Analis said:
But your whole post has at it's heart the basic illogicality of the 9/11 conspiracy theory - namely, that people on the whole are 'sheeple' (or whatever) but that at the same time they had to be fooled by a very elaborate plot in order to be convinced that they should back the neo-con agenda. Surely if people and the media on the whole are becoming less questioning and information-poor, a conspiracy such as the one alleged about 9/11 would not be needed? Something far less sophisticated could have been manufactured? After all, isn't it also part of the conspiracy that the media are pretty much controlled too?
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
Jerry_B said:
The Pentagon has some of the most hi-tech staplers ever developed and the air conditioning is second to none.
Jerry_B: "namely, that people on the whole are 'sheeple' (or whatever) but that at the same time they had to be fooled by a very elaborate plot to be convinced that they should back the neo-con agenda.
I guess that few would dispute that the masses grew more and more indifferent. But there remain dissenting voices, like Noam CHOMSKY and Alexandre ZIEGLER. And some honnest journalists. Parts of the estblishment, who remained critical of the policy followed by the world leaders since the Reagan era. But I wrote that this Blitzkrieg psychology was designed to silence everyone, including them. And it worked. Liberal and left-winger media, Chomsky, Ziegler or Cockburn didn't dare to dispute the official version, Michael Moore only did it on minor facets. I read that Chomsky grew more sceptical recently, but he probably won't go too far.
That's not to say that the 'sheeple' didn't have to be convinced, too. The US right-wing has a very simplistic and stubborn view of the world; but whole parts of it have a strong tradition of isolationnism. The attacks were intended to 'shake' it, too.
I'll add that sheeple isn't the right word.. Because it suppose that people are only passive. While in fact, they have an active involvment in this rejection of disturbing news. Journalists and politicians who remind them of third world problems, domestic inequalities, etc... are punished. They don't watch their documentaries, they don't elect them. This state of control couldn't exist without their active (and often aggressive) complacency. This is the true danger to democracy.
Ironically, while you point that Bush and the 'conspiracists' share basically the same vision of humankind, it can be said too of most followers of the official conspiracy theory. Those people are often paranoiac, and have a very conspiratorial view of the world. Acccording to them, it is full of threatening, hidden and evil forces. All intending to destroy the USA, of course. It is especially true of the fundamentalist Christians. They see Satan-inspired conspiracies everywhere, and are rather agressive towards everyone who doesn't agree with them. The people who are the easiest to convince are the most conspiracist and the most deluded.
I guess that few would dispute that the masses grew more and more indifferent. But there remain dissenting voices, like Noam CHOMSKY and Alexandre ZIEGLER. And some honnest journalists. Parts of the estblishment, who remained critical of the policy followed by the world leaders since the Reagan era. But I wrote that this Blitzkrieg psychology was designed to silence everyone, including them. And it worked. Liberal and left-winger media, Chomsky, Ziegler or Cockburn didn't dare to dispute the official version, Michael Moore only did it on minor facets. I read that Chomsky grew more sceptical recently, but he probably won't go too far.
That's not to say that the 'sheeple' didn't have to be convinced, too. The US right-wing has a very simplistic and stubborn view of the world; but whole parts of it have a strong tradition of isolationnism. The attacks were intended to 'shake' it, too.
I'll add that sheeple isn't the right word.. Because it suppose that people are only passive. While in fact, they have an active involvment in this rejection of disturbing news. Journalists and politicians who remind them of third world problems, domestic inequalities, etc... are punished. They don't watch their documentaries, they don't elect them. This state of control couldn't exist without their active (and often aggressive) complacency. This is the true danger to democracy.
Ironically, while you point that Bush and the 'conspiracists' share basically the same vision of humankind, it can be said too of most followers of the official conspiracy theory. Those people are often paranoiac, and have a very conspiratorial view of the world. Acccording to them, it is full of threatening, hidden and evil forces. All intending to destroy the USA, of course. It is especially true of the fundamentalist Christians. They see Satan-inspired conspiracies everywhere, and are rather agressive towards everyone who doesn't agree with them. The people who are the easiest to convince are the most conspiracist and the most deluded.
Analis said:
Er...no - I didn't say that nor was I implying that 'Bush and the 'conspiracists' share basically the same vision of humankind'. My overall point is that there is a lack of logic in the conspiracy theory - i.e. that people are 'sheeple', but need to be cowed by something like 9/11, which supposedly involves a very elaborate plot involving perhaps thousands of conspirators. 'Loose Change' starts off by talking about false flag operations - but the ones it mentions were way, way less intricate than that needed for a supposed 9/11 plot. And if people are basically 'sheeple' why would the effort to manufacture such a complicated plot be needed at all?
