Questions for 9/11 Truthers

A-Train said:
Good for you, Mike. I detect a whiff of doubt that three out of the four black boxes were damaged beyond repair. If so, you deserve your title of "critical thinker."

The black boxes are specifically designed to survive just about anything. The Pentagon crash doesn't seem all that out of the ordinary to have so damaged the black boxes. And yet we're told the only CVR to have survived is one that tells us a heartwarming story of American heroes fighting back against the Arabs, one of whom yells "Allah o Akbar!"
Click to expand...

Just because it doesn't fit your theory is no reason to automatically suspect it. Now just how much critical thinking is that?
 
A-Train said:
The black boxes are specifically designed to survive just about anything.
Click to expand...

Common misconception. They are designed to be very tough, but it's impossible to know exactly what forces it will be subjected to in a crash. It's also assumed that the crash will be an accident, not a purposeful high-speed collision with a building.

The truth is, black boxes are often too damaged to be useful in an investigation.
 
A-Train said:
Good for you, Mike. I detect a whiff of doubt that three out of the four black boxes were damaged beyond repair. If so, you deserve your title of "critical thinker."

The black boxes are specifically designed to survive just about anything. The Pentagon crash doesn't seem all that out of the ordinary to have so damaged the black boxes. And yet we're told the only CVR to have survived is one that tells us a heartwarming story of American heroes fighting back against the Arabs, one of whom yells "Allah o Akbar!"
Click to expand...
The Pentagon crash not out of the ordinary? Do jets crash into reinforced concrete buildings normally?

Let me sum this up for you. You've got two jets that crash into two of the tallest buildings in the world, which then burn and fall down on top of the black boxes. You have a third one which crashes into a building made of reinforced concrete, which also burns and has part of it collapse on top of it. A fourth one crashes in an open field.

Yet you find it suspicious that the only CVR that is recovered that works is the one from the open field? Correct?
 
stateofgrace said:
Apart from the fact that a plane that was under the complete control of highly trained professionals armed with guns crashed.

So why did it crash?
Click to expand...

The conspirators made the decision to crash the plane into the ground long before any passenger revolt. They probably did so because of the long delay the plane took on the ground at EWR. To fly it all the way back to Manhattan or Washington DC would have made the NORAD stand-down too obvious, even for the most credulous.

Tom Burnett mentions in one of his later calls, at about 9:45, that the hijackers were talking about crashing the plane into the ground. Why would they have been saying that so long before the revolt? Perhaps to intimidate the passengers, or perhaps because the decision to crash had already been made.
 
A-Train said:
The conspirators made the decision to crash the plane into the ground long before any passenger revolt. They probably did so because of the long delay the plane took on the ground at EWR. To fly it all the way back to Manhattan or Washington DC would have made the NORAD stand-down too obvious, even for the most credulous.

Tom Burnett mentions in one of his later calls, at about 9:45, that the hijackers were talking about crashing the plane into the ground. Why would they have been saying that so long before the revolt? Perhaps to intimidate the passengers, or perhaps because the decision to crash had already been made.
Click to expand...

LOL because all you have is conjecture, you can morph your story to fit any anomaly or inconsistency.

Cool. That means in your mind you can never loose a debate. Kind of like a woo woo circuit breaker...
 
A-Train said:
The conspirators made the decision to crash the plane into the ground long before any passenger revolt. They probably did so because of the long delay the plane took on the ground at EWR. To fly it all the way back to Manhattan or Washington DC would have made the NORAD stand-down too obvious, even for the most credulous.

Tom Burnett mentions in one of his later calls, at about 9:45, that the hijackers were talking about crashing the plane into the ground. Why would they have been saying that so long before the revolt? Perhaps to intimidate the passengers, or perhaps because the decision to crash had already been made.
Click to expand...

Really?

Let me get this straight. A highly trained professional Israeli suicide armed with guns board a flight, with the help of airport security of course.
The plane takes off 40 minutes late and they hijack it, then crash it into the ground after they realise that if they don't it will give the game away that NORAD stood down, did I miss anything?

Wait a minute; they knew the plane was late, so why hijack it in the first place?
Why did this highly trained Israeli suicide squad not simply abort the mission and just ride it out, walk of at the other end where nobody would have been any wiser?
 
stateofgrace said:
Really?

Let me get this straight. A highly trained professional Israeli suicide armed with guns board a flight, with the help of airport security of course.
The plane takes off 40 minutes late and they hijack it, then crash it into the ground after they realise that if they don't it will give the game away that NORAD stood down, did I miss anything?

Wait a minute; they knew the plane was late, so why hijack it in the first place?
Why did this highly trained Israeli suicide squad not simply abort the mission and just ride it out, walk of at the other end where nobody would have been any wiser?
Click to expand...

SOG...it's simple. 1) It's more fun to crash planes than not to crash planes. Everybody knows this. 2) For the children of Israel. They need heros.
 
stateofgrace said:
Really?

Let me get this straight. A highly trained professional Israeli suicide armed with guns board a flight, with the help of airport security of course.
The plane takes off 40 minutes late and they hijack it, then crash it into the ground after they realise that if they don't it will give the game away that NORAD stood down, did I miss anything?

Wait a minute; they knew the plane was late, so why hijack it in the first place?
Why did this highly trained Israeli suicide squad not simply abort the mission and just ride it out, walk of at the other end where nobody would have been any wiser?
Click to expand...
This is a real KO-argument.

At least, it would be if logic was required.

Now, just enjoy how A-Train will talk himself out of this ...
 
stateofgrace said:
Wait a minute; they knew the plane was late, so why hijack it in the first place?
Why did this highly trained Israeli suicide squad not simply abort the mission and just ride it out, walk of at the other end where nobody would have been any wiser?
Click to expand...

The purpose of the operation was to hijack planes and frame Arabs as fanatical, vicious culprits. They didn't need to necessarily crash all the planes into buildings to do this. They accomplished this quite well on UAL93. They performed the mock-Arab stage show on the plane, and the story of "Arab" fanatics stabbing women while wearing their red headbands, etc. was successfully relayed via the passengers' phone calls to an enraged America. All per the original plan. And they got the stirring story of American heroes to boot.

One more thing, though I hate to bring this up. You, like several others, are assuming this was a suicide mission. It probably was; but we should consider the possibility that it was not.
 
Last edited:
A-Train said:
T
One more thing, though I hate to bring this up. You, like several others, are assuming this was a suicide mission. It probably was; but we should consider the possibility that it was not.
Click to expand...

We should also consider the possibility that you are totally wrong. Deal?
 
A-Train said:
One more thing, though I hate to bring this up. You, like several others, are assuming this was a suicide mission. It probably was; but we should consider the possibility that it was not.
Click to expand...

Okay, this is just stupid. How could it be anything but a suicide mission?

And please note, it's been demonstrated that 757/767s cannot be flown "by remote".
 
I think we should also consider the possibility that it was a false flag operation masterminded by Alex Jones.
 
I must give A-Train credit. He's concocted a fantasy CT that cannot be proven wrong. I don't know whether he's smarter then the other tin hatters or he's the first bit of evidence that the CT gene has mutated, adapted, if you will, to survive longer against the forces of logic and reason.

Like LIHOPers, his CT allows for all the physical evidence. But like MIHOPers, it allows for active blame within the government (U.S. or Israel).

Of course, the CT gene has some remaining adaptation as it still does not allow the CTist the ability to actually prove their CT.

I feel like I'm witnessing evolution right before my very eyes.
 
DavidJames said:
I must give A-Train credit. He's concocted a fantasy CT that cannot be proven wrong.
Click to expand...

What would be interesting if A-Train ever found himself before a jury in a trial accused of an awful crime he did not commit, and the prosecutor used the same techniques.

All the prosecutor has to do is dream stuff up to counter every alibi A-Train has, and every bit of evidence A-Train didn't commit the crime, no matter how ludicrous the prosecutor's conjecture was.

