reply to post by GoodOlDave
I'm not going to follow you down this conspiracy rat hole.
Call what you will, but it is reality.
Why these Israeli conspirators would give a flip about whether a Soviet ship showed up is beyond me since if they're so mad dog trigger happy
that they'll want to sink a US ship to frame the Arabs they're certainly not going to be scared of a Soviet ship;
I like how you use those words, such as "conspirators", as if to dismiss it off-hand. The fact is, it was the Israeli government, not really a
secret cabal of shady men in Israel. Did they conspire? Absolutely, though is it anything out of the ordinary? Apparently not.
As far as the soviet vessel, nobody really expected you to understand. First of all and foremost, a Soviet warship would have been a witness. The
Soviets would have been able to say, "no, those were Israeli jets and gun-boats that sunk the Liberty, not Egyptian."
A little background on the situation:
The Soviets were allied with Egypt (relatively speaking) and this was one of the worries that Israel had, thus Israel needed our protection from a
possible full soviet backing of Egypt and the other Arabs. American officials tried to tell Israel that that an aggressive first strike on Egypt would
pretty much count the US out of the war, as we wouldn't then be able to back Israel in their war. Low and behold, Israel aggressively attacks Egypt
first on June 5, 1967 in what is called Operation Focus (a massive surprise air strike or sucker punch), kicking off the six-day war.
So again, why would it matter that a Soviet ship witnessed the attack? Well, it wouldn't really matter if it was just a case of mistaken identity,
though that it certainly wasn't. Because the Soviets are now a witness to the attack, the Israelis couldn't then blame it on the Arabs. The USSR
would have surely said something, as they too didn't want to have to enter the war.
Common sense. When you are committing a crime or something you shouldn't be doing and that crime or action depends on the criteria of not having
witnesses, your action is then foiled when there are witnesses. It's not rocket-science, here.
I asked how it was a conspiracy and true to form, the answer includes yet another conspiracy, so I think I know how the rest of the
conversation is going to go down.
Dave, do you know what a conspiracy is?
con·spir·a·cy[ kən spírrəssee ]con·spir·a·cies Plural
1. plan to commit illegal act together: a secret plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive act
2. making of agreement by conspirators: the making of a secret plan or agreement to commit an illegal or subversive act
3. group of conspirators: a group of people planning or agreeing in secret to commit an illegal or subversive act
Purposefully and clandestinely attacking an American vessel when you are supposed to be an ally to the US, is certainly a subversive act and any
planning of this act by two or more people, in this case the Israeli government or elements therein, is certainly a conspiracy.
Lets list the reasons why this points away from simple mistaken identity:
The Israelis were jamming American frequencies, according to survivors, one of which was a radio operator.
The survivors make it clear that there is no way that this was a simple case of mistaken identity.
The attack lasted over 1 - 2 hours of sustained bombardments (from the air and sea) and strafing by an array of Israel aircraft and and navy
Unmarked Israeli jets.
A huge American flag waving over the USS Liberty on a bright and clear day, which was also one of the only defenses that ship had, seeing how
America had declared itself nuetral in the conflict. Not to mention that the USS Liberty was clearly a modern American Navy vessel with clear American
Israel apparently tried to leave no witnesses by straifing the deck with machine gun fire and napalm, eventhough no AAA fire was coming at
aircraft. Israel also machine gunned the life-boats, in an apparent effort to leave no witnesses. The only reason why you would napalm the deck of a
vessel, even if it is your truly defined enemy, is to suppress AAA fire, something that Liberty didn't even have.
When the hi-tech vessel managed to squeeze off a mayday call, fighter jets were then launched from a fleet aircraft carrier to assist the USS
Liberty. These fighters were then called off in mid-flight by officials in Washington, an unprecedented move that apparently angered the fleet
command. Never before in history has an American Navy vessel been under attack and a rescue mission was called off.
An investigation or official public inquiry was never conducted, though a plethora of witnesses and evidence abound. Instead, Israel quickly moved
to pay for damages after the attack on the word that the US Senate was considering an inquiry. While the US President and US Congress was on Christmas
vacation. Sadly, most Americans have never even heard of the USS Liberty, even though it is one of the worst attacks on an American Navy vessel since
World War II.
The USS LIberty survivors have never waivered from their side of the story, even after 40+ years, nor have they backed down and still, the majority
of Americans are completely ignorant to the fact that Israel killed, maimed and wounded a large number of American service-members and young heroes,
through a sustained and prolonged deliberate attack on a clearly marked and identified American Navy vessel.
This was a coordinated attack by both sea and air, thus planning was involved, thus a conspiracy, technically speaking.
The only thing I will say before moving on is that a pattern is emerging that the people who subscribe to these "9/11 is an inside job"
claims seem to subscribe to a blizzard of other conspiracies.
