What problem do you guys have with consipracy theories?

hayekianxyz replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 8:39 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

LibertyStudent, I don't see this way of discussion as very fruitful, so let me apologize if I'm not answering the way you wanted me to. I don't wish to prove you wrong, rather, I'd ideally like to come to some sort of understanding with you.

You write that I'm strawmanning you when I talk of conspiracies taking the focus off of what is important. Clearly, I don't really wish to say that 9/11 truthers are telling you "don't look at Saudi Arabia, look at NYC". Rather, my point is that one can't legitimately argue that a) 9/11 was the result of US intervention in Saudi Arabia amongst other places and b) 9/11 was the result of some bad elements in the US government. Likewise, I don't literally think that 9/11 truthers are saying "don't look at the agricultural industry and the rent seeking that goes on there, look at how the US government blows up its own buildings in order to start a war!". The point I was making was that once you're convinced that the US government is killing thousands of US citizens and destroying two monuments in order to start a war, the lobbying of farmers looks at bit mundane. The difference is that one can be far more sure of rent seeking by the agricultural industry than one can be of mass conspiracy (almost by its very nature). Also, rent seeking and special priviledge require far fewer, and more realistic assumptions. IOW, in order to see the explanatory power in the theory of rent seeking all I need to assume is that individuals respond to incentives, whether this be in the market place or the political arena.

liberty student:

Which is also a strawman.  It's just a conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories.

Perhaps most here would see things differently. But for a lot of people I see that the theories involving 9/11 aren't focused on the government per se but the Bush administration. Now, if you're willing to let me make a few generalizations that'd be great. The point is that most conspiracy theories rest on the premise that government can be reformed and that people in the state are either good or bad and the success of government depends on what they are. I'd reject this, and I don't think you would. You think that people in the state can be bad or very bad. If they're bad then you get what usually goes on, if they're very bad then you get 9/11, Pearl Harbour or whatever else.

My point is that people in the government are neither uniquely bad nor uniquely good. They're just economizing individuals who respond to incentives and wish to maximise profit. They don't need to plan 9/11 to do this, they just need to find some way to benefit from it. It's a very well established fact that Hitler had nothing to do with the burning of the Reichstag, he benefited nonetheless.

liberty student:

I don't think it can't be disproven.  Whether it is true or not is another matter.  But conspiracies are not like religion, they don't exist in a realm beyond our perception of reality.

My point is that even ignoring whether or not conspiracy theories stand up to the facts (I don't think they do, but Poptech is better at this than I am) they're always going to be more speculative than factual. Of course I think that conspiracy theories can be proven, I just don't think they're very easy to do and as such they're not really worth our effort. I'd far rather trace out the specific consequences of 9/11 and how the US government and other rent seekers used it to profit than spend my time speculating on how exactly the government managed to sneak bombs in there in the first place. The fact is that one can aid our understanding of government, one won't.

liberty student:

Another strawman.  Now I will say this, We Are Change, which is a "truther"-esque organization, works its ass off for the victims of 9/11 and the first responders the government won't provide aid for.  So if We Are Change is a truther organization as you define truther (still not obvious) then you're wrong that they take it less seriously.  Many family members of people who died on 9/11 are in the "truth movement".  They are the ones who forced the 9/11 Commission.  Not the media, not liberal democrats, not politicos and not college professors.  The victims families.

Fair enough, you've sort of falsified my claim. Which was, nonetheless, a generalization that holds true in any case. Irrespective of this is the fact that you're still claiming that various people have been responsible for the murder of 3000 Americans, now, I wouldn't take this lightly if I were them.

liberty student:

Rothbard, DiLorenzo, Woods and Riggenbach might disagree with you.

 How is their "revisionist history" particularly Austrian??

Angurse replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 8:56 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

GilesStratton:

My point is that people in the government are neither uniquely bad nor uniquely good. They're just economizing individuals who respond to incentives and wish to maximise profit. They don't need to plan 9/11 to do this, they just need to find some way to benefit from it. It's a very well established fact that Hitler had nothing to do with the burning of the Reichstag, he benefited nonetheless.

I'm sure one could still follow Public Choice theory while still maintaining that bad people in government exist.

liberty student replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 9:07 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Natalie:

I believe in it. Is that enough for you, Mr. Inquisitor?