All the while the judge took the prosecutor's word no questions asked, looking down his glasses at A-Train and saying "Well...?".
 
Horatius said:
And even if you could make a case that AQ couldn't do it, why do you then assume it was Israel? Why not Canada, or Britain, or France, or New Zealand? Those Kiwi bastards have been plotting against us for years! :)
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere. The attacks were clearly carried out with the support of a state apparatus, in my opinion. It's fun to tease our Kiwi friends, but before implicating them, we have to ask ourselves some questions:

Does New Zealand have a history of committing terrorist acts while disguised as Arabs, so as to frame Arabs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_Bombing

Is there a precedent of New Zealand intentionally killing large numbers of Americans, then suffering no repercussions as the crime is covered up by the US government and mostly ignored by the media?

http://www.ussliberty.com

Would a Kiwi soldier be able to creditably pass as an Arab?

Does New Zealand have a motive to induce America into war in the Middle East against Arab and Muslim nations?

And, last but not least, was the passenger in seat 9B named by Betty Ong on FL11 as one of the hijackers a highly trained commando specializing in aircraft takeover for the New Zealand military?
 
A-Train said:
And, last but not least, was the passenger in seat 9B named by Betty Ong on FL11 as one of the hijackers a highly trained commando specializing in aircraft takeover for the New Zealand military?
Click to expand...
He was an Israeli and he was murdered.
Very suspect indeed. :rolleyes:

What is outrageous is that other despicable Truthers claim Israeli involvement because there weren't enough Israeli deaths in the airplanes/WTC-towers (according to them).

One more Truther-argument that goes both ways.

And why don't you react on this?

Firestone said:
A-Train said:
It isn't making sense because you're oversimplifying my argument and jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. My original contention was that the plot was far more sophisticated than anything a Gulf Arab group like al-Qaeda is capable of. One piece of evidence in favor of that is that the hijackers had guns, pointing to a larger conspiracy with connections in the airport security apparatus. That should have have lead to an extensive investigation of ICTS (International Consultants for Targeted Security), a foreign firm that provided security services for all three airports involved, and is the owner of the Huntleigh firm that controlled security at Logan.
Click to expand...
May I remind you that, according to the 9/11 Commission report, security was handled by:

In Boston:
Flight AA11: Globe Security
Flight UA175: Huntleigh USA

In Washington:
Flight AA77: Argenbright Security

In Newark:
Flight UA93: Argenbright Security

Why do you "forget" this?

You are essentially saying that because there were guns on flight AA11 and UA93 (according to your claim), the company handling the security for flight UA175 should be extensively investigated! :confused:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A-Train said:
The conspirators made the decision to crash the plane into the ground long before any passenger revolt. They probably did so because of the long delay the plane took on the ground at EWR. To fly it all the way back to Manhattan or Washington DC would have made the NORAD stand-down too obvious, even for the most credulous.

Tom Burnett mentions in one of his later calls, at about 9:45, that the hijackers were talking about crashing the plane into the ground. Why would they have been saying that so long before the revolt? Perhaps to intimidate the passengers, or perhaps because the decision to crash had already been made.
Click to expand...

This is not ever an good CT now. Your story at least has some junk to it. Keep posting your fiction. Each time you add an element the real guys who did it become easier to find; and this is why your story never happened.

Examples of secret CT have been quickly uncovered, but people like you are insane and make up stories without thinking.

Give us your best story in book form and see if it floats as fiction. You could make money. But so far your story is not very good; your CT guys would all be caught.

The security guys would be caught first. Why are you lacking facts? Are you still speading the jews did it, or was that someone else?
 
A-Train said:
Now we're getting somewhere. The attacks were clearly carried out with the support of a state apparatus, in my opinion. It's fun to tease our Kiwi friends, but before implicating them, we have to ask ourselves some questions:

1) Does New Zealand have a history of committing terrorist acts while disguised as Arabs, so as to frame Arabs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_Bombing

2) Is there a precedent of New Zealand intentionally killing large numbers of Americans, then suffering no repercussions as the crime is covered up by the US government and mostly ignored by the media?

http://www.ussliberty.com

3) Would a Kiwi soldier be able to creditably pass as an Arab?

4) Does New Zealand have a motive to induce America into war in the Middle East against Arab and Muslim nations?

5) And, last but not least, was the passenger in seat 9B named by Betty Ong on FL11 as one of the hijackers a highly trained commando specializing in aircraft takeover for the New Zealand military?
Click to expand...

I've Killtownedtm your list of questions for ease of reference.

1) and 2) No public history, which just shows how good they are at pulling it off. Meanwhile, the Israelis seem to bugger it up all the time, and get caught.

3) Have you ever seen Eddie Murphy's "White Like Me"? It's amazing what you can do with a bit of make up. You also have to consider the fact that NZ may also have a few Arab immigrants, hidden amongst the sheep. Somewhere. Just draft a few of them, since they're going to be killed anyways.

4) Well, they have been opposed to US possesion and/or use of Nuclear Weapons for decades. Perhaps it's all part of a long-term plan to drain the US budget so much, that they decommision their nuclear forces to save money.

5) Well, he would have had to be, wouldn't he? Thanks for agreeing with me!

And I'm not just slagging off on the NZer's to distract attention from Canadian involvement! No way!

:can:

Oh, hell, how'd that get there?!?
 
A-Train said:
The purpose of the operation was to hijack planes and frame Arabs as fanatical, vicious culprits. They didn't need to necessarily crash all the planes into buildings to do this. They accomplished this quite well on UAL93. They performed the mock-Arab stage show on the plane, and the story of "Arab" fanatics stabbing women while wearing their red headbands, etc. was successfully relayed via the passengers' phone calls to an enraged America. All per the original plan. And they got the stirring story of American heroes to boot.

One more thing, though I hate to bring this up. You, like several others, are assuming this was a suicide mission. It probably was; but we should consider the possibility that it was not.
Click to expand...

Oh I see.

So correct me if I am wrong but your theory, totally unsubstantiated of course is.

Four squads of Israeli suicide squads boarded four different planes, with guns and with the help of airport security.
They all knew that NORAD was to be stood down and as such were working to the clock.
The forth squad had a different mission though; they had to board a plane and hope it was to be delayed by 40 minutes. This plane was never targeted at anything other than the ground and actually relies on the passengers making desperate calls home to work and hence reinforce the story that it was Arabic hijackers to enrage America.

In your opinion this is a good plan? One that would get passed with no problem at Mossad?

you don't think that somebody would say

" This is the most stupid plan I have ever heard of"

Of course it is totally beyond you grasp that it really was hijacked by real Arab terrorists, the passengers really did fight back and the plane crashed because of the heroic effort. No, better to view the people on board as none descript nobodies who would never have the nerve to fight back.

These people onboard this plane did something you are totally incapable of grasping, that being they fought, they fought not to be heroes,they fought for their very survival. They fought to the bitter dreadful end and you an internet kook with nothing but hatred for Israel and your fellow Americans have the nerve to say differently. You a complete nobody who would have curled up and cried like a baby if you were ever place in a similar situation, have the balls to mock them.

You have shown your disrespect for this event, you have shown your true colours that being an Anti Semitic, coward who hides behind fantasies and make believe. You are ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
The forth squad had a different mission though; they had to board a plane and hope it was to be delayed by 40 minutes. This plane was never targeted at anything other than the ground and actually relies on the passengers making desperate calls home to work and hence reinforce the story that it was Arabic hijackers to enrage America.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. This is the stupidest plan in the world. But it is your plan, not mine or anyone else's. The original plan may have been to strike WTC7, or the Capitol Building. I don't know. After being delayed on the ground, they went to Plan B, or maybe it was C or D. Only they know.

The point is, like all well laid out plans, this one was fluid. They were able to change their tactics in the face of unforseen circumstances. Napoleon would understand.
 
Firestone said:
He was an Israeli and he was murdered.
Click to expand...

You realize the information that he was murdered comes from the very same FAA report saying he was shot.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/faa911memoside.jpg

Why do we accept the murdered part, but reject the shot part?

Anyway, it's very peculiar that we come to the conclusion he was murdered. Betty Ong reported a hijacker coming from Lewin's seat, 9B, and an injured passenger in Suqami's seat (10B). Shouldn't we have come to the opposite conclusion?

[PS My understanding is that Huntleigh is a wholly owned subsidiary of ICTS, and controlled security at BOS. Also that ICTS provided security services of various types to the other two airports as well.]
 
A-Train said:
Good for you, Mike. I detect a whiff of doubt that three out of the four black boxes were damaged beyond repair. If so, you deserve your title of "critical thinker."

The black boxes are specifically designed to survive just about anything. The Pentagon crash doesn't seem all that out of the ordinary to have so damaged the black boxes. And yet we're told the only CVR to have survived is one that tells us a heartwarming story of American heroes fighting back against the Arabs, one of whom yells "Allah o Akbar!"
Click to expand...

Have you ever been on a plane?
 
A-Train said:
[PS My understanding is that Huntleigh is a wholly owned subsidiary of ICTS, and controlled security at BOS. Also that ICTS provided security services of various types to the other two airports as well.]
Click to expand...
And on what is this understanding based? :confused:

For the fourth time, according to the 9/11 commission report, security was handled by:

In Boston:
Flight AA11: Globe Security
Flight UA175: Huntleigh USA

In Washington:
Flight AA77: Argenbright Security

In Newark:
Flight UA93: Argenbright Security

So for the two flights you claim had firearms on board, security was not handled by Huntleigh, but by a Swedish-owned and a British-owned company. They were on it too, I guess ...

Sorry to bother you with facts.

ETA: Of course, that a Swedish company was involved explains why the boys here want to attack Sweden!
 
Last edited:
A-Train said:
I agree with you. This is the stupidest plan in the world. But it is your plan, not mine or anyone else's. The original plan may have been to strike WTC7, or the Capitol Building. I don't know. After being delayed on the ground, they went to Plan B, or maybe it was C or D. Only they know.

The point is, like all well laid out plans, this one was fluid. They were able to change their tactics in the face of unforseen circumstances. Napoleon would understand.
Click to expand...

The same Napoleon who invaded Egypt and Russia

Got it wrong both times.

French seem to love a looser.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Here's a question for 9/11 Deniers: Why do all of you claim to have debunked the Planted Explosive Theory (PET) when you have done no such thing?
Click to expand...

Why do you claim they have done no such thing when they have done that very thing?

I'm not talking about Star Wars beams or holographic wings...Payne Stewart and NORAD dinner dates...I'm talking about the only issue that we should be discussing and that's the cause of the collapses. Why do you all want to water down the topic by introducing a million side topics and discussions? Is it to draw attention away from the real hard and overwhelming physical evidence that planted explosives were used?
Click to expand...

You might as well stick with the Star Wars beams and holographic wings. There's just as much evidence for those.

There are two main theory camps that have been set up. The PET camp and the NIST camp. Now, the main debate is what exactly caused those three buildings to collapse. Apparently, the NISTer can't even articulate exactly what NIST's theory is. One person tried to, but I'm not even sure if all of you agree with what he/she said. You can't seem to even give a hint at what they're (NIST) really saying happened...but yet you buy it lock, stock and barrel. Is that what critical thinking is all about? Because, YOU claim that NIST is the ultimate authority on this subject...you just blindly swallow THEIR theory...without questioning anything or investigating all of the physical evidence that contradicts what they're saying happened?
Click to expand...

"Blindly swallow". Heh. The irony is very prevalent here.

All of you so-called skeptics...are breaking your own code by taking many, "leaps of faith," in your assertion that what NIST is saying is gospel and the undeniable universal truth of why the buildings collapsed.
Click to expand...

Who does that? Most of what I've seen has involved taking, say, the laws of physics and scientific data as truth, yes...

