Hello JREF, I bring you "Tin Foil"!

[gumboot]

No interest in the person blamed for planning 9/11? Really? How odd.

The US are still in Afghanistan, aren't they? In fact, the US already HAS the guy who planned 9/11. It isn't a PRIORITY because of their agenda with Iraq.

My guess is you're probably more anti the current US Government than I am. And yet you find their lack of dedication to defeating Al Qaeda odd and I don't? Now THAT is odd.

I had thought Osama's Mudjahadeen involvement was widely understood.
http://www.rwor.org/a/v23/1120-29/1120/afghanistan.htm

That's one example... there is a great deal of data on this.

Osama Bin Laden was appointed by the Saudi government as an offical representative for the funds and personnel they were sending to Afghanistan. The request was made by the Pakistani ISI, who wanted a Saudi prince. The Saudi's weren't willing to be that "official" about it, so they send the son of a prominent Saudi businessman instead.

Osama Bin Laden received his funds from Saudi Arabia, and from private funding networks such as MAK. They received no funds from the CIA, they were not set up by the CIA, and they were not managed by the CIA.

-Gumboot

 

[SkepticGuy]

The information that has been presented to indicate anything similar to a shut-down was a report by a man named Scott Forbes.

http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html
(The source site is dubious, but the content on this topic is correct)
Yes, Scott is a primary souce...
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread226033/pg1
And William Rodriguez confirmed the power down as well... but agree that more sources are needed.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread226033/pg1#pid2489403

Again, I haven't seen any evidence of "recent aid" at all.

I said there is conjecture of recent aid, that springs from information such as this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html

 

[ConspiRaider]

Certainly you're aware there have been, and will continue to be, large-scale covert operations that result in widespread loss of life? It's not a significant stretch to postulate that a similar operation was unfortunately involved here. Let me be clear -- no serious conspiracy theorist I know wants such an idea to be true -- but in the history of "what is known" about such things, it remains a possibility.

Hi SkepticGuy -

You used the term "serious conspiracy theorist" in, what I see, an attempt to lend respectability to the practice of conspiracy theorizing. That is not possible. The term "conspiracy theory" or a form of such, draws a well-deserved negative connotation.

We're 5 years, 5 months post 9/11 event. You should be well-versed in the ensuing scrutiny, given that you like to concentrate on these types of issues. For example, you believe in a JFK conspiracy and you have very clear reasons for doing so. No ambiguity - JFK was not killed by Oswald in a singular, isolated action. That is how clear we would expect you to be on 9/11. Instead, we're seeing an excess of evasion.

You ducked this query by me in an earlier post, so I'll repeat: Your stance on 9/11 is remarkably similar to that of David Ray Griffin. In fact of all the mainstream proponents of a 9/11 inside job, you match up with Griffin essentially thought for thought. Is this an accurate inference?

 

[SkepticGuy]

The US are still in Afghanistan, aren't they?

Yes, but finding Osama is clearly not a focus.

My guess is you're probably more anti the current US Government than I am.

Oh... you should see how I felt about Clinton.

In fact, I tend to dislike nearly all politicians... Daniel Patrick Moynihan was the last I really liked.

Osama Bin Laden received his funds from Saudi Arabia, and from private funding networks such as MAK. They received no funds from the CIA, they were not set up by the CIA, and they were not managed by the CIA.

Well, there has been a lot of material published about the CIA's involvement in funding and training the Mudjahadeen. Unfortunately, the bulk of it is pre-web material. I'm sorry you refuse to accept that, as a great deal of contemporary strife owes its birth to this and other fumbled events of that era.

 

[SkepticGuy]

You used the term "serious conspiracy theorist" in, what I see, an attempt to lend respectability to the practice of conspiracy theorizing.

Yes... we need all the help we can get. Come on, can't blame a guy for trying to raise the bar can you?

For example, you believe in a JFK conspiracy and you have very clear reasons for doing so.

I do? Are we putting words in my mouth again?

You ducked this query by me in an earlier post, so I'll repeat: Your stance on 9/11 is remarkably similar to that of David Ray Griffin. In fact of all the mainstream proponents of a 9/11 inside job, you match up with Griffin essentially thought for thought. Is this an accurate inference?

Yes I saw that and forgot to look up that person... forgive me, the questions have been rapid-fire and my time is somewhat limited.

Again (I seem to have to keep repeating this), most of my time is spent as an enabler of conspiracy speculation, not as an active theorist. So I needed to refresh my memory on who "David Ray Griffin" is, and what he's written.

This helped: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin

I think there are parallels in some areas, but it appears as though he heads in directions I think are getting too close to the madness that has infected 9/11 Truth. But as a generalization, I would say my opinions are much closer to his than those of people who think there were explosive pods on passenger aircraft.

 

[gumboot]

Yes, but finding Osama is clearly not a focus.

What is their focus in Afghanistan?

In fact, I tend to dislike nearly all politicians...

Why does that not surprise me?

Well, there has been a lot of material published about the CIA's involvement in funding and training the Mudjahadeen.

Training. Not funding. The CIA did not fund the Mujahedeen. They provided support for Pakistani training camps and they provided weapons. No funds.

Of course none of this is relevant. Mujahedeen does not equal Osama Bin Laden. There were many different groups of Mujahedeen and many different countries and organisations funded them, trained them, and supported them.

There is no evidence that the CIA directly supported MAK, and the CIA were not involved in the establishment of MAK. When you say the CIA created and funded Osama, you're making two false statements.

MAK got their funding from their international network of fundraising offices, including over 30 in the USA.

-Gumboot

 

[ConspiRaider]

Yes I saw that and forgot to look up that person... forgive me, the questions have been rapid-fire and my time is somewhat limited.

Again (I seem to have to keep repeating this), most of my time is spent as an enabler of conspiracy speculation, not as an active theorist. So I needed to refresh my memory on who "David Ray Griffin" is, and what he's written.

This helped: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin

I think there are parallels in some areas, but it appears as though he heads in directions I think are getting too close to the madness that has infected 9/11 Truth. But as a generalization, I would say my opinions are much closer to his than those of people who think there were explosive pods on passenger aircraft.

Thanks for your response. Your belief in a JFK Conspiracy: Another one of my inferences. We all have our specialities, one of mine is analyzing where people are "at".

Just curious: Many of us here would consider ourselves enablers of true skeptical thought, obviously very tightly paralleling the scientific method. Seems to be the last and best stop. I, for example, have found none better, and I used to engage in conspiracy theorizing. Once you get here - you tend to stay. It's a pinnacle for many of us.

Do you see a similar progression for yourself? Is the enabling of conspiracy theorizing a transit phase for you? Or rather, is it a pinnacle?

 

[SkepticGuy]

That is how clear we would expect you to be on 9/11. Instead, we're seeing an excess of evasion.

Sorry, those words you put in my mouth made me miss this part.

Yeah... some of us can be frustrating like that... those serious conspiracy theorists who come across "evasive" to critics who just want a clear position.

Sorry for that, I can see how it's frustrating.

However, I use non-conclusive language a great deal, because I realize a great deal of what we (conspiracy theorists) discuss is very often based on speculation, conjecture, extrapolation, and tenuous testimony at best. While I lean in the general direction of giving credence to several conspiracy theories, I'm also prepared to say "debunked" when presented with good material, and move on... in fact, I'd like nothing more than to check off conspiracy theories that have been soundly debunked (and we've done that to a great many). Truth is more important (to "serious conspiracy theorists") than proving your theory right.

I hope that explains it... and I hope it doesn't introduce more frustration.

 

[beachnut]

Again (I seem to have to keep repeating this), most of my time is spent as an enabler of conspiracy speculation, not as an active theorist. So I needed to refresh my memory on who "David Ray Griffin" is, and what he's written.

This helped: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin

I think there are parallels in some areas, but it appears as though he heads in directions I think are getting too close to the madness that has infected 9/11 Truth. But as a generalization, I would say my opinions are much closer to his than those of people who think there were explosive pods on passenger aircraft.

That is the worse kind of CTer. Someone who tolerates people telling lies and being disrespectful by blaming others without evidence. An enabler of lies and disrespect.

Yes you are exactly like Griffin. He only uses what other people say and he repeats it in his books. He is the hearsay CTer, like you. No facts, just talk.

 

[SkepticGuy]

Your belief in a JFK Conspiracy: Another one of my inferences.

I'm not big on an internal US-Gov conspiracy here (not saying it's impossible), but it's one of the conspiracies from which I've currently moved on.

Many of us here would consider ourselves enablers of true skeptical thought, obviously very tightly paralleling the scientific method.

As do I. In fact, I first started college as a physics major, made it soundly through the first two years, then realized there more money to be made in Computer Sciences (and there were some girls), and shifted majors.

You'd be surprised how many "serious conspiracy theorists" espouse the same scientific method principals in their approach.

