The Nicholas Berg Conspiracy

Government sources told CNN that the encounter involved an acquaintance of Zacarias Moussaoui -- the only person publicly charged in the United States in connection with the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

According to Berg, his son was taking a course a few years ago at a remote campus of the University of Oklahoma near an airport. He described how on one particular day, his son met "some terrorist people -- who no one knew were terrorists at the time."

At one point during the bus ride, Berg said, the man sitting next to his son asked if he could use Nick's laptop computer.

"It turned out this guy was a terrorist and that he, you know, used my son's e-mail, amongst many other people's e-mail who he did the same thing to," Berg said.

Government sources said Berg gave the man his password, which was later used by Moussaoui, the sources said.

The sources said the man who used Berg's e-mail knew Moussaoui, now awaiting trial on federal charges that could bring a death sentence. But the sources would not disclose details of how the men were connected.
Click to expand...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/05/13/berg.encounter/

:boggled:

Emphasis added, of course.

What a bizarre story.
 
David Wong said:
You blindly believe anything you're told, as long as it's from a conspiracy website. Evidence means absolutely nothing to you.
Click to expand...

Not true. However, I also don't blindly believe what Fox News/CNN etc tell me. Or the Wall Street Journal. Or history books.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Not true. However, I also don't blindly believe what Fox News/CNN etc tell me. Or the Wall Street Journal. Or history books.
Click to expand...

Pseudo-Skepticism...

Not a good thing.

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html
Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than belief--critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label.
Click to expand...
 
The Doc said:
Pseudo-Skepticism...

Not a good thing.

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html
Click to expand...

Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than belief--critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label.
Click to expand...

Right, non-belief rather than belief. As in I do not believe Fox/CNN/NY Times/history books.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Right, non-belief rather than belief. As in I do not believe Fox/CNN/NY Times/history books.
Click to expand...
You have a really really warped view of skepticism, skepticism is basically science, observe the facts, look at the evidence and draw conclusions. Not just putting your hands to your head and denying everything you're told. Fox/CNN etc. may tweak the truth here and there (the facts really never change, just how it's reported and what's left out).

If the claims of those media outlets stands up to scrutiny with LOGICAL, EVIDENCE based investigation then there's nothing wrong with trusting them.

These pseudo-skeptics (truthers etc.) think skepticism is paranoia, which it isn't.

Doubt is healthy, denial in the face of evidence because of political/ideological agenda or paranoia is downright ignorant.
 
NeoRicen said:
You have a really really warped view of skepticism, skepticism is basically science, observe the facts, look at the evidence and draw conclusions. Not just putting your hands to your head and denying everything you're told. Fox/CNN etc. may tweak the truth here and there (the facts really never change, just how it's reported and what's left out).

If the claims of those media outlets stands up to scrutiny with LOGICAL, EVIDENCE based investigation then there's nothing wrong with trusting them.

These pseudo-skeptics (truthers etc.) think skepticism is paranoia, which it isn't.

Doubt is healthy, denial in the face of evidence because of political/ideological agenda or paranoia is downright ignorant.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.
Click to expand...
Why People Believe Weird Things, by Michael Shermer (1997)

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Not true. However, I also don't blindly believe what Fox News/CNN etc tell me. Or the Wall Street Journal. Or history books.
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone on this board blindly believes everything Fox News or CNN or The Wall Street Journal says.

But there is a difference in simply not blindly believing everything someone says and automatically, or blindly, disbelieving everything someone says.

And what's your beef with history books?
 
Last edited:
skepticalcriticalguy said:
But in Baghdad? They have a Walmart already???

It talks about the boots too. But I guess they stole them from American GIs. Or something.
Click to expand...

Everybody knows you can't buy anything remotely "modern" in the Middle East. Everything over there is made out of mud and sand and camel dung.

And, lest we forget, all Middle Easterners are illiterate, uneducated cavemen who wear sandals made out of mud and sand and camel dung, except for the ones who aren't, and THOSE are CIA agents.

I mean, duh.
 
Yeah, the Middle East only gave us mathematics, the alphabet, agriculture and as Gumboot pointed out, a little something called civilization...
 
Last edited:
negativ said:
Everybody knows you can't buy anything remotely "modern" in the Middle East. Everything over there is made out of mud and sand and camel dung.

And, lest we forget, all Middle Easterners are illiterate, uneducated cavemen who wear sandals made out of mud and sand and camel dung, except for the ones who aren't, and THOSE are CIA agents.

I mean, duh.
Click to expand...

And when not in caves their simple dwellings are made from bricks of straw, mud, and animal feces! /ct
 
Lyte Trip said:
So I suppose the fact that Zacarias Moussaoui used Nick Berg's computer and password during a bus ride is yet another perfectly normal coincidence?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/05/13/berg.encounter/

Nothing suspicious here folks. Move along.
Click to expand...

Did you even bother to read the article?

Zacarias Moussaoui never met Nick Berg or used his computer. The article states very clearly that the man who used Nick Berg's laptop computer during a bus ride in Oklahoma was a man who knew Moussaoui and later gave Moussaoui Berg's password. Berg never encountered Moussaoui himself and the FBI investigated the encounter long before Berg's death and discovered no link between him and Moussaoui other than the stolen password. They were also not able to discover the exact link between Moussaoui and the man who used Berg's computer and gave ZM his password.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom