Does a Tendency to Question Authority Automatically Relegate One to the "Fringe"? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 07-04-2005, 12:52 AM

The contents of this post
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=24 inspired this thread, since I did not want to hijack the thread that it appeared in to give this new topic the opportunity for further discussion that I believe it deserves, because I think that it goes to a core issue about our ability to discuss most issues with each other here.

Are we confined to a discussion of a narrower set of issues than we would be if all of us were more skeptical of what authorities do and say? If so, then it may be that those who are most trusting of authority and therefore, most complacent with the political status quo, limit the ability of the rest of us to discuss a potentially broader and more in depth variety of subjects and issues. This "limiting" can happen via the method in the post I link above as an example, creating or influencing an environment where participants may no longer think that it is worth the risk of being ostracized or the effort of having to do double duty, defending against a "shoot the messenger" reaction of another participant, while at the same time defending the merit of your actual argument. To a degree, most of us are guilty from time to time of putting more effort into discrediting the messenger than the message, but it is especially irksome when it limits the variety and the scope of things that are permissible to discuss.

I am posting the following excerpt as an example of something that should be permissible for discussion, since the issue is whether or not the press and the government have earnestly and accurately delivered a passenger list to the American public. There is enough information in the entirety of the excerpted article to make a determination of the "whether or not" issue of the press and the government outlined above, if one takes the time to visit the links in the article and takes the time to fully contemplate the author's observations and research. Are those who choose to participate in this thread capable of doing that, or will the reaction be to inject comments intended to "limit" or to derail the discussion of either the thread topic or of the "whether or not" question in the example article?

Quote:

<a href="http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=65">
MEDIA PUBLISHED FAKE PASSENGER LISTS FOR AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11. </a>
....................There are now a minimum of 8 fictitious innocents -unless someone wants to suggest that there were 100 people aboard in total -or else get creative with the practical application of abstract maths and suggest that the plane was hijacked by a group of Arabs numbering minus three, making the total passenger load 92 - in which case the media owes an explanation for why it keeps publishing 5 names for these minus three individuals.

Someone is fibbing.

Here is a summary of the anomalies between the lists.

Collectively, these sources list the names of 95 alleged innocents.

CNN lists 87 names, which should be a complete list ,but indicates that the list is incomplete. The 8 left out are Vamsikrishna, Roux, Iskander,Jalbert, Tu,Weems,Ward and Booms.

USAT lists 86 names, citing this as a "partial list", Those missing are Caplin, Jalbert, Jude Larson, Natalie Larson, Roux, Tu,Weems,Ward and Iskander.

NBC lists 87 names. Its the same as USAT with the addition of Iskander, but changes Peter Hashem to Peter el-Hachem.

PBS is identical to NBC.

The Boston daily lists 89 innocents and describes it as a a partial list. Those missing are Iskander,Vamsikrishna, Tu , Weems,Ward and Booms. It is the only list to name Jalbert.

A year later it lists 87 names, changing Heath Smith to Heather Smith, Hashem to el-Hachem , and losing Caplin, the two Larsons, Jalbert and Roux for Iskander, Vamsikrishna and Booms.

The Washington Post published a "partial list" containing 89 names. Those missing are Iskander,Vamsikrishna, Jalbert , Tu , Weems and Ward .

The "we will never forget" website lists 88 names. Those missing are Vamsrikrishna, Jalbert, Booms, Tu, Weems,Ward and Roux.

The AA11 memorial website lists 90 names and claims 95 aboard. The missing names are Vamsikrishna, Tu, Weems, Ward and Jalbert.

Wikipedia claims a summation of 93 aboard, but lists only 92 names (including hijackers).It is the only site to list Lana Tu. Those missing are Iskander, Caplin, the two Larsons, Jalbert,Weems,Ward and Roux. This makes it the same as the USAT list with the addition of Tu or put another way - the same as the NBC and PBS lists except that Tu is in for Isaknder.

The American Memorials/Obituary site lists 90 names and is the only list to name Weems and Ward. It leaves out Tu, Jalbert,Vamsikrishna, Roux and Booms.

Several sources claim that AA released 77 (or 75) names on Sept 12, but the Washington Post published 89 names the same day, and the Boston Daily published 89 - but not the same 89 - the day after, while Fox News was still claiming that only 81 names were confirmed a week later.

We still can't rule out the possibility that Caplin/Kaplan is a genuine co-incidence, but suspicion is justified, especially as Caplin is one of the frequently missing names. Some lists have Peter el-Hachem, others Peter Hashem Some lists have Heather Smith and others Heath Smith. Most lists have Antonio Montoya but one has Antonio Montoya Valdes.

Since the media which sells us the official story universally agrees that there were 92 aboard - 87 innocents and 5 hijackers, then 8 of these names (although we cant yet specify which 8 ) must be fictitious. If 8 are confirmed as fictitious, then we are perfectly entitled to speculate with some validity that any number of the 95 could be fictitious.

What's even more curious is that four of these names also appear on the lists for UA 175, alleged to have hit the Sth Tower of the WTC at 9.03. Jalbert, Roux, Ward and Weems.

What a mess ! This crime - the murder of approximately 3000 people , and the excuse for two wars and alarming attacks on civil liberties - and presumably more to come - is supposed to have been properly investigated and documented ? Why should we be expected to believe who the hijackers were, when the spin doctors can't even do a credible fabrication job of a list of innocent victims ?

It's previously been demanded by many sceptics that we need to see a verifiable official passenger list which actually contains the names of the alleged hijackers. We can now take the implications of that further and point to the absence of any passenger list documentation for AA11 which stands up to scrutiny as a credible document. We have nothing which could support the existence of any of the alleged passengers on the alleged flight.

The fact is - that in nearly three years - the media has tried to give the impression that they have published valid passenger lists, when all that has been provided is the contradictory rubbish exposed in this investigation. We are left with no choice but to conclude that these AA11 lists are fabrications. Personal stories of those allegedly involved have been built on the basis of these fabricated lists. As qualified earlier, some or all of them may be real people who are really missing, and may have friends or families who genuinely believe that they got on to a flight called AA11. We don't know at this stage. But the passenger lists as complete entities are lies..........

Elphaba · 07-04-2005, 01:42 PM

Host, I have followed Holmgren's supporting data and find that he was meticulous in the cross checking of the various passenger lists that have been provided. I can agree that this something worth looking into, but I am not yet ready to accept his conclusion that we have been lied to by the government.

To reach that conclusion myself, I would need to do my own search looking for *the*
document that reconciles and/or explains the differences and is from an official source. I would also want to know more about those names that originally appeared in error.

This would be a massive undertaking for an old gal with marginal googling skills and a dial-up connection. I'm now aware that something is amiss and will keep a look out for further information from better researcher than I.

I am also aware of the Pentagon discrepancies that have links on Holmgren's site. I'm not knowledgable enough to weigh the merits of the "expert" opinions summoned by both sides of this debate. So once again I am stuck...I "know" that I don't know.

Maybe that was what you were looking for? Doubt rather than unsupported certainty?

host · 07-04-2005, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I'm now aware that something is amiss and will keep a look out for further information from better researcher than I...........

.......Maybe that was what you were looking for? Doubt rather than unsupported certainty?

Elphaba, thank you for your consideration of the material in the article. What I am looking for are participants here who do not resort to moving the discussion away from the topic(s) and over to a focus on the perceived "credentials" of a recent poster or of the thread author.

That tactic has been so successful in stifling discussion that should take place at this politics forum, that even the moderators here seem to react with sensistivity to those who feign an "affront to their sensibilities" at the mere introduction of subjects that they intend to condition the rest of us to believe are "taboo". I saw the "tactic" used in the post I linked at the beginning of this thread, and I thought that I would attempt to wrap my mind around the subject by spotlighting it as a thread.

People, wanting to discuss the possible political machinations behind major news organizations who present what should be a straightforward report of the names on an airline passenger roster, described by the publishers as attributed to: "according to family members, friends, co-workers and local law enforcement." , is neither "fringe", nor does it relegate one to the discrediting label of 'subscribing to conspiracy theories", even if some here have been successful in convincing you that it does.

Does it not seem ludicrous to present a list that purports to be a compilation derived from information provided by 'family members, friends, co-workers and local law enforcement.", instead of from the airline or from the FAA? How would news reporters, within 48 hours of a flight, know who and how to contact "family members, friends, co-workers", confirm the relationships of that described group to the actual passsengers, and compile a reliable list from their input? That is how the sources for the list were described and it seems inconceivable that there has been so little notice of or reaction to this.

It should not even be necessary to defend the legitimacy of this topic by adding the point that that there is no accurate list provided by reputable sources, even after three years. It is appropriate to discuss this curious and interesting discrepancy here and to react to those who profess an offense to their sensibilities that this is even up for discussion, by inviting them to limit their further participation, instead of by reinforcing their intent to limit the discussion in TFP Politics to subjects that they approve of.

07-04-2005, 01:42 PM	#2 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Host, I have followed Holmgren's supporting data and find that he was meticulous in the cross checking of the various passenger lists that have been provided. I can agree that this something worth looking into, but I am not yet ready to accept his conclusion that we have been lied to by the government. To reach that conclusion myself, I would need to do my own search looking for the document that reconciles and/or explains the differences and is from an official source. I would also want to know more about those names that originally appeared in error. This would be a massive undertaking for an old gal with marginal googling skills and a dial-up connection. I'm now aware that something is amiss and will keep a look out for further information from better researcher than I. I am also aware of the Pentagon discrepancies that have links on Holmgren's site. I'm not knowledgable enough to weigh the merits of the "expert" opinions summoned by both sides of this debate. So once again I am stuck...I "know" that I don't know. Maybe that was what you were looking for? Doubt rather than unsupported certainty?