Well, considering that almost everyone believes in a conspiracy regarding the attacks on 9/11 (except for many truthers), this statement is
non-seneschal, unfounded and completely false. Many people seeking the truth regarding 9/11, including myself, don't deduce any particular theory
about the attacks, thus we don't conclude with a conspiracy theory. Trusters and people who accept the OS on the other hand, do believe in a
conspiracy theory and they do so by default even. Whether you believe that 19 Arabs with box-cutters committed the attack or the government committed
the attack, you believe in a conspiracy theory. If you don't believe in the OS and you haven't yet deduced responsibility, then you don't believe
in a conspiracy theory regarding the attacks.
It has become painfully obvious that you try to skirt the issues and stifle intellectual debate by dishonest and disingenuous tactics, such as trying
to dismiss valid points by grouping and associating them with other notions or ideas. One can clearly see why you have to do that, and that is because
you don't have legs to stand on by honestly and viably engaging in intellectual debate on the subject matter at hand. When your whole argument is
based on hearsay, unfounded claims, improbabilities and flawed logic, you can only resort to such dirty and disingenuous tactics, I understand.
It's as if once someone is able to accept a runaway train of circular logic as legitimate evidence, then they'll accept runaway circular
logic for pretty much any anythign else.
Actually, that is relevant to the truster side. Many people seeking the truth, simply aren't able to conclude on the illogical and improbably
word of government officials who have not only lied to us countless times before, but are also asking us to "trust them" on things that
simply don't make sense or have such a high improbability, that they are absurd. Official conspiracy theorists are basically buying this wild and out
there theory from a body of people who admittedly refuse to weigh or consider a plethora of evidence.
Many so-called "truthers" on the other-hand, aren't concluding on anything without sound and factual evidence. It is the official conspiracy
theorists accepting "a runaway train of circular evidence, as legitimate evidence". You clearly can't even define what exactly a conspiracy
is, nor can you apparently even see how your argument pertains to yourself and like-minded people who can ignore evidence and come to a conclusion
based on faith, as opposed to those who require sound and factual evidence before coming to a conclusion, such as those who don't simply buy into the
official conspiracy theory, which does require faith.
Then you are either lying through your teeth, or you haven't thought your own conspiracy claims all the way through as you should have. For
even a smidgeon of your conspiracies to be true, it would take a hell of a lot more support infrastructure than just the actual bomb planters to pull
Again, wild assumptions based on illogical and dishonest reasoning. Nobody that I have heard yet, besides you in an indirect way, has ever suggested
that 10,000 people planted bombs in the WTC complex. As far as the large number of people and amount of resources required to pull of such an attack,
the government works classified projects through a system called compartmentalization, a process that would in theory, only require one person
to have the complete picture, though realistically, we could assume that it would be pulled off with a very small number of people, more like in the
neighborhood of less than 100. Everyone else who may or may not have been a part of the planning, wouldn't know what they are working on, as they
would only have a very smal piece of the puzzle and be completely unaware that a puzzle exists, much less other pieces of that puzzle and the people
who may or may not be working on it.
Definition of compartmentalization:
In matters concerning intelligence, whether public or private sector, compartmentalization is the limiting of access to information to persons who
have a need to know it in order to perform certain tasks.
The basis for compartmentalization is the idea that, if fewer people know the details of a mission or task, the risk or likelihood that such
information could be compromised or fall into the hands of the opposition is decreased. Hence, varying levels of clearance within organizations exist.
Yet, even if someone has the highest clearance, certain "eyes only" information may still be restricted to certain operators, even of lower rank. In
intelligence administration, officials believe that it is useful to keep a close watch on "sources and methods" information to prevent disclosure
of the activities and people whose lives they believe to be at risk if such information were to be publicly disclosed or fall into the hands of the
Compartmentalizing is the act of splitting an idea or concept up into (sometimes more or less arbitrary) parts, and trying to enforce thought
processes which are inhibiting attempts to allow these parts to mix together again.
Come on Dave, you know better than that.
Furthermore, many so-called "truthers" or people who require evidence to come to a conclusion, such as myself, don't claim that the government did
do 9/11, only that it is a possibility and such a notion should be considered and investigated. We may believe that evidence surely points that way,
but unlike official conspiracy theorists, we need a basis of factual evidence to come to a conclusion.
For even a smidgeon of your conspiracies to be true, it would take a hell of a lot more support infrastructure than just the actual bomb
planters to pull it off.
Actually, that logic applies to the official conspiracy theory. It would take a lot more than just 19 Arab hijackers to knock three buildings down
with two aircraft, one building that wasn't even hit by an aircraft and was instead across the street and a building over from the towers that were.
It would also take a lot more that a band of al Qaeda misfits to successfully enter the country, shake off their surveillance, take flight lessons
here in the states and hijack multiple aircraft over a span of hours without being intercepted. Even if that is the case, then they would have to have
known that their likelihood of success was extremely improbable, yet they went for it anyway?
