I'm completely a believer in regards to Bush & Cheney knowing about 9/11 beforehand, and could even entertain that they were in on it to get Iraq's oil, or whatever. The political conspiracies - Yes

WTC 7 - Hmmmmm, I don't know. It's plausible that it was brought down via controlled demolition. I could possibly believe this conspiracy with some more research. - I'll give it a - Maybe

No plane at the Pentagon, controlled demo in WTC 1 and 2, whatever crazy shit about Flight 93, missiles strapped to the bottom of the planes - definitely a big fat - NO

That all being said. Shouldn't we focus on the conspiracies that are more plausible and can actually be proven somehow rather than people pointing to photos of plane wreckage and saying there is no plane wreckage there? These crazies focusing on the above issues in the "NO" category just make the ones that are certainly more plausible, less credible so it's easy for people to not take us seriously on the good issues.

Anyone else in this same boat? I can only argue on the side of 9/11 conspiracy so far until someone on my side starts saying something completely random and stupid...then I've got to question them myself.

if there is any possibility at all that any of these theories may contain a hint of truth, shouldn't they be carefully scrutinized? You should also be careful of using loaded terms like "controlled demo". What about simply the use of explosives or bombs in WTC 1 and 2? As soon as you lead someone down a particular garden path it is difficult to recover. Many people may associate "truthers" with those who believe every conspiracy theory that comes along. This is simply not true.

and the COINTEL types have this down to a science, literally. Mix lies with the truth, then point out the lies, and its easy to marginalize anyone who has latched onto the mixture.

thank you.

I think we also need to consider theories for which we have no evidence at all.

If the truth of the matter is what we want, then that possibility has to remain on the table.

The case for LIHOP is pretty much made, if you ask me. Once that is true then the evidence needed to push the conclusion from LIHOP to MIHOP is as little as a smirk and a wink at just the right moment in the middle of a clandestine conversation somewhere in the world. Unless we caught that wink on video then we would never be able to prove MIHOP. However, I'm still going to *suspect* MIHOP even if we never, ever come up with the evidence to prove it. And I don't mean, really, to focus on this one case -- it's just a for instance -- since you asked for one.

Edit to add: and I guess I'm making the distinction right now of *direct* evidence. There is circumstantial evidence pointing in the direction of MIHOP, I believe, but not the direct evidence that I take this thread to be focusing on.

please realize that "plausible deniability" has always been a high priority.

Sorry, but I was stating a generality, not making a specific claim. The topic of this thread is general, not specific.

But, anyway, to fill in more detail to my example: I am saying that a US operative -- either a CIA agent, an asset of the CIA, or a contractor of the CIA (the equivalent of a CIA agent but outsourced) -- gave an indication to one of the al Qaeda conspirators -- say Bin Laden himself -- that the Company would not be unhappy if something like that were to happen. It's a very small act, very difficult to think we could ever catch them in it, but it makes it MIHOP. In other words, there is no reason that MIHOP had to involve thousands of actors.

after Bush Senior headed the CIA he split off portions and privatized them. He was also actively involved in setting up the Saudi Air Force and intelligence. There is also overlap with the Pakistani ISI and Al Qaeda itself! When it comes to blaming intelligence agencies, it is important to understand the context. There may be layers upon layers of plausible deniability.

claims?

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/white.pdf

an insider who dealt directly with James Bath. He has also practically had his life ruined after coming forward with all of his information.

http://tiger.berkeley.edu/sohrab/politics/isi_problems.html

"Pakistani Intelligence Had Links to Al Qaeda, U.S. Officials Say"

Sorry, but I'm not taking White's word for anything. Where does he provide any proof whatsoever of his claims?

BCCI's front man in the U.S., and the person chiefly responsible for its takeover of First American Bank in the U.S., was Kamal Adham. Adham is referred to in the Kerry Committee report on BCCI as having been "the CIA's principal liaison for the entire Middle East from the mid-1960's through 1979." He was also the head of intelligence for Saudi Arabia during the time George Bush Sr. was Director of the CIA.

Of course, where it comes to BCCI, much is covered up.

claims.

and I'm sure Bush Senior's dealings with the Saudis in 1976 have been carefully concealed.


If this weren't the dungeon, I probably would have said "may have".

Didn't know that --

I really appreciate the contributions of those who have some background and can speak with authority. I draw my conclusions from the very basic knowledge on the topic that I've picked up here from those who have depth in it.

It hurts 'your' credibility to associate with people who promote 'ideas' like direct energy weapons, nuclear bombs, fake CGI planes, demolitions (controlled or not) in the towers, etc.
Associating with crazy people will always hurt your credibility.

I think the problem is that those people represent a significant portion of the 'truth movement' (lack of a better term) and certainly represent the most vocal section.

