Hello JREF, I bring you "Tin Foil"!

SkepticGuy said:
In the history of conspiracy research, there are patterns that raise eyebrows...

I'm sure you've seen information on Operation Northwoods... a "False Flag" plan to use simulated Cuban terrorists to initiate an invasion of Cuba. This was confirmed as a suggestion the Join Chiefs presented to Kennedy as a way to being war with Cuba. There are striking similarities with the events of 9/11... none of which require bombs in buildings, pods on planes, or cruise missiles.
Click to expand...

Operation Northwoods was rejected by the U.S Government. It's a false flag that wasn't.
 
ConspiRaider said:
You've used the terms "conspiracy theorists" and "skeptical" as if they go together like ham on rye. They don't. The CT mindset and the skeptical mindset are radically different. You might just as well have said: I'm an atheistic Roman Catholic.
Click to expand...
Ah... this is where you get it wrong... perhaps because of some bad previous experiences, or bad ham... dunno.

It's impossible to be an effective "conspiracy theorist" without being skeptical of everything. Each piece of evidence, from the NY Times headline to the craziest of bloggers and even the direct testimony of witnesses tainted in some way. Without a skeptical critical-thinking mindset, the truth will never be discerned. And despite what you may think, a real conspiracy theorist wants to find out their assumptions are wrong.


Therefore, CT belief during youth can be somewhat rationalized as a transit phase. I went through such a phase in my late teens, early twenties. But I kept moving along, and eventually hauled myself up onto the opposite river bank of true skepticism.
Click to expand...
Attraction to conspiracy theories by the youth is somewhat of a modern phenomenon because of the plethora of bad conspiracy info on the Internet. Some of it, for all its factual faults, is indeed entertaining... thus, attractive to the youth who are already predisposed to be anti-establishment in their formative years.
 
When you tie Northwoods to 9/11 you are telling lies. Why?

You must use facts to tie things together. Without facts you are misleading and thus telling lies.

Are you a liar mr SkepticGuy?

Post some experts with facts on 9/11. Simple question for the truth movement. Show us your facts? Show us you experts?
 
SkepticGuy said:
That's reasonably close... but it's more because many of our members know there have been, are, and will continue to be conspiracies that range from irresponsibly stupid to catastrophically criminal... and most feel compelled to understand which:
1) Are conspiracies
2) Are not conspiracies
3) Need more data before it fits into #1 or #2
Click to expand...
Howdy, SkepticGuy. Do you think we JREFers have trouble understanding these things? I'm confused abut what you're trying to say, and why you're directing your comments to us.
 
JAStewart said:
Operation Northwoods was rejected by the U.S Government. It's a false flag that wasn't.
Click to expand...

I agree, however, it was authored by the Joint Chiefs and presented to the President. It's good that it was rejected, but it tends to show an example of "false flag" thinking.

Another example is the Gulf of Tonkin Incident
en-dot-wikipedia-dot-org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident
Look up Jessie Ventura's reation to recent FOI documents that confirm this.


beachnut, I'm hoping to have a civil discussion here... it seems you're not, I'll not be responding to your queries.
 
beachnut said:
When you tie Northwoods to 9/11 you are telling lies. Why?

You must use facts to tie things together. Without facts you are misleading and thus telling lies.

Are you a liar mr SkepticGuy?

Post some experts with facts on 9/11. Simple question for the truth movement. Show us your facts? Show us you experts?
Click to expand...

Oh come off it Beachnut. Stop calling people liars, it's getting annoying.
 
SkepticGuy said:
I'm sure you've seen information on Operation Northwoods... a "False Flag" plan to use simulated Cuban terrorists to initiate an invasion of Cuba. This was confirmed as a suggestion the Join Chiefs presented to Kennedy as a way to being war with Cuba. There are striking similarities with the events of 9/11...
Click to expand...

Granted. There are some "striking" superficial similarities between Northwoods and 9/11, which can be an interesting jumping off point for fictional movie or the beginning of a civil discussion about government.

BUT, the critical points with regards to conspiracy theories include;

1) In Northwoods, there were to be NO REAL VICTIMS, and it was rejected anyway.
2) The events of 9/11 pointed the way to invading AFGHANISTAN.
3) And it was "overkill" in every sense of the word. Even a failed "false flag" attack would have been plenty of reason for military action. (Imagine if Flight 93 was the only hijacked plane)
4) The Bush administration _did_ essentially invent false reasons for invading Iraq.
5) And flubbed it so badly that they were found out rather easily without MIB going around "silencing" anyone.

To reiterate then; Northwoods is an interesting place to begin an investigation or a piece of ficiton. It is also a fascinating place to begin a civil discussion about government and morality, but it is neither a conspiracy or evidence of one.

ETA: Ok, you beat me to the post.
ETA: Here's another interesting discussion (not for this forum though). Is it the military's responsibility to at least consider "false flag" operations to advance military objectives? If so, discuss the founding fathers' foresight to make a civilian, elected public official the Commander in Chief. If not, why not?
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Oh come off it Beachnut. Stop calling people liars, it's getting annoying.
Click to expand...

It is bad being a dictionary. What does Vietnam have to do with 9/11?

Now I know, a civil discussion does not include facts or logic. ? must he bring on the tin foil march of misleading information...
 
