9/11 Conspiracy Theories Megathread (please read first post) - Page 5

bugpowderdust · 13th December 2006, 1:18am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetruemayhem

Shayler pretty much hit the nail on the head, but alas, people will look the other way with their fingers in their ears going "na na nana na, i can't hear you, nananananana" rather than listen to someone with experience in terrorist hijack investigations (ie. Lockerbie), merely because the information presented is inconveniently at odds with their world-view.

Shayler is a fairly intelligent man who has realised that his flagging book sales and occasional TV appearances aren't enough to support him. He's seen that there's much more financial gain in touting rediculous conspiracy theories using his ex British Intelligence status for credibility. I doubt he believes any more of that bollocks than I do. Still, dude gots ta get paid.

Still, that sci-fi writer was excellent when he actually did get to speak. Totally hit the nail on the head regarding conspiracy theories, and his off-the-cuff theory about Shayler in the 2nd vid was brilliant. Props.

TragicHero · 13th December 2006, 2:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugpowderdust

Shayler is a fairly intelligent man who has realised that his flagging book sales and occasional TV appearances aren't enough to support him. He's seen that there's much more financial gain in touting rediculous conspiracy theories using his ex British Intelligence status for credibility. I doubt he believes any more of that bollocks than I do. Still, dude gots ta get paid.

Still, that sci-fi writer was excellent when he actually did get to speak. Totally hit the nail on the head regarding conspiracy theories, and his off-the-cuff theory about Shayler in the 2nd vid was brilliant. Props.

bollocks.

thetruemayhem · 13th December 2006, 4:38am

If shayler's "at it" in a cynical attempt to sell more books, then why does he cite the more credible sources (eg. Prof. Stephen Jones, Rebuilding America's Defences/PNAC, etc)?

Even those on here who are militantly anti-conspiracy theory have acknowledged how disturbing and openly aggressive the tone on the PNAC documents are, especially when it is considered that they were written pre-9/11 by the people who are in the administration currently. Surely the mention of a "New Pearl harbour" as a catalyst for war is something of a hint at what was to come? What about the plans for invading afghanistan *and* iraq and securing their oil? In 2000?

www.newamericancentury.org - Check their own website.

Anyway, I doubt "touting rediculous [sic] conspiracy thories" could provide a good living. Generally anyone credible who talks of conspiracy theory gets stripped of their credibility by the right wing media (murdoch inc.) and hung out to dry.

t.

bugpowderdust · 13th December 2006, 9:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicHero

bollocks.

Touche.

I have absolutely no doubt that, regardless of the facts, the events of Sept 11th were jumped upon to justify the American governments own agenda. I'm not questioning that.

What I am questioning (ok, mocking) is the idea that the twin towers were not in fact hit by planes and that they were brought down by controlled demolitions and all the footage thereafter was faked. That's what Shayler is saying in those videos. I call bull-crap.

As for whatever planning was done beforehand, well, I don't know the extent of that but, you know, military organisations plan for stuff. That's what they do. No doubt some special attention was payed to Iraq and Afghanistan, but it wouldn't surprise me if they had a plan for invading Switzerland, or Scotland.

True enough I doubt Shayler can make a decent living off conspiracy theories, but at least it'll assure him a few more TV spots, maybe a few talks, hell, maybe even a book. Now that the sales on his first book have dipped he's got to get some more cash in somehow. He's probably got a mortgage to pay.

I'm only saying this because I gather he is an intelligent chap, he wouldn't be working in intelligence otherwise, so I can't see how he can possibly believe the words that are coming out of his mouth.

endless psych · 13th December 2006, 9:11am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetruemayhem

Anyway, I doubt "touting rediculous [sic] conspiracy thories" could provide a good living. Generally anyone credible who talks of conspiracy theory gets stripped of their credibility by the right wing media (murdoch inc.) and hung out to dry.

t.

David Icke does ok surely?