Another issue is that once you rule out the insane theories you end up with people agreeing on most of the basic facts of the day, and the remainder is mostly unprovable (nor can it be disproved) and as such is essentially a conspiracy of the gaps argument that serves no real purpose.

it's amusing when debunkers offer "help" to the truth like they care.

It's the bunkers and the rebunkers that cause the trouble.

i just love it when you debunkers pretend to care about the truth movement you tirelessly working to halt. glad to know we have that much momentum!

You think I'm tirelessly working to halt your movement, and that I have to pretend to care about it?

:shrug:

I think the OP is about the proposition that when everyone tries to debunk bunk, so that only non-bunk remains, everyone wins. That makes sense to me.

the flipside of that interpretation would mean that even the most lihop sounding theory that he thinks is bunk, he would describe as crazy and, at least to me, that makes no sense. imo, he's basically saying go lihop. personally, i go to where the evidence points me.

For instance, the OP says: "Shouldn't we focus on the conspiracies that are more plausible and can actually be proven somehow rather than people pointing to photos of plane wreckage and saying there is no plane wreckage there?"

You may think that the author is discounting stuff that sounds weird but actually has decent evidence. Apparently the author doesn't think so.

just because something seems more plausible, doesn't necessarily means it happened.

Why are you pushing back against the idea that it's bad to point to photos of plane wreckage and say there is no plane wreckage there?

dude.

You're pushing back against the OP. Why?

Nobody recognizing the obvious middle ground.

The missing middle ground in the meta is that it's important not just to recognize that it's bad to point to photos and say there is no wreckage. It is also bad (worse if you ask me) that the conversation about wreckage never seems to move on to the question of how much wreckage would be expected and whether the amount seen supports the theory being questioned. Just like the meta wasn't moving on (until now) to complain that the base discussion never seems to move on.

As far as I can tell, this thread is pretty much about the circumstances under which it's permissible to say that a theory is crazy.

I've actually seen discussions of how much wreckage would be expected, so I know they're possible.

I guess you're right about the topic of the thread and my point is that after you say a theory is crazy then you should say, "but OTOH what's not so crazy is...".

For what it's worth, the OP actually laid out an answer to that -- probably one that no other forum poster entirely agrees with, but a considered one. Whatever else one might say about it, it wasn't hewing to OCT denialism. But of course your point applies beyond the OP or the thread.

I guess I agree with you except when I don't. ;) I'm not willing to commit to say "...what's not so crazy is..." every single time. But on good days, I try to indicate what questions I see as open, and I try not to indiscriminately whack at people who start from a different place than I do.

I wasn't talking about you or me of course!

For example, just downthread is a subthread 3, 5, 6, 8. Hopefully without getting into arguing the merits of plane/no plane at the Pentagon, but the more plausible alternative to a plane is not a missile. But the conversation ends with the missile in #8. I'd like to see #8 go on to say:

"but OTOH, a flyover with staged explosives would have looked to the witnesses just the way it did and most of the witnesses didn't even see the actual impact. Even the ones who sound like they saw it turn out not to have and were just extrapolating from other things they saw, heard, or were told. However, I still don't believe no-plane to be the case, even in this more plausible form, because..."

I know it's a lot to ask of a debunker, probably too much. But I will claim that I at least sometimes practice what I preach -- I will sometimes try to perfect the argument of someone I'm debating. What's the point, after all, of defeating an argument just because it was clumsily crafted. If we want to figure out the truth then we need somehow to improve the arguments on both sides. So in a sense I'm agreeing with the OP that crazy theories can be an impediment. But the solution is not to eliminate them; rather it is to refine each one of them into its most perfect form and then see whether it is still crazy.

Edit to add: in other words, I think the level of discussion really sucks in about every way it could. The only people who could benefit from such a dysfunctional debate are those who would want to obfuscate the truth. Certainly no one, on either side, who is sincerely interested in truth benefits from it.

Whether it's too much to ask of "a debunker" to try to perfect someone else's argument, well, it depends on the specifics. I'm afraid the next thing I might say on that score would be an unhelpful contribution to the meta. But I generally agree with what you're saying. (I have mixed feelings about the image of refining crazy theories, but I'm pretty comfortable with it in context.)

Edit to add: in other words, I think the level of discussion really sucks in about every way it could. The only people who could benefit from such a dysfunctional debate are those who would want to obfuscate the truth. Certainly no one, on either side, who is sincerely interested in truth benefits from it.

because in isolating discussions of 9/11 to the dungeon, it limits the number of diverse opinions

posted and, therefore makes threads here more vulnerable to attack and to those who wish to create

"dysfunctional debate." Obviously, more vulnerable to those who want to "obfuscate the truth."


But, what we see when these articles appear in "General" is something much different from this.

