Do you get a stirring in your loins when you see the old stars and stripes?
Get a boner when you here the republican convention shouting "U S A, U S A" to drown out protesters?
Yes, well you too can join the 911 truthers.
After all a belief in utter bollocks is a kinda a pre-requiste so why not add Patriotism to the list.
The US has the best cranks in the world, bar none. IN YOUR FACE EURO-CRANKS.

Why do you follow every 911 post with your asinine comments?

I a following you.

It's an odious task,but we can't allow professionals to have free reign in comments here.

Get sharper or give up.

More important to not let rightist, fact-free nonsense demoralise and discredit a resource for progressive activists actually.

Is there any relevance at all for Indymedia UK to what a newspaper in the US says about a US-based theologian's opinions on US patriotism to meeting of US conspiracist inactivists?

No. It's just perpetuating shit politics, magical thinking and disempowerment. It went unchallenged here for far too long.

Why post a letter to an american publication complaining about their article to UK Indymedia?

Also, if Griffin is so against nationalism why did he appear on a white nationalist radio station?

 https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/09/408422.html

Just look at the evidence. Conspiracy thinking is clearly idiotic. These conspiracy theorists just invent stuff they have dreamt about. Their ideas have no connection with reality.

We all know that there are millions of Freemasons around the world. The senior ones hold very powerful positions. Most US Presidents have been Masons. Indeed, on the statue of the US' first President, Washington is described as first a Mason and second the US' first President. Many big time criminals are Masons. In the UK, Masons aim for a lodge in every town and village. They have been around for centuries. They demand secrecy and, indeed, threaten members with death if they reveal the secrets. While, in Jamaica, the Grand Lodge says that Freemasonry in Jamaica is "entrenched". Their members belong to the ruling and opposition parties, they are in the police, army and judiciary. While the P2 Lodge based in Italy has been revealed as organising terrorism in Italy under the guise of Communism, i.e. the Red Army Brigade.

But the idea, that this has anything to do with any conspiracy is just barmey!!!

Great post Simon, I agree with quite a lot of it.

"Just look at the evidence. Conspiracy thinking is clearly idiotic. These conspiracy theorists just invent stuff they have dreamt about. Their ideas have no connection with reality."

Yes, with you so far, although you're taking it a little too far I think. It is idiotic, but seductive. Like religion it offers easy answers. Yes, some conspiracy theorists do totally invent stuff (David Icke for example) - others will take something real and extrapolate without strong foundations. It's not that they have no connection with reality, merely that the prism they see reality through warps their vision.

Then your post goes downhill, although you are still making my case for me. I make it a policy to not debate conspiracy theorists on their chosen conspiracy, but I'd just point out that perhaps you should have taken note of your post's title (Conspiracy - where's the evidence?) before stringing together some vague truths into an overarching conspiracy.

The problem for conspiracy theorists is similar to one that faces theists. Even if you do assume everything is down to conspiracy (or that there is a god) - which one do you follow?

Is it all down to a conspiracy of Jewish bankers? Perhaps the illuminati? Bohemian grove? No, wait, shape shifting lizards.

For example, it seems a little strange for you to chip in on a 9/11 post with a conflicting conspiracy theory. Logically at least one of you (9/11ers, masonic plotters) is wrong. My money's on both.

mate your cracking me up, keep up the good work!

Its not exactly neccessary but it is funny.

OK I'll bite, your comments are insidious to say the very least.

Are you trying to give the impression that conspiracies don't exist? What about the 3 people in the UK who were convicted of CONSPIRING to murder persons unknown this very month?

Or do you think that conspiracies are only entered in to by the 'bad guys'? Who would you class as the 'bad guys'? Being as one of the flagship companies in the US was found to be full of conspirators and conspiracies (Enron), what would make big business susceptible to conspiracies but protect government? Their unquestionable morality? You mean like Dick Cheney yeah?

If conspiracies don't exist then why does the word exist? Don't think that conspiracy theory has always been such a loaded term, when one or more people plot to commit an act they are conspiring. In your world are all crimes commited by 'lone gunmen'? (and maybe they all involve a 'magic' bullet or 'magic' support column).

You seem to be unable to grasp that if you believe the official story, you too are ascribing to a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy between 19 men and Osama bin Laden. Just because this is what the 'designed to fail' Kean report tells you is what happened, doesn't make it so. It is a theory plain and simple (one that has a lot of holes to say the very least)

There are pilots, architects, engineers, firemen, police, ex-intelligence, soldiers, scholars and more who question the events of 9-11. What would make most of them happy in an inquiry that had some teeth. That didn't allow the President and VP to hold hands together when they gave evidence (not under oath might I add). That didn't ignore the fact that Rumsfeld gave 3 contradicting statements on his whereabouts/actions on the day of 9-11.

You can believe the fairy story that's being fed to you, but if other people don't then create a counter argument or zip it. Your posts on this and the last 9-11 thread attempt to show some kind of air of superiority, you start on about shape shifting lizards and Illuminati to try and discredit people by association. You imply that all the discrepancies have been solved when this is patently untrue. You use the old standard of bringing religion up to try and muddy the waters and polarize people further.

NIST have just released a fallacious document on how a 47 storey skyscraper collapsed totally and completely from random office fires. For the building to collapse in the manner it did all of the exterior columns would have had to have failed within 1/10th of a second of each other. Random, chaotic, asymmetrical damage does not produce a symmetrical effect. This is simply not possible. Look at the laws of conservation of momentum, the law of entropy, the path of least resistance. Just look at the collapse and use your own brain, it clearly does not make sense!

Look at this video->  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8 this is elementary physics. Prove it wrong if you can! (you won't be able to, unless you can change the effect of gravity).

WTC7 is the smoking gun, never mind shape shifting lizards, Illuminati, Jewish bankers, no plane theories, Pentagon missiles, flight 93 and other strawman arguments. These are deliberate ploys to try and get you to avoid looking at the elephant in the room, it's like a magicians sleight of hand, a mere diversion. Look at WTC7 with an open mind, remind yourself of the physics you learnt in school, read up, investigate for yourself, make your own conclusions.

I agree that associating with far right wing groups is less than helpful but I'm sorry David Ray Griffin appearing on a far right radio show does absolutely nothing to prove WTC7s collapse was as expected (and nor is it likely to). This is something that is completely unrelated, it's like saying I can't question 9-11 because I'm a vegetarian. If DRG argued that the sky was blue and that grass was green, would you try and prove it wasn't because he appeared on this show? Don't confuse the issue by trying to discredit the person rather than the argument.

Anyway I'm off to make myself a new tinfoil hat (before you use that old chesnut too). Stick to the topic and we might get somewhere, I mean the events of 9-11 have been used as an excuse for 2 illegal wars, the raping of the constituion (in the US), counter terrorism laws in the UK (which have sweet FA to do with terrorism and all to do with keeping an eye on us). If these things are to be justified (I personally don't think they can), I want to be damn sure that what they say happened on 9-11 is what really did happen.

I'm sure someone is putting something in my food to make me paranoid ;)

TTFN

My word you must be easily amused. Either you haven't read many threads on 9-11 or have the memory of a goldfish. Nearly all of the comments by 'conspiracy theorists are not just idiots, they're dangerous idiots' are standard stock of debunkers worldwide. There's nothing there that is new, just tired old cliches, check out ->  http://www.gatecreepers.com/entries/exclusive-dictionary-of-propaganda-keywords-and/ and find me one sentence out of this 'hilarious ' post that isn't covered by this list.

I might be a stereotypical 'conspiracy theorist' but I'm not conforming to my role quite as well as 'theorists are not just idiots, they're dangerous idiots', he's almost like a parody of a debunker, or an essence if your prefer (and I don't mean he smells).

I mean the thing that confuses me is that most debunkers appear to be relatively rational and intelligent (apart from relying on stock standard quotes), I just want to know how they can't see even one anomaly in the story of 9-11. Or is it that one anomaly isn't enough for them, what would be their anomaly threshold before they said 'yeah we need a new inquiry'? 5? 10? 20? Is it some kind of confomity thing like the Asch and Milgram experiments? Or perhaps it's an inbuilt psychiatric defence mechanism.

I don't know, it's just when there are so many holes in a story and the story keeps changing (look how quickly 'pancake theory' was dropped once it was discredited), it kind of makes me wonder how much of what they are saying is true. I mean in a court of law if a witness is caught in a lie/untruth this pretty much nullifies their testimony, why should we apply a different yard stick for 9-11?

In your other post you called me a 'debunker'. I would not put myself into that category, as I have no interest in getting into that debate. Like I've repeatedly said, I have no interest in debating the rights and wrongs of various conspiracy theories. My argument is that they have no place within the left.

I posted on this thread firstly because the OP was irrelevant, secondly because it involved someone associated with the far right. As I pointed out, it was especially funny to read how DRG is not a nationalist when I just caught him in bed (metaphorically speaking) with white nationalists.

I then posted again because someone posted defending a theory that contradicts the OP's theory, the cognitive dissonance was too much to resist.

I posted on the other thread to outline white supremacist links - a reasonable thing to do on a left wing website.

"Are you trying to give the impression that conspiracies don't exist? What about the 3 people in the UK who were convicted of CONSPIRING to murder persons unknown this very month?"

Yeah, because that was so obviously the point I've been trying to make. Are you supporting the masonic conspiracy that the person I was responding to brought up? Or just your own theory? Who are you to say his conspiracy doesn't exist? Are you some kind of gatekeeper?

"Or do you think that conspiracies are only entered in to by the 'bad guys'? Who would you class as the 'bad guys'? Being as one of the flagship companies in the US was found to be full of conspirators and conspiracies (Enron), what would make big business susceptible to conspiracies but protect government? Their unquestionable morality? You mean like Dick Cheney yeah?"

Oh come on. Of course conspiracies exist - I was engaged in a conspiracy just a couple of hours ago to keep someone out drinking. What I am against is the construction of elaborate conspiracy _theories_ to explain real world phenomena.

I've never analysed things in terms of the bad guys, that's my whole point. Capitalism/hierachical society doesn't work on the basis of 'bad guys', it's a structural issue. Why make me identify bad guys when i've never brought the concept up?

I fail to see why Enron is evidence for a goverment conspiracy.

"If conspiracies don't exist then why does the word exist? "

Awesome. If fairies don't exist then why does the word exist?

"Don't think that conspiracy theory has always been such a loaded term, when one or more people plot to commit an act they are conspiring. In your world are all crimes commited by 'lone gunmen'? (and maybe they all involve a 'magic' bullet or 'magic' support column)."

Crimes are committed by all sorts of people. I don't follow why this elementary point is relevant.

"You seem to be unable to grasp that if you believe the official story, you too are ascribing to a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy between 19 men and Osama bin Laden. Just because this is what the 'designed to fail' Kean report tells you is what happened, doesn't make it so. It is a theory plain and simple (one that has a lot of holes to say the very least)"

I have no problem with the idea of a conspiracy, it's the phenomenon of conspiracy theories that interests me. I have no interest in picking your conspiracy theory over anyone else's.

"There are pilots, architects, engineers, firemen, police, ex-intelligence, soldiers, scholars and more who question the events of 9-11. What would make most of them happy in an inquiry that had some teeth. That didn't allow the President and VP to hold hands together when they gave evidence (not under oath might I add). That didn't ignore the fact that Rumsfeld gave 3 contradicting statements on his whereabouts/actions on the day of 9-11."

