Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9101 total)
2 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 1 visitor)
Newest Member: sensei
Post Volume: Total: 904,537 Year: 1,418/14,231 Month: 342/1,076 Week: 75/376 Day: 0/75 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conspiracy Theories: It's all in your mind!
caffeine
Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 6 of 137 (699905)
05-28-2013 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dogmafood
05-28-2013 1:49 AM


Re: How can you tell?
How is it that they can identify the Boston bombers in a matter of hours and they can not produce a single picture of jet plane colliding with the pentagon?
Is my memory really that bad, or didn't it take them a few days to identify the Boston bombers?
As for this one, however:
The Feds are intercepting cellular and online communications
Intelligence services do intercept a lot of communications, but I think the image that many people have of this is a bit misleading. It seems to be presented as some kind of sinister room full of spies who know everything about everyone, but the fact remains that not all data can be intercepted, and the vast majority of intercepted data can never be read, from a simple logistics point of view.
I've heard it suggested that 'key words' are searched for, but I think people aren't considering the sheer scale of global communication. How many millions of times a day is the word 'bomb' transmitted via internet or cellphone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dogmafood, posted 05-28-2013 1:49 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dogmafood, posted 05-28-2013 1:02 PM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 31 of 137 (699991)
05-29-2013 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dogmafood
05-28-2013 9:10 PM


Re: How can you tell?
Personally, I am not at all surprised that there is nothing there . Thankfully, the video is available on Youtube as CS points out. Can you see a plane in the video?
Yes - the plane is the big white object that appears in the right of the frame at 25 seconds, shortly before it hits the building in the next frame with a big boom. How can you not see it?
Why didn't the NTSB investigate the crash?
Well, they did - although it's not in fact their responsibility.
The NTSB's remit is to "conduct independent investigations of all civil aviation accidents in the United States and major accidents in the other modes of transportation." (from the NTSB's website, emphasis mine).
The key thing to note is the word 'accident'. This is significant because the NTSB's analysis of an incident is inadmissable in a court of law - a rule intended to ensure the independence of their investigations. The idea is that they wil not be pressured by people fearful of criminal prosecution into fudging something in the report.
This also means, however, that when you're faced with a crash that is quite clearly the result of criminal activity, rather than an accident, the Attorney General can appoint someone else to lead a criminal investigation - in this case the FBI - to produce evidence which could be used in court.
Though the FBI led the investigation, they did request the help of the NTSB, due to their expertise. As the NTSB reported on their website on September 13th.
quote:
At the request of the FBI, the Safety Board has sent investigators with knowledge of aircraft structures and flight recorders to the crash sites in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon. They are assisting in the search for the cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders - the so-called "black boxes" - and helping to identify aircraft parts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dogmafood, posted 05-28-2013 9:10 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 100 of 137 (701198)
06-13-2013 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Dogmafood
06-10-2013 4:20 PM


Re: Cognitive trap
If you mean where are the revelations then I read about them in the Washington Post and The Guardian.
The idea that it might be a conspiracy was mentioned in messages 2, 5, 6, 11, 31 and 52 of this thread.
That's not true. Only message 2 mentioned NSA monitoring of communications as a conspiracy theory, amongst a list of conspiracies believed in by a friend ranging from the possible to the bizarre. roxrcool conceded that some of these may be plausible.
Messages 5, 6 and 11 were all in agreement with the fact that the NSA do intercept electronic communications. Nobody has challenged these claims anywhere in the thread.
Neither Message 31 nor Message 52 mention government monitoring of communications at all. Message 31 was about NTSB's role in the investigation into the September 11th attacks (I know, because I wrote it) and Message 52 was about David Icke's idea that the world is ruled by a global elite.
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Dogmafood, posted 06-10-2013 4:20 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Dogmafood, posted 06-14-2013 6:15 AM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 102 of 137 (701229)
06-14-2013 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dogmafood
06-14-2013 6:15 AM


Re: Cognitive trap
But is this the salient point? Are you saying that the idea that the govt was monitoring all communications was a valid unsupported conspiracy theory?
No, my point was that it was never really unsupported, which is why nobody really challenged it in this thread. The European Parliament's resolution on the Echelon system (written, incidentally, 12 years ago) concluded:
quote:
whereas the existence of a global system for intercepting communications, operating by means of cooperation proportionate to their capabilities among the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand under the UKUSA Agreement, is no longer in doubt;
and
quote:
whereas there can now be no doubt that the purpose of the system is to intercept, at the very least, private and commercial communications, and not military communications
Their report on the matter contained a discussion of the evidence, including the admission from several former intelligence workers that the NSA, together with their counterparts in other countries, intercept all the electronic communications they can; and including references to cooperation on such an information interception agreement in official documents of the UK and New Zealand.
This is the difference with the vague, paranoid brand of conspiracy theory. Things that actually happen leave evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dogmafood, posted 06-14-2013 6:15 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023