In order for their attack to work, their would have to be multiple errors and failures in our security infrastructure, to a point that would make them
the luckiest people to ever grace the face of the planet, yet in spite of those improbable odds, they carried on and successfully beat those odds.
According to Carl Sagan, with whom I completely agree (according to the following sentiments), extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and
the official conspiracy theory is an extraordinary claim, yet it hasn't even been proven. Instead, we are asked to basically trust the word of
government that it didn't happen in that way, even in spite of the fact that they admittedly won't consider any other possibility than their already
So, it all boils down to an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence or at the very least, any evidence at all, as opposed to their word,
making such an extraordinary claim, a faith-based one. Before you make the other wild and unfounded claims that I believe in an extraordinary claim
concerning 9/11, such as alien death-rays or no-planes, I'll just remind you that I have never got behind such an argument, ever and I dare to you to
cite anywhere where that you think I have.
Claiming that the official conspiracy theory isn't proven or even improbable, is hardly extraordinary, as is stating that their is evidence against
the OS, such as forensic and eye-witness. You may not agree with this evidence, as is your opinion, but you can't deny that it exists.
The official conspiracy theory is however an extraordinary claim and most of it is based on the faith of the people to accept it, considering that
they claim most or the majority of the evidence to either be secret or lost, or they simply ignore it, such as the case with the forensic and
When making your illogical claims, you should probably check to make sure that it doesn't apply or is more relevant to your own side of the argument.
The point here is that it isn't me making these wild claims, it is the official conspiracy theory. My simple and ordinary claims are that the
official conspiracy theory is contrived based on faith, ignorance and improbabilities.
Eye-witnesses, whether you agree with their testimony or not, have been ignored and their testimony not even considered, thus ignorance. Redacted
claims in the commission report and secret testimony (such as the case with Bush and Cheney, though certainly not limited there), equals faith on the
part of trusters. Unprecedented phenomenon, regardless of the environment variables, equals extraordinary claims. These are just but a few and in
order for me to list everything, this thread simply doesn't have the room, nor does my time.
It's one thing to conjure up these make believe comic book plots as a mental exercise, but it's another thing entirely to drag your fantasia
kicking and screaming into the real word.
See above. The only claims made by me and other like me, is that the official conspiracy is lacking proof and probability, while the comic book plots
-or any plots at all- are brought forth by official conspiracy theorists such as yourself. Between the two of us, you are the only one claiming that
you know what happened and you are the only one putting forth an unfounded plot.
Your credibility is sinking further and further the more you need to rely on hyperbole to keep your conspiracy claims alive.
Actually, my credibility is intact, while I don't believe you have even earned any at all. The only one making conspiracy claims here is you, though
I do consider a conspiracy. You however, are claiming the conspiracy, not me.
The war in Iraq was over WMD, not over 9/11, while the Islamic fundamentalists and their backers were all from midldle class and wealthy
families and who were all highly educated.
Well considering that the Bush administration claimed a connection between the two, we can at least say in part, that the Iraq war was due to 9/11.
This is in spite of the fact that the WMD claim also turned out to be false.
At what point will it finally dawn on you trusters that those damned fool conspiracy web sites you're getting all this drivel from are pulling
Considering that you are the truster and we are the ones that don't trust the official conspiracy theory, this statement is false and
dishonest like most of your post. It is you believing those "conspiracy websites", not me. I'm only demanding proof and seeking answers to the many
loose ends that in which the official conspiracy theorists ignore in order to fit their pre-conceived theory. Unlike the trusters who are basing their
beliefs on faith, I [we] am [are] not. While I don't trust anyone's "word" on the events of 9/11, the trusters require such faith.
It is clear that you are trying to avoid or stifle intellectual debate by dishonest and disingenuous tactics, such as associating wild and unfounded
claims to anyone who demands proof, evidence or answers to many of the questions concerning 9/11. Just because someone requires a level of proof
before deducing a conclusion or just because people aren't willing to ignore a mountain of evidence that may or may not point to another outcome, it
doesn't mean that they believe in alien death-rays, no-planes or anything else your imagination can conjure up. It is clear that between the two of
us, you are the only one who believes in an extraordinary conspiracy theory concerning the actual attacks on 9/11. Maybe you should stop blindly
believing those darned websites and embracing or propagating ignorance. You then might be able to conjure up even a slight amount of credibility.
Dave, you are making extraordinary claims and expecting people to believe those extraordinary conspiracy theories without the evidence to back it up
or with a mountain of evidence that is just lingering there, basically giving the bird to your wild conspiracy theories. Evidence that you don't even
consider and instead, try to dismiss by citing irrelevant disinformation or other wild claims. You are basically pushing forward wild, unfounded and
outlandish claims (such as the official conspiracy theory), then citing other wild, unfounded and outlandish claims (such as the "no-planes",
"alien death-rays" and other like minded) in an effort to back up your original absurd conspiracy theory and to suggest that your outlandish
conspiracy theory is correct. Do you really not see the absurdity in this?