TragicHero · 13th December 2006, 1:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugpowderdust

I'm only saying this because I gather he is an intelligent chap, he wouldn't be working in intelligence otherwise, so I can't see how he can possibly believe the words that are coming out of his mouth.

In other words "no intelligent person would believe this crap"

This is an ad hominem attack and does not address the evidence. Lots of intelligent people believe this.

TragicHero · 13th December 2006, 2:41pm

it's an ad hominem argument, which attacks the character of someone expressing a view rather than the view itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by endless psych

David Icke does ok surely?

Icke is practically broke atm. He stays in a one bedroom flat with his wife, not that I want to bring him into this discourse.

Point anyone watching Shayler can see he believes what he's saying, whether it's "bollocks" or not.

TragicHero · 13th December 2006, 3:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugpowderdust

Still, that sci-fi writer was excellent when he actually did get to speak. Totally hit the nail on the head regarding conspiracy theories.

If by "totally hit the nail on the head" you mean didn't even address the evidence once throught the entire interview, then yes, he hit the nail on the head.

baz bowski · 13th December 2006, 3:14pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OysFITQiSTw

if you've 3/4 mins. watch the start of this. it backs up what this guy is saying bout 9/11. controlled explosions for example

**LesMTS** · 13th December 2006, 3:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicHero

it's an ad hominem argument, which attacks the character of someone expressing a view rather than the view itself.

Come on! The conspiracy movement is practically based on ad hominem reasoning along with various other fallacious arguments most notably straw man arguments, texas sharpshooter fallacy and that one where you point out holes in someone's story without offering an alternate explanation (can't remember what it's called right now).

TragicHero · 13th December 2006, 3:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Come on! The conspiracy movement is practically based on ad hominem reasoning.

balls. Thats only your perception of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesMTS

point out holes in someone's story without offering an alternate explanation .

Thats perfectly acceptable. Just because you don't know what a rock is doesn't mean you can't deduce that it's not gold.

Two very short vids from 9/11 (about 15 secs each):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHz9Y...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1...elated&search=

10 minutes of mainstream media reports from the time, everyone saying there were explosions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-uOF...elated&search=

I've yet had someone explain to my why Building 7 which wasn't hit by a plane came down.

**LesMTS** · 13th December 2006, 3:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicHero

balls. Thats only your perception of it.

Nonsense, a great deal of the evidence I've seen presented takes the form of "Exhibit A shows the American government haven't been very nice in the past", "Exhibit B shows something nasty the American government are capable of doing" therefore the American Government are responsible for the nasty doings.
Also, the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is positively dripping with straw man arguments, confirmation bias and false dilemmas.

Can't watch those videos right now, Im at work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicHero

That's perfectly acceptable. Just because you don't know what a rock is doesn't mean you can't deduce that it's not gold.

No, it's not and that's a bad analogy. It's not an acceptable argument. Pointing out gaps doesn't prove your story nor does it disprove theirs. You're saying X can't explain this therefore X is wrong. Not necessarily true and brings nothing to the table.

TragicHero · 13th December 2006, 4:15pm

it wasn't a bad analogy, you don't need to know what the full story behind 9-11 was to know that the official line is bollocks.

endless psych · 13th December 2006, 4:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicHero

it wasn't a bad analogy, you don't need to know what the full story behind 9-11 was to know that the official line is bollocks.

An extension of your analogy is everyone who tells you a rock is not gold secretly going to run off and melt it down themselves?

0x21 · 13th December 2006, 4:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicHero

it wasn't a bad analogy, you don't need to know what the full story behind 9-11 was to know that the official line is bollocks.

Obviously it'll be PR-tainted a bit, but the idea that the US Govt used controlled explosions to take out one of its biggest landmarks and then fake plan attacks on video seems just the slightest absurd to most people?

Sky news isn't widely regarded as being a reliable source of information, and evidence of the irk "so and so said this so it must be true" si even less believeable.

If any reputable source comes up with any evidence that there was any funny business going along, then people (other than the conspiracy nuts who'll believe anything as long as its anti-gov) will start to believe it.