There are pilots, architects, engineers, firemen, police, ex-intelligence, soldiers, scholars and more who question evolution. I don't care. What about the pilots, architects, engineers, firemen, police, ex-intelligence, soldiers, scholars and more who have looked into 9-11 and don't believe in controlled demolition or whatever? This came up on the white supremacy thread, it's an 'appeal to authority', a logical fallacy.

"You can believe the fairy story that's being fed to you, but if other people don't then create a counter argument or zip it. Your posts on this and the last 9-11 thread attempt to show some kind of air of superiority, you start on about shape shifting lizards and Illuminati to try and discredit people by association. You imply that all the discrepancies have been solved when this is patently untrue. You use the old standard of bringing religion up to try and muddy the waters and polarize people further."

Please reread my posts. I only brought up lizards when faced with someone who appeared to defend the concept of conspiracy theories per se. It therefore seemed legitimate to bring up conflicting conspiracy theories to underline the point I made.

From memory I have not mentioned anything of the sort on the other thread. Can't swear to that as the failure to condemn white nationalism annoyed me a lot, but feel free to demonstrate otherwise and I will apologise.

I never mentioned or implied anything about 'discrepancies'. Not sure how many times I have to say it, but I am not interested in debating particular theories. If you want to do that there are several people who will debate you on other sites.

Again, why should I chose your theory over the masonic one? After all, P2 were demonstrated to be up to all kinds of dodgy shit, so there's more evidence for an overarching masonic plot.

I also think my religion analogy was sound. The person I was answering gave a poor argument in favour of conspiracy theories in general, and i think it legitimate to compare such a situation to arguments in favour of a creator, which despite being flawed in themselves say nothing as to which particular faith is correct. I certainly didn't use the religion reference in the way the website you linked to listed.

Looking through that list, I seem to have been a victim of those techniques myself in these discussions. So, for example, I was called a "right wing nut" (numbers 38 and 70 on the list) despite having made statements that would obviously put me on the left of the political spectrum.

Both you and the other guy have used #5, the appeal to authority.

I invoked #4, anti-semitism, but I gave full evidence for this charge (holocaust denial being a pretty good indicator I would have thought) so I think that and #33 can be removed from my charge sheet

I have also used the phrase conspiracy theorist (#15), but the people I've argued with seem to defend the concept (in any case, you called me a debunker, which is the flipside of CT).

So, looks like I've been more sinned against than sinner.

"I agree that associating with far right wing groups is less than helpful but I'm sorry David Ray Griffin appearing on a far right radio show does absolutely nothing to prove WTC7s collapse was as expected (and nor is it likely to). This is something that is completely unrelated, it's like saying I can't question 9-11 because I'm a vegetarian. If DRG argued that the sky was blue and that grass was green, would you try and prove it wasn't because he appeared on this show? Don't confuse the issue by trying to discredit the person rather than the argument."

Again, I don't care about your theory. If you read back, I answered a question on whether DRG could be discredited, not his argument. There's no point me linking to contrary information, as you won't believe it. I'm not interested in the individual theories, just whether or not they have a place within the left. It would have been an ad hominem attack if I was engaged in an argument over whatever he believes on 9-11, I have been fairly scrupulous about being clear that this has never been my intention. Are you comfortable with being associated with DRG? If so, why are you posting on a left wing website?

Also, you're not above ad hom attacks yourself - rather than go on about 'an attempt at an air of superiority', please tell me where I was incorrect on the other thread? Apparently I'm also a parody - I'm getting that same frisson of cognitive dissonance again. If I had such an air of superiority on the other thread it was because I was arguing with someone who believes that white supremacism is acceptable. Even with my low self esteem I actually do feel superior to racist scum.

"Anyway I'm off to make myself a new tinfoil hat (before you use that old chesnut too). Stick to the topic and we might get somewhere, "

My topic is, and always has been, the nature of conspiracy theories and how they should not be considered part of left wing thought. I have tried to make that as clear as possible. The person I was debating on the white supremacy thread was not sticking to the topic, and has consistently refused to acknowledge DRG's radio appearance, or indeed his own use of a racist website.

If you're so concerned with the topic, perhaps you could explain how someone with a dislike of nationalism would end up on a white nationalist radio station and cite holocaust deniers in his research? This is after all the topic I've stuck to throughout.

Just realised I had mentioned religion elsewhere. Still, I think that still leaves me ahead on the 'gatecreepers' (ha, I see what they did there) score.

Tell you what Ashley, I'll do a deal. You don't mention the other religion reference I made, and I won't point out the dodgy links from the site you linked to.

Fair enough?

Sorry Ashley, I'm afraid I have to withdraw my truce over the religion thing, as this is to good to pass up. You're keen to distance yourself from the patently absurd theories - eg: "you start on about shape shifting lizards and Illuminati to try and discredit people by association." I wasn't saying any of the theorists here believed in any of this stuff, and I can see why you'd want to place clear blue water between your 9/11 stuff and these other theories.

Except...

In support of your thesis that I am trotting out cliches on CTists, a parody of a debunker etc, you linked to a CT website. Unfortunately that site itself supports, for example, David Icke, a believer in the protocols of the elders of zion, and of course the shape shifting lizards. It doesn't just link to his website, it hosts his material, including the lizard stuff.

 http://www.gatecreepers.com/workspace/library/David%20Icke%20-%20The%20Biggest%20Secret.pdf

The links page is a treat too - I reproduce the following without comment:

 http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/
 http://www.michaeltsarion.com/
 http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/
 http://www.redicecreations.com/

I'm sorry, I feel a bit mean for bringing all this up - but after you made such a fuss about what I'd said earlier I couldn't help it.

You say: -
In your other post you called me a 'debunker'. I would not put myself into that category, as I have no interest in getting into that debate. Like I've repeatedly said, I have no interest in debating the rights and wrongs of various conspiracy theories. My argument is that they have no place within the left.

Your logic here confuses me, are you trying to say that if you consider your views left of centre you cannot point out what you believe to be a conspiracy? Or are you arguing that only certified and proven conspiracies can be pointed out (if this is the case then it leaves me wondering how anyone would go about proving a conspiracy without you jumping on them). Are people with left of centre views only allowed to point out crimes involving lone gunmen? I really am struggling with what you are recommending.

Regarding the right wing argument I agree that it is not good, but trying to say that everything that comes out of the mouth of DRG is wrong because of his appearance on this radio show is insane. He probably, like many people, has elements of his theories which are true, elements which are false, beliefs that are reasonable and beliefs that are not. It’s like trying to say DRG is a rubbish driver because he likes Marmite, there is no connection but because you don’t like Marmite that is colouring your opinion on all of DRG (I am not trying to trivialise extreme right wing views but provide you with an analogy of sorts).

You say: -
Yeah, because that was so obviously the point I've been trying to make. Are you supporting the masonic conspiracy that the person I was responding to brought up? Or just your own theory? Who are you to say his conspiracy doesn't exist? Are you some kind of gatekeeper?

No I’m not a gatekeeper, I look at the available evidence and make my own mind up using my own logical faculties. This idea that I shouldn’t entertain the idea of conspiracies or point them out because I consider myself left of centre doesn’t make much sense to me. Why should my politics stop me from coming to any conclusions based on available evidence?

You say: -
What I am against is the construction of elaborate conspiracy _theories_ to explain real world phenomena.

And here’s the rub, you are trying to take some kind of high ground but what you are effectively saying here is that you make a judgment call on conspiracies to justify to yourself whether they hold any water. If they do hold water (in your opinion) they are no longer ‘conspiracy theories’ to you but conspiracies. If you *believe* that they don’t hold water you believe that you can write them off and more importantly tell everyone else to write them off. Are you of a mind that you have some kind of superior ‘conspiracy theory’ detection ability? Why do you feel that you have the right to decide what others look at? Aren’t they capable of making their own minds up without your ‘help’?

Let’s look at one real world phenomena, WTC7. WTC7 is the first building in history to completely collapse solely from the effects of normal office fires. This does not make any sense whatsoever. Then when you look at the physics of the collapse it becomes even more apparent that we are not being told the whole truth (did you watch the youtube link I put up?). I don’t believe the report that has been foisted upon us and if I am to conform with your view of leftist politics my only option is to believe one person did it (otherwise by definition it becomes a conspiracy). So in your book I either accept what I’m told regardless of how much sense it makes, or attribute the events to a single person. What happened to investigating something for yourself? What happened to finding and evaluating the evidence? You call yourself left of centre but tell me I have to believe what the governments reports tell me if I want to join your gang (sod it I think I’ll be independent if that’s what it takes to be left wing these days!).

You say: -
I fail to see why Enron is evidence for a government conspiracy.

Are you being purposefully daft here or what? Enron isn’t evidence for a government conspiracy, it is just an example of conspiracies that were found in a company that was held up as a shining light (albeit in a capitalist system). There are conspiracies to be found in all sorts of places, do you really believe that they aren’t to be found in the US Administration? If you cede the point that governments can contain conspiracies then you must be making a judgement call on the validity of a 9-11 conspiracy.

When I said: -
"Don't think that conspiracy theory has always been such a loaded term, when one or more people plot to commit an act they are conspiring. In your world are all crimes commited by 'lone gunmen'? (and maybe they all involve a 'magic' bullet or 'magic' support column)."

You replied: -
Crimes are committed by all sorts of people. I don't follow why this elementary point is relevant.

This point is relevant because you are telling us that we shouldn’t believe in conspiracies (or at least shouldn’t believe the ones that you discount). What I am saying is that if conspiracies exist (and I’m pretty sure you’ll agree that they do), then why should we not point them out. You appear to be making the argument that we shouldn’t even acknowledge conspiracies, so either it was the work of a ‘lone gunman’, we believe whatever the official story is or it didn’t really happen.

You say: -
I have no problem with the idea of a conspiracy, it's the phenomenon of conspiracy theories that interests me. I have no interest in picking your conspiracy theory over anyone else's.

You say that you have no problem with the idea of a conspiracy, so therefore you admit they exist. You also say that you have no interest in picking my conspiracy over anyone else’s. If you admit that conspiracies exist (i.e. you know of at least one occasion that was a conspiracy) but you don’t want to pick mine over anyone else’s, surely you are picking someone else’s over mine (as you have agreed they exist). Therefore you are making a value judgement on my conspiracy without having to get involved in anything like evidence or critical thinking or debate.

You say: -
There are pilots, architects, engineers, firemen, police, ex-intelligence, soldiers, scholars and more who question evolution. I don't care. What about the pilots, architects, engineers, firemen, police, ex-intelligence, soldiers, scholars and more who have looked into 9-11 and don't believe in controlled demolition or whatever? This came up on the white supremacy thread, it's an 'appeal to authority', a logical fallacy.

It is only a logical fallacy if I am stating it as infallible proof that my theory is correct, which incidentally I am not. I am merely pointing out that the ‘conspiraloons’ are made up of not only ‘conspiracy nuts’ but some highly educated people with expertise in the area. This does nothing to prove the argument, it is just to try and assert that we aren’t all stupid unknowledgeable idiots (which is what many ad hominems, the flipside of an ‘appeal to authority’ tend to do).

You say: -
Please reread my posts. I only brought up lizards when faced with someone who appeared to defend the concept of conspiracy theories per se. It therefore seemed legitimate to bring up conflicting conspiracy theories to underline the point I made.

I disagree with your logic here, if the person had said ‘all conspiracy theories are true’ then it would warrant bringing this up. Being as the person is merely trying to prove that conspiracies do happen and pointing out some facts regarding one they ascribe to, the net effect of you bringing up the lizards thing is to insinuate that they believe the lizards theory (they may very well do but we don’t have any proof either way so I would say it is unwarranted imo).

