Saturday, October 25, 2008

Tinfoil Truthers

DPW SAID:

“When Condi Rice stands before a press conference and says no one ever imagined terrorists would fly a hijacked plane into a building, and then it comes out that the government had war games simulating just such a scenario, Condi was lying.”

How is that statement evidence that Condi was lying?

i) For one thing, Condi was head of the NSA, not the DOD. Why assume that she’s cognizant of everything that goes on over at the Pentagon? It’s a big place. Even the Secretary of Defense isn’t cognizant of everything that goes on under his own roof.

ii) It’s also possible to forget something you used to know.

iii) But let’s assume that she was lying. How does that constitute evidence that 9/11 was an inside job?

What motive would she have to lie? What’s the context of her statement? She’s on the defensive. She was head of the NSA, as well as Bush’s National Security Advisor. Why didn’t she see it coming? Why didn’t she connect the dots?

Like many incompetent bureaucrats, she tells a lie to excuse her incompetence. To minimize blame for her failure to anticipate 9/11.

Isn’t that a simpler, more plausible explanation than a conspiracy theory involving countless conspirators both inside and outside of gov’t?

“When George Bush says(not once but twice), he saw the first plane fly into Tower 1 before he spoke to the children at Booker T. Washington Elementary, and it turns out that there was no videotape available then or live television coverage of the first plane, George was lying, or so monstrously confused he should submit to random drug testing, or at least provide us a copy of the script he's been reading from.”

What’s the point that DPW is trying to make? Is this supposed to be evidence that Bush had advance knowledge of 9/11?

If so, then the inference is obviously fallacious. When did Bush make this statement? Three months after 9/11.

How would a statement made three months after 9/11 be evidence of advance knowledge? The statement would only be evidence of advance knowledge if it was made before the fact. Before Bush was in a position to know what happened—unless he was in on the plot.

DPW is confusing the timing of the statement with the timing of the event. Even if the statement is anachronistic, it was made after the fact, long after Bush had seen footage of the planes hitting the towers.

The fact that Bush’s later statement about the sequence of events may be wrong is irrelevant to what he knew on 9/11. It’s only relevant to what he knew (or thought he knew) at the time he said it. The timing of a statement, and a statement about timing, are two different things. This is pretty elementary.

Why not assume that Bush misremembered the sequence? It’s very easy for subsequent information (or misinformation) to merge with our prior recollection and subconsciously change our recollection of events.

In fact, here’s a textbook example: Many Bush-haters think they remember Bush say that we needed to invade Iraq because it posed an “imminent threat.”

Of course, Bush never said that. In his State of the Union speech, he went out of his way to say the very opposite.

That was a memorable speech. Unlike the average State of the Union speech, there was exceptional public interest in this speech. And that’s because this was shortly after 9/11. Everyone was expecting Bush to use the occasion to say how the US was going to retaliate.

So how could so many people forget such a memorable speech?

And even if they did forget, it would be easy for them to refresh their faulty or fading memory. The text of the speech is posted at the White House website. And if you don’t trust the White House website, there are many other places on the web where you can pull up a transcript.

Yet despite all that, there’s a persistent urban legend that Bush lied us into war by claiming that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US.

People think they remember what he said at the time they heard it live. But they don’t. What they really remember is subsequent coverage of the speech, which they subconsciously merge with their original recollection.

If they can misremember, why can’t Bush?

“Government bureaucrats should be assumed to be lying unless proven otherwise, not the reverse.”

By that logic, we should assume that official critics of the Bush administration like Michael Scheuer and Richard Clarke are lying unless proven otherwise.

“It seems as though no matter how many deceptions elements within the US government orchestrate, from the creation of the Federal Reserve, to the Lusitania, to the USS Kearney, to Pearl Harbor, to Operation Northwoods, to the Gulf of Tonkin, to the USS Liberty, to 9/11, ever the gullible rise up to believe the 'patriotic' lie.”

Let’s run through these items, shall we?