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,991
Analis said:
I can't see many people agreeing with that! Starting with specifically with Veitnam and Watergate, the US public woke up to the level of dishonesty involved in their national government. Things have been very much harder for anyone trying to put one across since then.
Governments simply cannot rely on a compliant media the way they did in the 50's. And the interbet has added a whole new level. These days even if you can stop a story from getting to any of the mainstream media, it will be all over cyberspace within hours.
The really great days of conspiracies were back before the 20th century, when the mass media could be controlled and secret treaties were common.
Oh, and the famous $600 (or $435 depending on who you read) hammer story is more complex than you might have thought-
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1298/120798t1.htm
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,990
This is all very jolly, but it's all interpolation, extrapolation and opinion.Jerry_B said:
Nice to see you admit that there are such things as false flag operations, though.
And the bit about "sheeple," again. tsk. tsk. :no-no:
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,990
My goodness. We must watch different channels. When it comes to the big stuff. the Official Stuff, most mainstream Media seem to fall into line pretty quick these days. That goes for both sides of the pond. The whole Iraq Debacle, start to whenever it crawls bloodily to its end, being a case in point.wembley8 said:
And if something different gets on to the internet there's plenty of sources around to cry 'Conspiracy Theorist!'
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Mine or 'Loose Change'?
Nice to see you admit that there are such things as false flag operations, though.
I didn't admit anything. I merely noted that the false flag operations they mentioned weren't very complex (in terms of methodology). Whether they actually were such false flag operations after all, well...
Note that the term is being used in inverted commas. It's not a term I'm using personally to describe anyone.
Pietro_Mercurios said:
And so with that in mind the need to stage something as complex at 9/11 is defunct. Something much less complicated could have been manufactured, and (what with supposed media connivance/malaise/co-operation) put across to the general public.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,990
But, 9/11 was incontrovertibly 'real.' Whatever might have been hung on that event, like much of the rationalisation for the Invasion of Iraq, might have been largely fantasy, smoke and mirrors, but it was hung upon a 'real, paradigm changing, event. Whatever the real cause of 9/11, the iconic memory of its substantial imprint has been used to changed the World radically from the one that existed on 9/10 2001.Jerry_B said:
It has been mediated and manipulated into the most 'Significant' and Spectacular event of 21st century, so far. Of course it had to be real. A 'Pearl Harbor' style incident.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2006
- Messages
- 1,134
The 'sheeple' thing has always intrigued me as I think it's fair and unfair at the same time.
I was once told, perhaps wrongly, that like it's easier to control or at least direct a herd/flock/group of animals than a single animal. I think that's the crux here. A single sheep can be willful and obstinate and yet with the right methods larger numbers can be pushed through all manner of gates and pens.
I think it's a case of making sure the herd respond to the 'right signals'.
I was once told, perhaps wrongly, that like it's easier to control or at least direct a herd/flock/group of animals than a single animal. I think that's the crux here. A single sheep can be willful and obstinate and yet with the right methods larger numbers can be pushed through all manner of gates and pens.
I think it's a case of making sure the herd respond to the 'right signals'.
Pietro_Mercurios said:
The conspiracist take on 9/11 is that it was a staged event, created with the sole purpose of giving the neo-cons an excuse to invade Iraq, and various other plans on their agenda. And as a staged event it had to be cataclysmic, in order to shock the US public into going along with neo-con follow up. This despite the fact that conspiracists in general seem to imply that people in general are cowed and cajoled quite easily and that the media is merely a puppet of the Nefarious Powers That Be. But if people are in fact as cowed as conjoled as is assumed, and the media is a slave to certain interests, there would be no need to manufacture something as cataclysmic as 9/11 (and to have to go to all the trouble to set it up, carry it out and keep it entirely leakproof). A much lesser incident would've sufficed.
It's basic illogicalities in the conspiracy theory like that strike me as being one reason for not taking it seriously. The theorists seem to be contradicting themselves.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2006
- Messages
- 1,134
lupinwick said:
I was kind of thinking that too when I mentioned herds of animals in general - but admittedly not specifically sheep. The way birds or fish take their cues from near neighbours: just a case of influencing one or two in the right way...