You say: -
I never mentioned or implied anything about 'discrepancies'. Not sure how many times I have to say it, but I am not interested in debating particular theories. If you want to do that there are several people who will debate you on other sites.

If you are not interested in debating particular theories then why do you keep popping up on 9-11 threads? You cluck about ‘conspiracy theories’ (itself a loaded term) and try to discredit the theory without involving yourself in debate. If you are not willing to debate the points brought up in regards to the theory your involvement is of debatable worth.

You say: -
I also think my religion analogy was sound. The person I was answering gave a poor argument in favour of conspiracy theories in general, and i think it legitimate to compare such a situation to arguments in favour of a creator, which despite being flawed in themselves say nothing as to which particular faith is correct. I certainly didn't use the religion reference in the way the website you linked to listed.

I think you are arguing here that there are people who argue in favour of a creator badly, as there are people who argue the conspiracy of 9-11 badly. What does that prove? To me it proves there are people with differing debating skills who opine on many topics with different levels of success. I don’t think saying these people who argue poorly for the existence of a 9-11 conspiracy are just like the ones who argue for a creator God badly, whilst true as a comparison, proves anything of worth.

You say: -
Again, I don't care about your theory. If you read back, I answered a question on whether DRG could be discredited, not his argument.

Being as both of the original threads were regarding 9-11, just because you posted information regarding right wing radio stations that doesn’t change the original subject. If you want to debate the merits of this particular station and its guests I would suggest contributing to the newswire directly rather than trying to hijack another thread for your opinions to be aired.

With regards whether you are discrediting DRG or his arguments is, as far as I’m concerned, an issue of semantics. You are not discrediting his looks, his age, his sex, his sexual orientation, his religious beliefs or any other subject apart from his appearing on this radio show and what that infers to you (and I’m guessing it is based on inference rather than his stated beliefs on the matter).

These threads were on the subject of 9-11 and when someone asked where he had been discredited I am pretty sure they meant his arguments regarding the subject of the thread rather than any number of other subjects that could be brought up. As far as my opinion is concerned whilst this does show him in a negative light, it doesn’t logically discount his 9-11 theories (the flipside of an ‘appeal to authority’ or ad hominem).

You say: -
There's no point me linking to contrary information, as you won't believe it.

On what logic are you basing this assumption? I am more than willing to look at both sides of an argument and make my mind up for myself (something you don’t seem to be encouraging yourself). Don’t assume that because I think the collapse of WTC7 isn’t as it has been described in the reports, that I am blinkered.

You say: -
I'm not interested in the individual theories, just whether or not they have a place within the left.

You are interested in individual theories because there is at least one occasion that you believe there was a conspiracy (because you agree they exist) BUT you discount 9-11 and say it has no place in the politics of the left (an argument I find difficult to swallow, I don’t think anyone has a right to decide that particular agenda.) So as far as I can see you are interested in discounting conspiracy theories without looking at or debating the evidence but simply based on your own value judgements.

You say: -
It would have been an ad hominem attack if I was engaged in an argument over whatever he believes on 9-11, I have been fairly scrupulous about being clear that this has never been my intention. Are you comfortable with being associated with DRG? If so, why are you posting on a left wing website?

More semantics I’m afraid, the original thread was regarding his views on 9-11 and by posting on a thread about DRGs views on 9-11 you are (even if it’s by accident) casting aspersions on his views on THAT subject by trying to discredit him on an unrelated subject. You want to take issue with his views on racism? Start a thread about it.

If this was a thread about the ID card and Gordon Browns opinions on it, I would be out of order trying to say that because he isn’t applying a windfall tax on the energy companies he is discredited. It could be argued that he is discredited in regards the windfall tax but what would that have to do with his policy on ID cards?

I would take issue about me being associated with DRG. Just because he doesn’t believe the official story of 9-11 and neither do I, that doesn’t make me his associate. It means that there is a subject that his views and mine correlate on. He also probably believes grass is green, how do you feel being associated with him on this? (assuming you’re not going to argue about the colour of grass!)

You say: -
Also, you're not above ad hom attacks yourself - rather than go on about 'an attempt at an air of superiority',

I would argue that this isn’t an ad hominem attack, you are trying to show superiority by not even entering in to the true discussion of the thread as if it were beneath you to get involved. You are trying to tell everyone that conspiracies don’t belong in the thinking of the left (if that isn’t ideas above your station I don’t know what is, trying to set the agenda for millions of people!)

You say: -
If I had such an air of superiority on the other thread it was because I was arguing with someone who believes that white supremacism is acceptable. Even with my low self esteem I actually do feel superior to racist scum.

Can you point me in the direction of the comments agreeing with white supremacism? I would like to show my disdain for these comments also. Or are you inferring that they are supported by the fact that they were not explicitly derided. Perhaps the person thought it was a bit off topic on a thread about 9-11 and the views of DRG on 9-11.

You say: -
My topic is, and always has been, the nature of conspiracy theories and how they should not be considered part of left wing thought. I have tried to make that as clear as possible.

If that is your topic that doesn’t necessarily make it ours, if you want to discuss your topic I would suggest your own article devoted to this rather than hijacking existing threads which are about 9-11. Do you post ‘your topic’ on all conspiracy threads or are you only putting it on 9-11 threads in particular (answer this honestly even if it’s only to yourself :)

You say: -
The person I was debating on the white supremacy thread was not sticking to the topic, and has consistently refused to acknowledge DRG's radio appearance, or indeed his own use of a racist website.

The topic on this thread was remotely related but in the other thread (Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?) it had nothing to do with it. You hijacked the thread with your own topic (call it ‘conspiracy theories and left wing politics’ or ‘white supremacy by DRG’).

You say: -
If you're so concerned with the topic, perhaps you could explain how someone with a dislike of nationalism would end up on a white nationalist radio station and cite holocaust deniers in his research? This is after all the topic I've stuck to throughout.

I don’t have any truck with white supremacy thank you very much. I don’t know why DRG has done this, what good he thought would come of it and what purpose it served. I would take issue with your statement that ‘This is after all the topic I've stuck to throughout’ being as you just said ‘My topic is, and always has been, the nature of conspiracy theories and how they should not be considered part of left wing thought.’

I question the events of 9-11 and I do this because, even with a rudimentary understanding of physics, what we have been told does not hold water (in a scientific and empirical way rather than some kind of fuzzy misplaced ‘faith’ or feeling). I do not hold white supremasict views and I think it is disingenuous to try and say because I don’t believe the official story about 9-11 I’m some kind of Nazi!

Now you find a link to something about David Icke on the gatecreepers website. So what? It is a separate and discrete page from the one I quoted. Do you know it was authored by the same person? Can you say that because I pointed out the propaganda keywords page it proves that I also believe everything that comes out of the mouth of David Icke? I don’t get it, I mean I could say that the whole internet holds lots of weird and wacky views about allsorts of weird crap, therefore using your logic I shouldn’t use any of it as it is all tainted by the bad bits. You find nuggets of truth in the weirdest of places, sometimes in the place you least expect to find them :)

Aside from the WTC building 7, which was self-evidently a controlled demolition to preserve the national security secrets it contained (with no implication I can see for a wider US conspiracy) the revelations in this post appear (to my mind) much closer to the geopolitical mark (about what happened and who financed 911, if it was indeed state financed at all) than most of the fantastical speculations of the 911 Conspiracy Movement. As I understand it Mohammed Atta was wired a great deal of money from a Pak general soon before the attacks
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/09/408716.html

Can we please start focusing on the ACTUAL issues? We need to defend and enlarge civil liberties where we can, where we live, in democratic solidarity

I do not wish to be associated with those who say "conspiracy theory is dangerous nonsense". People who believe that it is cannot see further than their nose. It is well known that:
- Masons are a secret society
- Masons have powerful people among their number, including US Presidents
- Police officers, judges, criminals are Masons
- Masons can be corrupt.

It is known that the P2 Lodge in Italy worked with fascists, CIA, and NATO to create terrorist groups that operated as if they were Marxists. This was the ‘strategy of tension’. The then head of the Italian secret service was jailed after an investigation by the Italian Parliament.

In fact, Masonic symbols are on the US dollar bill. One of which talks about Ordo Novo Secularum – New World Order.

Knowing all this and these facts being public, people are only to happy to claim conspiracy theory is silly nonsense. Can someone explain this?

The Left do not say: ‘there are conspiracies but they have no place in the Left’ (which is a contradiction). They say belief in conspiracies theories are the domain of right-wing nutcases.

So, let’s first look at Marx as described in Francis Wheen’s 1999 book ‘Karl Marx’

Is Marxism part of some sort of conspiracy? Anomalies in Marx's life includes that he:
- and Engels destroyed the Communist League by winning a vote that transfer its HQ to New York
- was accused of being a British spy,
- was congratulated on the publication of his famous attack on capitalism, Das Capital, by Bismark,
- improved his fortunes after he published Das Capital,
- worked in a limited way with a Tory MP, who posed as a friend of working people,
- had limited experience of the proletariat before becoming a Communist, and
- started his political and journalist life advancing the interests of capitalists.

The book states that Marx lived in a world populated by secret societies, conspiracies and government agents. Evidence of intrigue was a letter written by Marx and Engels to The Spectator denouncing Prussian government agents' attempts to recruit them into phoney plots to kill one Royal or other.

Meanwhile, leading socialist, Lasselle, formed a radical workers association in Germany but was was working for Bismarck. (Lasselle believed that he was using Bismarck and another revolutionary, Mazzini, so that he would emerge as the leader of Germany.)

Marx himself had racist attitudes toward black people and was also anti-Semitic as pointed out by Wheen on page p55:
'Was Marx a self-hating Jew? Although he never denied his Jewish origins, he never drew attention to them either - unlike his daughter Eleanor, who proudly informed a group of workers from the East End of London that she was 'a Jewess'. In his later correspondence with Engels, he sprayed anti-Semitic insults at his enemies with savage glee: the German socialist Ferdinand Lasselle, a frequent victim, was described variously as the Yid, Wily Ephraim, Izzy and the Jewish Nigger. "It is now quite plain to me - as the shape of this head and the way his hair grows also testify - that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses' flight from Egypt, unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger," Marx wrote in 1862, discussing the ever-fascinating subject of Laselle's ancestry.'

p268
'He (Marx) certainly kept a close eye on share prices, and while badgering Engels for the next payment from Lupus's estate he mentioned that 'had I had the money during the past ten days, I'd have made a killing on the Stock Exchange here.'

'Playing the markets, hosting dinner-dances, walking his dogs in the park: Marx was in severe danger of becoming respectable. One day a curious document arrived, announcing that he had been elected, without his knowledge, to the municipal sinecure of 'constable of the Vestry of St Pancras.'

p297
'It was not only the Kugelmanns who lionised Marx while he was in Hanover. "The standing of the two of us in Germany,' he wrote to Engels, "particularly among the 'educated officials is of an altogether different order from what we imagined. Thus e.g. the director of the statistical bureau here, Merkel, visited me and told me that he had been studying the questions of money for years to no avail, and I had immediately clarified the matter once and for all." He was invited to dinner by the head of the local railway company, who thanked Dr Marx profusely for "doing me such an honour". More flattering still was the arrival of an emissary from Bismarck, who announced that the Chancellor wished "to make use of you and your great talents in the interests of the German people." Rudolf von Bennigsen, chairman of the right-wing national Liberal Party, turned up in person to pay his respects.'