That's fine.  You were equivocating on the definition of force or coercion or aggresion before.  If you unequivocally oppose the initiation of force, then indeed you are for the NAP.  I don't do this to cut you down, but to make sure I know your position.  Poptech does not support the NAP.  It's sort of important in any philosophical debate (and 9/11 is as much about facts as ideology and philosophy) to know where we stand.  I can't reason with someone willing to use a gun to get their way.

Natalie:

Speaking about dodging... do you believe that terrorists commit aggression?

I don't believe I dodged that.  As long as we're talking about actual terrorists (per the definition of terrorism) yes, they commit aggression.  But a suicide bomber attacking occupying forces is not a terrorist.  He believes he is committing an act of self-defense.  That's essentially Robert Pape's research.

Natalie:

You posted that clip to show that no one believes in Bin Laden. This shows that a lot of people do (whether he's behind al Qaeda or not).

Re-read what you posted.  Read it carefully.  And I posted that clip to show that not everyone believes in Bin Laden.  I know people believe in him.  That's why they support torture and mass murder in Iraq.

Natalie:

Negligence, incompetence, corruption, some "state secrets" they want to hide?

Seems you want it both ways.  You want to believe the state's official story, but then you want to claim they lie and hide negligence, incompetence and corruption.  That is classic doublethink.

Either the US government is credible or not.  That is basically the fundamental claim of truthers whether they are into controlled demolition or no planes, or just asking questions.  They don't believe the official account.  They think the government is lying.  Seems to me, you agree the government is capable of lying, and perhaps we should even expect that they lie.

Hmm?

liberty student replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 9:13 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Poptech:

No I'm not watching 5 hours of a deposition, I have more important things to do.

Good, then I hope you don't invest much more time on debunking here.

Poptech:

You are making the claims of a "conspiracy", show me in her words from the deposition where she is making this claim of conspiracy that is not an allegation of incompetence, corruption charges or security breaches.

Again, I have provided the sources, you have complete access to them.  If you refuse to look them up, then you can't put the onus back on me.  I am quoting from the public record.  Ignorance is not an acceptable argument in rebuttal.

Poptech:

If you cannot backup your claims, don't make them.

They are backed up.  You refuse to look at the sources.  Not my problem.

I told you, you wouldn't be able to debunk this.  I wasn't counting on your laziness, just the veracity of the record.  You really should watch the deposition, Ron Paul's 2008 campaign legal council Bruce Fein grills Edmonds as the hostile interrogator in the deposition.  Lots of fun.

wilderness replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 9:21 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Either the US government is credible or not.  They don't believe the official account.  They think the government is lying.  

That is the huge in-road into this whole event.  The government most definitely botched the whole investigation - actually lack thereof.  It's very difficult in the factual pursuance, but that's only because, I think, the government will not let any true justice rein.

liberty student replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 9:21 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

Personally, I find statements like this offensive.

Good.  Hopefully you don't repeat your behaviour of about 10 days ago.  That was really offensive to several people.

wilderness:

Who are these mysterious "more than" that "picked up on" this *Russian*.

Don't insinuate that anyone has a problem with Natalie because she is Russian, that's really lame.

wilderness replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 9:27 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

wilderness:

Personally, I find statements like this offensive.

Good.  Hopefully you don't repeat your behaviour of about 10 days ago.  That was really offensive to several people.

thanks for the slap on the wrist, but I do have a stubborn side for truth as I pointed out.

liberty student:

wilderness:

Who are these mysterious "more than" that "picked up on" this *Russian*.

Don't insinuate that anyone has a problem with Natalie because she is Russian, that's really lame.

then I misread this.  my mistake - and I'm very glad it was a mistake.  dialogue is a great thing, it rids misconceptions

liberty student replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 9:33 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

GilesStratton:

I don't wish to prove you wrong, rather, I'd ideally like to come to some sort of understanding with you.

If I am wrong, prove me wrong.  I want to be correct, not "right" in the win the argument sense.

I skipped your first long paragraph, I don't think you've communicated anything to me.  This isn't about rent seeking.  It's about justice for hundreds of thousands of civilians who have been killed.

GilesStratton:

My point is that people in the government are neither uniquely bad nor uniquely good.

That's complete nonsense.

GilesStratton:

It's a very well established fact that Hitler had nothing to do with the burning of the Reichstag

That's news to me.

GilesStratton:

My point is that even ignoring whether or not conspiracy theories stand up to the facts (I don't think they do, but Poptech is better at this than I am)

Which is sad, because he can only deal with the really far gone like onebornfree, or strawmen.  He can't actually deal with any legitimate research into the public record.

