:02) Fortunately, terrorism's a nuisance rather than an existential threat, so it's not like this stupidity is ultimately going to cost us the game. I'm not sure I can agree with that.  For those personally affected I'm sure you wouldn't characterize it as a nuisance.  But for the vast majority of us the true danger is the effect it has on how we live our lives, how we govern and what sacrifices we are willing to accept to avoid further "nuisances".  If I remember correctly, John Kerry equated terrorism to a nuisance during the 04 elections and he paid dearly for it. Obviously getting murdered is not a nuisance for the victim. It's a nuisance at the nation level. The number of people killed on 9/11 are killed every month in car crashes. I don't remember what Kerry said about it, but I don't dispute what you say. People are really bad at understanding risk and statistics. That may be true, but monthly car caused deaths do not bring a city to a halt. Terrorism is no more than a pest on the national level. However it does look spectacular and makes people focus on issues. 9/11 aniversary very soon. Pretty sure both USA and England will have some sort of scare.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,13:29    I usually don't bother to read the conservative columnists, but today I took a chance and read John Tierney's column in the NYT. It was amazing. He basically said 1 terrorism is just a pest 2 there are damn few terrorists 3 but the terror-fighting industry is making a killing off our fear I was shocked. Unfortunately, the idiots at the NYT have decided to put their commentary behind a paywall so I can't link to it.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,16:14    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 09 2006,15:27) The number of people killed on 9/11 are killed every month in car crashes. Not to mention that more Americans have now died in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the terrorist attacks they were presumably fighting because of. (Of course, nobody in America really cares how many Iraqis or Afghans have been killed.) The basic problem has been, right from the beginning, treating 9-11 as a MILITARY matter rather than what it really was -- a LAW ENFORCEMENT matter. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,16:18    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,18:29) the terror-fighting industry is making a killing off our fear So are the neocon fascist-wanna-be's. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,17:09    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 09 2006,21:14) The basic problem has been, right from the beginning, treating 9-11 as a MILITARY matter rather than what it really was -- a LAW ENFORCEMENT matter. Actually, the 90s are an example of treating terrorism as law enforcement and we see where that has gotten us.  Ten years from now we'll be able to look back and see if the military approach fared any better.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,17:56    Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 09 2006,22:09) Actually, the 90s are an example of treating terrorism as law enforcement and we see where that has gotten us. Um, where has it gotten us? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,18:02    Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 09 2006,22:09) Ten years from now we'll be able to look back and see if the military approach fared any better. Ten years from now we'll still have people dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, and will still be none the safer for it. Here's hoping we still have the semblence of democracy ten years from now, and haven't given it all up in the name of "national security" and the, uh, "war on terrorism". -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,19:51    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 09 2006,21:14) Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 09 2006,15:27) The number of people killed on 9/11 are killed every month in car crashes. Not to mention that more Americans have now died in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the terrorist attacks they were presumably fighting because of. (Of course, nobody in America really cares how many Iraqis or Afghans have been killed.) The basic problem has been, right from the beginning, treating 9-11 as a MILITARY matter rather than what it really was -- a LAW ENFORCEMENT matter. Would you like to have a discusion about this? I am interested. My contention is that war wasn't the worst thing we did, rather it was the half assed country building post-war.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,02:48    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,00:51) My contention is that war wasn't the worst thing we did Which one?  The one on Afghanistan, which doesn't seem to have helped anyone, either us or the Afghans.  Or the one on Iraq, which had been planned the year before 9-11, and has nothing to do with 9-11 or fighting terrorists? 9-11 was a law enforcement issue, not a military issue.  When McVeigh and Nichols bombed Oklahoma City, we arrested and tried them in court.  We didn't invade other countries that had nothing to do with it. When the IRA bombs London, the Brits don't bomb Boston for giving money to the IRA.  They arrest the people involved and jail them. Why could we not have done the same with 9-11? Do we have the rule of law, or do we have the rule of the tank and gun? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,03:22    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,07:48) Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,00:51) My contention is that war wasn't the worst thing we did Which one?  The one on Afghanistan,...  Or the one on Iraq, which had been planned the year before 9-11, and has nothing to do with 9-11 or fighting terrorists?... Both really. Afghanistan was pretty much inevitable due to the actions of the Taliban govt. First they denied that AlQeada/Osama BinLaden was in Afghanistan. Then when it was shown that was not the case the denial was to Osams guilt. Then it was a case of not only admiting it but boasting about the atack while refusing to hand the ofenders over. The USA had klittle choice but to invade from that point on. Iraq is a whole different can of worms. Bush may well have had his own agenda and I am well aware of Iraq having nothing to do with the 9/11 atack. Sadam did himself no favours either. If he had no weapons prohibited by the first gulf war peace treaty, why the #### did he insist on obstructing the weapons inspectors and playing silly games of brinkmanship? Damned if I know.

