|
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. |
31st March 2016, 04:29 AM | #81 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
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. |
31st March 2016, 04:29 AM | #82 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
|
31st March 2016, 04:30 AM | #83 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
31st March 2016, 04:31 AM | #84 |
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? |
31st March 2016, 04:37 AM | #85 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
|
31st March 2016, 04:39 AM | #86 |
Now. Do it now.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
|
|
__________________
"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. |
|
31st March 2016, 04:39 AM | #87 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
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. |
31st March 2016, 04:40 AM | #88 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
31st March 2016, 04:43 AM | #89 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,502
|
|
31st March 2016, 04:47 AM | #90 |
Now. Do it now.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
|
|
__________________
"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. |
|
31st March 2016, 04:49 AM | #91 |
Now. Do it now.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
|
|
__________________
"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. |
|
31st March 2016, 04:50 AM | #92 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
And one vote for secrecy to hide important information. Now tell us why your opinion outweighs any other.
Correction, you stated your *opinion* that it's not a legitimate answer. You offered nothing of substance to support your opinion. 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. 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 |
|
31st March 2016, 04:51 AM | #93 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
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. |
31st March 2016, 04:57 AM | #94 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
31st March 2016, 05:08 AM | #95 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
31st March 2016, 05:13 AM | #96 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
31st March 2016, 05:19 AM | #97 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,502
|
|
31st March 2016, 05:20 AM | #98 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
31st March 2016, 05:22 AM | #99 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
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.
|
31st March 2016, 05:26 AM | #100 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
|
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
31st March 2016, 05:35 AM | #101 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,502
|
|
31st March 2016, 05:42 AM | #102 |
Penultimate Amazing
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. |
31st March 2016, 05:50 AM | #103 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
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.
|
31st March 2016, 05:52 AM | #104 |
Now. Do it now.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
|
|
__________________
"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. |
|
31st March 2016, 05:53 AM | #105 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
31st March 2016, 05:55 AM | #106 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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 |
|
31st March 2016, 05:57 AM | #107 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,173
|
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:
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 |
|
31st March 2016, 05:58 AM | #108 |
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
|
|
31st March 2016, 05:59 AM | #109 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
31st March 2016, 06:06 AM | #110 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
31st March 2016, 06:07 AM | #111 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
31st March 2016, 06:09 AM | #112 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
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 |
31st March 2016, 06:09 AM | #113 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
31st March 2016, 06:11 AM | #114 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
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.
|
31st March 2016, 06:14 AM | #115 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
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. |
31st March 2016, 06:20 AM | #116 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
Funny.
You "forgot" to copy this:
Quote:
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. |
31st March 2016, 06:21 AM | #117 |
Now. Do it now.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
|
|
__________________
"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. |
|
31st March 2016, 06:24 AM | #118 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
31st March 2016, 06:25 AM | #119 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
31st March 2016, 06:28 AM | #120 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|