When I say leaps of faith, I am of course referring to the fact, that you are believing by virtue of faith and faith alone...that because planes flew into buildings...ANYTHING is possible. ANYTHING. The law of physics can be altered, magical floor jumping fires can be manifested, phantom explosions can be summoned - I mean all kinds of cool stuff. The invisible intangibles of the ether have now become a clear influence and factor in this material universe that we perceive with our five senses.
Click to expand...

Wow. The irony's prevalent too. With some editing, this post wouldn't be bad for directing towards the "Truthers".

NISTer Logic:

Planes flying into buildings = warps the field and laws of the physical world into a realm of infinite possibilities and probabilities.
Click to expand...

No...

Big Freaking Planes flying into buildings = Damages building. Building = falls down if enough damage is caused. It's actually pretty simple.

You can't see any major fires (fire NOT smoke) from the outside of the buildings...but of course, there were probably major fires in every spot of the buildings we can't see (faith leaping)
Click to expand...

And because smoke rises from a chimney, because its' not visible, it doesn't exist, right?

I'd go on, but I don't respond well to gibberish very well.
 
Last edited:
A-Train said:
Tom Burnett did not say the hijackers said they had a gun. He said one of the hijackers had a gun...

Has anyone read the biographical sketch of Tom Burnett in Jere Longman's Among the Heroes? He was a successful entrepreneur, the owner of a medical devices company, an avid hunter. He doesn't sound to me like the kind of guy who's going to panic in a tense situation and hallucinate a gun in the hijackers' possession.

I sure am glad I'm not one who has to suppress this compelling evidence of guns. It would really bother me to have to somehow figure out how to dismiss this testimony from two intelligent, credible witnesses. If I were trying to make myself believe Burnett was in error when he reported guns, the words of his wife would be ringing in my ears...

Now let's talk about Betty Ong's call. To say she didn't mention a gun cannot be proven.

<snip>
Click to expand...
Hearsay.

Y'know, I have a cannon in my front yard. It's true.

What, don't you believe me?
 
A-Train said:
I agree with you. This is the stupidest plan in the world. But it is your plan, not mine or anyone else's. The original plan may have been to strike WTC7, or the Capitol Building. I don't know. After being delayed on the ground, they went to Plan B, or maybe it was C or D. Only they know.

The point is, like all well laid out plans, this one was fluid. They were able to change their tactics in the face of unforseen circumstances. Napoleon would understand.
Click to expand...

I have highlighted the most sensible and factual thing you have said to date.
 
Inflationary Model, Part II

In a previous post, I introduced my "Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories," and explained why speculation that builds on other speculation is a poor way to develop a theory. It appears that A-Train hasn't understood or is ignoring this argument, though his postings here do show signs of losing steam. Let me then follow up by showing how his argument has followed this path, growing more and more fantastic over time.

Previously I showed how the hypothesis put forth by A-Train, namely that the hijackers on Sept. 11th were not Arabs at all, but in fact Israeli operatives going to great lengths to frame radical Islamic terrorists, had already gone through two inflationary steps of evolution. It began from this simple observation:

Observation 1: A few reports suggested guns might have been on the hijacked aircraft.​

Which is an accepted fact. However, rather than stop there, his argument immediately began to inflate, involving more and more people and more and more members of the Conspiracy, as follows:

Observation 2: No gunfire was reported by passengers. Therefore, the guns must have had silencers.

(There is no recovered debris that suggests firearms or silencers. There are no reports of silencers. There is no evidence to suggest silencers whatsoever. The theory has inflated to require this additional piece of rare equipment to remain credible.)

Observation 3: Even with silencers, the CVR from Flight 93 would have recorded gunfire in the cockpit. Therefore, the CVR recording was altered when played back to relatives of the victims, and suppressed from the general public.