So, let’s see what Marx had to say about Jewish bankers.

p319
In an article in the New York Tribune (4 January 1856), in which he discussed an international loan to be raised by the Russian government to finance the war in the Crimea, Marx savagely attacked the Jewish financiers:

"This loan is brought out under the auspices of the house of Stieglitz at St Petersburg. Stieglitz is to Alexander what Rothschild is to Francis Joseph, what Fould is to Louis Napoleon. The late Czar Nicholas made Stieglitz a Russian baron, as the late Kaiser Franz made old Rothschild an Austrian baron, while Louis Napoleon has made a cabinet minister of Fould, with a free ticket to the Tuileries for the females of his family. Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every Pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.

“The loan-mongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and less significant. But it is only because the Jews are so strong that it is timely and expedient to expose and stigmatise their organisation."

The United Lodge of Freemasons in England is in Great Queen Street near Covent Garden. Pride of place on the imposing building is the five-pointed star. The same five-pointed star used by the Communist movement. Is this a coincident?

"people are only to happy to claim conspiracy theory is silly nonsense. Can someone explain this?"

because some people take random facts and build them into a self-reinforcing worldview, viz:
"The same five-pointed star used by the Communist movement. Is this a coincident?"


..........


Where this becomes dangerous nonsense is when people see what P2 and similar groups were involved with and instead of seeing them as furthering the interests of the state and capital, see them as furthering the historical mission of an all-powerful, (or conversely, marginalised) group.

Studying the strategy of tension and the role of the secret state (intelligence services, etc) is good and useful. No-one should be under illusions as to what elements within western states will do.Thinking that the world is run by a secret cabal of masons, jews or catholics, though, that's batshit nonsense which discredits serious para-political research into the secret state. Good, credible research on Operation Gladio is outweighed by the bug-eyed stuff and the only interest that serves is the criminals behind it. We need knowledge and evidence of conspiracies not empty theories based on numbers, patterns, selective interpretation of historical fragments.

Some people find it comforting to think that there's a plan to the world, even if it's a malevolent one. It removes the burden of responsibility from you. Your actions no longer matter because you are powerless against Them and Their Designs.

Who is helped by that attitude? Not progressive social movements.

But see above about the self-reinforcing worldview. I must be jewish mason communist lizard sent to spread confusion. Must go descale my tail and sacrifice good christian babies to the all-seeing pyramid eye.

jewish mason communist lizard

why do you pollute every discussion about historic modes (conspiracy/accidental) with such childish purile tantrums?

nobody is interested in pursuing along lines of 'lizards' 'aliens' or other such distractions here

why are you so obsessed with them?

can't you start your own threads about them please?

can we have some focus on the actions, sympathies and policies of those groups that do exercise power, that do engage in conspiratorial machnations and who do have both the prime motivations and the best equipped methods please?

if thats alright with you?

Here it is again, without the amusing parts.

.................

Where this becomes dangerous nonsense is when people see what P2 and similar groups were involved with and instead of seeing them as furthering the interests of the state and capital, see them as furthering the historical mission of an all-powerful, (or conversely, marginalised) group.

Studying the strategy of tension and the role of the secret state (intelligence services, etc) is good and useful. No-one should be under illusions as to what elements within western states will do.Thinking that the world is run by a secret cabal of masons, jews or catholics, though, that's batshit nonsense which discredits serious para-political research into the secret state. Good, credible research on Operation Gladio is outweighed by the bug-eyed stuff and the only interest that serves is the criminals behind it. We need knowledge and evidence of conspiracies not empty theories based on numbers, patterns, selective interpretation of historical fragments.

Some people find it comforting to think that there's a plan to the world, even if it's a malevolent one. It removes the burden of responsibility from you. Your actions no longer matter because you are powerless against Them and Their Designs.

Who is helped by that attitude? Not progressive social movements.

..............................

There. no mention of lizards or aliens, though frankly they are as likely to be controlling the whole world as masons.

Your question "can we have some focus on the actions, sympathies and policies of those groups that do exercise power, that do engage in conspiratorial machnations and who do have both the prime motivations and the best equipped methods please?" presupposes the existence of all-powerful conspiratorial groups, making a false choice.

You're saying there have been conspiracies in the past so we should decide who it is that is conspiring now. Mistake. Look for patterns and you will find patterns (see "the Bible Code" and all that shite).

CAPITALISM IS NOT A CONSPIRACY. It's a system that works in favour of the already-rich. We are all complicit, it is not controlled by small groups but the emergent conditions of everyone's actions.

It's messy, it's complicated, it's not elegant, it doesn't make for neatly-packaged books, snappy soundbites or infectious memes. It is, however, the way that reality works.

but, if the power groups that dominate capitalism and, therefore, the current trend in world governance etc ACT as and BELEIVE in conspiratorial mode (ie masons, zionists, communists etc) ...

... then it is better that we understand them that way.

Having no understanding or, worse, rejecting such information about them, hinders, distracts and hides us from the way forward.

I do not have to believe in the divinity of the holy trinity to accept that successive popes decimated the intellectual landscape of europe because they pursued their belief in it etc

We do not have to believe that there are profound spiritual/exra-terrestrial/magikal reasons for the acts of our current tyrants, just that they do.

To shy away from such obvious truths prevents progress.

I am suspicious of those that would attempt such.

I'd say that there are better ways to understand the intellectual history of Europe than through the Popes' theology. Focus there and you miss the economic, political and human factors that motivated the whole population, in favour of the professed beliefs of the 20 or so popes. History isn't individuals, its societies.

Your conspiratorial mode seems to rely on a shared (yet secret) plan, strategy and tactics. That's not possible among a large group of people and certainly not among everyone who wields power under capitalism. (It also seems to depend too much on speculation about their real motives which, if they were so all-powerful, would be unknowable.)

The US ambassador was last week caught conspiring with a separatist leader in Bolivia. Conspiracy theory doesn't help in understanding that. What helps is the *evidence* that caught him in a lie; knowledge of the balance of political & economic forces in Bolivia with their many and varied groups and understanding of the US's strategic view of South America.

Unless you take a view that every political group is a conspiracy (which stretches the definition of the term to make it useless) I see no use for your "conspiratorial mode" except as a reminder that hey, sometimes governments lie.

When is news not alternative news? Indymedia's view point on this subject is clear, their way or the highway; which means pushing nuclear power indirectly through the back door by fluffy climate change camp, and advancing you further into the terrorist definition by pushing more violent anti fascist action and making news focus on violent anti vivisection rallies. This is to be your common purpose.

Do you have keyboard tourettes? What the fuck's that got to do with the price of cheese?

Ashley -sorry, real life has stepped in, I'm having to be brief. My latest comments are marked with 2 hyphens – and where your last post starts up again I've used >>

>>You say: -
In your other post you called me a 'debunker'. I would not put myself into that category, as I have no interest in getting into that debate. Like I've repeatedly said, I have no interest in debating the rights and wrongs of various conspiracy theories. My argument is that they have no place within the left.

Your logic here confuses me, are you trying to say that if you consider your views left of centre you cannot point out what you believe to be a conspiracy? Or are you arguing that only certified and proven conspiracies can be pointed out (if this is the case then it leaves me wondering how anyone would go about proving a conspiracy without you jumping on them). Are people with left of centre views only allowed to point out crimes involving lone gunmen? I really am struggling with what you are recommending.

--I think it's reasonable for people to have evidence to back their theories up, that's hardly a controversial point of view. As far as I am aware there are no peer reviewed articles putting forward challenges to the accepted science of 9/11. The journal started by 9/11 truthers themselves does not count.

>>Regarding the right wing argument I agree that it is not good, but trying to say that everything that comes out of the mouth of DRG is wrong because of his appearance on this radio show is insane. He probably, like many people, has elements of his theories which are true, elements which are false, beliefs that are reasonable and beliefs that are not. It’s like trying to say DRG is a rubbish driver because he likes Marmite, there is no connection but because you don’t like Marmite that is colouring your opinion on all of DRG (I am not trying to trivialise extreme right wing views but provide you with an analogy of sorts).

--No, but it is a strong argument to suggest that his analysis is not a left wing one.

>>You say: -
Yeah, because that was so obviously the point I've been trying to make. Are you supporting the masonic conspiracy that the person I was responding to brought up? Or just your own theory? Who are you to say his conspiracy doesn't exist? Are you some kind of gatekeeper?

No I’m not a gatekeeper, I look at the available evidence and make my own mind up using my own logical faculties. This idea that I shouldn’t entertain the idea of conspiracies or point them out because I consider myself left of centre doesn’t make much sense to me. Why should my politics stop me from coming to any conclusions based on available evidence?

--...based on available evidence. I agree.

>>You say: -
What I am against is the construction of elaborate conspiracy _theories_ to explain real world phenomena.

And here’s the rub, you are trying to take some kind of high ground but what you are effectively saying here is that you make a judgment call on conspiracies to justify to yourself whether they hold any water. If they do hold water (in your opinion) they are no longer ‘conspiracy theories’ to you but conspiracies. If you *believe* that they don’t hold water you believe that you can write them off and more importantly tell everyone else to write them off. Are you of a mind that you have some kind of superior ‘conspiracy theory’ detection ability? Why do you feel that you have the right to decide what others look at? Aren’t they capable of making their own minds up without your ‘help’?

---No no no. my problem is with conspiratorial thinking, not, say, investigative journalism.
2 CT traits I think –
1) The theory of the gaps – like creationists picking out what they believe to be minor gaps or discrepancies CTs tend to grab hold of what they feel are inconsistencies or gaps in knowledge without acknowledging the wider picture or having a coherent alternative.
2) CTs tend to have a conclusion that they work back from. They may have jumped to it in the first place for what they felt were valid reasons, but once there they are unshakeable.

There's been a much better exploration of this than I can give right now at Z Net, search their site for conspiracy theory.

>>Let’s look at one real world phenomena, WTC7. WTC7 is the first building in history to completely collapse solely from the effects of normal office fires. This does not make any sense whatsoever. Then when you look at the physics of the collapse it becomes even more apparent that we are not being told the whole truth (did you watch the youtube link I put up?). I don’t believe the report that has been foisted upon us and if I am to conform with your view of leftist politics my only option is to believe one person did it (otherwise by definition it becomes a conspiracy). So in your book I either accept what I’m told regardless of how much sense it makes, or attribute the events to a single person.

--WTC 7 is a case in point. And here's a bit of full disclosure – I was once interested in the story of WTC7. I read something, thought, huh, that's weird. So I looked into it more, and to be honest felt like I'd been made a fool of by the CTs.

So for example, you say WTC 7 is “the first building in history to completely collapse solely from the effects of normal office fires”.
No one's arguing that that's what happened! It was a building that suffered major damage from falling debris. It was also designed in a less than perfectly sound manner. A massive fire burnt for 6 hours without any firefighting. This is not 'normal office fires' bringing down a building.
New York fire officers feared it would come down (and saw the extent of the damage). Why weren't they thinking 'it's ok fire won't bring that building down'? Are they in on the conspiracy too?

 http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

You've already admitted you a not a physics expert – your post on the other thread that referred to steel revealed that you are not a metallurgist. You are seeing things you want to see, this is not skeptical enquiry.

I did look at the youtube link, but then I also looked into the full timeline of the collapse – structural failings began a full 8 seconds before the full collapse. There was no sudden collapse or near free fall speed. Griffin's timeline in Debunking 9/11 Debunking was wrong, and as far as I'm aware he hasn't been able to come back on this after it was revealed. That's the trouble with just looking at things without a complete understanding of all relevant information. Without all the external knowledge we now have, wouldn't it be common sense to believe the world was flat? After all it looks flat to me from my window. It's only with the extra information we have (and to be fair to ancient scientists they worked this all out years ago) we all accept it as round.