Do you see a similar progression for yourself? Is the enabling of conspiracy theorizing a transit phase for you? Or rather, is it a pinnacle?

I found a couple somewhat serious conspiracies within and without MUFON way "back in the day". At the time, my focus was a curiosity in the UFO phenomenon. That moment (now 22 year ago) was the defining event that sent me down a "conspiracy theory" path. Over the years, it's been on-again off-again.

Lately, I'm satisfied to be in a position supporting conspiracy theorists, and trying to be a factor in raising the bar. It's been a while since I've done much more than add tidbits of historical reflection to contemporary theories initiated by others.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But while I'm certain two passenger aircraft impacted the buildings and the resulting kinetic energy caused a great deal of structural damage, I also feel there is compelling information related to some degree of "assistance" that ensured total structural failure.

[...]

The two three that continue to stand out in my mind, specific to the collapse are:

1) The "squibs" at the sky-lobby level preceding the collapse by several floors... there are lots of explanations for these anomalies, but if you've ever been in the sky lobbies, the air-pressure explanation doesn't make sense... especially as the collapse is happening above.

2) The speed of the collapse... while not as fast as free fall, it's not much slower either.

So the buildings were wired to blow

I never said that. Perhaps by my saying "I also feel there is compelling information related to some degree of "assistance" that ensured total structural failure" you extended that to "wired to blow". Maybe I wasn't clear... let me be clear now, I think it remains a possibility, but is an avenue of pursuit that is fruitless and fraught a mountain of highly distracting crap data (in favor of "wired to blow") online.

You really need to reconcile this apparent contradiction...

 

[ConspiRaider]

I'm not big on an internal US-Gov conspiracy here (not saying it's impossible), but it's one of the conspiracies from which I've currently moved on.

As do I. In fact, I first started college as a physics major, made it soundly through the first two years, then realized there more money to be made in Computer Sciences (and there were some girls), and shifted majors.

You'd be surprised how many "serious conspiracy theorists" espouse the same scientific method principals in their approach.

I found a couple somewhat serious conspiracies within and without MUFON way "back in the day". At the time, my focus was a curiosity in the UFO phenomenon. That moment (now 22 year ago) was the defining event that sent me down a "conspiracy theory" path. Over the years, it's been on-again off-again.

Lately, I'm satisfied to be in a position supporting conspiracy theorists, and trying to be a factor in raising the bar. It's been a while since I've done much more than add tidbits of historical reflection to contemporary theories initiated by others.

Interesting. I'm in the computer sciences myself, software development, write and sell my own product.

But there still seems - to me and obviously to many others here - glaring inconsistencies, or contradictions, in what you are doing. Especially that "raising the bar". Let me give you an example, which was alertly pounced upon by one of our major leaguers, The Doc, just a few posts back. It concerns the purported "power down" of a WTC building, thereby enabling CD of it, on command.

I'd heard about this maybe 18 months ago, and went on my fact-finding mission to determine its plausibility. What I found, just as what I've found so consistently in my deep probing of the 9/11 events (conspiracy-wise), was an obvious fallacy.

One guy named Forbes reported this power down. That's it. No one else reported this power down. WHAM with the right hand! That jumped out as a slam dunk fallacy to me. And of course to many others.

You work with computers, I work with computers. I don't know what your employment history has been, but mine has been up, down and sideways in all directions. Mostly associated with computer or office work. When a power down is in the offing, everybody gets the memo. Next - everyone does their salty-language-sailor routine. Nothing is worse than a power down. I can remember power downs from 20 or more years ago. Because everyone has to scramble to ensure backups, more backups, offsite backups, coordination with anyone affected by the power down, maybe some heavy duty printing of critical information. And then the anxiety that when you come back in Monday morning - something might have gotten erased or deleted or corrupted.

We're talking about the friggin' World Trade Center with virtually full occupancy. Hundreds of companies, thousands of employees. And yet we've got one single guy recalling a power down on the very weekend before 9/11, for 36 hours? If it doesn't gel - it ain't aspic.

Throwing in all the other obvious facts - that only one building was "powered down", that even 36 hours would never have been enough time to set the explosives, that security would have to have been "in on it", that a single witness discovering the dastardly act would screw the pooch for the entire crew of thousands of conspirators...

We are making the assumption that you would have followed these pathways, and yet it is clear you have not. Can you understand our confusion about what exactly it is that you do? And more importantly: Why you do it?

