Thread: 9/11

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

What exactly do you think that that incident is an "example" of? I mean, I've heard various explanations for the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, but I'm not sure that I've ever heard it described as a "false flag operation" or a "casus belli" or whatever. The attack may have been a sort of "conspiracy" to make it more difficult for the U.S. to interfere in the already-planned Israeli campaign against Syria, but that's a rather different type of "conspiracy theory" than the ones floated about 9/11. (I mean, no one claims that the USS Liberty was attacked as an excuse for Israel to go to war against that the Arabs, since the Six-Day-War was already into its third or fourth day! Thus, whatever the reason was for the attack, it can't have been a "false flag operation.")

P.S. I'm inclined to believe that the attack can be explained as "accidental misidentification in the fog of war" -- mainly because it seems to me that the small strategic benefits that Israel might've gained by disabling the ship would be significantly outweighed by the risks to Israel in attacking an American military vessel. In other words, I'm not convinced that there was a believable motive for Israel to attack the USS Liberty on purpose -- there was just too much danger for not enough gain, IMHO.

It doesn't look like you have researched or read much on this topic. Else, you wouldn't be asking these questions. I suggest you research somewhat and read some of the articles out there. There's also some videos if you also want something to watch and listen to.

The USS Liberty Cover-Up
'The USS Liberty': America's Most Shameful Secret
USS Liberty - Israeli Pilot Speaks Up

The USS Liberty

USS Liberty Dead in the Water | Watch Free Documentary Online

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Why did Israel attack USS Liberty?

US President LBJ Ordered USS Liberty Sunk as Pretext for War - YouTube

There's a lot more. The excuses given don't fly.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

I suggest you research somewhat and read some of the articles out there.

I clicked on just one of the links arbitrarily and read it. BBC NEWS | Middle East | Why did Israel attack USS Liberty?
It concludes with:

"If I could prove the Liberty was attacked in a premeditated fashion, I would write it - it would be a great historical scoop - but the truth is far more mundane."

I might be wrong, but from the tone of you earlier message I assumed the Israeli/US government conspiracy was a proven thing, but the source you've just cited leaves the question mark, to say the least...

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I clicked on just one of the links arbitrarily and read it. BBC NEWS | Middle East | Why did Israel attack USS Liberty?
It concludes with:

"If I could prove the Liberty was attacked in a premeditated fashion, I would write it - it would be a great historical scoop - but the truth is far more mundane."

I might be wrong, but from the tone of you earlier message I assumed the Israeli/US government conspiracy was a proven thing, but the source you've just cited leaves the question mark, to say the least...

Arbitrarily, really?

So, you chose to 'randomly' choose the mainstream link I posted and a quote from some 'historian?' Yes, I believe you.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Arbitrarily, really?

So, you chose to 'randomly' choose the mainstream link I posted and a quote from some 'historian?' Yes, I believe you.

Well, you don't have to and, to tell the truth, there's no way I could make you to.

However, consider that I posted my reply 23 minutes after you posted yours. So, even if you assume I read your post right after you published it and it took me no time to write mine, you still believe it only took me 23 minutes to visit all 7 links you posted and read/watch them all, carefully picking up the only context that would convey my biased opinion... I must be a super-researching-hero, must I not?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Well, you don't have to and, to tell the truth, there's no way I could make you to.

However, consider that I posted my reply 23 minutes after you posted yours. So, even if you assume I read your post right after you published it and it took me no time to write mine, you still believe it only took me 23 minutes to visit all 7 links you posted and read/watch them all, carefully picking up the only context that would convey my biased opinion... I must be a super-researching-hero, must I not?

No, I don't think you took even 5 minutes to visit any of those sites.

I figured you chose to focus on the mainstream link and pick out a 'view' that supports your bias.

Btw, one of the other links is collected from an article by a Toronto newspaper editor.

The main point I was trying to make is that after examining all the reports, evidence, first-hand accounts and various perspectives, it's obvious to me, that there is some sort of coverup and potential for a false flag event to have occurred.

So, I question your motives and bias when you single out a quote and perspective from some Israeli historian who concurs with official reports. Is it feasible that academics and official investigators will most likely side with the Government accounts?