From memory on the other thread you brought up it looking like a controlled explosion. Looking like (to a layperson at that) does not mean is. Why don't the people who demolish buildings for a living agree? Why is there no seismic evidence of explosives going off?

>>What happened to investigating something for yourself? What happened to finding and evaluating the evidence? You call yourself left of centre but tell me I have to believe what the governments reports tell me if I want to join your gang (sod it I think I’ll be independent if that’s what it takes to be left wing these days!).

--Nothing wrong with investigation, but you also need to consider expertise. I am not blindly believing what the government say, but I am prepared to trust the overwhelming consensus of architects, metallurgists etc, in the same way that I am not a climatologist but am prepared to accept the IPCC probably know what they're talking about.

>>You say: -
I fail to see why Enron is evidence for a government conspiracy.

Are you being purposefully daft here or what? Enron isn’t evidence for a government conspiracy, it is just an example of conspiracies that were found in a company that was held up as a shining light (albeit in a capitalist system). There are conspiracies to be found in all sorts of places, do you really believe that they aren’t to be found in the US Administration? If you cede the point that governments can contain conspiracies then you must be making a judgement call on the validity of a 9-11 conspiracy.

--I don't think it's daft to point out that just because a=b, there is no reason to assume c=b too.

>>When I said: -
"Don't think that conspiracy theory has always been such a loaded term, when one or more people plot to commit an act they are conspiring. In your world are all crimes commited by 'lone gunmen'? (and maybe they all involve a 'magic' bullet or 'magic' support column)."

You replied: -
Crimes are committed by all sorts of people. I don't follow why this elementary point is relevant.

This point is relevant because you are telling us that we shouldn’t believe in conspiracies (or at least shouldn’t believe the ones that you discount). What I am saying is that if conspiracies exist (and I’m pretty sure you’ll agree that they do), then why should we not point them out. You appear to be making the argument that we shouldn’t even acknowledge conspiracies, so either it was the work of a ‘lone gunman’, we believe whatever the official story is or it didn’t really happen.

--will repeat for effect – there is a difference between finding evidence of conspiracies and CTs . 9/11 people have no conspiracy to point out, just theories and suppositions, until they come up with real evidence.

>>You say: -
I have no problem with the idea of a conspiracy, it's the phenomenon of conspiracy theories that interests me. I have no interest in picking your conspiracy theory over anyone else's.

You say that you have no problem with the idea of a conspiracy, so therefore you admit they exist. You also say that you have no interest in picking my conspiracy over anyone else’s. If you admit that conspiracies exist (i.e. you know of at least one occasion that was a conspiracy) but you don’t want to pick mine over anyone else’s, surely you are picking someone else’s over mine (as you have agreed they exist). Therefore you are making a value judgement on my conspiracy without having to get involved in anything like evidence or critical thinking or debate.

--no, what I meant was I'm fine with the idea that sometimes bad people get together to do bad things. If there's evidence of that (eg watergate, COINTELPRO) of course I'm happy to accept that. Note the evidence bit, that's where you're lacking.


You say: -
There are pilots, architects, engineers, firemen, police, ex-intelligence, soldiers, scholars and more who question evolution. I don't care. What about the pilots, architects, engineers, firemen, police, ex-intelligence, soldiers, scholars and more who have looked into 9-11 and don't believe in controlled demolition or whatever? This came up on the white supremacy thread, it's an 'appeal to authority', a logical fallacy.

It is only a logical fallacy if I am stating it as infallible proof that my theory is correct, which incidentally I am not. I am merely pointing out that the ‘conspiraloons’ are made up of not only ‘conspiracy nuts’ but some highly educated people with expertise in the area. This does nothing to prove the argument, it is just to try and assert that we aren’t all stupid unknowledgeable idiots (which is what many ad hominems, the flipside of an ‘appeal to authority’ tend to do).

-- yeah, but it doesn't help your argument at all though if the vast majority of people from those groups do not see any problem with the idea of planes hitting buildings and the buildings falling down.


>>You say: -
Please reread my posts. I only brought up lizards when faced with someone who appeared to defend the concept of conspiracy theories per se. It therefore seemed legitimate to bring up conflicting conspiracy theories to underline the point I made.

I disagree with your logic here, if the person had said ‘all conspiracy theories are true’ then it would warrant bringing this up. Being as the person is merely trying to prove that conspiracies do happen and pointing out some facts regarding one they ascribe to, the net effect of you bringing up the lizards thing is to insinuate that they believe the lizards theory (they may very well do but we don’t have any proof either way so I would say it is unwarranted imo).

-- I had been trying to be nice in the debate and purposely didn't play the tinfoil hat card. What I was doing in the quote was pointing out that saying 'conspiracies exist' with no critical thinking was opening him or her to anything and everything. Which it was, as shown by the masonic stuff.

>>You say: -
I never mentioned or implied anything about 'discrepancies'. Not sure how many times I have to say it, but I am not interested in debating particular theories. If you want to do that there are several people who will debate you on other sites.

If you are not interested in debating particular theories then why do you keep popping up on 9-11 threads? You cluck about ‘conspiracy theories’ (itself a loaded term) and try to discredit the theory without involving yourself in debate. If you are not willing to debate the points brought up in regards to the theory your involvement is of debatable worth.

--because quixotically I thought it worth challenging the way that IMC seems to be CT central these days. I don't see the problem with challenging CTism as a phenomenon.

>>You say: -
I also think my religion analogy was sound. The person I was answering gave a poor argument in favour of conspiracy theories in general, and i think it legitimate to compare such a situation to arguments in favour of a creator, which despite being flawed in themselves say nothing as to which particular faith is correct. I certainly didn't use the religion reference in the way the website you linked to listed.

I think you are arguing here that there are people who argue in favour of a creator badly, as there are people who argue the conspiracy of 9-11 badly. What does that prove? To me it proves there are people with differing debating skills who opine on many topics with different levels of success. I don’t think saying these people who argue poorly for the existence of a 9-11 conspiracy are just like the ones who argue for a creator God badly, whilst true as a comparison, proves anything of worth.

--my argument was that saying 'conspiracies exist therefore mine exists' is a poor argument. It wasn't meant to be an amazing insight, but it was relevant to the point, and holds water.


>>You say: -
Again, I don't care about your theory. If you read back, I answered a question on whether DRG could be discredited, not his argument.

Being as both of the original threads were regarding 9-11, just because you posted information regarding right wing radio stations that doesn’t change the original subject. If you want to debate the merits of this particular station and its guests I would suggest contributing to the newswire directly rather than trying to hijack another thread for your opinions to be aired.

With regards whether you are discrediting DRG or his arguments is, as far as I’m concerned, an issue of semantics. You are not discrediting his looks, his age, his sex, his sexual orientation, his religious beliefs or any other subject apart from his appearing on this radio show and what that infers to you (and I’m guessing it is based on inference rather than his stated beliefs on the matter).

These threads were on the subject of 9-11 and when someone asked where he had been discredited I am pretty sure they meant his arguments regarding the subject of the thread rather than any number of other subjects that could be brought up. As far as my opinion is concerned whilst this does show him in a negative light, it doesn’t logically discount his 9-11 theories (the flipside of an ‘appeal to authority’ or ad hominem).

--why should I start a new thread, it's entirely pertinent to Indymedia readers that people with far right associations are being quoted here. Back to my Nick Griffin example. Would that go without comment?

Further, my main objection to this thread was that it was irrelevant. Why should there be a post about a letter to an american regional publication about an article that isn't linked to on UK IMC?

>>You say: -
There's no point me linking to contrary information, as you won't believe it.

On what logic are you basing this assumption? I am more than willing to look at both sides of an argument and make my mind up for myself (something you don’t seem to be encouraging yourself). Don’t assume that because I think the collapse of WTC7 isn’t as it has been described in the reports, that I am blinkered.

-- It was just a wild guess. Ok, one place to start – a scientist's take on Griffin (a theologist) -  http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

What do you think of the fact that fire officers were concerned that WTC 7 would collapse? Are they in on the conspiracy? Do you still assert that the claim is that WTC 7 came down because of normal office fires?

>>You say: -
I'm not interested in the individual theories, just whether or not they have a place within the left.

You are interested in individual theories because there is at least one occasion that you believe there was a conspiracy (because you agree they exist) BUT you discount 9-11 and say it has no place in the politics of the left (an argument I find difficult to swallow, I don’t think anyone has a right to decide that particular agenda.) So as far as I can see you are interested in discounting conspiracy theories without looking at or debating the evidence but simply based on your own value judgements.

--nope, remember the difference. I am interested in genuine investigations and investigative journalism, there is a difference between that and CTism

Investigative journalists may speculate, but the good ones will report the facts that they have uncovered. Finding a few apparent discrepancies and stringing together a story based on that are not the same thing.

>>You say: -
It would have been an ad hominem attack if I was engaged in an argument over whatever he believes on 9-11, I have been fairly scrupulous about being clear that this has never been my intention. Are you comfortable with being associated with DRG? If so, why are you posting on a left wing website?

More semantics I’m afraid, the original thread was regarding his views on 9-11 and by posting on a thread about DRGs views on 9-11 you are (even if it’s by accident) casting aspersions on his views on THAT subject by trying to discredit him on an unrelated subject. You want to take issue with his views on racism? Start a thread about it.

If this was a thread about the ID card and Gordon Browns opinions on it, I would be out of order trying to say that because he isn’t applying a windfall tax on the energy companies he is discredited. It could be argued that he is discredited in regards the windfall tax but what would that have to do with his policy on ID cards?

I would take issue about me being associated with DRG. Just because he doesn’t believe the official story of 9-11 and neither do I, that doesn’t make me his associate. It means that there is a subject that his views and mine correlate on. He also probably believes grass is green, how do you feel being associated with him on this? (assuming you’re not going to argue about the colour of grass!)

-- But it would be pertinent if someone posted an article on climate change here that turned out to have been written by Nick Griffin, no?

People here may like to know that whether or not they agree with a particular activist he is happy to hang out with the far right and cite material from holocaust deniers, surely? That way they can assess his arguments but avoid supporting him personally, and I assume you're happy with that?
On the grass is green issue I'd want to make sure there was clear blue water between myself and someone who associates with the far right, whatever else we may agree on. Brian on the other thread made no attempt to do so (and compounded the white supremacist links), you seem reluctant to fully acknowledge the links I've shown.

>>You say: -
Also, you're not above ad hom attacks yourself - rather than go on about 'an attempt at an air of superiority',

I would argue that this isn’t an ad hominem attack, you are trying to show superiority by not even entering in to the true discussion of the thread as if it were beneath you to get involved. You are trying to tell everyone that conspiracies don’t belong in the thinking of the left (if that isn’t ideas above your station I don’t know what is, trying to set the agenda for millions of people!)

--I'm hardly the only one to see left wing thought as being based on structural analysis. See the Znet stuff I mentioned. Having such a key CT figure make happy talk with the white supremacists would suggest that there may be something to my contention that CTs are not intrinsically left wing.

>>You say: -
If I had such an air of superiority on the other thread it was because I was arguing with someone who believes that white supremacism is acceptable. Even with my low self esteem I actually do feel superior to racist scum.

Can you point me in the direction of the comments agreeing with white supremacism? I would like to show my disdain for these comments also. Or are you inferring that they are supported by the fact that they were not explicitly derided. Perhaps the person thought it was a bit off topic on a thread about 9-11 and the views of DRG on 9-11.

--Jesus christ, I brought it up. The person responding to me ignored it, called me a right wing nut then linked to an anti-semitic website. Then never apologised or even acknowledged that fact. If I'd found out I'd linked to a site that hosted holocaust denial I'd be fucking mortified.
I wouldn't think oh well, that's a bit off-topic. FFS.
You haven't made much of it either. Do you not think DRG's a cunt for doing what he did, even if you agree with his 9/11 stuff?

>>You say: -
My topic is, and always has been, the nature of conspiracy theories and how they should not be considered part of left wing thought. I have tried to make that as clear as possible.

If that is your topic that doesn’t necessarily make it ours, if you want to discuss your topic I would suggest your own article devoted to this rather than hijacking existing threads which are about 9-11. Do you post ‘your topic’ on all conspiracy threads or are you only putting it on 9-11 threads in particular (answer this honestly even if it’s only to yourself :)

--Yeah, that's right Ashley, I believe all the other CTs apart from yours. Christ, I told that dick with the masonic theory he was being stupid didn't I? I argue against all sorts of nonsense on here.

>>You say: -
The person I was debating on the white supremacy thread was not sticking to the topic, and has consistently refused to acknowledge DRG's radio appearance, or indeed his own use of a racist website.

The topic on this thread was remotely related but in the other thread (Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?) it had nothing to do with it. You hijacked the thread with your own topic (call it ‘conspiracy theories and left wing politics’ or ‘white supremacy by DRG’).

--It is entirely justifiable to point out someone's associations – why should we support someone who has at the very least no disagreement with white supremacism?

>>You say: -
If you're so concerned with the topic, perhaps you could explain how someone with a dislike of nationalism would end up on a white nationalist radio station and cite holocaust deniers in his research? This is after all the topic I've stuck to throughout.

I don’t have any truck with white supremacy thank you very much. I don’t know why DRG has done this, what good he thought would come of it and what purpose it served. I would take issue with your statement that ‘This is after all the topic I've stuck to throughout’ being as you just said ‘My topic is, and always has been, the nature of conspiracy theories and how they should not be considered part of left wing thought.’

I question the events of 9-11 and I do this because, even with a rudimentary understanding of physics, what we have been told does not hold water (in a scientific and empirical way rather than some kind of fuzzy misplaced ‘faith’ or feeling). I do not hold white supremasict views and I think it is disingenuous to try and say because I don’t believe the official story about 9-11 I’m some kind of Nazi!

--I'm not accusing you being a nazi, what I have pointed out is that Brian seemed ok with the white nationalist associations, and you seem to be reluctant to condemn them. I can tell you're embarrassed by them, but you can't bring yourself to acknowledge what an idiot DRG has made of himself with this.

>>Now you find a link to something about David Icke on the gatecreepers website. So what? It is a separate and discrete page from the one I quoted. Do you know it was authored by the same person? Can you say that because I pointed out the propaganda keywords page it proves that I also believe everything that comes out of the mouth of David Icke? I don’t get it, I mean I could say that the whole internet holds lots of weird and wacky views about allsorts of weird crap, therefore using your logic I shouldn’t use any of it as it is all tainted by the bad bits. You find nuggets of truth in the weirdest of places, sometimes in the place you least expect to find them :)

--ha, you were caught out and I claim pwnage. Yes, the internet holds all kinds of crap. But in trying to say I was some sort of crazy debunker who was linking you to shapeshifting lizards, you linked to a site that included material about shape shifting lizards. I wasn't claiming that you believed Icke, but it does show what sort of milieu you're in, surely?

Look, I realise this has been a bit more bad tempered than I usually try to be. More to do with me rushing than being genuinely angry with you – you're clearly a decent person, whereas the other person I argued with would have deserved it more. Also I engaged on the details of the theory itself, which I'd promised myself not to.

That’s a full 10 pages when copied in to word, I’d love to know how much you’d write if RL wasn’t in the way ;) I have copied and pasted the lot, my latest comments are preceded by **

>>You say: -
In your other post you called me a 'debunker'. I would not put myself into that category, as I have no interest in getting into that debate. Like I've repeatedly said, I have no interest in debating the rights and wrongs of various conspiracy theories. My argument is that they have no place within the left.

Your logic here confuses me, are you trying to say that if you consider your views left of centre you cannot point out what you believe to be a conspiracy? Or are you arguing that only certified and proven conspiracies can be pointed out (if this is the case then it leaves me wondering how anyone would go about proving a conspiracy without you jumping on them). Are people with left of centre views only allowed to point out crimes involving lone gunmen? I really am struggling with what you are recommending.

--I think it's reasonable for people to have evidence to back their theories up, that's hardly a controversial point of view. As far as I am aware there are no peer reviewed articles putting forward challenges to the accepted science of 9/11. The journal started by 9/11 truthers themselves does not count.

** I agree regarding evidence, there are only 2 articles currently published for peer review, you can find one here->  http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM and another here->  http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/ there are also more planned (especially with the ammo provided by the NIST WTC7 report!). So you feel informed enough to dismiss 9-11 conspiracy theories but are unaware of 2 papers that have been published for quite some time.

>>Regarding the right wing argument I agree that it is not good, but trying to say that everything that comes out of the mouth of DRG is wrong because of his appearance on this radio show is insane. He probably, like many people, has elements of his theories which are true, elements which are false, beliefs that are reasonable and beliefs that are not. It’s like trying to say DRG is a rubbish driver because he likes Marmite, there is no connection but because you don’t like Marmite that is colouring your opinion on all of DRG (I am not trying to trivialise extreme right wing views but provide you with an analogy of sorts).

--No, but it is a strong argument to suggest that his analysis is not a left wing one.

** His analysis is not a left wing one? I fail to grasp what that has to do with anything, it’s like saying ‘I only like classical music’, by saying it you are restricting what you believe you can listen to. If it’s not a left wing analysis I’m not interested, it’s like looking at life with one hand over one of your eyes. I have some left of center views, some centrist views, some right of center views, some libertarian views and some anarchist views, I am also a Christian. You can call me mixed up if you like, I prefer to say you can’t pigeon hole me ;) Perhaps I haven’t been able to form a rational worldview yet (you’d think at 40 I would have by now) or maybe I think that the world is a complex place and trying to pick something off the shelf and squeeze yourself in to it isn’t going to be the best fit.

>>You say: -
Yeah, because that was so obviously the point I've been trying to make. Are you supporting the masonic conspiracy that the person I was responding to brought up? Or just your own theory? Who are you to say his conspiracy doesn't exist? Are you some kind of gatekeeper?

No I’m not a gatekeeper, I look at the available evidence and make my own mind up using my own logical faculties. This idea that I shouldn’t entertain the idea of conspiracies or point them out because I consider myself left of centre doesn’t make much sense to me. Why should my politics stop me from coming to any conclusions based on available evidence?

--...based on available evidence. I agree.

** Evidence is there of at the very least foreknowledge. The collapse of WTC7 suggests a little more than that.

>>You say: -
What I am against is the construction of elaborate conspiracy _theories_ to explain real world phenomena.

And here’s the rub, you are trying to take some kind of high ground but what you are effectively saying here is that you make a judgment call on conspiracies to justify to yourself whether they hold any water. If they do hold water (in your opinion) they are no longer ‘conspiracy theories’ to you but conspiracies. If you *believe* that they don’t hold water you believe that you can write them off and more importantly tell everyone else to write them off. Are you of a mind that you have some kind of superior ‘conspiracy theory’ detection ability? Why do you feel that you have the right to decide what others look at? Aren’t they capable of making their own minds up without your ‘help’?

---No no no. my problem is with conspiratorial thinking, not, say, investigative journalism.
2 CT traits I think –
1) The theory of the gaps – like creationists picking out what they believe to be minor gaps or discrepancies CTs tend to grab hold of what they feel are inconsistencies or gaps in knowledge without acknowledging the wider picture or having a coherent alternative.
2) CTs tend to have a conclusion that they work back from. They may have jumped to it in the first place for what they felt were valid reasons, but once there they are unshakeable.

** It’s not a question of ‘feeling’ inconsistencies, they are there right in front of your eyes. Look for video of Norm Mineta testifying about Cheney and the Pentagon plane. Educate yourself on the basic laws of physics that a) cannot be broken and b) were not in effect on 9-11. You say that CT’s tend to have a conclusion they work backwards from. That is almost a perfect description of the Kean Report, they had the conclusion that 19 Arabs armed with boxcutters led by a man in a cave attacked America because ‘they hate our freedoms’ and if there was evidence that didn’t fit it got ignored. Hardly good science is it?

There's been a much better exploration of this than I can give right now at Z Net, search their site for conspiracy theory.

>>Let’s look at one real world phenomena, WTC7. WTC7 is the first building in history to completely collapse solely from the effects of normal office fires. This does not make any sense whatsoever. Then when you look at the physics of the collapse it becomes even more apparent that we are not being told the whole truth (did you watch the youtube link I put up?). I don’t believe the report that has been foisted upon us and if I am to conform with your view of leftist politics my only option is to believe one person did it (otherwise by definition it becomes a conspiracy). So in your book I either accept what I’m told regardless of how much sense it makes, or attribute the events to a single person.

--WTC 7 is a case in point. And here's a bit of full disclosure – I was once interested in the story of WTC7. I read something, thought, huh, that's weird. So I looked into it more, and to be honest felt like I'd been made a fool of by the CTs.

So for example, you say WTC 7 is “the first building in history to completely collapse solely from the effects of normal office fires”.
No one's arguing that that's what happened! It was a building that suffered major damage from falling debris. It was also designed in a less than perfectly sound manner. A massive fire burnt for 6 hours without any firefighting. This is not 'normal office fires' bringing down a building.
New York fire officers feared it would come down (and saw the extent of the damage). Why weren't they thinking 'it's ok fire won't bring that building down'? Are they in on the conspiracy too?

 http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

You've already admitted you a not a physics expert – your post on the other thread that referred to steel revealed that you are not a metallurgist. You are seeing things you want to see, this is not skeptical enquiry.

I did look at the youtube link, but then I also looked into the full timeline of the collapse – structural failings began a full 8 seconds before the full collapse. There was no sudden collapse or near free fall speed. Griffin's timeline in Debunking 9/11 Debunking was wrong, and as far as I'm aware he hasn't been able to come back on this after it was revealed. That's the trouble with just looking at things without a complete understanding of all relevant information. Without all the external knowledge we now have, wouldn't it be common sense to believe the world was flat? After all it looks flat to me from my window. It's only with the extra information we have (and to be fair to ancient scientists they worked this all out years ago) we all accept it as round.

From memory on the other thread you brought up it looking like a controlled explosion. Looking like (to a layperson at that) does not mean is. Why don't the people who demolish buildings for a living agree? Why is there no seismic evidence of explosives going off?

**OK a lot to answer here, firstly the ‘I used to be a CT but I’m all grown up now’ is another standard debunker tactic that is akin to an appeal to authority is it not? Please go and read some of the NIST report in to the collapse of WTC7 and then tell me that they aren’t claiming it collapsed solely due to the effects of normal office fires (they are). NIST discount any damage due to the other buildings collapsing and they also discount the diesel tanks for the generators. According to NIST WTC7 suffered a ‘progressive collapse’ due to ‘thermal expansion’ caused solely by ‘normal office fires’ (don’t believe me? Go read it for yourself)

The massive fires would have burnt for only 20 minutes in any one area before using up all the combustibles and moving on (this is a quote from NIST, I have linked to it in the metallurgy thread where I retort to the guy claiming to be a scientist). Stop bringing up the damage, it has been discounted (unless you too are arguing against the NIST report).