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,990
That's merely your take on the Conspiracy Theory. There are actually several Conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. Some interrelate, some are contradictory and some are downright weird. But, very few suggest that "people in general" were "cowed," before the event, although, "people in general" now put up with indignities, invasions of privacy and curtailments of freedom by the State, that they might have fought tooth and nail, on 9/10.Jerry_B said:
If you're looking for "basic illogicalities", I suggest you go back and look over the US and British Governments' case for the Invasion of Iraq, in the weeks and months before it took place.
wembley8: "I can't see many people agreeing with that!"
I can! Read Black List and Media Control. Tetimonies of journalists who were harassed by this system. In the 60s and the 70s, media grew certainly more independant. But it led to a backlash. The Reagan era was a regression in any area of the US society. The public, as much as the media. Greatly helped by their concentration. They prefer to concentrate on trivial matters. Other countries followed. In the instances widely covered by the media, as Darfur, it is mostly because it is in agreement with official propaganda: there were few mentions of a civil war in Irak prior to Nov. 2006 elections, when it suddenly became 'politically correct'. And even then, the public tries to put those disturbing question in a corner of his mind. They are so tiresome... I could cite many other examples. Obvious official lies relating to the Toulouse explosions are not commented by the media. The help to UCK in Kosovo and Macedonia was only briefly mentionned. As were the plots relating to oleoducs in Central Asia. The possibility of frauds in US November 2004 election was ignored (but not in Ukrain, where for some 'unknown' reasons, exit polls were seen as incontrovertible evidence while deemed valueless in the US). Despite the fact that the Lebanese government produced serious evidence of Israeli guilt in some political assassinations those last two years, the Western media don't mention it and keep accusing Syria systematically etc...
The internet is neutral. Any claim generates a counter-claim and so on, eding in a cacophony. It is a tool in official hands too, and in the hands of all kinds of manipulators. The public usually can't discriminate. And it rarely triggers an answer from the mainstream media.
Jerry_B: "Er... no - I didn't say that nor was I implying that 'Bush and the 'conspiracists' share basically the same vision of humankind."
In fact, It was more Bush as imagined by the conspiracists, not the true Bush. But I believe that the true Bush does describe the world in terms of dark and evil forces assaulting the USA. He is the greatest conspiracy theorist in the world!
"but the ones it mentions were way, way less intricate than that needed for a supposed plot."
Well, the Northwoods operation was convoluted... Had it happened, would we know the truth? Probably not more than about the JFK assassination.
Pietro_Mercurios: "Nice to see you admit that there are such things as false flag operations, though."
False flags attacks, LIHOP or manipulations are maybe more common than usually thought. A short list of suspected or proven ones:
Bombings of British and French embassies in 1956 by Israelis, to frame Egyptians prior to the Suez crisis.
Some attacks during the Algerian war, to discredite the FLN.
The Tonkin Incident, in 1964.
The attack on USS Liberty, in 1967.
During the 70s and 80s, various bombings in Italy by the Gladio; including Piazza Fontana (1969), Peteano (1972), or Bologna (1980). The Red Brigads, too, are suspected of having been manipulated.
From 1983 to 1985, the Cellules Combattantes Révolutionnaires in Belgium. Followed by the Brabant Killers (Nijvel Gang).
The La Belle discothec bombing in Berlin, in 1986.
1992 and 1994: bombings of the Israeli Embassy and the Mutual Jewish Association in Buenos Aires, to frame Iran and the Hizbullah.
The Moscow bombings, in 1999.
During the Second Algerian War and maybe after (1992 - ? ), a great number of attacks attributed to the GIA, and more recently, to the GSPC.
Explosions in Toulouse, september 2001.
From 2005 to now: a number of political assassinations in Lebanon, to frame Syria.
And I didn't mention the Madrid or London bombings !
I can! Read Black List and Media Control. Tetimonies of journalists who were harassed by this system. In the 60s and the 70s, media grew certainly more independant. But it led to a backlash. The Reagan era was a regression in any area of the US society. The public, as much as the media. Greatly helped by their concentration. They prefer to concentrate on trivial matters. Other countries followed. In the instances widely covered by the media, as Darfur, it is mostly because it is in agreement with official propaganda: there were few mentions of a civil war in Irak prior to Nov. 2006 elections, when it suddenly became 'politically correct'. And even then, the public tries to put those disturbing question in a corner of his mind. They are so tiresome... I could cite many other examples. Obvious official lies relating to the Toulouse explosions are not commented by the media. The help to UCK in Kosovo and Macedonia was only briefly mentionned. As were the plots relating to oleoducs in Central Asia. The possibility of frauds in US November 2004 election was ignored (but not in Ukrain, where for some 'unknown' reasons, exit polls were seen as incontrovertible evidence while deemed valueless in the US). Despite the fact that the Lebanese government produced serious evidence of Israeli guilt in some political assassinations those last two years, the Western media don't mention it and keep accusing Syria systematically etc...
The internet is neutral. Any claim generates a counter-claim and so on, eding in a cacophony. It is a tool in official hands too, and in the hands of all kinds of manipulators. The public usually can't discriminate. And it rarely triggers an answer from the mainstream media.
Jerry_B: "Er... no - I didn't say that nor was I implying that 'Bush and the 'conspiracists' share basically the same vision of humankind."
In fact, It was more Bush as imagined by the conspiracists, not the true Bush. But I believe that the true Bush does describe the world in terms of dark and evil forces assaulting the USA. He is the greatest conspiracy theorist in the world!
"but the ones it mentions were way, way less intricate than that needed for a supposed plot."
Well, the Northwoods operation was convoluted... Had it happened, would we know the truth? Probably not more than about the JFK assassination.
Pietro_Mercurios: "Nice to see you admit that there are such things as false flag operations, though."
False flags attacks, LIHOP or manipulations are maybe more common than usually thought. A short list of suspected or proven ones:
Bombings of British and French embassies in 1956 by Israelis, to frame Egyptians prior to the Suez crisis.
Some attacks during the Algerian war, to discredite the FLN.
The Tonkin Incident, in 1964.
The attack on USS Liberty, in 1967.
During the 70s and 80s, various bombings in Italy by the Gladio; including Piazza Fontana (1969), Peteano (1972), or Bologna (1980). The Red Brigads, too, are suspected of having been manipulated.
From 1983 to 1985, the Cellules Combattantes Révolutionnaires in Belgium. Followed by the Brabant Killers (Nijvel Gang).
The La Belle discothec bombing in Berlin, in 1986.
1992 and 1994: bombings of the Israeli Embassy and the Mutual Jewish Association in Buenos Aires, to frame Iran and the Hizbullah.
The Moscow bombings, in 1999.
During the Second Algerian War and maybe after (1992 - ? ), a great number of attacks attributed to the GIA, and more recently, to the GSPC.
Explosions in Toulouse, september 2001.
From 2005 to now: a number of political assassinations in Lebanon, to frame Syria.
And I didn't mention the Madrid or London bombings !
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,990
There are Terrorists, loads more than before 9/11, Afghanistan, or especially Iraq. But, not as many, or as organised, as advertised. There seems to have been a wheen of exaggeration. The Threat of Terrorism seems to have been more profitable to Bush, Blair and Co. than it has to the Terrorists. So far.Timble2 said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
I wouldn't say so. The general flavour of conspiracy theory is that most of us are in the dark and only a few actually know the 'truth'
If you're looking for "basic illogicalities", I suggest you go back and look over the US and British Governments' case for the Invasion of Iraq, in the weeks and months before it took place.
And if you go back and study the Iraq threads, you'll see I voiced concerns about the case for the invasion.
Pietro_Mercurios said:That's merely your take on the Conspiracy Theory. There are actually several Conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. Some interrelate, some are contradictory and some are downright weird. But, very few suggest that "people in general" were "cowed," before the event, although, "people in general" now put up with indignities, invasions of privacy and curtailments of freedom by the State, that they might have fought tooth and nail, on 9/10.Jerry_B said:
If you're looking for "basic illogicalities", I suggest you go back and look over the US and British Governments' case for the Invasion of Iraq, in the weeks and months before it took place.
Timble2: "So basically, there aren't any terrorists and it's all false flag operations..."
And I didn't mention that stay-behind nets are suspected in strategy-of-tension operations in Greece and Turkey too... Or that some Palestinian nets, like Abu Nidal's; were probably infiltrated by the Mossad... But I don't say that all terrorist acts are state-sponsored. I think that kamikaze islamists do exist. And in any case, in my mind, people involved in false flag attacks are true terrorists. I believe that the attacks of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the hijacking of Flight 93 were genuine terrorist acts.
I'll note that some have no trouble to supose the existence of state-spoensored terrorism, when it comes to accuse Syria of assassinations in Lebanon. Troubles begin only when it comes to other countries... Cognitive dissonance...
Jerry_B: "But Analis seems to be implying that more recent events, such as the attacks in Madrid and London, were also false flag operations..."
