IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 31st March 2016, 04:29 AM   #81
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Privacy it is. Why should there be anything else?
Simple. The privacy reason can be resolved with anonymity. If privacy was the only issue, anonymity would solve it. A court battle would not have been necessary.

Privacy was not the only reason. I'm not going to convince any of you of this fact, I was just looking to see if there was a legitimate reason to block the release of the oral histories. Privacy was a valid concern, but the issues it presented could have been resolved. There was no reason to go to court over this.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 04:29 AM   #82
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
What do you think?
That's not how the game works.
In the CT game you never make an explicit claim. That fixes your position and leaves no room for manoeuvre.

He can keep a thread on this little point going for weeks as long as he makes no definite claim himself.
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 04:30 AM   #83
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Why does an apple fall downwards rather than drift off into space?

Gee, guess what.........there's only one answer.
There's only one correct answer to my original question, too. No skeptic in the world will admit it, though.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 04:31 AM   #84
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
Privacy is absolutely a relevant response in this situation.

Even if the accounts were to be made anonymous, one could very easily infer from the accounts who each person was, because they'd be talking about things other people did, which would provide elimination clues as to who they are not; plus one can infer from their described actions who they are likely to be, because we already have numerous written descriptions from the day of who did what and when. Given that, it is useless to try and anonymize the accounts because there would be far too many clues to who each person is in their account. Given that truthers have a tendency to accost any person who was there that day and was involved in the first response, I can fully understand that they might want their privacy protected.

Here's a question for you; why do you have a problem with privacy being the answer? Aren't first responders just as entitled to protect themselves from being slandered and accosted by random people who want to accuse them of withholding information or even outright lying about what happened that day?
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 04:37 AM   #85
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
There's only one correct answer to my original question, too. No skeptic in the world will admit it, though.
So, in your considered opinion, what is that reason?
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 04:39 AM   #86
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
There's only one correct answer to my original question, too. No skeptic in the world will admit it, though.
If you already know the answer, why did you start the thread?
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 04:39 AM   #87
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post

Here's a question for you; why do you have a problem with privacy being the answer? Aren't first responders just as entitled to protect themselves from being slandered and accosted by random people who want to accuse them of withholding information or even outright lying about what happened that day?
I don't have a problem with privacy. I already said, repeatedly, that the oral histories could have been made anonymous.

My issue is that someone would block their release. Why would they do this, other than for "privacy" reasons? The answer is simple. They don't want the information to be made public. Why? Any answer to that question is speculation, but it's obvious that Bloomberg wanted to suppress the information. It's that simple.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 04:40 AM   #88
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
If you already know the answer, why did you start the thread?
To raise awareness of the issue.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 04:43 AM   #89
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,502
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
If you already know the answer, why did you start the thread?

He's also said that he doesn't know what the correct answer is:

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I don't know.

It's all very confusing...
Ape of Good Hope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 04:47 AM   #90
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
......My issue is that someone would block their release. Why would they do this, other than for "privacy" reasons? .......
Why would there have to be other reasons?
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 04:49 AM   #91
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Ape of Good Hope View Post
He's also said that he doesn't know what the correct answer is:
It's all very confusing...
Furthermore, he is saying that privacy is one of the answers, but that there is only one answer:

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
There's only one correct answer to my original question.........
It isn't us that is confused.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

Last edited by MikeG; 31st March 2016 at 05:29 AM.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 04:50 AM   #92
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
OK. 1 vote for privacy.

Here is the next question. Why does a first responder need to protect his or her privacy when recalling the events of 9/11? If privacy was really an issue then it would be easy to make each oral history anonymous.

My opinion is that "privacy" is nothing more than an excuse to hide important information.

Next.
And one vote for secrecy to hide important information. Now tell us why your opinion outweighs any other.



Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
...I also already stated why it's not a legitimate answer.
Correction, you stated your *opinion* that it's not a legitimate answer. You offered nothing of substance to support your opinion.



Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
It's a BS answer. I'm also looking for whatever other BS answers you can come up with.
Ah, so your opinion is the only one that matters, and you get to decide what's BS and what's not, and will apparently reject any answers you don't like because they don't match your opinion. Tell us why your answers take primacy here, and why we should give them any credence.



Originally Posted by fagin View Post
What do you think?
He already told us. He thinks 'privacy' is a BS answer, and he thinks the correct answer is 'secrecy to hide important information'. He has provided no support for his position however.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 04:51 AM   #93
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Ape of Good Hope View Post
It's all very confusing...
Agreed.