Because I am not a physicist or a metallurgist doesn’t necessarily mean I am completely ignorant in either subject. Don’t assume that because I say I am no expert it implies that I don’t have a working knowledge. Who is seeing the things they want to see now? I don’t just believe every crackpot theory I read on the interweb, I research them, I look at the evidence, I try to understand. I have an enquiring mind and a thirst for knowledge, I guess it must be due to the fact I couldn’t have cared less in school. BTW just so you know my background and that I have a rudimentary knowledge of scientific research I have a 2:1 BSc (not that it proves I am right, but it shows I’ve learnt how to find stuff out ;)

Just FYI there was a seismic engineer who at midday said the building would come down in around 5 hours (see the BBC ‘Conspiracy Files’ on WTC7). This brings up a number of issues, what seismic movements would a building make fully 5 hours before collapse? (was it dancing around Manhattan?). What knowledge could this guy base this statement on given that no building has ever collapsed completely due to fire? Since when have seismic engineers measured building fires? Who was he and who was paying him? Was he the source of the information that the fire crews were stating? Just as an aside, seismic engineers are regularly used around controlled demolitions, they basically take measurements to ensure that the blast is within acceptable thresholds so as to protect the CD company from any lawsuits over existing faults in other buildings (not saying that is why he was there, that would make no sense as if he was there for that reason it would have been a CD)

You say structural failings began a full 8 seconds before the full collapse. What are you basing this on? The NIST WTC7 report? Given that no-one could see what was going on inside that building this is pure conjecture, that has been dreamt up to back up the claims of the ‘magic’ pillar (I can’t remember the number of it now but it has been ‘proven’ in their simulation). Even if we believe this purely hypothetical theory, that video still shows acceleration as fast as freefall for nearly 3 seconds. There could have been a party of green lizards in the building mate, it makes no odds, the building fell for nearly 3 seconds at freefall speed. So what we are supposed to believe is that *EVERYTHING* inside the shell of WTC7 collapsed and then in a glorious synchronised instant, the whole shell decided to collapse? And you say I’m not skeptical?

You ask why don’t people who demolish buildings for a living agree? You mean like some of the people who make up ae911truth? You mean like Danny Jowenko? (search video.google for him). You seem to be saying that there aren’t enough of them? Well given that most American CD companies get a good percentage of their business from government contracts can you really see any of them shooting themselves in the foot?

>>What happened to investigating something for yourself? What happened to finding and evaluating the evidence? You call yourself left of centre but tell me I have to believe what the governments reports tell me if I want to join your gang (sod it I think I’ll be independent if that’s what it takes to be left wing these days!).

--Nothing wrong with investigation, but you also need to consider expertise. I am not blindly believing what the government say, but I am prepared to trust the overwhelming consensus of architects, metallurgists etc, in the same way that I am not a climatologist but am prepared to accept the IPCC probably know what they're talking about.

** this is an appeal to authority a logical fallacy (I sound like you now ;), but you actually ARE trying to use it as proof. With regards the IPCC did you read this ->  http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002 you’ll probably bang on about big oil sponsorship but if you look at the signatories you’ll find ex IPCC members, current IPCC members and many professor emeritus (teaching after retirement and not beholden to anyone for grants/sponsorship). The argument about manmade climate change is over as long as you ignore the scientists who disagree ;) I would love to know how you can claim that the ‘overwhelming consensus of architects, metallurgists etc’ believe the official story of 9-11, when to the best of my knowledge the majority of them haven’t expressed an opinion either way. I don’t think it’s very scientific to say that people who haven’t voiced an opinion can be called to be supporting either side. What we can say is 60% of Americans in a recent poll don’t believe the official story (I’m guessing that there may be some architects and metallurgists in there somewhere, but I can’t say for sure).

>>You say: -
I fail to see why Enron is evidence for a government conspiracy.

Are you being purposefully daft here or what? Enron isn’t evidence for a government conspiracy, it is just an example of conspiracies that were found in a company that was held up as a shining light (albeit in a capitalist system). There are conspiracies to be found in all sorts of places, do you really believe that they aren’t to be found in the US Administration? If you cede the point that governments can contain conspiracies then you must be making a judgement call on the validity of a 9-11 conspiracy.

--I don't think it's daft to point out that just because a=b, there is no reason to assume c=b too.

** That’s not what I did, I asked if big business is prone to conspiracy what exactly would protect government from it? You have already agreed that you are making a judgement call on the 9-11 conspiracies (I used to be a CT but I’m allright now etc), but unfortunately as you have shown on this very thread you are not the best informed on the latest evidence.

>>When I said: -
"Don't think that conspiracy theory has always been such a loaded term, when one or more people plot to commit an act they are conspiring. In your world are all crimes commited by 'lone gunmen'? (and maybe they all involve a 'magic' bullet or 'magic' support column)."

You replied: -
Crimes are committed by all sorts of people. I don't follow why this elementary point is relevant.

This point is relevant because you are telling us that we shouldn’t believe in conspiracies (or at least shouldn’t believe the ones that you discount). What I am saying is that if conspiracies exist (and I’m pretty sure you’ll agree that they do), then why should we not point them out. You appear to be making the argument that we shouldn’t even acknowledge conspiracies, so either it was the work of a ‘lone gunman’, we believe whatever the official story is or it didn’t really happen.

--will repeat for effect – there is a difference between finding evidence of conspiracies and CTs . 9/11 people have no conspiracy to point out, just theories and suppositions, until they come up with real evidence.

** Sorry mate, there is evidence it’s just you choose to discount it (or not even know about it).

>>You say: -
I have no problem with the idea of a conspiracy, it's the phenomenon of conspiracy theories that interests me. I have no interest in picking your conspiracy theory over anyone else's.

You say that you have no problem with the idea of a conspiracy, so therefore you admit they exist. You also say that you have no interest in picking my conspiracy over anyone else’s. If you admit that conspiracies exist (i.e. you know of at least one occasion that was a conspiracy) but you don’t want to pick mine over anyone else’s, surely you are picking someone else’s over mine (as you have agreed they exist). Therefore you are making a value judgement on my conspiracy without having to get involved in anything like evidence or critical thinking or debate.

--no, what I meant was I'm fine with the idea that sometimes bad people get together to do bad things. If there's evidence of that (eg watergate, COINTELPRO) of course I'm happy to accept that. Note the evidence bit, that's where you're lacking.

** You say you aren’t making a judgement call on my conspiracy yet you say I am lacking evidence. I’m confused now.


You say: -
There are pilots, architects, engineers, firemen, police, ex-intelligence, soldiers, scholars and more who question evolution. I don't care. What about the pilots, architects, engineers, firemen, police, ex-intelligence, soldiers, scholars and more who have looked into 9-11 and don't believe in controlled demolition or whatever? This came up on the white supremacy thread, it's an 'appeal to authority', a logical fallacy.

It is only a logical fallacy if I am stating it as infallible proof that my theory is correct, which incidentally I am not. I am merely pointing out that the ‘conspiraloons’ are made up of not only ‘conspiracy nuts’ but some highly educated people with expertise in the area. This does nothing to prove the argument, it is just to try and assert that we aren’t all stupid unknowledgeable idiots (which is what many ad hominems, the flipside of an ‘appeal to authority’ tend to do).

-- yeah, but it doesn't help your argument at all though if the vast majority of people from those groups do not see any problem with the idea of planes hitting buildings and the buildings falling down.

** Yet again you say the vast majority of people from those groups do not see any problem with the idea of planes hitting buildings and the buildings falling down. I’d love to know what scientific method you are using to prove this statement, silence = consent? Quiet = yes? Also I did not use this to ‘prove’ my argument as you have tried (an 'appeal to authority', a logical fallacy again)


>>You say: -
Please reread my posts. I only brought up lizards when faced with someone who appeared to defend the concept of conspiracy theories per se. It therefore seemed legitimate to bring up conflicting conspiracy theories to underline the point I made.

I disagree with your logic here, if the person had said ‘all conspiracy theories are true’ then it would warrant bringing this up. Being as the person is merely trying to prove that conspiracies do happen and pointing out some facts regarding one they ascribe to, the net effect of you bringing up the lizards thing is to insinuate that they believe the lizards theory (they may very well do but we don’t have any proof either way so I would say it is unwarranted imo).

-- I had been trying to be nice in the debate and purposely didn't play the tinfoil hat card. What I was doing in the quote was pointing out that saying 'conspiracies exist' with no critical thinking was opening him or her to anything and everything. Which it was, as shown by the masonic stuff.

** To quote you ‘Is it all down to a conspiracy of Jewish bankers? Perhaps the illuminati? Bohemian grove? No, wait, shape shifting lizards.’ This is attempting to ridicule him, it’s obvious. Discrediting by association, you can say it wasn’t but that’s the effect.

>>You say: -
I never mentioned or implied anything about 'discrepancies'. Not sure how many times I have to say it, but I am not interested in debating particular theories. If you want to do that there are several people who will debate you on other sites.

If you are not interested in debating particular theories then why do you keep popping up on 9-11 threads? You cluck about ‘conspiracy theories’ (itself a loaded term) and try to discredit the theory without involving yourself in debate. If you are not willing to debate the points brought up in regards to the theory your involvement is of debatable worth.

--because quixotically I thought it worth challenging the way that IMC seems to be CT central these days. I don't see the problem with challenging CTism as a phenomenon.

>>You say: -
I also think my religion analogy was sound. The person I was answering gave a poor argument in favour of conspiracy theories in general, and i think it legitimate to compare such a situation to arguments in favour of a creator, which despite being flawed in themselves say nothing as to which particular faith is correct. I certainly didn't use the religion reference in the way the website you linked to listed.

I think you are arguing here that there are people who argue in favour of a creator badly, as there are people who argue the conspiracy of 9-11 badly. What does that prove? To me it proves there are people with differing debating skills who opine on many topics with different levels of success. I don’t think saying these people who argue poorly for the existence of a 9-11 conspiracy are just like the ones who argue for a creator God badly, whilst true as a comparison, proves anything of worth.

--my argument was that saying 'conspiracies exist therefore mine exists' is a poor argument. It wasn't meant to be an amazing insight, but it was relevant to the point, and holds water.

** I really don’t want to get started on a debate as to the existence of a creator God with you. I think it is reasonable to say that the existence or non-existence of a creator God cannot be proven by scientific methods. You choose to see the world as coming about by accident, I see it as being too amazing to be pure chance. My belief in a creator God is based on faith, my belief on the CD of WTC7 is based on scientific inquiry ;)


>>You say: -
Again, I don't care about your theory. If you read back, I answered a question on whether DRG could be discredited, not his argument.

Being as both of the original threads were regarding 9-11, just because you posted information regarding right wing radio stations that doesn’t change the original subject. If you want to debate the merits of this particular station and its guests I would suggest contributing to the newswire directly rather than trying to hijack another thread for your opinions to be aired.

With regards whether you are discrediting DRG or his arguments is, as far as I’m concerned, an issue of semantics. You are not discrediting his looks, his age, his sex, his sexual orientation, his religious beliefs or any other subject apart from his appearing on this radio show and what that infers to you (and I’m guessing it is based on inference rather than his stated beliefs on the matter).

These threads were on the subject of 9-11 and when someone asked where he had been discredited I am pretty sure they meant his arguments regarding the subject of the thread rather than any number of other subjects that could be brought up. As far as my opinion is concerned whilst this does show him in a negative light, it doesn’t logically discount his 9-11 theories (the flipside of an ‘appeal to authority’ or ad hominem).