I believe that the Madrid bombings were comitted by the Islamists who are currently judged (plus the ones who comitted suicid one week after the attacks). But it is true that the Spanish anti-terrorist police was warned by informants. And didn't move, for unexplained reasons. Uncanny, because they had proved very efficient in previous instances. Sadly, this fact was not adressed by the trial.
As for the London bombings of 7/7, I believe that the perpetrators were probably the four people filmed by security cameras. But there remain shadowy areas. Notably, the chief of the commando is said to have been monitored, much more closely than it was previously admitted. And to have had previous involvment with British security (maybe he was a double-agent). Perhaps, both instances have other explanations, like a failed surveillance. But in both cases, a LIHOP or a manipulation can't be ruled out either.
And I didn't mention that stay-behind nets are suspected in strategy-of-tension operations in Greece and Turkey too... Or that some Palestinian nets, like Abu Nidal's; were probably infiltrated by the Mossad... But I don't say that all terrorist acts are state-sponsored. I think that kamikaze islamists do exist. And in any case, in my mind, people involved in false flag attacks are true terrorists. I believe that the attacks of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the hijacking of Flight 93 were genuine terrorist acts.
I'll note that some have no trouble to supose the existence of state-spoensored terrorism, when it comes to accuse Syria of assassinations in Lebanon. Troubles begin only when it comes to other countries... Cognitive dissonance...
Jerry_B: "But Analis seems to be implying that more recent events, such as the attacks in Madrid and London, were also false flag operations..."
I believe that the Madrid bombings were comitted by the Islamists who are currently judged (plus the ones who comitted suicid one week after the attacks). But it is true that the Spanish anti-terrorist police was warned by informants. And didn't move, for unexplained reasons. Uncanny, because they had proved very efficient in previous instances. Sadly, this fact was not adressed by the trial.
As for the London bombings of 7/7, I believe that the perpetrators were probably the four people filmed by security cameras. But there remain shadowy areas. Notably, the chief of the commando is said to have been monitored, much more closely than it was previously admitted. And to have had previous involvment with British security (maybe he was a double-agent). Perhaps, both instances have other explanations, like a failed surveillance. But in both cases, a LIHOP or a manipulation can't be ruled out either.
Is that concrete proof that given outrage was a false flag operation or just hope that it was a false flag operation?
It may be worth while contemplating Patrick Leman's article (New Scientist - 2612). This is just a snippet near the end - I don't think I can post the whole lot.
Bolds are mine
In the end we don't know whether the US government blew up the WTC itself or allowed the plot to go ahead with a view to using it as a springboard to invade. Can we pick the bits of theories to to suit or own world views? Of course we can and do. Do we ignore the bits which don't match? You bet? Is the bellwether (the thing which sets the conspiracy trends) the media, the various internet sites, the hidden organisations (MI5 et al) or just a useful term to try and describe and explain where ideas and trends come from?- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,990
I remember, I used to agree with you, quite a lot.Jerry_B said:
Jerry_B said:If you're attempting to paint me with 'skeptic' brush Crunchy5, I suggest you check the link in my sig...
I've done so in the past, what does it prove or to put it another way how does it advance your argument that you aren't a "skeptik", I prefer the double K version, ? :?
A skeptik wouldn't have such a website - unless they were using such information as part of a wider skeptical approach, which I am most certainly not.
Just because I remain uncovinced by this conspiracy theory, please stop labelling me as a skeptic (or however you want to spell it) - I take it as an insult. It would be the same as me labelling you as a 'tin-foil hatter'. Permit me and perhaps other people to hold views perhaps contrary to your own without you simply dismissing them as 'skeptiks'.
If you prefer it that everyone agrees with you and your beliefs without question, these forums are probably not the right place for you
Just because I remain uncovinced by this conspiracy theory, please stop labelling me as a skeptic (or however you want to spell it) - I take it as an insult. It would be the same as me labelling you as a 'tin-foil hatter'. Permit me and perhaps other people to hold views perhaps contrary to your own without you simply dismissing them as 'skeptiks'.
If you prefer it that everyone agrees with you and your beliefs without question, these forums are probably not the right place for you
Jerry_B said:
Keep your hair on mate, I never feel any stress about the site it's all just a laugh init, I've taken the time to look at your Fortean timeline, like the title, but just couldn't see how it proved or even indicated that you weren't a skeptik, as you have mentioned it in that context a few times, my interjection was genuine.