GilesStratton:

 How is their "revisionist history" particularly Austrian??

What a ridiculous question.  Have you not taken in any of their historical analysis?  Have you not watched Woods and DiLorenzo's lecture series here at LvMI?

Poptech replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 9:37 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

I spent 5 hours watching the video tape.  You read it, or watch the videotape.  I'm not here to do your research for you.  You've got everything at your fingertips.  Do the work.  Stop being lazy.

I search for the word "conspiracy" it came up ZERO times. So please provide me with her words that state a conspiracy and is not alleging incompetence, corruption charges or security breaches that you are twisting. Backup your claim. Me watching the video doesn't support you claim, only you providing evidence does.

liberty student replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 9:40 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Poptech:

Me watching the video doesn't support you claim, only you providing evidence does.

I spent 5 hours watching the video tape.  You read it, or watch the videotape.  I'm not here to do your research for you.  You've got everything at your fingertips.  Do the work.  Stop being lazy.

Claiming ignorance is not an argument.

hayekianxyz replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 9:52 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

OK, I'm getting the feeling this might be best if cut off "prematurely", but I'll answer anyway.

liberty student:

I skipped your first long paragraph, I don't think you've communicated anything to me.  This isn't about rent seeking.  It's about justice for hundreds of thousands of civilians who have been killed.

This has everything to do with rent seeking and foreign interventions. I entirely agree that on one level it's only reasonable to want to provide justice for the families of those killed. However, it's also reasonable to want to provide justice for those who are dying of cancer and don't have to resources to pay for an operation. The fact is, our time and other resources are scarce. You can say that the US government was to blame for 9/11 because it decided to go into the Saudi Arabia and support this with clear-cut factual evidence. On the other hand, you can devote huge amounts of time speculating about what chemicals the government used to bring down the Twin Towers, who was involved and who is being incorrectly framed. In spite of an intellectual division of labour there are returns that diminish with exceeding haste in some areas of research, I believe conspiracy theories are one of these.

liberty student:

That's complete nonsense.

OK, you can say that. Of course, I expect to see some empirical evidence backing this up since it is ultimately an empirical claim. If you wish to cite a study that shows that public sector employees are more likely to mutilate their children, hit their wives or shoot up every other day, go ahead. Until then, I'm going to have to work with the presumption that you're speaking nonsense.

liberty student:

GilesStratton:

It's a very well established fact that Hitler had nothing to do with the burning of the Reichstag

That's news to me.

Really? Well, then you're obviously not aware of the substantial amount of scholarship on this subject. Keep in mind, I'm expressing the same sentiments as people who are far closer to your position than they are to mine (Gordon, for example).

liberty student:

GilesStratton:

 How is their "revisionist history" particularly Austrian??

What a ridiculous question.  Have you not taken in any of their historical analysis?  Have you not watched Woods and DiLorenzo's lecture series here at LvMI?

I've read two of Wood's books concerning history and listened to plenty of his lectures. I'm also a huge fan of Higgs. In regards to the former, I don't see how he's unearthed any "conspiracies" and in regards to the latter his work on government has been in the tradition of Public Choice theory, not Austrian economics. In fact, I don't even see how Austrian economics can unearth conspiracies since it's area of focus is essentially the market. Still, I'm waiting for some specific examples and you've not exactly been forthcoming.

hayekianxyz replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 9:56 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Angurse:

GilesStratton:

My point is that people in the government are neither uniquely bad nor uniquely good. They're just economizing individuals who respond to incentives and wish to maximise profit. They don't need to plan 9/11 to do this, they just need to find some way to benefit from it. It's a very well established fact that Hitler had nothing to do with the burning of the Reichstag, he benefited nonetheless.

I'm sure one could still follow Public Choice theory while still maintaining that bad people in government exist.

I don't doubt that for a second. However, I find it odd that one could find explanatory power in the teachings of Public Choice and believe that either the government does bad things because it's composed of bad people or that there is a significantly greater occurance of "bad" people in the government than in the market. Since, as far as I can tell, Public Choice began with the rejection of the premise that government employees are anything other than "rational" maximizing individuals like market actors are.

Poptech replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 10:00 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

I spent 5 hours watching the video tape.  You read it, or watch the videotape.  I'm not here to do your research for you.  You've got everything at your fingertips.  Do the work.  Stop being lazy.