Also, we know that DU'ers who continue to work on getting out information on various topics will

refrain from working on anything that they fear will get bounced into the dungeon for all of those

reasons.

And, needless to say, deprives us all of legitimate response and debate.

The administration has purposefully or not set up discussions of conspiracy for failure in forcing

them off to the dungeon. Their own fear, perhaps, of being labelled a "tin foil" website?

Whatever the reason, it limits those who get exposed to whatever new information about 9/11

comes along -- and to the evolving theories about the how, what, when, where and why of it.

And I've done it again trying to compose this post.

I'm not going to spell it out, I guess, but let me just say I feel that some of the obtuse posting is intentional.

And I bet if you slowed down and defined them you would find I am not necessarily what you have defined me as.

As a working definition lets say that when we talk about crazy theories we mean ones that can be disproved right at the conjecture stage.
So:
Nukes - Crazy
DEW - Crazy
No Planes - Crazy
Something more could have been done - Not crazy
Someone could have helped Bin Laden - Not crazy

If you were interested in seriously increasing legitimacy you would need to reject not only the crazy theories but also those that do not fit the above definition but also contradict the evidence.

How many people are still unfamiliar with microwave as a weapon --

or even the fact of HAARP?

How many people understand the weapons testing that goes on in every war from

Panama to Iraq? Many of the wounds being made in this war with Iraq are so horrific

that we're really not getting to see them to understand the impact of these weapons.


Of course, it's convenient for you or any poster who has no reply to label the other debaters

as "crazy." Quite convenient!

Also helpful in trying to discourage other posters from seriously considering the ideas they

are putting forth -- Also called posting with a large "tin foil brush."

And, will it be lost on anyone that you're arguing against both LIHOP and MIHOP???

:evilgrin:

and people who worked there

certainly there are no eyewitness accounts of a missile.

who immediately sent a jet pilot over to find out what had hit the Pentagon --

the pilot reported back: 'ZERO EVIDENCE OF A PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON" ---


Also, there was a CNN reporter at the Pentagon - video on this one -- who reports

clearly and proudly that 'NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON' --

He had been there beforehand because of reports that there was still a hijacked plane

in the DC area --

That reporter was forced to retract his entire report later after returning to network offices!

We are left to presume that CNN at that time hired reporters who hallucinate "NO PLANES" --

reporters with poor vision and inability to reason!

We also have the evidence of April Gallop who was INSIDE the Pentagon right where the plane

was alleged to have hit. She has a lawsuit against the Pentagon.

She saw "NO DEBRIS" --

And no alarm system went off to alert personnel at the Pentagon to evacuate the building!!!

Though they had endless, repetitive evacuation drills pre 9/11 -- !!!

I'll include two links in case you're interested --

:)



EDIT TO ADD LINKS/INFO from another post I've made . .

See: April Gallop lawsuit.


Pentagon worker April Gallup saw no airplane debris on 9/11

http://www.wikio.com/video/245256

AND . . .


Published December 19, 2008
April Gallop , Donald Rumsfeld , US Air Force General Richard Myers , Vice President Dick Cheney , landmark 9/11 civil suit

The suit alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks and purposefully failed to warn those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred. Additional, unnamed persons with foreknowledge of the attacks are also named.

http://hidhist.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/legal-minds-res... /

FURTHER . . .

And I'm sure you're also familiar with the Mineta testimony before Congress re warnings coming
to Cheney in Mineta's presence at the Pentagon -- warning him of INCOMING --

If not, here you go --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

This is not the borg, as far as I know.

It makes sense on one level. The thing is we need to examine ALL theories in order to be thorough. It shouldn't take too long to figure out what're legitimate avenues of inquiry.

Ok, bad analogy, but people still think there was no plane at the Pentagon even though there's photographic evidence of it.

Once one crazy theory like that one is disproved, we should all band around the ones that can still be proven or at least not disproven.

In fact the FBI confiscated almost 90 complete films of the attack on the Pentagon

but only shows one frame!

And there's no plane to be seen on that one frame --

In fact, the Pentagon confirms that by saying . . .

"YOU CAN'T SEE THE PLANE BECAUSE AIRPLANE PASSED BETWEEN ONE FRAME AND THE NEXT" --

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The crazy ones will prove to be so and will be rejected. And every now and then a crazy theory turns out to be right.

that, eh . . . that two frame photo from one angle with the "plane" having passed

"between the frames" according to the Pentagon -- !!!

:evilgrin:

:)

please list your reasons.

since your OP is about crazy theories, are you saying the government just happened to rig a building to implode that was part of the same complex that not just one, but two errant hijacked planes would crash into, regardless if the government know planes were going to be hijacked that day? i can't even begin to calculate those odds.

I don't agree with the OP on building 7 but even I can see in an instant that you have constructed a blatant straw man to take swings at.