Lusitania

How is this evidence that American bureaucrats deceive people?

Pearl Harbor/USS Liberty/USS Kearny/Gulf of Tonkin

DPW is pyramiding. Using one conspiracy theory to prop up another conspiracy theory. All of his examples are disputed examples.

Operation Nothrwoods

i) That plan was produced at the height of the Cold War, around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. That emotional climate didn’t exist in the 8 months before 9/11, when Bush took office.

ii) Despite Cold War tension, Operation Northwoods was never adopted or implemented. How does the fact that Operation Northwoods was rejected by gov’t bureaucrats prove what gov’t bureaucrats are prepared to do?

iii) This was also before we developed such an adversarial press corps. Before Watergate. Before the anti-war movement. A president could get away with more back then (e.g. JFK’s poor health and sex life).

iv) Finally, is Operation Northwoods even analogous to the issue at hand?

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/is-operation-northwoods-good-comp-for.html

DPW is the one who suffers from acute gullibility.

i) People who lie, lie for a reason. Lying involves a cost/benefit analysis. If I lie, how much do I have to gain, and how much do I have to lose?

Evil people are motivated by their perceived self-interest. The 9/11 conspirators would have nothing to gain in comparison to what they’d have to lose if their plot were exposed. And in the adversarial climate of Washington, both inside and outside of gov’t, there would be a high risk of exposure. That isn’t even slightly comparable to “lying” about the Federal Reserve.

The fact that many people lie some of the time doesn’t create any presumption that someone lied to cover up a heinous crime. If he committed a heinous crime, he is likely to lie about it, but the fact that he lies from time to time is no evidence that he committed a heinous crime.

If you lie on your tax returns, that doesn’t make you a serial killer.

ii) It’s also credulous to assume that most folks who work for the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD and so on are as evil as DPW has to assume for his conspiracy theory to work.

Gov’t employees are not a breed apart from other human beings. They are not more dishonest or more corrupt than the private sector.

If gov’t employees are that untrustworthy, then 9/11 Truthers are just as untrustworthy, since both groups are just a subset of humanity in general.

Not to mention all of the additional conspirators he needs after the fact, both inside and outside of gov’t, to participate in the cover-up.

DPW’s scepticism is self-refuting. 9/11 Truthers are selectively sceptical and selectively gullible.

10 comments:

  1. Steve,

    Wow. My own thread. I feel honored.

    It's Operation Northwoods, not "Norwoods."

    Regarding the Lusitania, you obviously aren't familiar with the allegations. A good place to start is The Creature from Jekyll Island, by G. Edward Griffin. While primarily about the banking system, the section on the Lusitania is excellent. Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett is also good for the USS Kearny and Pearl Harbor, although he strangely concludes FDR did the right thing in manipulating Japan into attacking.

    When Bush and Cheney were finally forced to speak with the 9/11 Commission, they would only do so under these conditions:

    1. Private from the public.
    2. Together, not separately.
    3. Without recording devices.
    4. Not under oath.

    You're right, it doesn't prove anything. But as W himself reminded us once, "If someone's trying to hide something, it's because they've got something to hide."

    Regarding the "disputed" nature of the USS Liberty incident, it is not disputed by any of the survivors. They all agree to a man the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing. Of course the simpler explanation would be to say that they were just bitter and grief-stricken at seeing 27 of their shipmates slaughtered and many others wounded so they had to blame somebody, rather than saying it was a conspiracy involving untold numbers of people, blah, blah...

    How many people worked on the Manhattan Project without knowing what they were really doing? Thousands? Tens of thousands? I know the government eminent domained an entire town in I believe Washington, just to make room for the thousands that were located on the project there. What can I say? 21st Century people, myself included, are sheep. For the most part we just go through life doing what we are told.

    Three traps to avoid:

    1. Trying to explain how the conspiracy was pulled off.
    2. Letting the ruling elite off the hook by saying they are merely incompetent bumblers who mis-remember important events.
    3. Believing that bipartisan commissions are set up to get at the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. DPW SAID:

    “Regarding the Lusitania, you obviously aren't familiar with the allegations.”

    It’s not my job to make your argument for you.

    And even if your conspiratorial interpretation were correct, the Lusitania incident doesn’t establish a precedent for 9/11. A gov’t is not an individual. A gov’t doesn’t have a modus operandi. Governments change hands over the years.

    “Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett is also good for the USS Kearny and Pearl Harbor.”

    You’re missing the point. There are conspiracy theories for everything, including Roswell. You’re still using one disputed case to prop up another disputed case.

    And even if your conspiratorial interpretation were correct, there’s no linkage between Pearl Harbor (or the USS Kearny) and 9/11. These are separate, unrelated incidents involving different officials. If FDR smokes cigars, this doesn’t mean that Bush smokes cigars.

    The fact that you resort to historical non-sequiturs is a tacit admission that you have a weak case. Lacking specific evidence for your 9/11 conspiracy theory, you have to pad out your case with irrelevancies.

    “When Bush and Cheney were finally forced to speak with the 9/11 Commission, they would only do so under these conditions:__1. Private from the public._2. Together, not separately._3. Without recording devices._4. Not under oath.__You're right, it doesn't prove anything. But as W himself reminded us once, ‘If someone's trying to hide something, it's because they've got something to hide’."

    Now you’ve backed yourself into a conundrum. The 9/11 Truthers I’ve read attack the 9/11 Commission as a pawn of the Bush administration, which was stacked to corroborate the “official” account. (In fact, you yourself level the same charge further down.)

    Why do you think Bush and Cheney would feel threatened by the 9/11 Commission unless it were a truly independent investigative body?

    So there’s your dilemma. If the 9/11 Commission was just a pawn of the White House, then Bush and Cheney would have no reason to fear it.

    But if the 9/11 Commission was a truly independent body, then 9/11 Truthers can’t attack the 9/11 Commission Report as a “scam” or “whitewash.”

    Given the climate of partisan witch-hunts with rogue prosecutors (e.g. Patrick Fitzgerald) on the loose, it’s scarcely surprising that Bush and Cheney limited their legal jeopardy. They would be foolhardy to walk into a trap.

    BTW, I happen to think the Bush administration is secretive to a fault. But that’s a vicious cycle. Given the open hostility of the liberal media and the political opportunism of the Congressional Democrats, that’s to be expected.

    “Regarding the ‘disputed’ nature of the USS Liberty incident, it is not disputed by any of the survivors. They all agree to a man the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing.”

    This is another example of your illogicality. The survivors would be in no position to know the motives of the Israeli gov’t. Only someone inside the Israeli gov’t would be privy to that information.

    “Of course the simpler explanation would be to say that they were just bitter and grief-stricken at seeing 27 of their shipmates slaughtered and many others wounded so they had to blame somebody, rather than saying it was a conspiracy involving untold numbers of people, blah, blah...”

    No, the simplest explanation is that it was an accident.

    And, once again, you’re backing into another conundrum. On the one hand, conspiracy theorists contend that, in response to the all-powerful Jewish lobby, we fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for the sake of Israel.

    On the other hand, conspiracy theorists also contend that Israel deliberately attacks her most valuable military ally.

    This is a problem with your conspiratorial theory of history. One conspiracy theory cancels out another conspiracy theory.

    “Three traps to avoid:__1. Trying to explain how the conspiracy was pulled off.”

    That’s a backdoor admission that you lack solid evidence for your position.

    “2. Letting the ruling elite off the hook by saying they are merely incompetent bumblers who mis-remember important events.”

    i) That’s not a counterargument.

    ii) And flatfooted bureaucratic bungling is a well-documented phenomenon.

    iii) As to whether folks can misremember important events, you’re backing into yet another conundrum. “No-planers,” who imagine the Pentagon was actually struck by a US missile, dismiss the testimony of eyewitnesses on the ground who swear they saw an airplane strike the Pentagon. Wouldn’t that be a case of “misremembering an important event”?

    So one element of your conspiracy theory contradicts another element of your conspiracy theory.

    “3. Believing that bipartisan commissions are set up to get at the truth.”

    When you say that you undercut your previous claim that Bush and Cheney had something to “hide” from the 9/11 Commission. If the 9/11 Commission was in the tank for the Bush administration, then why would Bush and Cheney take the precautions you outline?

    So one element of your conspiracy theory negates another element of your conspiracy theory.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "This is another example of your illogicality. The survivors would be in no position to know the motives of the Israeli gov’t. Only someone inside the Israeli gov’t would be privy to that information.
    No, the simplest explanation is that it was an accident."

    I never said the survivors knew anything about the motives of the Israeli government. What I said was that to a man they deny their own government's position that the incident was accidental because they believe emphatically that the Israeli war planes which bombed and strafed their ship had identified it as a US vessel. Those are just the facts. Interpret them how you will.

    The "conundrums" about Israel using us and attacking us are only in your own mind. Same with the Commission being in the tank, via the machinations of arch-Neocon Phil Zelikow, and the need for Bush/Cheney to be careful with it. And why did Bush oppose the establishment of the Commission in the first place? Just couldn't wait to attack Iraq? According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, that was the President's agenda from day one, long before 9/11.

    You never explained how there could be dozens of reports of secondary explosions, even from the hero-janitor William Rodriquez who at first was honored by Bush, and yet no mention of it in the report. According to Rodriguez, he spoke privately with the Commission, but none of his testimony made it into the final draft. I submit his version of the events of that day didn't fit the party line.

    Regarding the no plane issue, you are a few hundred tons short of full load of jet debris at the Pentagon. And where is the plane wreckage at Shanksville? Do you agree with Lisa Beamer that the ground swallowed up her husband's plane the way a cup of coffee swallows up the spoon? (Let's Roll p.231)

    I have a brother in our church(OPC) who is a pilot for United Airlines and a former Navy fighter jet pilot who served in the first Persian Gulf War. He doesn't believe the government's story. He says jet fuel is really just kerosene, and wouldn't produce sufficient heat to hurt the steel in the Towers. He also believes there should be a lot more plane wreckage at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

    "A gov’t doesn’t have a modus operandi. Governments change hands over the years."

    Really? How do you know that?

    You have made statements regarding the "adversarial press corps" and the "hostility of the liberal media." If that is true, why didn't they pursue the Jeff Gannon story?

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8

    gulp.....

    ReplyDelete
  5. DPW SAID:

    “I never said the survivors knew anything about the motives of the Israeli government. What I said was that to a man they deny their own government's position that the incident was accidental because they believe emphatically that the Israeli war planes which bombed and strafed their ship had identified it as a US vessel. Those are just the facts. Interpret them how you will.”

    What facts? The *alleged* fact that Israeli fighter pilots deliberately attacked our battleship, or the *opinion* of survivors that Israeli fighter pilots deliberately attacked our battleship? Their opinion doesn’t establish the allegation since they would be in no position to know the motives of the fighter pilots.

    “The ‘conundrums’ about Israel using us and attacking us are only in your own mind.”

    That’s not a counterargument, and it disregards the obvious. It would not be in Israel’s self-interest to attack its most important military ally.

    “Same with the Commission being in the tank, via the machinations of arch-Neocon Phil Zelikow, and the need for Bush/Cheney to be careful with it. And why did Bush oppose the establishment of the Commission in the first place?”

    You tell me since it’s your conundrum. On the one hand you deny that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to get at the truth.” On the other hand, you say that Bush opposed the establishment of the 9/11 Commission in the first place.

    But why would he oppose if, as you insinuate, it was set up to facilitate the official cover-up? You can’t play both sides of this issue and still be coherent.