Claiming ignorance is not an argument.

So you are unable to support your claim and refuse to thus I don't believe you. When you are willing to back up your claims let me know.

onebornfree replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 10:05 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Liberty student: "he can only deal with the really far gone like onebornfree"

Thanks for the singling out of yours truly for a "special mention"  there ,  but you forgot to include Dr. Reynolds etc. in your grouping of "the really far gone". Shame on you!                            I demand a re-count!

And for the record, regarding this PT entity , he/she/it has not "dealt" with me at all with any rationality - only bad manners, scoffing, bombastic  foaming at the mouth  vitriol and attempted browbeating/coralling/ heading off of "the herd" , to the point that I informed "it" that I would no longer respond to "its" tiresome, empty [yet highly entertaining, like NPR or "The O'Reilly Factor" ] posts.

liberty student replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 10:05 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

GilesStratton:

This has everything to do with rent seeking and foreign interventions.

Not as you understand it.

GilesStratton:

I entirely agree that on one level it's only reasonable to want to provide justice for the families of those killed. However, it's also reasonable to want to provide justice for those who are dying of cancer and don't have to resources to pay for an operation.

Are you equating cancer with being shot or bombed?

GilesStratton:

You can say that the US government was to blame for 9/11 because it decided to go into the Saudi Arabia and support this with clear-cut factual evidence.

I didn't make that claim and I won't.  It is a strawman.  I have no idea why you are participating in this discussion, if you don't even know the positions of the parties participating.

GilesStratton:

On the other hand, you can devote huge amounts of time speculating about what chemicals the government used to bring down the Twin Towers, who was involved and who is being incorrectly framed.

Another strawman.  Are you going to post anything relevant?

GilesStratton:

In spite of an intellectual division of labour there are returns that diminish with exceeding haste in some areas of research, I believe conspiracy theories are one of these.

Your subjective morality differs from mine.  That's not exactly a revelation, now is it?  I think we all know that you're not a libertarian, and you don't support the NAP.  It's no shock that you don't see much point in pursuing justice.

GilesStratton:

I don't see how he's unearthed any "conspiracies"

Did I claim that those Austrians are conspiracy theorists?  I said they were historical revisionists.  They apply Austrian and libertarian analysis to re-evaluate the popular histories from an anti-state perspective.

GilesStratton:

In fact, I don't even see how Austrian economics can unearth conspiracies since it's area of focus is essentially the market.

You confuse austrianism with being exclusively about economics, and not classic liberalism.  Check out the site tagline in case you forgot that Austrianism (at least here at LvMI) is a lot thicker than some guys publishing papers in economic journals.

liberty student replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 10:08 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Poptech:

So you are unable to support your claim and refuse to thus I don't believe you.

I never expected you to believe me.  That is why you made false claims I responded to in my 7:53PM EST post.  You're not interested in the truth.  You're interested in googling to debunk people.  I'm just using your responses to me as an opportunity to post information for the lurkers and to show how ridiculous defending the (truly) undefendable really is.

liberty student replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 10:14 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:

Thanks for the singling out of yours truly for a "special mention"  there ,  but you forgot to include Dr. Reynolds etc. in your grouping of "the really far gone". Shame on you!                            I demand a re-count!

I haven't listened to the interview yet.  So you are nutjob #1 for now.

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:

And for the record, regarding this PT entity , he/she/it has not "dealt" with me at all with any rationality - only bad manners, scoffing, bombastic  foaming at the mouth  vitriol and attempted browbeating/coralling/ heading off of "the herd" , to the point that I informed "it" that I would no longer respond to "its" tiresome, empty [yet highly entertaining, like NPR or "The O'Reilly Factor" ] posts.

That's what conservatives do.  I went through it all through the Ron Paul campaign.  Everyone who supported Ron Paul was pro-terrorist, pro-islam, truther, troofer, paultard etc.

These are guys who live by googling for debunker sites to refute information.  Stun them with anything that is public record, testimony, investigation by the government, and they turtle.  While some truthers may believe things I think are ridiculous, generally truthers are better informed than debunkers.  Which is why debunkers have to rely on caricatures and strawmen to have something to debunk (think Popular Mechanics).

At least Natalie knows some of the history of foreign policy, although it is very one sided.  Most debunkers don't have any conception of larger dynamics or context than the arguments they refute.