--why should I start a new thread, it's entirely pertinent to Indymedia readers that people with far right associations are being quoted here. Back to my Nick Griffin example. Would that go without comment?

Further, my main objection to this thread was that it was irrelevant. Why should there be a post about a letter to an american regional publication about an article that isn't linked to on UK IMC?

>>You say: -
There's no point me linking to contrary information, as you won't believe it.

On what logic are you basing this assumption? I am more than willing to look at both sides of an argument and make my mind up for myself (something you don’t seem to be encouraging yourself). Don’t assume that because I think the collapse of WTC7 isn’t as it has been described in the reports, that I am blinkered.

-- It was just a wild guess. Ok, one place to start – a scientist's take on Griffin (a theologist) -  http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

** OK some scientists take on Mackey ->  http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html

What do you think of the fact that fire officers were concerned that WTC 7 would collapse? Are they in on the conspiracy? Do you still assert that the claim is that WTC 7 came down because of normal office fires?

** For crying out loud, do *I* still assert the claim that WTC7 came down because of normal office fires? No NIST do, the official report that you are trying to defend whilst slagging it off. I think WTC7 was a controlled demolition, the official story is that it collapsed due to normal office fires (go and read about it and then come back!)

>>You say: -
I'm not interested in the individual theories, just whether or not they have a place within the left.

You are interested in individual theories because there is at least one occasion that you believe there was a conspiracy (because you agree they exist) BUT you discount 9-11 and say it has no place in the politics of the left (an argument I find difficult to swallow, I don’t think anyone has a right to decide that particular agenda.) So as far as I can see you are interested in discounting conspiracy theories without looking at or debating the evidence but simply based on your own value judgements.

--nope, remember the difference. I am interested in genuine investigations and investigative journalism, there is a difference between that and CTism

** Genuine investigations like knowing the contents of an official report in to the collapse of WTC7 before trying to defend & demolish it at the same time? I am trying to investigate the events of 9-11 as are many other people, there are people who don’t make themselves fully aware of the evidence and dismiss us all as conspiraloons (randomly throwing debunking links that they usually haven’t read in to the mix too).

Investigative journalists may speculate, but the good ones will report the facts that they have uncovered. Finding a few apparent discrepancies and stringing together a story based on that are not the same thing.

** I’m not stringing together a story, I am looking scientifically and empirically at the collapse of WTC7, I am evaluating the official report, evaluating what I know about physics, trying to expand my knowledge if there are areas I am finding confusing and trying to come to my own conclusions using my own logical faculties. Some people just say things like ‘conspiracy theories aren’t part of left wing thought don’t you know’ and dismiss my humble efforts out of hand. Who’s making an effort in this picture?

>>You say: -
It would have been an ad hominem attack if I was engaged in an argument over whatever he believes on 9-11, I have been fairly scrupulous about being clear that this has never been my intention. Are you comfortable with being associated with DRG? If so, why are you posting on a left wing website?

More semantics I’m afraid, the original thread was regarding his views on 9-11 and by posting on a thread about DRGs views on 9-11 you are (even if it’s by accident) casting aspersions on his views on THAT subject by trying to discredit him on an unrelated subject. You want to take issue with his views on racism? Start a thread about it.

If this was a thread about the ID card and Gordon Browns opinions on it, I would be out of order trying to say that because he isn’t applying a windfall tax on the energy companies he is discredited. It could be argued that he is discredited in regards the windfall tax but what would that have to do with his policy on ID cards?

I would take issue about me being associated with DRG. Just because he doesn’t believe the official story of 9-11 and neither do I, that doesn’t make me his associate. It means that there is a subject that his views and mine correlate on. He also probably believes grass is green, how do you feel being associated with him on this? (assuming you’re not going to argue about the colour of grass!)

-- But it would be pertinent if someone posted an article on climate change here that turned out to have been written by Nick Griffin, no?

People here may like to know that whether or not they agree with a particular activist he is happy to hang out with the far right and cite material from holocaust deniers, surely? That way they can assess his arguments but avoid supporting him personally, and I assume you're happy with that?
On the grass is green issue I'd want to make sure there was clear blue water between myself and someone who associates with the far right, whatever else we may agree on. Brian on the other thread made no attempt to do so (and compounded the white supremacist links), you seem reluctant to fully acknowledge the links I've shown.

** My personal opinion is that DRG is wrong to associate with this radio station. I think a bigger issue is the fervent anti-Muslim feeling that is constantly being drummed up by our government and media on the back of 9-11 and 7/7. They are trying to polarise us, Christians vs Muslims it’s like the crusades again, well I’m not falling for it. All true people of faith want to live at peace with their neighbours (as do most secular people). Muslims don’t hate us because of our freedoms, that’s plainly ridiculous! Christians, Muslims, Jews, Druze and more have lived in relative peace in the Middle East for hundreds of years, it’s only recently all this aggro has kicked off, since America realised it needed compliant governments in the ME for the purposes of securing Oil.

>>You say: -
Also, you're not above ad hom attacks yourself - rather than go on about 'an attempt at an air of superiority',

I would argue that this isn’t an ad hominem attack, you are trying to show superiority by not even entering in to the true discussion of the thread as if it were beneath you to get involved. You are trying to tell everyone that conspiracies don’t belong in the thinking of the left (if that isn’t ideas above your station I don’t know what is, trying to set the agenda for millions of people!)

--I'm hardly the only one to see left wing thought as being based on structural analysis. See the Znet stuff I mentioned. Having such a key CT figure make happy talk with the white supremacists would suggest that there may be something to my contention that CTs are not intrinsically left wing.

** People who come to opinions on matters after looking at available evidence come from ALL political persuasions. This ‘it’s just not left wing’, I mean give me a break. What else aren’t I allowed to do if I want to be seen as left wing?

>>You say: -
If I had such an air of superiority on the other thread it was because I was arguing with someone who believes that white supremacism is acceptable. Even with my low self esteem I actually do feel superior to racist scum.

Can you point me in the direction of the comments agreeing with white supremacism? I would like to show my disdain for these comments also. Or are you inferring that they are supported by the fact that they were not explicitly derided. Perhaps the person thought it was a bit off topic on a thread about 9-11 and the views of DRG on 9-11.

--Jesus christ, I brought it up. The person responding to me ignored it, called me a right wing nut then linked to an anti-semitic website. Then never apologised or even acknowledged that fact. If I'd found out I'd linked to a site that hosted holocaust denial I'd be fucking mortified.
I wouldn't think oh well, that's a bit off-topic. FFS.
You haven't made much of it either. Do you not think DRG's a cunt for doing what he did, even if you agree with his 9/11 stuff?

** I would hold off on calling DRG the name you have used. Do you know he was aware of the views of this radio station? I don’t want to sound like some kind of apologist for right wing radio shows, which I most certainly am not, but I don’t know how much he knew about it. It’s very easy for us to point the finger in hindsight maybe he thought it was just another radio appearance. Does he have an agent? I don’t know, I tend not to rush to judgements without having all the available evidence. If he has right wing views I am unaware of them, but then I don’t study right wing views, there’s enough to try and get through with 9-11. I agree that such views are not acceptable, the difference is you think judgement is required now, I see it as coming a bit later ;)

>>You say: -
My topic is, and always has been, the nature of conspiracy theories and how they should not be considered part of left wing thought. I have tried to make that as clear as possible.

If that is your topic that doesn’t necessarily make it ours, if you want to discuss your topic I would suggest your own article devoted to this rather than hijacking existing threads which are about 9-11. Do you post ‘your topic’ on all conspiracy threads or are you only putting it on 9-11 threads in particular (answer this honestly even if it’s only to yourself :)

--Yeah, that's right Ashley, I believe all the other CTs apart from yours. Christ, I told that dick with the masonic theory he was being stupid didn't I? I argue against all sorts of nonsense on here.

>>You say: -
The person I was debating on the white supremacy thread was not sticking to the topic, and has consistently refused to acknowledge DRG's radio appearance, or indeed his own use of a racist website.

The topic on this thread was remotely related but in the other thread (Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?) it had nothing to do with it. You hijacked the thread with your own topic (call it ‘conspiracy theories and left wing politics’ or ‘white supremacy by DRG’).

--It is entirely justifiable to point out someone's associations – why should we support someone who has at the very least no disagreement with white supremacism?

** How do you know he ‘has at the very least no disagreement with white supremacism’? Maybe he is kicking himself after finding out about the station. Maybe you’re right and he knew, I don’t know but I am reluctant to call him a racist c**t when he might be more upset about it than anyone else.

>>You say: -
If you're so concerned with the topic, perhaps you could explain how someone with a dislike of nationalism would end up on a white nationalist radio station and cite holocaust deniers in his research? This is after all the topic I've stuck to throughout.

I don’t have any truck with white supremacy thank you very much. I don’t know why DRG has done this, what good he thought would come of it and what purpose it served. I would take issue with your statement that ‘This is after all the topic I've stuck to throughout’ being as you just said ‘My topic is, and always has been, the nature of conspiracy theories and how they should not be considered part of left wing thought.’

I question the events of 9-11 and I do this because, even with a rudimentary understanding of physics, what we have been told does not hold water (in a scientific and empirical way rather than some kind of fuzzy misplaced ‘faith’ or feeling). I do not hold white supremasict views and I think it is disingenuous to try and say because I don’t believe the official story about 9-11 I’m some kind of Nazi!

--I'm not accusing you being a nazi, what I have pointed out is that Brian seemed ok with the white nationalist associations, and you seem to be reluctant to condemn them. I can tell you're embarrassed by them, but you can't bring yourself to acknowledge what an idiot DRG has made of himself with this.

** I am not reluctant to condemn them, they have no place in society full stop. Yes DRG has made a fool of himself but you seem quick to see him in the worst possible light whereas I can see that he might just have screwed up big time. Who knows? I don’t, do you?

>>Now you find a link to something about David Icke on the gatecreepers website. So what? It is a separate and discrete page from the one I quoted. Do you know it was authored by the same person? Can you say that because I pointed out the propaganda keywords page it proves that I also believe everything that comes out of the mouth of David Icke? I don’t get it, I mean I could say that the whole internet holds lots of weird and wacky views about allsorts of weird crap, therefore using your logic I shouldn’t use any of it as it is all tainted by the bad bits. You find nuggets of truth in the weirdest of places, sometimes in the place you least expect to find them :)

--ha, you were caught out and I claim pwnage. Yes, the internet holds all kinds of crap. But in trying to say I was some sort of crazy debunker who was linking you to shapeshifting lizards, you linked to a site that included material about shape shifting lizards. I wasn't claiming that you believed Icke, but it does show what sort of milieu you're in, surely?

** This is like an ad hom on a website, look the fact that gatecreepers has some stuff on David (I pinch all my stuff from other people and pass it off as my own after putting shape shifting 12 foot lizards in) Icke, does not discredit the page on the propaganda keywords. Like I said you find nuggets of truth in the strangest places ;)

Look, I realise this has been a bit more bad tempered than I usually try to be. More to do with me rushing than being genuinely angry with you – you're clearly a decent person, whereas the other person I argued with would have deserved it more. Also I engaged on the details of the theory itself, which I'd promised myself not to.

** Apologies if I have been a little more argumentative than I should. I’m just so bored of being classed as a conspiraloon conspiracy theorist that I tend to bite when poked with a stick. Like I said I am not basing my thoughts on a feeling but on cold hard empirical facts and I will argue them till I’m blue in the face because *laws* of physics don’t have a day off (unlike American air defence). If you’ve got down to here, thanks for taking the time to read it ;)