    “Just couldn't wait to attack Iraq? According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, that was the President's agenda from day one, long before 9/11.”

    i) O’Neill was never a member of Bush’s war cabinet. He was not one of the inside players. So what would he know?

    ii) In any case, your objection is irrelevant. The Bush administration never said that invading Iraq was payback for 9/11.

    “You never explained how there could be dozens of reports of secondary explosions, even from the hero-janitor William Rodriquez who at first was honored by Bush, and yet no mention of it in the report. According to Rodriguez, he spoke privately with the Commission, but none of his testimony made it into the final draft. I submit his version of the events of that day didn't fit the party line.__Regarding the no plane issue, you are a few hundred tons short of full load of jet debris at the Pentagon. And where is the plane wreckage at Shanksville? Do you agree with Lisa Beamer that the ground swallowed up her husband's plane the way a cup of coffee swallows up the spoon? (Let's Roll p.231)__I have a brother in our church(OPC) who is a pilot for United Airlines and a former Navy fighter jet pilot who served in the first Persian Gulf War. He doesn't believe the government's story. He says jet fuel is really just kerosene, and wouldn't produce sufficient heat to hurt the steel in the Towers. He also believes there should be a lot more plane wreckage at the Pentagon and Shanksville.”

    i) You’re still trapped in your conundrum. If the ulterior motive of the 9/11 Commission was to suppress evidence and tow the party line, then Bush and Cheney would have no reason to oppose it or fear it. You suffer from an addiction to mutually exclusive conspiracy theories. But one nullifies the other. Take your pick.

    ii) It would also behoove you (and Ray Griffin) not to wade into technical matters way beyond your competence of evaluate. Organizations like Popular Mechanics, which has no vested interest in absolving the Bush administration, have fielded your recycled objections, as have websites like debunking9/11.com, ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com, and ae911truth.info. The Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories is another resource. I don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

    “Really? How do you know that?”

    Because the gov’t is not an individual. You can’t simply transfer the modus operandi of one gov’t official to another gov’t official as if one person is interchangeable with another person.

    “You have made statements regarding the ‘adversarial press corps’ and the ‘hostility of the liberal media.’ If that is true, why didn't they pursue the Jeff Gannon story?”

    Do you seriously deny that the mainstream media is hostile to the Bush administration? The evidence is overwhelming.

    And what do you think is worth pursuing in the Jeff Gannon story?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Though I'm no huge fan of Ralph Nader, he's unplugged enough from the Matrix to get the facts right about the USS Liberty. Too bad Senator McCain doesn't.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q7yEnMjQ6U&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/

    Jeff Gannon was a homosexual prostitute pretending to be a Whitehouse reporter until he got outted. Asking puffball questions for W to put in the bleachers raises eyebrows, even in our benighted press corps. Said "reporter" apparently made numerous overnight visits to the Whitehouse.

    http://www.nogw.com/download/2006_white_house_bordello.pdf

    Where was the vicious liberal mainstream media the Busholaters are always whining about?
    And organizations like Popular Mechanics have no vested interest in absolving the Bush administration? Au contraire:

    http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/chertoff_cousin_penned_pop_mech_hit_piece.htm

    ReplyDelete
  7. DPW SAID:

    “Though I'm no huge fan of Ralph Nader, he's unplugged enough from the Matrix to get the facts right about the USS Liberty. Too bad Senator McCain doesn't.”

    Of course, Nader is Arab-American, so he’s clearly biased.

    “Jeff Gannon was a homosexual prostitute pretending to be a Whitehouse reporter until he got outted.”

    I know who he is. How is that the least bit germane to your claim that 9/11 was an inside job?

    “Where was the vicious liberal mainstream media the Busholaters are always whining about?”

    Oh, I don’t know. How about CNN, BBC, NYT, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Daily Kos, Moveon.org, CBS (does “Rathergate” ring a bell?), &c. &c.

    “And organizations like Popular Mechanics have no vested interest in absolving the Bush administration? Au contraire.”

    i) I have lots of cousins. The fact that they’re my cousins doesn’t mean they share my political views. Do all your cousins share your political views?

    ii) Moreover, Benjamin Chertoff denies that he’s a cousin of Michael Chertoff:

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060903/11conspiracy_2.htm

    Have you hired a professional genealogist to trace his family tree?

    iii) The PM expose is not a one-man effort. So you’d have to implicate many of the PM staff in the cover-up:

    http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/158816635X

    Are the other PM contributors also cousins of Michael Chertoff?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve,

    Of course Bush's sexual preferences have no direct bearing on 9/11, I am just making the point that the mainstream media is a corporate lap dog on a short leash. I also am trying to provide evidence that the war in Iraq was a preplanned event, not the necessary reaction to Al Qaeda's devilry. And why hasn't the FBI charged bin Laden? According to the FBI, not enough evidence. But let's just keep trusting our dear leader to protect us and show us the way.

    And don't expect the Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly axis of deception to investigate anything truly damaging to the Neocons. If you read The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson, a book compiled entirely from mainstream sources, you will see a pattern emerge of governmental deception and obfuscation stretching way back and into the present. The links below provide evidence of the corruption of our leaders and the weakness of the media to call them to account. I especially like the interview Rumsfeld gave on Meet the Press where he showed detailed illustrations of the high-tech bunkers Al Qaeda was operating in Afghanistan. Too bad they were never found. Another one for the memory hole.


    The lies currently being used to get us to bomb Iran:

    http://rawstory.com:80/news/2008/IAEA_suspects_fraud_in_evidence_for_1109.html

    Paul O'Neill reveals some inconvenient truths for the Neocons:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inyCkCvqRO0

    Al Qaeda doesn't exist:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ufwvw3GO9Y

    Paul Thompson's exhaustive research can be found here:

    http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

    And on the subject of genealogy, let's not forget Marvin Bush:

    http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/marvin_bush_secrecy_surrounds_role_911.htm

    ReplyDelete
  9. DPW SAID:

    “I am just making the point that the mainstream media is a corporate lap dog on a short leash.”

    The mainstream media isn’t a lapdog for the Bush administration. The media has demonized Bush and his policies for years.

    “I also am trying to provide evidence that the war in Iraq was a preplanned event, not the necessary reaction to Al Qaeda's devilry.”

    There were hawks who regarded Iraq as unfinished business. We know that from dissatisfaction with the aftermath of the Gulf War. That’s old news.

    That doesn’t make it a fait accompli. Their role was purely advisory.

    To go to war, both Congress and the president had to be on board.

    “And why hasn't the FBI charged bin Laden? According to the FBI, not enough evidence.”

    This is war, not a criminal investigation. Try to learn the difference. It’s pretty elementary.

    “But let's just keep trusting our dear leader to protect us and show us the way.”

    You have a lazy habit of imputing false views to your opponents. This was never a question of “trust.”

    The Bush administration wasn’t the only source of information.

    Of course, to immunize your conspiracy theory from falsification, you also have to discredit both the national and international news media, as well as foreign intelligence agencies (, as well as the UN (e.g. Richard Butler, David Kay).

    For you, the only reliable sources of information just happen to coincide with your conspiracy theories.

    “And don't expect the Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly axis of deception to investigate anything truly damaging to the Neocons.”

    I don’t watch/listen to them. Try again.

    “If you read The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson, a book compiled entirely from mainstream sources, you will see a pattern emerge of governmental deception and obfuscation stretching way back and into the present. The links below provide evidence of the corruption of our leaders and the weakness of the media to call them to account.”

    Why should I bother? Your conspiracy theory commits you to a dilemma. If the evil establishment is that all-powerful, then there’s nothing I can do to effectively resist it. So you’re wasting your time. The conundrum of a vast conspiracy theory is that it’s futile to resist the conspiratorial establishment.

    Why don’t you do something useful with your time like perfecting your game of putt-putt golf?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Any Questions?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM

    Gulp.

    ReplyDelete