 

[stateofgrace]

Well, there has been a lot of material published about the CIA's involvement in funding and training the Mudjahadeen. Unfortunately, the bulk of it is pre-web material. I'm sorry you refuse to accept that, as a great deal of contemporary strife owes its birth to this and other fumbled events of that era.

The CIA funded Al Qeada did they? Have you got any proof of this claim whatsoever?

The CIA backed the Mujahdeen in the Afghanistan uprising against the Soviet Union. They funded then to the tune of 3 billion over ten years if memory serves me correctly.

AL Qeada was formed when the Soviets, the CIA and the Arab Afghan fighters pulled out of Afghanistan. It was formed as a base for former Arab Afghan fighter and was named after the base it originated in. The Lions den.

Did the CIA follow OBL to Sudan? Here as a Saudi Exile he made a fortune on construction and farming projects, all on the back of the Bin Laden family name.

The CIA may well have funded OBL in Afghanistan but it is irrelevant, it is a complete non starter, they were on the same side, they were fighting the common enemy, the Soviet Union.

The CIA did not form or fund Al Qeada. If you say differently offer your prove.

If you want material pre web, read a history book, namely on the cold war.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The LA Riots

Mr SkepticGuy, I am floored.

The FBI deliberately instigated the LA Riots after Rodney King's trial? Work with me here, this is the first I have heard of this.

What was the alleged aim of this? What possible law enforcement aim or policy could be realized by starting a riot?

How many FBI agents do you know? I know half a dozen.

DR

 

[SkepticGuy]

The FBI deliberately instigated the LA Riots after Rodney King's trial? Work with me here, this is the first I have heard of this.

I said no such thing.

 

[SkepticGuy]

When a power down is in the offing, everybody gets the memo. Next - everyone does their salty-language-sailor routine. Nothing is worse than a power down. I can remember power downs from 20 or more years ago.

I've been through some rough power-downs myself, 3-day notice in one case, and we had e-commerce servers effected. I mentioned the information needs more corroboration.

We are making the assumption that you would have followed these pathways, and yet it is clear you have not. Can you understand our confusion about what exactly it is that you do? And more importantly: Why you do it?

It's a piece of a puzzle, and there are more than one persons claiming memory of the shutdown... and I've said so... and I've said more is needed to be known about it.

I think I've made what I do and why I do it pretty clear here.

I've strived to engage in civil and courteous exchanges, with the expectation that my responses will be read and understood (after all, I make the attempt express myself properly). I hope I've demonstrated that there are indeed people who can speculate on attributes of conspiracy theories with lucidity, a sense of humor, and most important of all politeness.

But I've been the target of a constant barrage of improper assumptions and a slew of outlandish claims (I never said anything about the Rodney King trial)... hardly a good example of the "friendly" aspect of the motto at the top of each page.

This is unfortunate, because I'm certain we both have the same ultimate goal, truth. But truth will never be discerned if we (skeptics and conspiracy theorists) continued to have bitter adversarial exchanges, twist meanings, and falsely quote.

I feel like I'm experiencing much of the same tactics of the "Truthers" in the harsher posters here. And in seeing a thread where many of celebrate your trollish activities on the Loose Change Forum, I wonder about your motives (such a thread on my site would cause all involved members to be banned... we simply don't tolerate that).

So, I wonder if you feel my involvement (albeit much more limited after today) will actually have any value for you. If not, that's fine, I've learned a great deal from this exchange and I thank you for the opportunity to do so.

Time to catch up on "24" via TiVO... the "CTer's" favorite show.



g'night

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So, I wonder if you feel my involvement (albeit much more limited after today) will actually have any value for you. If not, that's fine, I've learned a great deal from this exchange and I thank you for the opportunity to do so.

You still have yet to learn how to be specific and reconcile contradictions in your statements. Please clarify.

 

[Pardalis]

I didn't follow much of this thread in the past few days, but it seems there are half a dozen debates going on at the same time. Unlike the Troofers who frequent this forum, SkepticGuy has been very courteous and polite and it is unfair that he should have to feel antagonised.

I suggest someone starts a thread about a specific topic, then maybe Skepticguy could have the opportunity to express his ideas more freely.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

So again, what would an insider tell us?

 

[SkepticGuy]

then maybe Skepticguy could have the opportunity to express his ideas more freely.

What I represent are not my ideas, but the contributions of over 100,000 members creating more than 3.5 million posts.

If anyone would like to revive that notion with civility and decorum, I'll be pleased to see how I can help.