Let me be clear. The purpose of blocking the release of the oral histories was to prevent the information from becoming public. Why they didn't want to make it public is not something I can not answer definitively, but I am certain they wanted to block the release of the information for as long as possible. Privacy is a legitimate concern, but it's not a valid reason to withhold all of the information.

The reason I started this thread was to raise awareness to the fact that the release of the oral histories was originally blocked by Bloomberg. This is not common knowledge. An appeals court had to order the release of the information. This should not have happened. Once again, we have secrecy where there should be none.

Last edited by FalseFlag; 31st March 2016 at 04:54 AM.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 04:57 AM   #94
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I don't have a problem with privacy. I already said, repeatedly, that the oral histories could have been made anonymous.

My issue is that someone would block their release. Why would they do this, other than for "privacy" reasons? The answer is simple. They don't want the information to be made public. Why? Any answer to that question is speculation, but it's obvious that Bloomberg wanted to suppress the information. It's that simple.
Assuming what you need to prove working well for you, I take it?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 31st March 2016 at 04:58 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 05:08 AM   #95
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Assuming what you need to prove working well for you, I take it?

Hank
There is nothing that can be definitively proven in this thread. I can certainly raise awareness of the issue, an issue which I did not know about until earlier tonight. Now, more people will know about it.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 05:13 AM   #96
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
There is nothing that can be definitively proven in this thread. I can certainly raise awareness of the issue, an issue which I did not know about until earlier tonight. Now, more people will know about it.
Indeed. Witness privacy is a serious issue.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 05:19 AM   #97
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,502
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Agreed.

Let me be clear. The purpose of blocking the release of the oral histories was to prevent the information from becoming public. Why they didn't want to make it public is not something I can not answer definitively, but I am certain they wanted to block the release of the information for as long as possible. Privacy is a legitimate concern, but it's not a valid reason to withhold all of the information.

Who are 'they'? Is Bloomberg one of 'them'?

If by 'they' you mean the city, they also initially refused to let NIST and the 9/11 Commission access the records:

Originally Posted by NYTimes
The city also initially refused access to the records to investigators from both the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, but relented when legal action was threatened.

I reckon you're emotionally invested in wanting this to be suspicious.
Ape of Good Hope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 05:20 AM   #98
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Indeed. Witness privacy is a serious issue.
I agree, but blocking the release of evidence is a more serious issue.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 05:22 AM   #99
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Ape of Good Hope View Post
Who are 'they'? Is Bloomberg one of 'them'?

If by 'they' you mean the city, they also initially refused to let NIST and the 9/11 Commission access the records:


I reckon you're emotionally invested in wanting this to be suspicious.
It does not matter who blocked the release. What matters is that someone made an attempt to withhold this information. What matters is that a court had to order its release. You can draw your own conclusions, and I know you will, but you can't ignore the fact that an attempt was made to withhold information. This is worth noting.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 05:26 AM   #100
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
... blocking the release of evidence is a more serious issue.
More BS based on paranoia. Prove the FBI was blocked from talking to first responders?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK

Last edited by beachnut; 31st March 2016 at 05:27 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 05:35 AM   #101
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,502
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
It does not matter who blocked the release. What matters is that someone made an attempt to withhold this information. What matters is that a court had to order its release. You can draw your own conclusions, and I know you will, but you can't ignore the fact that an attempt was made to withhold information. This is worth noting.

It may matter to you, but it does not matter outside Trutherland.
Ape of Good Hope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 05:42 AM   #102
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
But it was released a long time ago.
Have you heard anything in the recordings that would justify your assumption that 'they' didn't want anyone to hear them?

Who are 'they' and what is in the recordings that would want them suppressed?

You have heard the recordings or read transcripts?

