Skeptics in Denial: Case in point

Here's a brief summary of the arguments made by 'skeptics' against the idea of "NSA warrantless wiretapping" in the late 1990's. These are the same arguments prevailing against getting to the truth behind 9/11.


1) The government would never do such a thing! They have no reason to listen to our conversations! They would rather play golf and rig the regulatory agencies and tax breaks for their cronies!

2) It is impossible! They don't have the capabilities to due such a thing. There are not enough resources or people to screen all of those calls!

3) A conspiracy so large could never be kept secret! There would have to be soooo many people involved! Everybody that knew anything about such a conspiracy would instantly tell everything they knew to the media even though they would go to jail for leaking classified information. And the media would instantly pick up on it, because if it were true the media would be alllllll over it.


As I'm sure you are all aware, these guys were totally wrong and all of their arguments relied on ad hominem, non sequitor, strawman attacks.


1) There is no reason for them to do it, but hey, its the government. I would be more surprised if they weren't wasting resources on this.

2) They have had the technology and computer resources since the 1970's to screen communications and red flag certain keywords. It was one of the worst kept secrets in the intelligence community. It was known as SIGINT (signals intelligence) but we were promised by our benevolent overlords that it was only used against our enemies in other countries.

3) There were not many people that had all the pieces to the puzzle. And a few of them did speak out. People like Russel Tice and Mark Klein had been speaking out about it for years, with hard evidence, long before the media began to pick up on it. Even so, we still do not know the full extent of the program or exactly how long it has been going on. The Bush admin is seeking retroactive immunity that seeks to legalize illegal wiretapping that was going on long before 9/11.


Now, let's apply this to 9/11, shall we?

Originally posted by sp00n1
Here's a brief summary of the arguments made by 'skeptics' against the idea of "NSA warrantless wiretapping" in the late 1990's. These are the same arguments prevailing against getting to the truth behind 9/11.


1) The government would never do such a thing! They have no reason to listen to our conversations! They would rather play golf and rig the regulatory agencies and tax breaks for their cronies!

2) It is impossible! They don't have the capabilities to due such a thing. There are not enough resources or people to screen all of those calls!

3) A conspiracy so large could never be kept secret! There would have to be soooo many people involved! Everybody that knew anything about such a conspiracy would instantly tell everything they knew to the media even though they would go to jail for leaking classified information. And the media would instantly pick up on it, because if it were true the media would be alllllll over it.


As I'm sure you are all aware, these guys were totally wrong and all of their arguments relied on ad hominem, non sequitor, strawman attacks.

Uhm, those first three arguments do not rely on ad hominem or strawman attacks. I think your confusing non sequitor with something else, as it means does not follow, and is usually associated with comedy (ie non sequitor comedy).

Anyways, it would be way to hard for any government to pull this off.

There would be too many to keep quiet. Also, if you think the government is capable of killing 3000 people in broad daylight, couldn't they kill those two?

Also, you realize that you are now using ad hominem by demeaning skeptics. You should also look up Occam's razor. It just means that the simplest solution is usually the right one.

1) There is no reason for them to do it, but hey, its the government. I would be more surprised if they weren't wasting resources on this.

2) They have had the technology and computer resources since the 1970's to screen communications and red flag certain keywords. It was one of the worst kept secrets in the intelligence community. It was known as SIGINT (signals intelligence) but we were promised by our benevolent overlords that it was only used against our enemies in other countries.

3) There were not many people that had all the pieces to the puzzle. And a few of them did speak out. People like Russel Tice and Mark Klein had been speaking out about it for years, with hard evidence, long before the media began to pick up on it. Even so, we still do not know the full extent of the program or exactly how long it has been going on. The Bush admin is seeking retroactive immunity that seeks to legalize illegal wiretapping that was going on long before 9/11.


Now, let's apply this to 9/11, shall we?

I answered number 3 above. I am not sure what point you are trying to get across with 1 and 2.

There would be too many to keep quiet. Also, if you think the government is capable of killing 3000 people in broad daylight, couldn't they kill those two?

You just used a strawman and non-sequitor. Killing people under suspicious circumstances circumstances after they speak out is only going to raise more questions.

Another common non-sequitor;

If they could pull of 9/11 then they could plant fake WMD's in Iraq.

Wrong. Chemical agents have tell-tale chemical markers that can be traced back to the manufacturer. Biological weapons have DNA, and tell-tale chemical markers (see anthrax attacks, and how it was traced back to the US govt). Nuclear weapons have very specific isotope levels that not only tell you when and where it was produced, but allows you to pinpoint the specific reactor placement.

Be careful sp00n, don't mention those anthrax attacks because they couldn't have really happened. There would have been too many people involved and the media would be all over it. It would have been too hard for the government to pull off. I better add this = (sarcasm).