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,03:39    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,07:48) When the IRA bombs London, the Brits don't bomb Boston for giving money to the IRA.  They arrest the people involved and jail them. Or send the SAS to shoot them in Gibraltar. I'm afraid we weren't terribly innocent either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....taries. Bob -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,03:41    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,08:22) Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,07:48) Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,00:51) My contention is that war wasn't the worst thing we did Which one?  The one on Afghanistan,...  Or the one on Iraq, which had been planned the year before 9-11, and has nothing to do with 9-11 or fighting terrorists?... Both really. Afghanistan was pretty much inevitable due to the actions of the Taliban govt. First they denied that AlQeada/Osama BinLaden was in Afghanistan. Then when it was shown that was not the case the denial was to Osams guilt. Then it was a case of not only admiting it but boasting about the atack while refusing to hand the ofenders over. The USA had klittle choice but to invade from that point on. Iraq is a whole different can of worms. Bush may well have had his own agenda and I am well aware of Iraq having nothing to do with the 9/11 atack. Sadam did himself no favours either. If he had no weapons prohibited by the first gulf war peace treaty, why the #### did he insist on obstructing the weapons inspectors and playing silly games of brinkmanship? Damned if I know. That would be the same Taliban that Bush invited to Washington the year before to discuss an oil pipeline, right? The Taliban offered to extradite Bin Laden.  All they wanted first was to see the evidence against him.  The same request any other ocuntry would make of an extradition.  The US refused.  After all, this was a military matter, not a law enforcement matter. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,03:58    Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 10 2006,08:39) I'm afraid we weren't terribly innocent either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....taries. Bob Innocent?  Heck, the US has always been the single largest supporter of terrorism worldwide.  From the 1960's, when the CIA and Mafia were working together to launch terrorist raids against Cuba and assassinate Castro, to the US support for death squads in Central America, to US training and support for a whole big long string of unelected dictators who tortured their own people, from the Shah of Iran to Marcos to Batista to Pinochet to Somoza to the Saud family. Heck, we even gave SADDAM weapons, and, when he was using nerve gas against Kurdish civilians, refused to impose any penalty or sanctions whatsoever.  He was, after all, one of the good guys. The US has met very few dictators that it hasn't liked.  Even now, in Iraq, the Defense Department is considering "non-democratic alternatives" to the elected Iraqi government.  Democracy, shmemocracy.  That ain't why we are there. No one is "innocent" in this thing.  All the idealistic talk we hear, from everyone on both sides, is a load of BS.  This is power politics, pure and simple.  The neocons want, literally, for the US to run the world as it sees fit.  To do that, we need a military.  And every tank that rolls, every jet that flies, every naval task force that sails, is completely totally utterly dependent upon one thing --- oil.  We need it.  They have it.  That's what this is all about.  it has nothing to do with "terrorism" or 9-11 -- it was planned years before anyone ever heard of Al Qaeda.  9-11 just gave the neocons a convenient rallying cry to do what they wanted to do all along.  And even more conveniently, it offered the opportunity for a "war" in which (so sadly) we must restrict civil liberties and rally round authority.  And even *more* conveniently, the "war on terror" is never-ending.  In a "war against terrorism", what the heck constitutes "victory"  How will we know then the war is over?  Ask the Democans and Republicrats that question, and you get the same blank stares.  After all, the entire point is that the war NEVER ENDS. If the neocons hadn't shot themselves in the ear by bungling the Iraq invasion so badly, they'd be in neo-fascist heaven right now. But fortunately for them, they have the Democans to bail them out. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard