27 Feb 2014

Two Unrelated (?) Videos

Big Brother, Conspiracy 50 Comments

I am carrying these YouTubes on my browser to post for a Potpourri, but I need to clean up the tabs and I want to feature them. So here ya go.

I think they are pretty self-explanatory.

50 Responses to “Two Unrelated (?) Videos”

  1. Enopoletus Harding says:

    Here’s the portion of Kennedy’s speech that has been blatantly edited out of the video:

    But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.
    Today no war has been declared—and however fierce the struggle may be—it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
    If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
    It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions—by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper.

    -Very Bush II-ish.
    http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3677
    Gary North discussed this speech some weeks ago:
    http://www.garynorth.com/public/12006.cfm

    • Rick Hull says:

      Nice.

      By that standard, I suppose, there has been a Clear And Present Danger for the last 50 years. One almost imagines these wars on abstract nouns are open-ended justifications for just about anything.

      At least JFK gave the sop to classical liberal notions.

  2. joe says:

    Were the 9/11 attacks blow back or a false flag? Can’t have it both ways.

    • Ken B says:

      Bob can. Have you seen his logical gymnastics on the region threads? Nadia Comaneci couldn’t twist like that.

      • Anonymous says:

        When did Bob claim that the 9/11 attacks were a “false flag”? I have never seen him make this claim, although I could certainly be wrong. (In order to have it both ways, Bob would have had to make both claims.)

        So probably no logical gymnastics here, not even to the standards of the over 50 years old Nadia Comaneci.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          I actually think I’ve had it neither way. I don’t remember ever offering an opinion on 9/11.

          • Ken B says:

            Careful readers (stop laughing LK) will note I did not say anything about your opinions on 911. I remarked upon your logic gymnastics skills as evinced on the religion threads.

            • Reece says:

              Careful careful readers will note neither Bob or I claimed otherwise. (And careful careful careful readers will note that you never claimed that Bob and I claimed otherwise…!)

              But, you have to admit saying “Bob can [have it both ways on this]” is a little misleading if Bob never claimed both ways (or, in this case, either way). Not saying that is a bad thing, but our comments pointing this out could just be looked at as 1) Answering joe’s comment and 2) Correcting any misconceptions from uncareful readers.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Exactly Reece. And notice that Reece and I are by no means accusing Ken of implying that I had accused him of misleading people about my statements on 9/11.

                In any event, expecting Ken to produce example when he no-not-really mocks someone is like asking Selgin if he’s a praxeologist: It cramps his style.

              • Ken B says:

                Anonymous did. Is he part of this thread?

              • Reece says:

                I was “Anonymous,” because I failed to enter a name the first time. But where did I accuse you of anything in that post? I asked where Bob said 9/11 was a “false flag” (quoting joe), admitted I didn’t know if he did, and then said there were probably no logical difficulties here. At most, it could be looked at as misleading people into thinking you were saying something you were not, which is why your clarifying reply was fine.

              • Ken B says:

                Bob, you want an example? I was mocking your pretzel logic on the religion threads. As an example Dr Pangloss Was Right will do nicely.

                Here’s the thing Bob. You often take shots at me, I often take shots at you.

              • Reece says:

                Okay, but suppose you posted something on your blog saying “I have a cat.” Then, in the comments, someone replied saying “Did you get to the store by driving or walking? Can’t have it both ways” to which I replied, “Ken B can. Have you seen his logical gymnastics on the economics threads?” It would be a bit strange, considering the original thread had nothing to do with going to the store, let alone economics.

                Also, below you said “Joe vindicated, in spirit at least,” after Bob said he didn’t know what happened. Which, of course, means Bob took neither position – the complete opposite of what Joe was implying. How this was “vindication” is beyond me.

              • Ken B says:

                Its vindication because whatever actually happened –and we know, only loons think otherwise– Bob sees it as the govt being nefarious. And scare quotes on crime scene? That can only imply the govt pretending its a crime scene ie being complicit.

              • Reece says:

                How did you get “Bob sees it as the govt being nefarious” out of that? He said he doesn’t believe the official version. Does that mean he sees the government being nefarious here? He said he had no idea on whether it was completely terrorist activity or had government involvement. Does that mean he sees the govt being nefarious here?

                “And scare quotes on crime scene? That can only imply the govt pretending its a crime scene ie being complicit.” ?!?!??!?! Are you serious?? In the words of a great commenter, “Nadia Comaneci couldn’t twist like that.”

                Now, ignoring the logical baloney, suppose you are correct. Please explain how the “the govt being nefarious” helps vindicate the position that Bob was holding two positions at once.

                I’m shocked right now. I never knew Bob was going through this.

              • Ken B says:

                What two positions at once? Heads I win tails you lose is not two positions at once. According to Bob either way the govt is up to no good. And why? Because they cleaned up the site “too fast”. Think about that. It can pnly be too fast if there’s a real mystery. Did the police clean up after Breivik too fast? There’s no mystery. Two planes full of jet fuel hit the towers.
                What evidence does Bob have?

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Ken B. are you kidding me? Do you even know what I’m talking about when I say they cleaned up the site or are you shooting first and asking questions later?

              • Ken B says:

                Did I miss a post here Bob? You said you’ve never expressed an opinion on 911. But you expressed one on the clean up and why it was too fast? Because if not I am relying on the totality of what you have written on the topic.
                Anyway I freely admit that if you had something in mind and never mentioned it I don’t know what it is.

              • Reece says:

                “What two positions at once? Heads I win tails you lose is not two positions at once.” We were talking about vindicating JOE’s statement. Joe did not hold the position that Bob was playing a “Heads I win tails you lose.” Joe was asking if Bob was having it “both ways.” The two positions were “blow back or a false flag.” So, I’ll be more clear this time. How does Bob’s statement vindicate the position that Bob is holding both that 1) The 9/11 attacks were a false flag and 2) The 9/11 attacks were blow back? Remember, in his statement Bob said he held NEITHER position.

                “According to Bob either way the govt is up to no good.” I don’t see this in his statement. The “too fast” statement seems to be on believing the official story. I asked before if you thought not believing the official story means that the government was being nefarious. Is this your position?

                “What evidence does Bob have?” He didn’t provide any. He was offering “an opinion.” And why was he doing this? Because he was asked to (“can you offer an opinion now?”).

                “It can pnly be too fast if there’s a real mystery.” That’s not true. I actually think the government cleaned up so fast because they already had a lot of intelligence – but failed to follow through on it before the attacks (this is incompetence, not nefarious). Whether I’m right or not is irrelevant, and I don’t plan to argue this – it’s a position that is held by a lot of people, and could certainly be held by Bob. The amount of intelligence, losing track of the individuals – these are all well known, and not a conspiracy. Yet they often are not considered in the “official story,” which is all Bob said he did not believe. There could be plenty of other reasons too. You are assuming Bob means something without any evidence at all.

              • Ken B says:

                Sigh. Not at the same time, alternately, as convenient to feed the belief that the guvmint done wrong. It’s typical of conspiracists with a bad case of confirmation to favor in quick alternation incompatible theories and draw the same conclusion from each.

              • Reece says:

                Who said anything about the same time? “How does Bob’s statement vindicate the position that Bob is holding both that 1) The 9/11 attacks were a false flag and 2) The 9/11 attacks were blow back?” I don’t care if it’s the same time.

              • Ken B says:

                Feel free to continue misrepresenting me Reece, you’ll win fans for it here. I said, its right there on the thread, in spirit. And Bob is doing a heads i win tails you lose. Note I said Ben B’s remark was vindicated exactly. A child could tell what I meant, I’ve repeated it to you several times.

              • Reece says:

                You said: “Joe vindicated, in spirit at least.”
                I then replied: “Also, below you said “Joe vindicated, in spirit at least,” after Bob said he didn’t know what happened. Which, of course, means Bob took neither position – the complete opposite of what Joe was implying. How this was “vindication” is beyond me.”
                You replied: “Its vindication because whatever actually happened –and we know, only loons think otherwise– Bob sees it as the govt being nefarious.”

                You clearly said it was vindication, unless if “Its vindication” somehow means something else. Unlike you, I’ve actually been quoting your position and replying to it. If you want, we can bring the “spirit” (whatever that means) back in (which, I quoted and then stopped after you said it was vindication directly), but it’s not really relevant because there is NO backing for Bob taking a position on either side. Like I said in the original, it is the complete opposite.