Angurse replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 10:19 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

GilesStratton:

I don't doubt that for a second. However, I find it odd that one could find explanatory power in the teachings of Public Choice and believe that either the government does bad things because it's composed of bad people or that there is a significantly greater occurance of "bad" people in the government than in the market. Since, as far as I can tell, Public Choice began with the rejection of the premise that government employees are anything other than "rational" maximizing individuals like market actors are.

Nothing about being "bad" implies the rejection of rational though. I think its perfectly fair to believe that because of the very nature of government (power) its more likely to attract "bad" people. I think some have even argued for the historical case for the state being created by criminals. I think Public Choice explains why the government would take advantage of the 9/11 attacks or any crisis, however it certainly doesn't disprove that people within the government could have known about the attacks beforeand or had some deliberate role in them.

hayekianxyz replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 10:29 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

LibertyStudent, I don't see much point continuing now. A few concluding remarks:

1. The gist of my argument is that the explanatory power of conspiracy theories is quite low. The benefits of conspiracy theories are lower than the opportunity cost (other forms of research) since the former will always involve a large degree of speculation. You can, if you choose, run with conspiracy theories. However, it's far more wise to accept the official explanation and work from there, since even with the official explanation you can said with a fairly high degree of certainty that unintended consequences of government actions led to the deaths of thousands of people and that the US military industrial complex had a large part in going to the war in Iraq. You don't need any theories about the malevolence (sp?) of GWB or Dick Cheney for this, just general public choice theory and empirical evidence that is far easier to come by than anything you'll find in conspiracy theories.
2. Austrian economics concerns just that, economics. To the extent that it concerns philosophy it does so either in relation to the tools necessary for economic analysis or the insights it can provide for political and ethical philosophy. Whilst history can be intepreted through the lenses of Austrian economics (and its counterpart, Public Choice theory) it is entirely value free. Besides the superiority that Austrianism confers on the market (and even this is debateable) and the political views of most Austrian economists, there is no relationship between Austrian economics and classic liberalism or libertarianism. The proclamations of the LvMI don't change that, they don't have a monopoly on Mises, let alone Austrian economics.
3. I don't appreciate smears on your behalf. I would say that I am very concerned with justice, as are many political and ethical philosophers who reject the NAP on the grounds that it is intellectually inadequate. If you wish to continue serious discussion, please, do not implicate my character.
4. For future reference, quote bombs aren't the method most conducive to discourse of any kind. If understanding is what you value, you'd do better to drop your preconceptions and partake in honest, and open, debate.

onebornfree replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 10:35 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

" I haven't listened to the interview yet.  So you are nutjob #1 for now."

Thank you - I shall wear my badge with pride!

liberty student replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 10:39 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

GilesStratton:

However, it's far more wise to accept the official explanation and work from there

I'm not interested in compromising on the truth.  You may be able to accept a lie under the premise of pragmatism, but I cannot.

GilesStratton:

I don't appreciate smears on your behalf. I would say that I am very concerned with justice, as are many political and ethical philosophers who reject the NAP on the grounds that it is intellectually inadequate. If you wish to continue serious discussion, please, do not implicate my character.

I didn't smear you.  It's just that the truth is rather distasteful.  Since you went off Hoppe, you have shown no indication you have a moral compass.  Which is fine.  I'm not judging you.  But I am not going to pretend that you're a libertarian either.  You're not, and you know you are not.  So please spare me the false indignation.

GilesStratton:

The proclamations of the LvMI don't change that

At LvMI, LvMI proclamations matter.  At LvMI, Rothbard matters.  At LvMI, libertarianism or at least classic liberalism, matters.  If you don't like that, or you don't respect that, then perhaps LvMI is not for you.

GilesStratton:

If understanding is what you value, you'd do better to drop your preconceptions and partake in honest, and open, debate.

I wasn't aware that quote bombs are dishonest.

Poptech replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 10:47 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

But it's a known fact that the FBI knew in advance.  That's from the 9/11 Commission Report IIRC.

The FBI knew when, how and where the attacks were going to happen? Please support this with evidence from a non-truther site.

liberty student:

It is a strawman, because they do not all hold homogenous views.  For example, the no-planers and several 9/11 activists hold nothing but contempt for Alex Jones and his views.  Where does Jesse Ventura fit into this?  He holds views similar to Alex Jones, without pointing the finger of blame, engaging in inquiry.  I think Charlie Sheen is the same.

