Perry Logan is Refuted by another person

From http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forums/viewthread/269/P240/



Perry Logan: THEY DENY THEY ARE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. Most conspiracy guys bristle at the term & deny that it applies to them. Most conspiracists will point toward other people, generally known as conspiracy theorists, & label them as kooks. These are moments of rich irony for students of conspiracy like me.

jimmytango: Perry, you are a conspiracy theorist. You believe al qaeda conspired to attack 911 on that day. The only difference between you and I in this regard is the conpirators.

Perry Logan: THEY BELIEVE IN A SECRET INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION. It controls everything, but no historians, biographers, sociologists, political scientists, or journalists know about it.

jimmytango: Bush and Kerry are members of Skull and Bones, a secret society. So secret neither of them can talk about it. And historians, etc. DO know about them, and in some cases are members. Secret societies have existed for centuries - just because they are not spoken of regularily does not mean they are non-existent. There is not one secret organization, but many.

Perry Logan: THEY BELIEVE THE REAL NEWS COMES OUT IN THE FIRST 30 MINUTES. This absurd belief is the cornerstone for lots of conspiracy theories. It’s another hole in this most holey paradigm. It’s highly unlikely 1) that this is ever true, & 2) that any self-respecting conspirators would settle for such a system of controlling the news. (If they’re that dumb, your international organization is nothing to worry about.)

jimmytango: Sheesh, Perry - never heard of spin? That’s what is being addressed here, is spin. There’s very little time to put a spin on a story when it’s happening live, but after the fact pretty much every news story gets spun. I mentioned in another post that GE owns NBC, but is also a top ten military contractor to the US. Do you REALLY think that the war in Iraq is not being spun by NBC to keep popular opinion onside of the war? Even if you disagree that 911 was engineered from within has the Bush admin not done their best to spin the foreknowledge angle? We’ll agree to disagree on this point ad infinitum - I believe that the media is one of the greatest propaganda tools out there, and any government that wished to stay in power would understand and use this to their advantage - or am I living in some fictional world?

Perry Logan: THEY DON’T BELIEVE IN EXPERTS. What a mind-blower. So the people who can perform surgical operations, the people who can design buildings & bridges, the people who explore the mathematical underpinnings of string theory––they’re just BS’ers?

jimmytango: In grade 9 I had a math teacher that was able to prove 1+1 did NOT equal 2. It was fascinating, really - I wish I had the equation somewhere. Point is, 1+1=2, but he showed us a way to prove it didn’t. The equation is much more convoluted, but the situation is the same - it’s the old adage about accountants making numbers do what they want. My personal opinion with 911 was that the experts were called in to substantiate the official story, and not to consider other possibilities as to why the buildings came down.

Perry Logan: THEY SUFFER FROM THE “PROBLEM-REACTION” DELUSION. The conspiracists––including Alex Jones––often talk about “problem-reaction-solution,” just like you do. I think they’re mistaken that it has anything to do with Hegel’s theories. I think they’re also mistaken that it’s a historical reality. You can make an airtight case for the government using subterfuge to start wars--I grant you that. But examples of the government perpetrating terrorism to control their people exist almost entirely in the minds of conspiracists. & people like yourself.

jimmytango: Operation Gladio - look it up.

Perry Logan: THEY THINK THEY CAN FIGURE EVERYTHING OUT FROM BLURRY VIDEOS & PHOTOGRAPHS. What’s the deal with this?
And the government knows exactly which hijackers were flying the planes. Whose trick is better?
"Would they not have experts lined up and ready to assert the party line after the fact?" Well, the ball is in your court. The burden of proof rests with you. You can’t just say that hundreds, probably thousands of engineers all over the world are secret agents, forsaking their vocations because of political pressure. It’s time for you to prove it. Otherwise, we start making wisecracks about tin hats again.

jimmytango: I never said they were government agents - they don’t have to be. They are just told - tell us why the WTC towers fell, but don’t consider explosives. If you come up with a theory or paper that mentions explosives we won’t use it - period. If you go to the press your career is over. If you are a media outlet and you run such stories in a credible tone forget about any access to the White House for as long as you can imagine. Think it wouldn’t happen this way? I’ve had a boss tell me to keep my mouth shut or forget about that promotion - it doesn’t seem so illogical to me.

Perry Logan: "What did al Qaeda gain from this attack?” More than they could ever have dreamed.

jimmytango: Dreamed of? Villification for their religion? Restricted freedoms for their people? Surging support for Israel in the Middle East? What have I missed here?
I’m going to end by playing some ball in your court, Perry. You’re a hardcore democrat, yes? What was your take on the 2004 election? Did Kerry lose fair and square? I certainly don’t think so. Exit polls showed him ahead by 5%, yet Bush wins by 5%. When elections in other countries have such divergent exit poll and final results, the US and other western countries scream ELECTION FRAUD. Yet when it happens in their own country it’s an anomaly. What do you think Perry?

______________________

Perry Logan: "Chuck’s point is taken. We don’t have Pravda here. As always, the conspiratorial paradigm rests on unsubstantiated fantasies."

jimmytango: Tell me, Perry, what does that mean, ‘we don’t have Pravda here’? I can guess - Pravda (perhaps you meant TASS), the Russian news service is/was government controlled and a source of propaganda. Where did you get this insight to Pravda/TASS? Like me I would guess you DIDN’T form that opinion from personal experience - you were TOLD that the Soviet news service was nothing but a propaganda tool. And where were we told this? Well in our mainstream media, of course. Whether true or not is unimportant - this is a great example of propagandization through the media. THE BIG RED MENACE LIES TO ITS PEOPLE - THE NEWS IS FILTERED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Story at 11.

One good example of media control and not-so-secret gatherings is the Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group meets every year and includes among its participants leaders of nations, up and coming politicians, leaders of industry and education, and some other select elite. They state the purpose of the gathering as ‘brainstorming’ and nothing more. Policies, they say, are NOT discussed. Fair enough - it’s just a get together. Well if there’s nothing of note being discussed, then why the media blackout? As a matter of fact, why a media blackout at all? Imagine if the heavy hitters from Hollywood or the NFL were to have a two-week gathering at some resort - the press would be all over it, no? Why, then, is it when many of the world’s most powerful people meet for two weeks that the media doesn’t even try to report on it? Could it be because owners of the biggest media outlets are also invited members of the Bilderbergers? Owners of Le Figaro, De Standard, the Washington Post, the Toronto Star, The Financial Times and Newsweek were attendees of this year’s Bilderberg meeting. Remember that with heads of state, royalty, and financial institutions participating if someone sneezes in this meeting it could mean economic and political ripple effects around the world, and theres no one covering the story.

More on the Bilderberg Group here: Bilderberg
As far as 911 goes, I don’t think there’s much convincing I can do anymore. I can say that the buildings fell at the rate of gravity (impossible considering 80 floors of resistance between the ground and a crash point), but I will be told the experts figured out how that happened. I can say that there are puffs of smoke coming from the floors below the collapse and that points to explosives, but I will be told that is pressure from the collapse and that the experts explained this already (why dust is shooting out of select windows below the collapse, and not most or all of them, as I would expect with that amount of air pressure on each floor is odd, but I’m no expert).

I can comment on Silverstein saying they decided with WTC 7 to ‘Pull it’ - vernacular in the demolition industry to blow a building, but the experts will tell me he meant pull the people out of the building, despite evidence showing there was no one in the building at the time when Silverstein and the firefighters had this meeting. I can point out that WTC fell within 75 feet of its own footprint, a range even the most experienced demolition expert would take anyday, and yet this building just fell like that on its own. I’ll be regaled with stories about fire damage and a gas tank in the building that caused it to fall - this won’t explain it’s perfect symmetrical drop, but it will satisfy most that are distressed by this conspiracy theory.

Until I can come up with ‘experts’, I can’t win. Actually I never wanted to win - I just wanted to engage in some debate to encourage some alternative thinking. I’m up against it tho’ when debating someone who believes in only the conspiracies they want to, and always having the answers when it’s a story they deny. Perry you say the Reps have been stealing elections for some time now - that’s a conspiracy. How could such a plan be carried out? Isn’t it crazy to think that in the bastion of freedom and democracy that the election for the leader of that country could be compromised? How many experts were trotted out to say the election was legit? What’s their motivation?

Chuck - I don’t believe I ever said the gov’t CONTROLLED the media - I just said it was a main source of propaganda. Disagree with me if you want, but it seems to be common sense to me. Throughout history royalty and/or governments have manipulated the media to gain public support for its policies. As mentioned above, I’m sure you’d agree that Russia did this during the communist years, and that it continues in N. Korea and China to name a couple. What makes you think that something in the same vein doesn’t happen here in the West? Is it the ideology? The affiliations? Bad Russian haircuts? No - you think that because you’ve been TOLD that is what goes on or went on in those countries - another great example of media propaganization. (I’m not saying it wasn’t happening there, I’m saying that info was used to villify those countries).
It’s the way in which the manipulation is carried out that is different and the level of manipulation, but be sure that it happens here all the time.
Finally:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax?URL=http://www.constitution.org/col/cuddy_nwo.htm
For your consideration.


___________________________


jimmytango: nwo - I was just like you. I was aghast at what al qaeda had done and was on board with whatever the world governments had to do to reign in the terrorists. Then I began assessing the facts, and the official story, and my mind began to question my initial reaction. I really don’t know where to begin - there are soo many anomalies revolving around 911 that (for me, anyways) the odds are just too long for the official story to hold. I won’t bother to list all my reasons, as there are sites all over the net that have these compiled - one site is:
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
I suggest anyone interested in this conspiracy check out this site and others and come up with their own opinion.

I also think I’m done discussing this with Perry. It’s a great argument to say ‘all these anomolies PROVE there was no conspiracy’ - it’s near irrefutable, because it’s subjective. I say the odds of 3 buildings collapsing due to fire on one day when it had never happened before EVER to even one building are too long to be coincidental - Perry says no conspiratorial plot would ever include such a longshot event because such an event would make the plan too transparent, risking the whole operation. Well I suggest it was a conspiracy, and they did get away with it. Was it Hitler or Goebbels who said the bigger the lie, the more likely people are to believe it?

