|
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, 02:32 PM | #161 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
31st March 2016, 02:43 PM | #162 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
Here's the thing, though: Your opinion is no longer relevant. The histories were released in 2015. You no longer have to speculate about what might be in them. You no longer have to settle for just having an opinion. You can actually have the facts.
Your suspicion in this thread might have made more sense in 2005, before the histories were released. After 2005, though, your thesis makes no sense at all. You could simply study the histories and reach a fact-based, informed conclusion about them. You've had ten years to find something in the histories themselves to fuel suspicion. Instead, you're still stuck back in 2004, when the most suspicious thing about them was that they hadn't been released yet. slowpoke.jpg In fact, I don't think your suspicion would have made much sense in 2004, either. As you say, the privacy concern is valid. Sabrina makes a good case for why it would not have been possible to anonymize the history. In any case, it would have cost time and money to make the attempt, and for no real gain. For one thing, the histories belong first and foremost to the individuals that provided them. We are not entitled to them. Their authors are not obligated to accept our promise of anonymity. They are not required to give any reason for refusing to publish them. It is not up to them to justify withholding the histories. It is up to us to justify publishing the histories. The original reason for collecting the histories was to preserve the experiences of the first responders for posterity, before our collective memory reshaped the events. It's possible that they might not have been published for a generation or more, to meet the needs of future historians. However, since 2005 that justification has been fulfilled. Another justification for publishing the histories was to give an accused criminal a fair trial. This is good and proper, and it was done without making a wider publication against the wishes of the authors. This is also good and proper. Another justification--yours--is that the histories should be published because we're entitled to them. But that is not true. Only the authors are entitled to their memories. If we get to share them, it is their gift, not our mandate. As for your complaint that it is suspicious that the histories have not been released: That complaint was obsolete ten years ago. You really need to read the histories and update your arguments. |
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
31st March 2016, 03:15 PM | #163 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
31st March 2016, 03:23 PM | #164 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,502
|
|
31st March 2016, 03:36 PM | #165 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,042
|
|
31st March 2016, 03:44 PM | #166 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,923
|
|
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick |
|
31st March 2016, 03:46 PM | #167 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,923
|
|
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick |
|
31st March 2016, 03:51 PM | #168 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,173
|
1. See Rule 4. Copying and pasting entire articles is against forum rules.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's frankly ridiculous to be making a fuss over the declassification of 12,000 pages of material less than 4 years after an event. In Europe, there are typically 30 Year Rules - now lowered in the UK to a 20 Year Rule. That means most government documents remain classified for 2-3 decades. But personal information is usually kept archived for a hundred years in many countries, sometimes even longer. Not here. You're making a pointless fuss over a declassification of sources that already happened ten freaking years ago. Had the documents been used in the Moussaoui trial, they would have become public records. The fire department was misinformed about this concern, but sub judice is a potentially real concern, not something made up for no reason whatsoever. Confidentiality is likewise a real concern. If a journalist or historian conducts an interview and is told that they cannot use it until x time, e.g. the death of the interviewee, and they break that confidentiality, they can be sued. The first responders were already being interviewed by journalists for articles and books, and collectively they seem not to have insisted on continued confidentiality. So that reason then fell by the wayside, making the declassification possible. Privacy was the final concern, and since the release of records did not just concern the oral histories but also concerned the 911 emergency response call tapes, that is why the court ruling kept the emergency response tapes out of the public domain. The oral histories were then released. the tl;dr version is: why are you fussing over a minor delay in the release of documents that happened 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, 03:51 PM | #169 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
31st March 2016, 03:52 PM | #170 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
31st March 2016, 04:40 PM | #171 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
|
31st March 2016, 05:54 PM | #172 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
Some oral histories withheld for possible reasons of privacy....9/11WAS AN INSIDE JOB!
The stupid...it burns with a blue flame. |
31st March 2016, 06:01 PM | #173 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Anonymity would only cause the 9-11 Troofers to double down on their paranoia. Of course, Troofers want it both ways.
Look, we get it, you have no idea how things in a big American city work. The NYPD, FDNY, and other city agencies have their own unions. From the article:
Quote:
Example: Police Shootings. In the majority of cases the officer is not publicly named, a luxury that suspects are not afforded, and it is months until the officer's name is revealed if ever. The other thing you fail to understand is that the majority of the information contained within the oral histories is redundant. There is no new information contained, lots of gory details yes, but nothing that changes the larger story at all. Hundreds of FDNY, NYPD, paramedics, iron workers, and others were interviewed by the media on and after 9-11-2001 (WTC-7 dropped while a reporter was doing a standup interview). The newspapers and television news were filled with thousands of first-hand accounts of the attacks. Most of the recordings only add a ghoulish touch to the story as those trapped in the towers beg for their lives. |
31st March 2016, 06:02 PM | #174 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
No, just pointed out there were sounds that sounded like explosions to people in a dangerous, desperate situation and place. Lots of things breaking sound like explosions and high heat conditions can cause explosive sounds (that technically may well be explosions WITHOUT BEING CAUSED BY ACTUAL EXPLOSIVES PLANTED IN THE/A STRUCTURE!!!!!!!!!)
|
31st March 2016, 06:06 PM | #175 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
|
31st March 2016, 06:08 PM | #176 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
|
31st March 2016, 08:35 PM | #177 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
I see. You haven't mulled over the issue around these testimonies since their release a decade ago. You just found out about it now and think there was something suspicious about it. You can't say what, and even those who have known about it haven't seen anything in it. Intrepid defender of truth that you are though, you want answers even if you don't really have a question.
So, again, if everything has been released , what in them points to any conspiracy wrt the events at the WTC? If some are still withheld, what do you expect could be discovered in them? ETA: btw I didn't say you HAD mulled it over for a decade. I said you had a decade to mull it over. That you took nearly that entire time to even become aware of it is another issue. |
31st March 2016, 09:30 PM | #178 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,831
|
|
31st March 2016, 09:42 PM | #179 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
Help me understand: You recently found out that this material was published over ten years ago, and instead of thinking, "damn, I better get up to date!", you decided to ignore the material entirely and tell us all how outrageous it is that it hadn't been released yet?
|
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
31st March 2016, 09:45 PM | #180 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
31st March 2016, 09:58 PM | #181 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
Falseflag appears to be arguing that there was something deeply suspicious about an initial decision by the NYC FF to not release these personal transcripts. Yet the transcripts were indeed released over 10 years ago by court order and nothing suspicious was found in them over the many years of people combing through them. Anyone see a problem with the premise?
|
31st March 2016, 10:10 PM | #182 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
Play the new TV game show "Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you?" in which our panel of untrained people try to identify things that seem odd to them in very complex and technically complex situations. Using their Wikipedia browsing and youtube acquired knowledge of physics, our contestants will point out items that fail to match their advance and uninformed expectations, such as" free fall collapse" and attempts to shield individual's privacy. If our contestants manage to identify three items that did not work as they expected, they win a large ego, bragging rights to their friends, and the ability to accuse others of plotting heinous acts or of being sheep. Broadcasts Tuesday and Thursday from 1 to 2 AM on the fishing channel.
|
31st March 2016, 10:19 PM | #183 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
I'm reposting this once more to answer all of the relevant questions asked since the last time I logged on.
Once again, skeptics go nuts over everything. Here is how this thread would look in a "normal" forum. OP - Why would anyone block the release of the oral histories of the first reponders? Any other member - Privacy. OP - Privacy is a concern, but that concern could be addressed through anonymity. Any other member - The fire chief blocked the release because he was worried it might interfere with the Moussaoui trial. He changed his position later on. OP - OK. OP - So, the only reason anyone is giving is "privacy". This sounds legit, but it's not a reason to block the release. It would be a reason to redact names, but that is all. OP - Since a legitimate reason has not been given as to why the release was blocked, it indicates that someone (Mayor Bloomberg at the very least) wanted to withhold information. OP - Withholding information is a form of secrecy. Once again we have secrecy where there should be none. 9. OK. That's how this should have gone. Instead, we have this thread. This thread speaks VOLUMES for just how absolutely insane skeptics are about everything. That's the conclusion an intelligent person is going to make when they read this thread. Deny it all you want, but this is all out there now. There are now several threads where this common trait is being exhibited. Actually, it's probably in all of them, but it's just now being pointed out. |
31st March 2016, 10:28 PM | #184 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
That is a lie, a legit reason was given and information give proves it.
Why are lies used as evidence in 9/11 truth? I owe another beer to all NWO paid shills, meet me in Nevada City;;; PM me. offer has a limited warranty , my life time... better hurry... I think we should have a "your shout" if we reply to the person who can't figure out 911 after this much denial. It is now my shout... Nevada City here we come... |
__________________
"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, 10:41 PM | #185 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,831
|
|
31st March 2016, 10:45 PM | #186 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
31st March 2016, 10:46 PM | #187 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
You mean like this?:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...t=lurkers+poll Yeah most of the lurkers here think your kind are idiots too. |
31st March 2016, 10:55 PM | #188 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
|
31st March 2016, 10:59 PM | #189 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
31st March 2016, 11:03 PM | #190 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,831
|
|
31st March 2016, 11:04 PM | #191 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
31st March 2016, 11:07 PM | #192 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,831
|
No, I just give you none.
|
31st March 2016, 11:09 PM | #193 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
1st April 2016, 12:41 AM | #194 |
Fait Accompli
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rain City
Posts: 2,181
|
|
__________________
Life is God’s funniest joke And we are the punchline |
|
1st April 2016, 01:34 AM | #195 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,831
|
|
1st April 2016, 01:45 AM | #196 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,177
|
Possibly. Or, more likely, something anyone who takes a little time to actually check something before posting.
Here's a video (on YouTube, so truther-friendly), of a slightly geeky guy getting rather too excited about dropping things of a building. It's not an especially high building, but high enough to show how things dropped even from that modest height can sound like explosions. The bowling ball hitting the TV at around 2.30 is a good example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ8iEwXzb_A |
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer |
|
1st April 2016, 01:55 AM | #197 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,177
|
Evidence of what?
I share the general confusion about what you think the correct reason for wanting to withhold the recordings is. Was my answer of privacy correct or not? If not, what is your own answer? I also think that your repeated phrasing of this as a "correct" answer is rather presumptuous of you. You are (again) setting yourself up as the holder of all the answers, and the rest of us as humble supplicants at the altar of your omniscience. Your opinion is as valid or invalid as anyone else's. It is subject to the same scrutiny and evaluation as anyone else's. Its worth should be decided by the logic and evidence it is backed up with, rather than an initial assumption of correctness. As should anyone else's. In this light, why don't you reveal what you think the correct answer is? It would further this discussion enormously. |
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer |
|
1st April 2016, 01:57 AM | #198 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,502
|
Here's one from 8 years ago, in which 'roundhead' (a village idiot late of this parish) opined on the subject: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...39#post3966239 (He even did the vainglorious 'you stupid fools' routine, the 'appeal to lurkers' and the 'flounce and return') |
1st April 2016, 01:58 AM | #199 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
1st April 2016, 02:02 AM | #200 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|