No it is not, they all hold one of two positions...

1. They believe the "government" (who this is, is never explained) knew about the attacks and let them happen

2. They believe the "government" (who this is, is never explained) planned and executed the attacks.

Alex Jones has stated numerous times that "911 was an inside job", Jesse Ventura thinks "911 was an inside job", Charlie Sheen thinks "911 was an inside job".

Yes they hold the same conspiratorial premise.

liberty student:

As stated, it's public record that the FBI knew, and the White House was warned (Condi Rice testified that they were warned), and they did absolutely nothing to prevent it.  You can go on YouTube and watch Rice's testimony.  And I am pretty sure the 9/11 Commission report is available as a PDF.

Please enlighten me on exactly what they "knew". Stop stating vague nonsense and lets get the facts. You keep making nonsensical claims you cannot back up and have yet to back ONE of them up.

liberty student:

It's not a matter of belief.  It seems to me that people who won't acknowledge what is on record, are the ones clinging to some sort of belief, instead of being honest and rational.

Really? Yet you cannot produce a single sentence from ANY record to substantiate your claims. Stop bullshitting and backup your position.

liberty student:

I never expected you to believe me.  That is why you made false claims I responded to in my 7:53PM EST post.  You're not interested in the truth.  You're interested in googling to debunk people.  I'm just using your responses to me as an opportunity to post information for the lurkers and to show how ridiculous defending the (truly) undefendable really is.

Yes I have a problem with bullshitters.

None of my claims were false. You don't post information, you post propaganda statements not supported by any evidence. You then tell me to find something you "know" is there. What a joke. I can search any online document, you tell me which one and what sentence. Now please show me the evidence. Prove it!

This is a typical conspiracy theory tactic, making vague unsubstantiated claims to unsupported references.

Poptech replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 11:00 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

These are guys who live by googling for debunker sites to refute information.  Stun them with anything that is public record, testimony, investigation by the government, and they turtle.  While some truthers may believe things I think are ridiculous, generally truthers are better informed than debunkers.  Which is why debunkers have to rely on caricatures and strawmen to have something to debunk (think Popular Mechanics).

But you haven't "stunned" anybody with anything. You have yet to produce a quote or sentence supporting your statements. Popular Mechanics absolutely destroyed numerous loonytoon 911 conspiracy theories.

Debunking The 9/11 Myths (Popular Mechanics)

Natalie replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 11:33 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

If you unequivocally oppose the initiation of force, then indeed you are for the NAP. 

I do for my personal actions, but I can't guarantee infallibility :)

I'm also more lenient toward others, strange as it sounds.

liberty student:

But a suicide bomber attacking occupying forces is not a terrorist.  He believes he is committing an act of self-defense.

That maybe be true, but it's really strange way to defend oneself, don't you think?

What if he kills some of his own people along with the occupiers?

How about those who target civillians?

Cult of the Suicide Bomber

liberty student:

And I posted that clip to show that not everyone believes in Bin Laden.

Yeah, but you said that "people (i.e. in general)  think he's a CIA myth".

liberty student:

I know people believe in him.  That's why they support torture and mass murder in Iraq.

Or they think he's a hero, according to that survey.

liberty student:

You want to believe the state's official story, but then you want to claim they lie and hide negligence, incompetence and corruption.  That is classic doublethink.

Why? They may tell part of the truth, but not the whole truth.

What I believe has nothing to do with the official story, but with all other evidence available and what I know about history.

liberty student:

Either the US government is credible or not. 

It can certainly lie, misrepresent the facts or simply be ignorant. But it doesn't prove the government direct involvement.

liberty student:

Seems to me, you agree the government is capable of lying,

Do individuals die? Yes. Does government consist of individuals? Yes.

Of course they can lie. Calling Islam religion of piece is definitely questionable ;)

But again, that doesn't mean that Cheney masterminded the attacks :)

hayekianxyz replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 11:35 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

(And there was me thinking I was done with this...)

liberty student:

GilesStratton:

However, it's far more wise to accept the official explanation and work from there

I'm not interested in compromising on the truth.  You may be able to accept a lie under the premise of pragmatism, but I cannot.