I’ll try to leave things on common ground here. Perry, could we agree, that IF there were Americans involved in 911, high-level Americans (government, military and private individuals), would they not have experts lined up and ready to assert the party line after the fact? I certainly think that would be, and was, part of the plan.
I’ll ask the rest of you again - who benefits from 911? Where have the billions in US taxpayer money gone since 911? Whose foreign policy initiatives were made real thanks to the events of 911? What did al qaeda gain from this attack?

______________________________________

Perry Logan: On “prior knowledge”: Once again, if you’re engineering a hoax, you try to minimize instances of prior knowledge. You also try to minimize reporting on it. Since there was plenty of “prior knowledge,” & since it was extensively reported, we have ample circumstantial evidence that 9/11 was not an inside job.

jimmytango: Do you think it even possible to contain every aspect of a conspiracy this size? OK so you don’t think it’s a conspiracy - but indulge me. Let’s say you do - is it possible to control every item of info at the source? Of course it’s not. But when you can diffuse, strawman, and distract away from certain information with the help of the press, you don’t need to.

A conspiracy of this size would be compartmentalized - 100s of people would be involved without even knowing it. This, I believe, was one of the reason for all the wargames that day. Scheduling these activities to coincide with the attack allowed for future ‘plausible’ explanations that the air defences were otherwise occupied - oddly enough they’ve never really had to use this excuse. The press and by extension the majority of people believe(d) that the US simply never considered an air attack from inside the US. Which of course is total bunk. Should it actually be true then the whole Joint Chiefs should have been fired immediately. What do you think, Perry? Should the US Military have considered this type of attack pre-911 or not?

Perry Logan: Skill of the pilots: You may simply underestimate the hijackers. They were not dummies, & they planned & prepared for several years. Nor were they such hotdogs. After all, one of the planes crashed, & the one that hit the Pentagon evidently hit the ground first.

jimmytango: Hmmm - I sense some desperation here. I suppose all of the evidence showing the ineptitude of the so-called pilots was part of the terrorists’ plan? How was it again the gov’t KNEW exactly which hijacker was flying each plane? As for Flight 93, are you saying it wasn’t brought down by the civilian passengers? The plane that hit the Pentagon did NOT hit the ground first - review the photographic evidence and see for yourself.

Perry Logan: I’ve presented plenty evidence that this is not true. We have structural engineers, seismographic evidence, supercomputer simulations. What are we gonna do with you guys?

jimmytango: We had all the same type of info from a bunch of respected experts that there were WMD in Iraq. Do you still believe there’s WMD there?

Perry Logan: You answer this question yourself, without resort to conspiratorial thinking, when you say, “Perhaps they realized that they gained zero benefits from the attack.”
Oddly enough, Alex Jones & many other conspiracists confidently predicted more attacks after 9/11, & they were wrong. It’s funny to hear you using the same fact as proof of a conspiracy! In terms of your scenario, it still seems like the conspirators would have staged another attack or two--to make their cover story look good. After all, the administration itself went around predicting more terror attacks after 9/11. Why would they make empty threats & then not follow through?

jimmytango: Alex makes his dough enlisting fear, and the gov’t gets what it wants by invoking fear. Do you think that al qaeda, after all the planning and millions of dollars, wouldn’t have considered that a 911 attack would bring ‘Shock and Awe’ their way? Do you think they’d invest all that time and money just to pull up shop right after the fact?

Perry Logan: The WMD thing also backs me up. You will notice the WMD issue continues to fester. It may even lead to impeachment, & it has damaged the administration no end. So the WMD affair doesn’t doesn’t really seem to support your viewpoint.

jimmytango: Riiight. Countless reports stated there were no WMD in Iraq while Bush was pushing it, and more reports once the US was in Iraq. Calls for impeachment have been few while apologists line up to say that ‘while we may have gone for the wrong reason, Saddam was a threat and a demon and those Iraqis need to have democracy so it’s ok’. I’m not sure if I’ve seen the press as subservient (or perhaps scared) of an administration. I’ve got $50 that says Bush will never be impeached, and I’ll bet you won’t ever take that bet - you know better.

Perry Logan: If our vaunted leaders will send its citizens to die for profit, would they not let them die at home to advance the same means?
They would. But they didn’t, because they couldn’t. That’s what we’re trying to tell you.

jimmytango: We agree that they would. Your reasoning behind saying they couldn’t is extremely limited, so pardon me if I don’t take your word on it. Ask yourself, who benefited from 911. It wasn’t al qaeda, or the Taliban, or muslims. It was the Bush admin (getting a free pass to go to Afghanistan and by extension Iraq), the police state advocates in the admin (with the INSTANT passing of the Patriot Act - a set of laws that Congresspeople didn’t even get to READ before they had to vote on it), the military contractors, big energy concerns, etc.
Who benefits tells me a lot. What does it tell you?