                I didn’t comment on the Ben B remark because that didn’t really have anything to do with the thread at the time. In any case, even there, you have failed to provide any evidence that Bob is doing a “heads i win tails you lose.” You never answered my point that many people would say the exact same thing and would not say the government was being nefarious, including me. Your claims rested on ridiculous notions, like Bob putting two words in quotation marks, which somehow “can only imply the govt pretending.”

                “Feel free to continue misrepresenting me Reece, you’ll win fans for it here” I have, for a while now, quoted you directly and then responded, in an attempt to be as fair as possible. You’re now accusing me of misrepresenting you. I want an actual quote, no more silly games like “A child could tell what I meant.”

              • Ken B says:

                Which Reece to answer? The one who said
                “Please explain how the “the govt being nefarious” helps vindicate the position that Bob was holding two positions at once.”
                Or the one who said
                “Who said anything about the same time? ”
                How about both of them: you’re not being sufficiently consistent to make this a useful discussion. You make a claim, I answer, you deny making the claim. You shift the goalposts each comment.

              • Reece says:

                Ken, I’m honestly not sure if you’re trolling me. Yes, at one point I said “at once.” You then replied, “What two positions at once? Heads I win tails you lose is not two positions at once. According to Bob either way the govt is up to no good…” I never complained about this, because it was a reply to my comment. In a later post I asked, in order to be more clear, “So, I’ll be more clear this time. How does Bob’s statement vindicate the position that Bob is holding both that 1) The 9/11 attacks were a false flag and 2) The 9/11 attacks were blow back? Remember, in his statement Bob said he held NEITHER position.” You then said, “the same time” in reply to THIS post. And then I replied, “Who said anything about the same time? “How does Bob’s statement vindicate the position that Bob is holding both that 1) The 9/11 attacks were a false flag and 2) The 9/11 attacks were blow back?” I don’t care if it’s the same time.” Anyone can read these comments, in order, and see what is happening here. If you were replying to my post a few back for a second time, I apologize, but it would have been helpful if you were more clear.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Ken, I’m honestly not sure if you’re trolling me.

                The human condition.

              • Reece says:

                It should also be noted that I said “I don’t care if it’s the same time” in reply to you – so, even if you were replying to my earlier post, the substance of my post would have been the same (essentially updating the earlier challenge), just with a snarky question at the beginning.

              • Ken B says:

                Reece, I’d prefer not to discuss with you at all frankly since you exhibit no consistency. I have made my point clear enough.

              • Reece says:

                Okay. Thanks for the discussion.

            • andrew' says:

              Careful readers skip you and Joe.

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            OK, can you offer an opinion now?

            • Bob Murphy says:

              Keshav I looked into that stuff a bit back when the Truther documentaries came out. I also looked at a bunch of people claiming to debunk the conspiracy theorists. It got to the point where two people with apparent qualifications (like PhDs in engineering etc.) would look at the same video sequence and tell their audiences opposite things. I would need to take a course (or the self-study equivalent) in building engineering to figure out who is lying/simply mistaken.

              I definitely don’t believe the official version, since the gov’t cleared out the “crime scene” really fast. But am I saying it wasn’t foreigners, and instead was Dick Cheney planting explosives the night before? No, I really have no idea what happened.

              • Ken B says:

                Joe vindicated, in spirit at least.

              • Ken B says:

                Ben B vindicated for sure, but I expect he was being serious not ironic.

              • Ben B says:

                If it’s blowback, it’s indirectly the government’s fault. If it’s a false flag, it’s directly the government’s fault. Either way it is the government’s fault. Yes, you could assign more blame to the government if it were strictly a false flag, in that the government is the actual perpetrator. But it is also the government’s fault if it is blowback just like it’s the mugged person’s fault when he walks into a dark alley late at night in a strange neighborhood. Yes, legally it may not be the governnent’s fault in a blowback situation just like a mugged person can’t be legally held responsible for allowing himself to be mugged (or more analogously; that he allowed someone who might have been under his care to get mugged), but to me this is irrelevant; the government is either acting incompetently or nefariously and doesn’t deserve my monetary tributes.

              • Ben B says:

                Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word fault since it might imply direct responsibility or culpability.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                Bob, what are you referring to when you say “the gov’t cleared out the “crime scene”” really fast?