Also these recordings weren't part of the FBI investigation or evidence, they did their own interviews of witnesses.
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 05:50 AM   #103
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Ape of Good Hope View Post
It may matter to you, but it does not matter outside Trutherland.
This ideology is extraordinarily dangerous. As much as you are going to hate to admit this, "Trutherland" and "Skepticsville" are both on the same planet. It does matter that secrecy shrouds all of 9/11. This secrecy prevents us from knowing the truth, and knowing the truth is the only way to prevent this from happening again. Hmmm. Maybe that explains why there is so much secrecy.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 05:52 AM   #104
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
..........It does matter that secrecy shrouds all of 9/11. This secrecy prevents us from knowing the truth, and knowing the truth is the only way to prevent this from happening again. Hmmm. Maybe that explains why there is so much secrecy.
That's almost the definition of paranoia, right there.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 05:53 AM   #105
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I'm not trying to make any case. Please see the question in my first post. If you refuse to answer it then anything else you post is nothing more than an intentional derail.
You are succeeding.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 05:55 AM   #106
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
This ideology is extraordinarily dangerous. As much as you are going to hate to admit this, "Trutherland" and "Skepticsville" are both on the same planet. It does matter that secrecy shrouds all of 9/11. This secrecy prevents us from knowing the truth, and knowing the truth is the only way to prevent this from happening again. Hmmm. Maybe that explains why there is so much secrecy.
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
...Once again, we have secrecy where there should be none.
You're apparently assuming the secrecy, then asserting that's the reason the tapes weren't released. But it's still just an assumption on your part. You've offered nothing to date to justify the claim of secrecy, and simply dismissed any concerns over privacy.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 05:57 AM   #107
Nick Terry
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,173
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I don't have a problem with privacy. I already said, repeatedly, that the oral histories could have been made anonymous.

My issue is that someone would block their release. Why would they do this, other than for "privacy" reasons? The answer is simple. They don't want the information to be made public. Why? Any answer to that question is speculation, but it's obvious that Bloomberg wanted to suppress the information. It's that simple.
Um, no. The NYT article you linked to in the opening post of the thread explained very clearly that the fire department (i.e. the fire commissioner) claimed to have been advised to hold back the materials as they were being used in the prosecution of Moussaoui. Additionally, the fire department argued that first responders had given their testimonies confidentially

Quote:
Early in his administration, Mr. Scoppetta refused to release the oral histories because he said he had been advised by federal prosecutors that their publication might impede the prosecution of Mr. Moussaoui. The department also advanced the position in court that the firefighters who had provided the oral histories did so with specific promises of confidentiality.

The department withdrew that claim. Mr. Scoppetta later found little support from federal prosecutors, judges, or defense lawyers for the position that Mr. Moussaoui's right to a fair trial would be hampered by publishing the recollections of firefighters or paramedics.
A third argument was also made, that the accounts would violate the privacy of the dead. This argument applied not so much to the oral histories but rather to the audiotapes of calls to emergency services. Many of those calls would have been made by people trapped in the towers who therefore perished. Their privacy was protected by a court ruling. A written log of calls was, however, released at the same time as the oral history transcripts.

The NYT already had copies, and put the oral histories on their website back in August 2005, over 10 years ago.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 05:58 AM   #108
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
OK. 1 vote for privacy.

Here is the next question. Why does a first responder need to protect his or her privacy when recalling the events of 9/11? If privacy was really an issue then it would be easy to make each oral history anonymous.

My opinion is that "privacy" is nothing more than an excuse to hide important information.

Next.
Yes, this is most definitely an opinion.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 05:59 AM   #109
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I'm not trying to make any case. Please see the question in my first post. If you refuse to answer it then anything else you post is nothing more than an intentional derail.
You mean this one?
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Here is my question. Why would anyone want to keep these records private?
That question was asked and answered. Just because you reject it out of hand is not a good reason for us to do so.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 06:06 AM   #110
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
You are succeeding.
Translation: You are ignoring what you don't want to accept.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 06:07 AM   #111
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Yes, this is most definitely an opinion.
This is amusing. I said something similar about a post in another thread and it was removed. In fact, I used fewer words. Let's see how long your post stays up.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 06:09 AM   #112
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You've offered nothing to date to justify the claim of secrecy, and simply dismissed any concerns over privacy.

Hank
You're kidding, right?

In my first post I clearly show that the release was initially blocked. They did not claim privacy as their reason.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/ny...oday.html?_r=0
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 06:09 AM   #113
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I just found out the the oral histories of 503 9/11 first responders were compiled by the New York Fire Department. I also found out that they were released to the public in 2005, after an appeals court ordered their release. The original request to have the records released was made by the New York Times, but that request was blocked by Mayor Bloomberg.

Here is my question. Why would anyone want to keep these records private?


The oral histories - http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...s_full_01.html

The article discussing the release, and why it took so long.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/ny...oday.html?_r=0

The official story is so simple: Planes crash into big buildings. Fire. Collapse. Duh. Another building nearby collapses. Fire. Duh.

If it's so simple, why is there so much secrecy everywhere you look, if you actually choose to look?

One more thing, the article says that most of the records were released. Why hasn't everything been released?
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
In my first post I clearly show that the release was initially blocked. They did not claim privacy as their reason.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/ny...oday.html?_r=0
Let's grant your slant on this is correct.
Its secrets all the way down.

What's the issue? IOW what, if anything is this saying to you? How does it tie in with the how and why the buildings came down? Where's the beef?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 31st March 2016 at 06:12 AM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 06:11 AM   #114
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You mean this one?

That question was asked and answered. Just because you reject it out of hand is not a good reason for us to do so.

Hank
I have not rejected anything. I have simply called out the reason as BS, which is what it is. Privacy is a concern. It is not a reason to block the release. One can address the concern through anonymity and still release the information. Do you even bother reading my posts? I guess not, because I keep repeating them.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 06:14 AM   #115
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Let's grant your slant on this is correct.
Its secrets all the way down.

What's the issue? IOW what, if anything is this saying to you? IOW How does it tie in with the how and why the buildings came down?
I'm not playing your game.

Fact: The release was blocked. A court had to order the release.
Conclusion: Someone wanted to withhold information.
Fact: Withholding information is a form of secrecy.

Every time you deny this you just destroy your credibility. You keep playing my game. Why can't you see this? Not one person with even the slightest ability to reason will come to this forum and continue to support your nonsense when you spend so much time refusing to accept the most obvious and basic facts. I just don't understand why you keep destroying yourselves.

Last edited by FalseFlag; 31st March 2016 at 06:25 AM.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 06:20 AM   #116
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
Um, no. The NYT article you linked to in the opening post of the thread explained very clearly that the fire department (i.e. the fire commissioner) claimed to have been advised to hold back the materials as they were being used in the prosecution of Moussaoui. Additionally, the fire department argued that first responders had given their testimonies confidentially



A third argument was also made, that the accounts would violate the privacy of the dead. This argument applied not so much to the oral histories but rather to the audiotapes of calls to emergency services. Many of those calls would have been made by people trapped in the towers who therefore perished. Their privacy was protected by a court ruling. A written log of calls was, however, released at the same time as the oral history transcripts.

The NYT already had copies, and put the oral histories on their website back in August 2005, over 10 years ago.
Funny.

You "forgot" to copy this:

Quote:
The department withdrew that claim. Mr. Scoppetta later found little support from federal prosecutors, judges, or defense lawyers for the position that Mr. Moussaoui's right to a fair trial would be hampered by publishing the recollections of firefighters or paramedics.
After the fire department withdrew their initial claim, were the documents released? No. A court had to order their release.

The second argument you present is privacy. I have already addressed that.

How many times do I have to tell you that your tricks don't work? I will expose you every single time. If you are going to copy and paste, copy everything, not just what supports your claim.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 06:21 AM   #117
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
.......Not one person with even the slightest ability to reason will come to this forum........
We're always open to those. However, we haven't yet seen a Truther who falls into that category. If you know any, please feel free to send them here, and maybe the level of argument from your side will improve.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 06:24 AM   #118
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
We're always open to those. However, we haven't yet seen a Truther who falls into that category. If you know any, please feel free to send them here, and maybe the level of argument from your side will improve.
There have been plenty. They are banned.

What you don't see is how many come here without posting. You don't see the ones who see the nonsensical posts by skeptics and decide not to bother commenting.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 06:25 AM   #119
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Agreed.

Let me be clear. The purpose of blocking the release of the oral histories was to prevent the information from becoming public. Why they didn't want to make it public is not something I can not answer definitively, but I am certain they wanted to block the release of the information for as long as possible. Privacy is a legitimate concern, but it's not a valid reason to withhold all of the information.

The reason I started this thread was to raise awareness to the fact that the release of the oral histories was originally blocked by Bloomberg. This is not common knowledge. An appeals court had to order the release of the information. This should not have happened. Once again, we have secrecy where there should be none.
Respect for the wishes of those who did not wish to hear or to have the final words of their loved ones made public.

In other words respect for the pain and emotional pain of the Families and friends.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 06:28 AM   #120
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
This ideology is extraordinarily dangerous. As much as you are going to hate to admit this, "Trutherland" and "Skepticsville" are both on the same planet. It does matter that secrecy shrouds all of 9/11. This secrecy prevents us from knowing the truth, and knowing the truth is the only way to prevent this from happening again. Hmmm. Maybe that explains why there is so much secrecy.
What "truth" do you expect is to be garnered from these recollections? What is there in them that could possibly aid in preventing a similar occurrence?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.