You seem to be trying your hardest to be as uncharitable as possible. I'm not interested in comprimising the truth either, I just happen to realize that time and other resources are scarce. You won't get anywhere with conspiracy theories, absent some sort of miracle I don't think you're going to get an email from GWB admitting he did it. The fact is that popular evidence certainly doesn't show the sort of demonstration necessary to prove that it was a planned demolition or whatever else. In light of this, I don't see how you can regard it as profitable to waste time figuring out whether or not it was a planned explosion. It'd be far easier for you to take what you've been given. Numerous contracts with important members of the military industrial complex that would be extremely profitable, a war that had nothing to do with the attacks but was the result of what Higgs has gone to great lengths to describe and blowback from US intervention in Saudi Arabia.

liberty student:

I didn't smear you.  It's just that the truth is rather distasteful.  Since you went off Hoppe, you have shown no indication you have a moral compass.  Which is fine.  I'm not judging you.  But I am not going to pretend that you're a libertarian either.  You're not, and you know you are not.  So please spare me the false indignation.

There's nothing false about it. The fact is that I don't think I need to be a fan of Hoppe to have a moral compass and I don't need to be a libertarian to care about justice. Get off the libertarian high horse and realize that people can have honest, intellectual disagreements with you and still be decent people with genuine concern for others.

liberty student:

At LvMI, LvMI proclamations matter.  At LvMI, Rothbard matters.  At LvMI, libertarianism or at least classic liberalism, matters.  If you don't like that, or you don't respect that, then perhaps LvMI is not for you.

I see "get in line, or get out".

Natalie replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 11:47 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

At least Natalie knows some of the history of foreign policy, although it is very one sided.

Does US even have foreign policy? It seems to be very inconsistent and changes depending on who's in power and what interests prevail.

And no, I don't think that US is behind everything that's going on, especially centuries old conflicts.

Andrew Cain replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 11:51 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Natalie:

Does US even have foreign policy?

Certainly, conquer and destroy [ not explicitly of course ]

Natalie replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 11:53 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Laughing Man:

Certainly, conquer and destroy [ not explicitly of course ]

What, every country? And what do you mean by "not explicitly"?

Andrew Cain replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 11:56 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Natalie:

What, every country?

That questions or challenges its power, certainly.

Natalie replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 11:58 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Laughing Man:

That questions or challenges its power, certainly.

Why hasn't it conquered Venezuela or Cuba?
What about those countries that actually want to become allies?

Andrew Cain replied on Sun, Sep 13 2009 12:02 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Natalie:

Why hasn't it conquered Venezuela or Cuba?

They tried with Cuba, it didn't work. They have been slowly trying to kill that country for 50 years though.

Venezuela only recently became a challenge during a time in which they US is already at war with two foreign nations. They are barbaric but not stupid.

Natalie:

What about those countries that actually want to become allies?

As long as they are subservient to US interests...

liberty student replied on Sun, Sep 13 2009 12:25 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Poptech:

The FBI knew when, how and where the attacks were going to happen? Please support this with evidence from a non-truther site.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/21/phoenix.memo/

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

Poptech:

Please enlighten me on exactly what they "knew". Stop stating vague nonsense and lets get the facts. You keep making nonsensical claims you cannot back up and have yet to back ONE of them up.

Please tell me you are just trying to play the game of making me source everything, and you're not actually this ignorant about the facts.

Bush's August 6th Presidential daily Briefing (PDB).  Google for it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030201141103/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020516.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35744-2002May17

liberty student replied on Sun, Sep 13 2009 12:42 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

GilesStratton:

I'm not interested in comprimising the truth either

GilesStratton:

However, it's far more wise to accept the official explanation and work from there

??

GilesStratton:

You won't get anywhere with conspiracy theories

Again, the End the FED movement is proof that is untrue.  You're back to the fallacy of assuming all conspiracy theories are equally true or untrue.

GilesStratton:

It'd be far easier for you to take what you've been given.

That is what separates you from me.

GilesStratton:

I see "get in line, or get out".

Nah, that would be handled without any discussion.

You're on LvMI of your own free will.  If you don't like LvMI proclamations, go somewhere else.  It's irrational for you to be here if you oppose libertarianism and Rothbardianism.  You admit, LvMI is not the center of the Austrian universe.  So find a new orbit if LvMI's Rothbardianism, anarchism and libertarianism are so distasteful to you.

liberty student replied on Sun, Sep 13 2009 12:45 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Poptech:

But you haven't "stunned" anybody with anything.

I have.  You're just to lazy to go to the sources.  Not my problem.

Poptech:

You have yet to produce a quote or sentence supporting your statements.