              • Bob Murphy says:

                OK Keshav try this NYT article from late 2001 for the light version, where it says:

                In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.

                Officials in the mayor’s office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three- day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation.

                “The city considered it reasonable to have recovered structural steel recycled,” said Matthew G. Monahan, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Design and Construction, which is in charge of debris removal at the site.

                Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation’s most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments.

                The investigation, organized immediately after Sept. 11 by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the field’s leading professional organization, has been financed and administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. A mismatch between the federal agency and senior engineers accustomed to bypassing protocol in favor of quick answers has been identified as a clear point of friction.

                “This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied,” said one team member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press.

                And then if you want the conspiracy treatment, see e.g. this site. I’m not endorsing that site; it was just one of the top hits to give you a flavor of what I’m talking about. The government quickly chopped up and carted away the physical evidence at Ground Zero, which is not something you would expect them to do if discovering the truth were their top priority.

              • Ken B says:

                Wow. That,s not engineers wondering if its an inside job. That’s engineers wondering if better construction might have prevented the collapse, given that fanatics flew planes into the building.
                And it’s not hard to see reasons to want to clean up the mess. It sounds like some city office did that. Most likely unaware of the potential value of crumpled steel for an architectural autopsy.

              • Ken B says:

                The word evidence, especially linked to crime scene, is loaded and misleading. The engineers mean evidence of the progress of the collapse, not evidence pertinent to who destroyed the building. Misleading is a kind word for this.

              • Ken B says:

                What happened to metodological individualism? Here we have “the government” ordering the clean up. Actually a city office. We see routinely snafus delays and inconsistencies between different levels of govt. Think Katrina. But here the actions of a city office are “the government” and so blended with the feds and Dick Cheney.
                Risible.

    • Ben B says:

      Either way it’s the government’s fault.

    • Andrew' says:

      Joe doesn’t understand Bayesianism.

      • Andrew' says:

        He also doesn’t seem to know much about the CIA.

        What, exactly, can you put past them? Personally, I of course put 9/11 past them to some number of decimal places, but that is faith- which is all you guys have too, even if you believe otherwise.

        • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

          I put it past them too – although not out of the belief that they’re too decent and just to murder a bunch of civilians, but out of the belief that they’re too incompetent to engineer all this and not have any reliable inside source come out and talk about it.

          • Ken B says:

            They got you. All that incompetence you see in running post offices and snow removal is an act. Gov’t employees are dancing wu-li masters of deception, duplicity, co-ordination and secrecy. This is how they can murder Kennedy with chemtrails and fake planes crashing into buildings, without a leak or tangible evidence.

            • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

              Thing is though, aren’t there plenty of people (granted, of VERY questionable credibility) who have made careers going around saying things like “I was part of the secret chemtrail conspriacy!”

              I have yet to hear of anyone come out and publicly claim “I was part of the planting of explosives in the Pentagon!”

              I think they could engineer the act, just not the cover-up. Hell, Nixon himself couldn’t even successfully cover-up petty theft at some stupid hotel!

            • Gamble says:

              Ken B,

              I get our point about government incompetence, this we agree. Regarding secrets, we disagree. government is compartmentalized. Nobody knows what anybody else is doing, its just the nature of government. So secrets do not need to be kept because not many people knew in the first place.

              You could have 1 guy at the top, give only partial instruction to certain people and nobody would no the entire plan of what anybody else was doing. So only 1 person would have a secret. This 1 person gets a payoff and has no need to ever tell anybody.

              So all kinds of bad things are possible and nobody will ever know.

              It is really quite simple within government structure.

              • Ken B says:

                Gamble, most of the conspiracies involve lots of people over lots of time. Can two clerks bilk the govt? Sure. But the chemtrails crap is a huge allged conspiracy over decades.

              • Tel says:

                It doesn’t really matter if government is compartmentalised or not. People committing crimes always form compartmentalised groups out of mutual protection. These people may work for government, they may even be part of the government but they certainly don’t represent government as a whole.

                Because government is powerful, it attracts the type of people who have a love of power and are prone to corruption. That doesn’t mean all of them are corrupt but over time corruption sets in and those self-interested parties look for ways to cooperatively promote their own interests… which is pretty damn normal.

Leave a Reply