How about, the gov. knew the hijackings and crashes would take place, including exact details, so they rigged a nearby building for some unspecified nefarious purpose?

Please not that I disagree with the above. It is not my theory. But it is very easy to see that your criticism is empty.

:)

Where the 'NO PLANES' theory begins . . .

about 5 seconds in . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA&NR=1

Obviously, CNN at the time was hiring reporters who hallucinate 'NO PLANES' --

who have poor vision and limited powers of reasoning!

:evilfrown:

your stretching now

It's like asking, "does this hat make me look stupid?". If you ask that question, the odds are that you already know the answer is yes.

does having a reasonably high IQ, basic reasoning skills, and a passing knowledge of the available evidence regarding 9-11 make me look like a government shill?

:rofl: :rofl:

noone else will.

They had too many wounds in JFK's body --

they had to link the neck wound and wound in the rear of JFK's body.

Meanwhile, the neck wound was a wound of entry --
and had NO OUTLET as reported at autopsy.

And the wound in the rear was in JFK's right shoulder blade
also had NO OUTLET as reported at autopsy.

And that wound was made at a 45 degree DOWNWARD ANGLE.

What that tells us is that there is no perfect crime -- and the cover up is vitally important.

Now, as to what you're thinking . . . and as to what you think is probably true NOW . . .

I'm completely a believer in regards to Bush & Cheney knowing about 9/11 beforehand, and could even entertain that they were in on it to get Iraq's oil, or whatever. The political conspiracies - Yes

WTC 7 - Hmmmmm, I don't know. It's plausible that it was brought down via controlled demolition. I could possibly believe this conspiracy with some more research. - I'll give it a - Maybe

But what did you think on 9/11? Did you believe it was a "terrarist" attack?
If so, when did you begin to doubt it and what information forced you to do so?


As for this . . .

No plane at the Pentagon, controlled demo in WTC 1 and 2, whatever crazy shit about Flight 93, missiles strapped to the bottom of the planes - definitely a big fat - NO

Presume you know that a CNN reporters at the scene given reports of a hijacked plane still
circulating in the DC area, was there before hand and reported that 'NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON.'
Now do you think that that reporter and his camera crew were hallucinating "NO PLANES"?
Do you think CNN hires reporters to cover onsite stories if they have problems with their vision
or reasoning powers?

Further, for just one reported story, Brig. Gen. Larry Arnold - Commander of Aviation for NORAD - US/Canada -- immediately sent a jet pilot over to the Pentagon to find out what had hit it.
The pilot reported back ... "Zero evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon."

Perhaps you're not familiar with the citizens investigation of the Pentagon event which revealed
that witnesses - including Police officers -- report that the plane they saw did NOT travel
over the "lamp post" route. Many also say that the plane they saw did NOT hit the Pentagon but
flew over it while explosives went off at the Pentagon simultaneously. In fact, at least one
other witness relates that he saw the plane flying off on the other side of the Pentagon.

Further, a FOIA release of documents from the black box of flight #93 reveals that the plane was
flying at an altitude TOO HIGH to have permitted it to knock down the lamp posts.

Also keep in mind that it was Rumsfeld who mentioned a "missile" as being involved in the Pentagon attack.

If you look at the small hole in the Pentagon wall -- see the photo with a fireman standing on
either side of it -- you will note that you couldn't get a bicycle thru the hole sideways -
and certainly not even a car. Yet you believe that a 44 high aluminum plane with wingspan
totaling 123 feet wide went thru that hole?
Also note that windows above which would have been impacted by the height of the plane were
undamaged.

And, unfortunately, all you're saying here . . .

That all being said. Shouldn't we focus on the conspiracies that are more plausible and can actually be proven somehow rather than people pointing to photos of plane wreckage and saying there is no plane wreckage there? These crazies focusing on the above issues in the "NO" category just make the ones that are certainly more plausible, less credible so it's easy for people to not take us seriously on the good issues.

is that you don't find what you've seen of the information "credible" and in some cases think it
"stupid."

Again, what would you have said on 9/11 to someone who was telling you that 9/11 was a "false flag"
operation?

Think about it --

Where the 'NO PLANES' theory begins . . .

about 5 seconds in . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA&NR=1

Obviously, CNN at the time was hiring reporters who hallucinate 'NO PLANES' --

who have poor vision and limited powers of reasoning!


Labeling concepts in an effort to make them "crazy" doesn't make them so --

In addition, Brig. Gen. Larry Arnold -- Commander Aviation/NORAD-US/Canada --

immediately sent a jet pilot up to fly to the Pentagon and report back on what

hit the Pentagon . . .

And, the pilot reported back -- "ZERO EVIDENCE OF A PLANE HAVING HIT THE PENTAGON"

Try addressing the information rather than labeling as a first defense.