I think it's reasonable to be skeptical of such opinions when the available evidence seems to be at odds with the official story. I likened the situation to 9/11. When you look at all the discrepancies and inconsistencies of the NIST reports, then it should be natural to have a double take. Instead, most people will ignore it and concentrate on what supports their bias.

So, out of 20 odd minutes that you supposedly took to go over those links, why choose a source that has no direct connection to the event? 'Peculiar.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

No, I don't think you took even 5 minutes to visit any of those sites.
[...] why choose a source that has no direct connection to the event?

Well, I guess, the second sentence somewhat contradicts the first. It's either I spent 5 minutes to visit any of those sites and was able to choose the source that I wanted, or I haven't spent 5 minutes and then I was unable choose a source since I haven't even spent 5 minutes to visit any of those sites. Only one of the above might be true.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

[...] after examining all the reports, evidence, first-hand accounts and various perspectives, it's obvious to me [...]

Well, I'm not in a position to question your research and deductive abilities, but something (the former part of my post, actually) is telling me I could still reserve the right to be skeptical and not trust your educated conclusions blindly.

Seriously, though... you see, in my opinion, some of the conspiracy theories have a significant logical flaw which they don't like to expose. (Yay! The conspiracy of the conspiracy theories; how do you like that?) They all go mainly like that:

1. Oh, the 'official version' provided by the government to explain X fails to explain Y and Z.
2. Therefore, the government is lying.
3. Therefore, the government wants to hide something.
4. The 'inevitable' conclusion: the government itself is responsible for causing X.

In that step, the conclusion is not inevitable. There might be other causes. A somewhat better conclusion is that the government (i.e. the finite set of politicians) cannot make any good use of knowing who caused X. Or it can foresee bad uses.

What do you think of that?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Well, I guess, the second sentence somewhat contradicts the first. It's either I spent 5 minutes to visit any of those sites and was able to choose the source that I wanted, or I haven't spent 5 minutes and then I was unable choose a source since I haven't even spent 5 minutes to visit any of those sites. Only one of the above might be true.

Well, I'm not in a position to question your research and deductive abilities, but something (the former part of my post, actually) is telling me I could still reserve the right to be skeptical and not trust your educated conclusions blindly.

Seriously, though... you see, in my opinion, some of the conspiracy theories have a significant logical flaw which they don't like to expose. (Yay! The conspiracy of the conspiracy theories; how do you like that?) They all go mainly like that:

1. Oh, the 'official version' provided by the government to explain X fails to explain Y and Z.
2. Therefore, the government is lying.
3. Therefore, the government wants to hide something.
4. The 'inevitable' conclusion: the government itself is responsible for causing X.

In that step, the conclusion is not inevitable. There might be other causes. A somewhat better conclusion is that the government (i.e. the finite set of politicians) cannot make any good use of knowing who caused X. Or it can foresee bad uses.

What do you think of that?

No contradiction as the first comment was a joke. Hence, the smiley emoticon. At least, I hope you spent more than 5 mins.

Anyway, I'll try to answer your inquiry...????

I think you forgot #5!

5. In response to #1-#4, it is reasonable to suspect the probability and/or prospects of a coverup or conspiracy increase

Do you think 'all' conspiracy theories are postulated this way (via your list)? I don't think so. At least, it would open itself to dispel fairly quickly.

(and, perhaps #6 is: 6. The Government has an extensive history of deception, lies, deceit and unethical behavior when it comes to the people. Get the drift?).

I think your simplistic and thematic list fails. If that's what you take from every conspiracy theory you encounter, then perhaps you don't investigate or research thoroughly enough. Maybe 5 to 20 minutes is insufficient for you.

Thus, your list is too brief. It's true, there can be inadequate or incomplete conclusions but I was not talking about a generic theory. I presented some links for the USS Liberty conspiracy and Marcus and I added a video for 9/11. Do you think we both concluded or speculated based on only your list #1 through #4? I don't think so, dude.

You omit the reason many people speculate or suggest a conspiracy. Inadequate reports, peculiar findings that are contrary to the Government's according to other experts and lack of neutrality. One could go on but it's much more complicated than the presentation you put forth.