Seriously, doesn't the anthrax situation show how the media is perfectly willing to turn a blind eye? Why did they all just stop asking questions and leave such a huge story incomplete? I realize the runaway bride, Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole, Lindsay Lohan, American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, Natalee Hollaway, and many other stories are more important, but couldn't they at least slip in a 1 minute segment to update the anthrax situation over the last 5 years? Answer = Media Collusion.

The government would never kill 3000 people, but they will sit back and allow people to suffer and die from Hurricane Katrina. Now how much money did the administration donate to the victims? There is enough money in Washington to cover the cost of reconstruction and aid, but to this day the area is in shambles. But the government would never harm it's own people to further their own personal agendas. Never.

I wonder about the people who think our government can't keep a secret. Do these people really believe they know everything that is going on now and has gone on in Washington throughout history? Do these people really believe the government cares so much about them, they would be willing to incriminate themselves just so you know everything?

reply to post by RomanMaroni


Excellent point. Here's another great example, the Pentagon's paid "military analysts" that went on all the major networks as "independent analysts" to give their "honest opinions" about the iraq war. It turns out the Pentagon paid them, and had them planted on the networks as "message force multipliers".

Congress has held hearings about it, yet the complicit media culprits have remained silent. Of course they're not going to say, "Whoops, major breaking story... We were just busted spewing government propoganda!!"

The New York Times broke the story weeks ago, yet... (*crickets*)

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I am not going to get into the finer points of rhetoric and logic with this post but I do have a sceptical friend who every so often refers to me with a little twinkle in her eye as one of those "crazy conspiracy theorists".

I used to get quite annoyed at this and made many efforts to martial my best prosecutorial arguments to convince her that, yes, nutty as it sounds, the president and his henchmen are mass murderers who have gone on to become war criminals.

The closest I could ever get to getting her to budge was a reluctant admission that WTC7 might have been brought down in a controlled demolition. Exeunt:, me, from the conversation sighing deeply and rolling my eyes.

This person, who is not stupid by any means, can't seem to widen her panorama to see the logical entailments of a controlled demo at WTC7. This kind of mental block could be understood if one were talking to someone "in on the plot" (in the broadest sense of the term, meaning someone, and there are lots of them, who have a vested interest in the scam.) It's hard to understand this kind of obtuseness in an ordinary person though.

Or at least it was until I remembered that she is on Prozac. Is pharmacology part of America's sceptic problem? I wonder.

[edit on 28-5-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by sp00n1

There would be too many to keep quiet. Also, if you think the government is capable of killing 3000 people in broad daylight, couldn't they kill those two?

You just used a strawman and non-sequitor. Killing people under suspicious circumstances circumstances after they speak out is only going to raise more questions.

No, that is not a non sequitor. For one, it doesn't follow the format of a non sequitor, and two, it follows very logically. Also, I am not attacking a straw man. You say that they would be able to keep the people who were involved quite. I respectfully disagree. Remember Deep Throat and Nixon? And what Nixon did was not nearly as bad as what you say Bush did.

Another common non-sequitor;

If they could pull of 9/11 then they could plant fake WMD's in Iraq.

Wrong. Chemical agents have tell-tale chemical markers that can be traced back to the manufacturer. Biological weapons have DNA, and tell-tale chemical markers (see anthrax attacks, and how it was traced back to the US govt). Nuclear weapons have very specific isotope levels that not only tell you when and where it was produced, but allows you to pinpoint the specific reactor placement.

Okay, I didn't say this. However, it isn't a non sequitor depending on what your arguing on. If we are arguing on the governments ability to pull off events before a watching public eye, then it is a valid point.

Just so you know, a non sequitor arguement :
A: I think that the World Trade Centers were attacked by terrorist.
B: But Bush and the government had so much to gain from it. It must have been them.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by Petrox]

Originally posted by ipsedixit


Or at least it was until I remembered that she is on Prozac. Is pharmacology part of America's sceptic problem? I wonder.

Well, at least she's brave enough to find a doctor to treat her depression. Kudos to her.


mod edit: removed off-topic comment.



[edit on 31-5-2008 by chissler]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Or at least it was until I remembered that she is on Prozac. Is pharmacology part of America's sceptic problem? I wonder.

(text removed)

and here's the ad hominem...



[edit on 31-5-2008 by chissler]

So hes not allowed to make an observation based on the evidence there Spoon?

Hes spent enough time on the threads that he is entitled to his opinion.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


thats not an observation, its a personal attack. And he's clearly not a clinical psychologist.

This forum has clear rules against ad hominem, personal attacks!

That is, unless, you feel perfectly comfortable with me suggesting that you should be taking drool inducing, anti-psychotic medications such as Thorazine just because i disagree with you.

Yeah, didn't think so...

[edit on 5/31/2008 by sp00n1]

Please Stay on Topic

If you have an issue with any post, please submit a complaint.

Further off-topic posts will be removed.

Thank you.