Last edited:
SkepticGuy said:
The "movement" is besieged on all sides by:
1) Conspiracy profiteers promoting provocative theories to sell stuff
2) Politically passional activists seeking to protest almost anything
3) Attention seekers looking to draw a crowd with wild theories
4) Truly disturbed people with outlandish claims
5) And divisive manipulation by "gov'ment" meddling

Yes, even though I'm a skeptical critical-thinking conspiracy theorist, I have seen firm evidence to support #5, and we conspiracy folks have been documenting what has been popularized as "COINTELPRO" for decades (though that old-style term is now far too simplistic).
Click to expand...

Perhaps you would care to share some of that evidence with us? I would add another category:

6) Cult members looking to subvert the movement to their own ends.
 
Gravy said:
Howdy, SkepticGuy. Do you think we JREFers have trouble understanding these things?
Click to expand...

It seems you're blurring the lines between conspiracy theorists and "9/11 activists"... if not tossing the lines out altogether.

Think of me as a ray of sunshine, bringing truth, justice, and disruptive thinking to the masses. :P :P


In reality, believe it or not, I've long admired the efforts of Randi and his group. My main concern, and the concern of most of our members, is truth. In the spectrum of "what is" we have skeptical rejection on one end, and speculative assertions on the other. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth... and we both want to find it, we just begin from different perspectives.
 
Last edited:
SkepticGuy said:
It's impossible to be an effective "conspiracy theorist" without being skeptical of everything. Each piece of evidence, from the NY Times headline to the craziest of bloggers and even the direct testimony of witnesses tainted in some way. Without a skeptical critical-thinking mindset, the truth will never be discerned. And despite what you may think, a real conspiracy theorist wants to find out their assumptions are wrong.
Click to expand...

What then differs a CT from a regular skeptic? If both are "skeptical critical-thinking" and "wants to find out their assumptions are wrong" then the whole term becomes moot, doesn't it? They would be just plain skeptics.

My experience tells me CTs are very skeptical against one thing: The Official Theory. And they are "open minded" only to Any Other Theory (Especially If It Involves Jews, NWO Or The Government). In short, their "scepticism" is just a varnish and their "open mindness" is really just a way of not having to commit to anything that can be questioned (just like the "Im just asking questions"-gambit).

Cheers,
SLOB
 
Last edited:
SkepticGuy said:
I agree, however, it was authored by the Joint Chiefs and presented to the President. It's good that it was rejected, but it tends to show an example of "false flag" thinking.

Another example is the Gulf of Tonkin Incident
en-dot-wikipedia-dot-org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident
Look up Jessie Ventura's reation to recent FOI documents that confirm this.


beachnut, I'm hoping to have a civil discussion here... it seems you're not, I'll not be responding to your queries.
Click to expand...
It's obvious you've never had a Top Secret clearance, never been in the U.S. military and have not worked for the U.S. Government. Are you an American?

It appears as if you are doing what D.R. Griffin does - dancing, indicating, hinting, implying - but never really stating anything definitively that you'd have to defend. Griffin essentially says: We know it was an inside job and that's all that is required.

That's not good enough here. Forget about Northwoods and focus on 9/11: Explain why you believe 9/11 was an inside job. Be specific. After five and a half years, ambiguity on this subject is seen as somewhat reckless, when applied to those who have spent hundreds of hours or more evaluating the 9/11 event. You should know exactly how you feel, and be able to clearly explain why.
 
Brainster said:
Perhaps you would care to share some of that evidence with us?
Click to expand...
I'll have to revert to some research... and links for the recent stuff... but certainly you're aware of the FBI's counter intelligence and infiltration efforts that created the LA gang wars? There was even an HBO special covering it.


6) Cult members looking to subvert the movement to their own ends.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the most recent "surprise" isn't it? Something about Urantia.

But, if you look up the madness of "Project Serpo", you'll see how things like this become less surprising over time.
 
So you're like an agnostic, who studies theology.

You're not necessarily a believer in conspiracy theories, but are intellectually interested in them?
 
You know... I think some of the posters on this thread get it, and some don't, but Skepticguy here may well want to discuss something other than 9/11. This forum is, after all, called 'Conspiracy Theories', not '9/11 Truther Debunking'.

So what conspiracy theories other than 9/11 would you like to discuss, Skepticguy?
 
Pardalis said:
So you're like an agnostic, who studies theology.

You're not necessarily a believer in conspiracy theories, but are intellectually interested in them?
Click to expand...

Remember, he's bringing us 'tin foil'. I think it goes a leedle beyond intellectual interest. But, let's see what theories he wants to discuss first...
 
Nick Terry said:
Remember, he's bringing us 'tin foil'. I think it goes a leedle beyond intellectual interest. But, let's see what theories he wants to discuss first...
Click to expand...
Or he could be trying to recruit membership to Above Top Secret, which would explain his ambiguity and evasiveness and constant links to ATS. Why is he here at JREF? To discuss what "conspiracy theorism" is and what "true skepticism" is? We already know what they are.

He says:
Think of me as a ray of sunshine, bringing truth, justice, and disruptive thinking to the masses.
Click to expand...

Excuse me?
 
Nick Terry said:
This forum is, after all, called 'Conspiracy Theories', not '9/11 Truther Debunking'.
Click to expand...

Nick Terry said:
Remember, he's bringing us 'tin foil'. I think it goes a leedle beyond intellectual interest.
Click to expand...

Yes, he seems to have a predisposition to believe in CTs, which is OK, as long as he doesn't make claims about it, but he does have a critical approach about it, which makes him perfect for this message board. He shouldn't be antagonised because of the idiot Troofers who come here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom