User talk:Bov

Welcome!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

9/11

Please do not add wtc7 links to pages such as Collapse of the World Trade Center. Conspiracy beliefs which are held by a very small minority should stay in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Thank you. Rhobite 19:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if Wikipedia is divided between the word of the Bush Admin being 'the truth' and the 'view of the world' and everything else being 'conspiracy theory,' then we're headed into fascism faster than I thought. I'm a 9/11 researcher and as it turns out, there are many like me all over the world. That's why those trying to stop the exposure of the STUDY of what happened on 9/11 by labelling people with derogatory phrases ('conspiracy theorists,' i.e., commie pinko, longhair, reds, etc.) straight out of Whitehouse mouthpieces and criminals, are engaged in a losing effort, even here on Wikipedia. As the lies coming out of the fascist Administration compound daily, the work of their own small army - patriots, wannabe neocons, religious right, Left Icons, disinfo peddlers, agents and others like them - is crushed by the weight of their increasing work load to protect the government version of 'truth' as they go around trying to insert 'conspiracy theory' and 'tinfoil hat' or 'no-plane' into every place that tries to even EXAMINE the evidence. Why not join us, instead of trying to fight us? It's okay to ask questions -- that isn't against the law . . . yet. Might as well enjoy it while we can. Bov 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

AFD Alert!

The list of researchers is now being AFDed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 conspiracy theories/September 11 researchers. I'm counter-proposing that it be kept and moved to its own page. Blackcats 23:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Blackcats who does important editing and maintenance on the 9/11 pages.Bov 19:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

AFD Scholars for 9/11 Truth SkeenaR 01:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal alert!

I have officially proposed to split the "9/11 conspiracy theories" article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article . Thank you. Blackcats 21:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bov: sounds like a great idea. Thanks for your feedback on what I wrote on the discussion page. Kaimiddleton 22:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Just A Comment

I read your profile after deleting an entry re. WP use in Iraq as a "conspiracy." I do not think blind acceptance of statements made by those in control of the status quo is a responsible approach, but branding other, unrelated, and comparably minor events conspiracies does not help your argument to be regarded as a researcher in pursuit of the truth. The statements were not contradictory, and the weapons use not illegal. Personally, I do not accept the official claims regarding WTC #7 nor the official claims regarding Flight 93. However, I do not think questioning those claims is what brands many researchers like yourself as conspiracy theorists. It is instead the search for or connection to some alternative motive or perpetrator. Quite clearly not everything on that day happened the way we are led to believe it happened, and whether or not we need to know the truth is a topic for another time (most certainly you have the right to seek that truth if it is important to you) but 9/11 researchers often try to construe their scientific results as something they are not. So flight 93 was shot down, so WTC7 was intentionally demolished, they do not implicate the government in some vast conspiracy against the American people. If you have done the research and decided that there is only one possible explanation, then fine, believe that, but it is not responsible to then make geopolitical leaps of faith and assault without evidence that ultimately terrorists were responsible. That is why many are branded conspiracy theorists. Finally, as a scientist you miss a simple, fundamental concept: it is not the American governments responsibility to inform the general public of the truth. Transparency is anything but a foundational tenet of modern government. It is instead the government's responsibility to protect its citizens and their interests at home and abroad. This is not a quantitative science of numbers and definitive rights and wrongs, but rather a gray area filled with projection and speculation. I applaud your research, but hope that those like you will remember to limit it to the field of science, lest they tread on to tenuous, unfamiliar ground to be ridiculed in the public spotlight by those waiting for them to err. (ImagoDei 18:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC))

"So flight 93 was shot down, so WTC7 was intentionally demolished, they do not implicate the government in some vast conspiracy against the American people." Vast, no, but conspiracy against the American people, yes. Indeed, if government officials - be they rogue officials or those just thinking they were doing the right thing - knew that the plane was shot down or that Building 7 was demolished, the 9/11 Commission was then either lied to or lied themselves. If the Commission lied on these issues, the entire 'report' is questionable as to its veracity. And if you ask me, producing fake reports, then, to the American public, is a conspiracy against them.

"Transparency is anything but a foundational tenet of modern government. It is instead the government's responsibility to protect its citizens and their interests at home and abroad." We pay our government to function, not to lie to us. A government does not have to lie to its people in order to function, not to mention how disrepectful and hypocritical lies are to the people of this country who are giving 'all' for it each day. Bov 01:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Responding to both points: First, it does not imply a conspiracy against the American people, only that a second conspiracy may exist. The two should not be confused. The use of the term against is significant because many of the theories suggested involve the possibility of explicit acts contrary to the immediate interests of the nation and/or its citizens. My point is to rule these out as erroneous because the long term protection of United States interests cannot be in doubt. Truth is for the individual to seek if s/he wishes it. It is not yours or anyone elses duty to publicly expose truth in the name of science for a political motivation and therein lies a contradiction. You would argue against the media as the mouthpiece of a government, but science and politics do not exist in the same realm. You wish to use science to make a political statement; this while not necessarily a mistake, is not your obligation as scientist or researcher. It is also not in the tradition of the enlightment or the scientific method. You must approach your subject without predisposition or presumption. Both of these seem to dissapear with many of these theories. I also do not agree with the logic that if one statement is proven to be a lie all statements must be brought into question. This is not a contrapositive argument where one exception invalidates the entire theory. Only claims dependent upon the prior fallacious claims become subject to dispute. If you are investigating each claim as it is made, that is fine, but do not make the mistake of stating that something is incorrect on page 20 if a lie is told on page 200. Sure there is the possibility there is an error on any given page, but no more or less so because of the one on 200.

Second: Your argument is ill informed and based on naivety and hyperbole. We do not pay our government to merely function without direction or motive. We pay our government to protect our interests, our essential liberties, and most of all, the common good. That is not your best interest or my best interest, but the best interests of us all united. Governments lie to their people on a daily basis in order to function and while because it happens is not a justification, it is important to recognize this as the way of the world. Furthermore, under extraordinary circumstances it IS often necessary to lie to one's people in order to function. The ramifications of the admission of shooting down a U.S. civillian aircraft would be staggering such an event would have financial, political, and social repurcussions you may or may not have considered but that would be surely be terrible for this country in the long term. The population would not react rationally and understandingly, but then it is not their job to. It is instead the job of those that we pay to defend us to approach the situation, realize the people are dead either way, and understand that it is a simple cost benefit analysis and that they are better dead in PA than dead in D.C. While this may be something you would like to know the answer to, it is not in the public interest for it to become widely regarded fact and the Flight 93 story is much better for public consumption. It may be a lie, but that does not mean it is wrong. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness does not include truth.

I can understand personal interest/desire for knowledge, but if you are incapable of understanding the reality of these dangers and the necessity as a nation to defend itself and preserve a stable society, you only exemplify the reasons such covers are concocted and disseminated. And to those giving their all, we do far worse to them every day. Your statement appeals to emotion, not to reason. Hipocracy is a particular talent of the U.S. government (although I'm not particulalrly sure why you claim this in particular is at all hypocriful). In terms of respect, our troops know who and what they fight for, even if they aren't told, cannot understand, or are lied to about the specific motivation. Small evils are perpetraited frequently in the name of the greater good. It is only disrespectful to waste their lives recklessly. (ImagoDei 14:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC))

"Governments lie to their people on a daily basis in order to function and while because it happens is not a justification, it is important to recognize this as the way of the world."

Being told the truth is a fundamental right that we all have -- you included -- be it from families, friends, workplaces or governments. No one has the right to lie to you and be given a nod of approval. Each one of us is worthy of the truth.

"If you are incapable of understanding the reality of these dangers and the necessity as a nation to defend itself and preserve a stable society, you only exemplify the reasons such covers are concocted and disseminated."

The larger danger - far larger than the dangers of the so-called terrorists that often end up connected to the CIA - is to believe that you must accept lies told to you on a daily basis because someone else thinks they have the right to control your reality 'for your own good,' and to instead promote their own version of reality.

This is called Propaganda.

And pretty soon we have Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia . . . Thought Police, Newspeak . . .

Bov 00:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You respond to my weakest statement, not my strongest. If the strongest fail, the weaker should be a mere trifle. But to your points: Who gave you this fundamental right? Why is it fundamental? Why do you believe you possess this right? This is a common error. Freedom is a fundamental, natural right. Truth is not, it is a modifier. A statement about the world around us. The truth it is either true or false, correct or incorrect, and if it is not so, it is not the truth. Truth is useful in so far as it is conducive toward society building and forming stable, productive relationships. Truth is an excellent way for two unknown party's to gain eachothers trust and work together. As social animals, this is a great benefit for humanity and it forms the premise for much of our modern accomplishment. However, this does not make it a fundamental human right. We may endeavor to create relationships with others predicated on truth, and while truth is in practice very crucial to family, friend, and workplace relationships where the power structure is equivalent (or if not equal, only marginally disproportionate), it is not an expectation of government. Unfortunately, most people make the mistake you made in including government and employers in this list. Yes it is fair and responsible for them to be truthful with you, and a higher body may establish codes of conduct instructing an entity to be forthwith with you, the highest powers are under no compulsion to behave in a similar fashion unless that power is threatened by another body. The United States government as the most powerful governing body in existance, does not need this thing, truth. It propagates a myth of transparency and a facade of truth that is helpful to continued rule, but this is no natural right of its citizens it must protect. Furthermore, yes, their is an objective universe out their to which their is a physical discernable truth about the long billiards-ball chain of events that occurred on Sept. 11th. But there is not an objective discernable truth about why it happened, why decisions were made, and what in the political and human spheres influenced these events. The realm of science and the realm of government DO NOT overlap. Science is fact, cut and dry. There are rarely ever facts when dealing with fractured socialogical structures of millions of people.

Make no mistake, I did not tell you to stop looking and accept lies. I would posit there is a right to seek the truth included under the right to freedom. However, this does not mean our political system should be subverted (while somewhere in the constitution and commonly regarded as one, this is not necessarily a right you have as demonstrable through correct understanding of why those who do, walk away in the Omelas scenario). I only asked you to understand that some of these evils might be necessary evils or might have positive outcomes. More than might in fact, I would argue "probably." Tangential links to the CIA aside, you are however, hypocraful in your actions. You intend to do the same thing many governments do by attempting to assert control over the reality of others. But you are an individual or group of individuals. You are not an elected government that other individuals have chosen to shape and mold their subjective realities. You may wish to tell others the truth, but what if they do not wish to know. Religions do this, its called proselytizing, another behavior I am firmly against. The argument under free speech does not hold here given that if you shout loud enough, even if a person does not want to hear, they will be compelled to. In such a case, you would be infringing on others freedoms. Your freedoms should not supercede theirs.

Yes, propaganda is propaganda, but it is up to every one to choose for themselves what to believe. It may be irresponsible and unfair of governments to take advantage of those with inferior educations possibly incapable of making an informed decision, but truth could proove just as distructive if the people were not simultaneously well prepared. By advocating conspiracy theories you reveal yourself to those who would discredit you. I choose another path, to decide for myself what is the truth and use this knowledge to my advantage. I do not accept on face value that it is for my own good, I look into it and realize that in fact, is. Furthermore, I dont need to be responsible for the atrocities that are committed in protecting my interests and while some may argue that all that is necessary for evil to win is for good men to do nothing, I would argue that evil already has won. Do not mistake this a statement of futility, just why try to shoot a tank with a BB gun, get a TOW or something.

We live in a society far morally/objectively worse than Orwell's, and the society he truly feared was not the obvious one of a socialist or fascist regime might bring, but the hazards the subtextual capitalist world would. When people have nothing, no happyness, they also have nothing to lose. When people actually have something, a color TV, a mercedes, a new toy the Smiths can't afford yet, or the illusion of freedom, they will have something to lose and being risk averse by nature, they will not risk that loss. Of course, this works for all echelons except the very most bottom, and we imprison them. Somewhat near the top, my freedom, while illusory is slightly less corporeal, but the bigger question is why we want freedom; real, true freedom. The freedom I have now, while not anything close to true freedom, feels, at the least.... satisfactory. We will and do have Oceania, et al... They are The United States, The (European) Union, The People's Republic (of China), and the Republic of India (they need a new name). An Arab state is a possibility, but only long after oil matters, and Africa and others may join us eventually. What conspiracy theorists should try to understand is that currently, the U.S. is attempting to make sure there is still a place of power itself at that table 40 years. We will be surpassed as the singular dominant power on earth, the goal is to not become marginalized with our mere 280 million citizens. We sacrifice perhaps 10 years as the sole dominant hyperpower with the hope of a stable, better world, in the future. Neocons may in actuality wish for a lot more, but the result of their strategies will be our seat at the table.

I cannot say that I truly expect you to put much stock in what I've said these past few entries, but I would hope you might take the advice like I take the findings I read of researchers by attempting to understand them, assess their validity in my mind, and incorporate some into my belief system. While their are serious flaws with Utilitarianist theories of justice, they are some of the most evolved and might help you reconcile your scientific stoicism with your human obligation to a responsible existance if you choose to be a member of society. (ImagoDei 08:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC))

WTC7

Bov, if I remember correctly wasn't that you who removed the picture of the WTC7 collapse because of something to do with what the picture implied regarding smoke or something? Check out the picture on this link WTC7 Collapse and Analyses. It's the same picture isn't it? Maybe it should go back there in light of recent developments on the page. Whaddya think? SkeenaR 07:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, I removed a picture that came from the FEMA or NIST report that showed a HUGE and solid cloud next to WTC7 that they were trying to say was from the fires at WTC7, when we have no evidence that that was the case. Basically, there are some oral history statements with firefighters saying that building had a lot of damage, but although this must have happened over a stretch of 5 + hours, there are NO VIDEOS OR PHOTOGRAPHS of these described fires or the supposed damage. Fires that approach a point where they could bring a building down end up breaking all the windows, turns the metal glowing red, typically has flames shooting out continuously, etc. We have one photo with flames coming out of one floor and that's it as far as significant damage. And the damage written up in the reports doesn't match up with the images. So there is a push for people to try to say that images showing smoke must be from Bldg 7, when we have no evidence to make that inference.

I didn't see that picture on the link you have above . . . The picture is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#World_Trade_Center_Seven

It's very bizarre because the smoke ends exactly along the side of 7 and so some people think it's photoshopped. I really just don't think we can say what is producing that smoke given that the whole area was smoking and the strange nature of that smoke ending with the side of the building. Bov

Bov, sorry, I got my images mixed up. It's this one. Second from the top. SkeenaR 03:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense Bov, but have you checked out this picture yet? SkeenaR 20:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the new additions to the page -- those are perfect. Bov

Sources for Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report

I mentioned on the talk page that for each criticism we should say who is making it and where. Any thoughts on that? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry!

In an extradordinary lapse of fluency, I wrote on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories something that could be read as accusing you of bigotry. That was not my meaning at all, and is of course not the case. You were condemning bigotry. I've struck out my original remarks, and added an explanation there. Please accept my apology. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Peter Meyers

No doubt that he is anti-Semitic, but that doesn't disqualify him for listing on the page, only non-notability would do that. Thanks for pointing this out to me (it is why I try to stay away from the 9/11 pages, because this sort of stuff makes me very angry), but I am afraid I can't remove him. Perhaps you should include info on his entry saying that he supports Holocaust denial and has been accused of anti-Semitism? --Goodoldpolonius2 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi; About "Additionally, some 9/11 researchers have expressed concern that Peter Meyer's website hosts articles with Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial articles..." which someone just removed. I think it is clearly true that resarchers have expressed that concern, but you might do well to provide a link to researchers actually going on record saying "Anti-Semitism." For a charge that serious we should have iron-clad citations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look for an exact citation. Bov 21:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Sorry for the edit war but those remarks on the page have no cite and use the "some feel that" weasel words. PMA 22:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen it as an edit war -- I put out a suggestion to remove the researcher, it was debated, I backed off and agreed with the admins that there should be a mention of the fact that the researcher's work includes what some feel is antisemitic. I implemented that change. Someone then removed it because it didn't have a citation. I believe that once the issue is cited it will become clear that 'some' do feel offended by antisemitic pages mixing with 9/11 research. So not a big deal. Bov