Because I am not working off debunker sites.  I am going to original sources.  We're playing on two different levels here.  You're not capable of this level of debate without some scholarship.

Poptech:

Popular Mechanics absolutely destroyed numerous loonytoon 911 conspiracy theories.

Right, and several months ago, I sourced, for you, a radio interview with Popular Mechanics, where they were exposed as complete frauds by Charles Goyette.  Did you listen to it?  Or did your chronic laziness kick in again?

liberty student replied on Sun, Sep 13 2009 12:50 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Natalie:

Does US even have foreign policy? It seems to be very inconsistent and changes depending on who's in power and what interests prevail.

It's pretty consistently what AIPAC wants them to do.

Natalie:

And no, I don't think that US is behind everything that's going on, especially centuries old conflicts.

The problem with centuries old conflicts, is that it presumes there is a multi-generational continuity that supercedes individual human action.

Poptech replied on Sun, Sep 13 2009 12:54 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/21/phoenix.memo/

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35744-2002May17

None of these memo's support your conspiracy changes. They are examples of incompetence and the August 6 memo clearly states...

"The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."

Phoenix Memo:
FBI agent says he didn't foresee 9/11 (USA Today)

Coleen Rowley Memo:
FBI too top heavy, whistleblower tells panel (USA Today)

August 6 Memo:
Bush was satisfied on pre-9/11 probes (USA Today)

You have nothing but examples of the government being incompetent and them actually trying to do something in relation to the known threats.

liberty student replied on Sun, Sep 13 2009 12:54 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Poptech:

None of these memo's support your conspiracy changes.

Which conspiracy charges?  Source them.

Poptech replied on Sun, Sep 13 2009 12:59 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Which conspiracy charges?  Source them.

Do you or do you not support any conspiracy charges against the U.S. government about 911?

liberty student replied on Sun, Sep 13 2009 1:04 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Poptech:

You have nothing but examples of the government being incompetent and them actually trying to do something in relation to the known threats.

You know, I looked at what you linked to, and it's ridiculous on its face.

The Phoenix Memo, no one is saying that the FBI Agent thought he knew about 9/11 (a typical strawman argument).  He reported activity by Al Qaeda, with airplanes to his superiors, and they have no record of where his memo went.

The Rowley Memo, I gave to you via Time.  Some summary article on testimony about her sense of humour and whether there would be retaliation doesn't do justice to her claims to Mueller.

And who cares if Bush was satisfied?  He has to be the biggest idiot in history.  That doesn't change the fact that he was briefed about Bin Laden attacking by air, and he did NOTHING about it.  Nothing.  I forget where I read it, but Condi Rice was told that Al Qaeda should be their #1 priority, and they did NOTHING about it.  If you watch her testimony on YouTube, she's completely unconvincing trying to make excuses for how they misinterpreted the PDB.

Now does this mean Bush and Rice did 9/11?  Of course not.  I don't know that, and neither do you.  But it does mean they did nothing and had foreknowledge of an attack.  You can choose to believe it is government incompetence, but you fall into the same trap as Natalie.  If the government is too corrupt or incompetent to stop 9/1, then how can it have competently investigated 9/11, and how competent can its account of 9/11 be?

It's hard to avoid the holes in logic that are being assumed with a notion of an official story.  Forget for a minute the actual holes in the story itself.

Poptech replied on Sun, Sep 13 2009 1:09 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

I have. You're just to lazy to go to the sources. Not my problem.

It is your problem because you still have not supported your conspiracy claims with any sources. What sentence(s) in her deposition support a conspiracy?

liberty student:

Because I am not working off debunker sites.  I am going to original sources.  We're playing on two different levels here.  You're not capable of this level of debate without some scholarship.

You have not been posting anything until your last post and still have yet to post a single sentence from the deposition.

liberty student:

Right, and several months ago, I sourced, for you, a radio interview with Popular Mechanics, where they were exposed as complete frauds by Charles Goyette.  Did you listen to it?  Or did your chronic laziness kick in again?

That interview was a joke. Goyette just makes accusations that "secret evidence" has not been released with nothing to support this claim. How is popular mechanics supposed to answer that? Please. He then brings up his ignorance on WTC7. Then he just keeps crying about not seeing pictures.

The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower (Video) (60min) (BBC)

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (National Institute of Standards and Technology)

But to Truthers, popular mechanics are part of the conspiracy too!