(There is no evidence other than amateur speculation that the CVR recording was altered. The theory has inflated to require members of the FBI or others to have willfully altered this information, and for many other people to have been fooled by the forgery.)​

Since I exposed the flaws in this argument, A-Train's theory has continued to inflate, as seen in his last several posts:

A-Train said:
While I believe most of these folks are patriotic and loyal, I would not assume the same about our friend Michael Chertoff, a dual US-Israeli citizen who directed the investigation of 9/11 from his desk at the Justice Department. It would have been Chertoff who decided who handled the black boxes, and I'm sure he only assigned that privilege to a very small number of "trusted" associates.
Click to expand...

(The theory has now inflated to include the very top of the investigation, Michael Chertoff, rather than merely a few technical individuals within the investigating organization. Needless to say, there is no evidence of this, either.)

A-Train said:
The only recovered CVR that is being withheld completely is the one from AAL77. It is not being withheld out of respect for the families of those who were recorded on the CVR, because none of the victims were recorded on that CVR. There is no excuse for the government not to release this information.
Click to expand...

(The theory has inflated again, this time to include evidence from Flight 77 in addition to Flight 93. The theory requires that the Flight 77 CVR was also suppressed, thus a second investigating team is now part of the conspiracy. This excuse ignores that the Flight 77 CVR was trapped in the fire at the Pentagon, and CVR losses when exposed to lengthy and hot fires are completely ordinary.)

A-Train said:
I do not believe they ever made it to the cockpit. I believe they would have encountered poisonous gas in the middle of the plane which was put there to act as a barrier. This is the "mace or something" referred to in Betty Ong's recorded call. I don't believe there was ever a struggle for the cockpit. The only evidence we have of that is the CVR from UAL93, which I, like several members of the victims' families, believe had been tampered with.
Click to expand...

(Only a slight inflation here, namely the "poisonous gas." The 9/11 Commission Report discusses use of irritants, things that could have plausibly been brought on board, but not actual poison that would be much more difficult to smuggle.)

A-Train said:
The conspirators made the decision to crash the plane into the ground long before any passenger revolt. They probably did so because of the long delay the plane took on the ground at EWR. To fly it all the way back to Manhattan or Washington DC would have made the NORAD stand-down too obvious, even for the most credulous.
Click to expand...

(The theory inflates considerably to include NORAD into the conspiracy. The NORAD stand-down is not proven, in fact there is monumental evidence to the contrary, but the theory dismisses this without a single thought.)

A-Train said:
The purpose of the operation was to hijack planes and frame Arabs as fanatical, vicious culprits. They didn't need to necessarily crash all the planes into buildings to do this. They accomplished this quite well on UAL93. They performed the mock-Arab stage show on the plane, and the story of "Arab" fanatics stabbing women while wearing their red headbands, etc. was successfully relayed via the passengers' phone calls to an enraged America. All per the original plan. And they got the stirring story of American heroes to boot.

One more thing, though I hate to bring this up. You, like several others, are assuming this was a suicide mission. It probably was; but we should consider the possibility that it was not.
Click to expand...

(There are two enormous inflations here. The first is to claim that the "hero story" of Flight 93, as determined by the 9/11 Commission, was predetermined, thus implying that the Commission members are also part of the conspiracy. The second is the "not a suicide mission" speculation -- his theory insists the hijackers had complete control of the aircraft and were obviously not so badly trained as to crash by accident, and now he claims that the "hero story" was planned. Thus he now entertains the possibility that the hijackers of Flight 93 are still alive, and whether they are or not, the passengers of Flight 93 are also now inducted into the conspiracy. As before, there is no evidence for any of this, and utterly incontravertible evidence that no one survived Flight 93.)

A-Train said:
Now we're getting somewhere. The attacks were clearly carried out with the support of a state apparatus, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

(The theory inflates by another huge leap. Now A-Train is claiming "a state apparatus" was involved. This is no longer the work of a few rogue agencies within a nation, but the nation itself. I assume you can all guess what nation he is referring to in his insinuations.)

So there you have it. What was once an unsupported but vaguely imaginable conspiracy of a few suicide commandos has, upon questioning, become a vast and meticulously engineered plot involving multiple investigating agencies, NORAD, the 9/11 Commission, Cabinet-level executive Michael Chertoff, and an entire unspecified country that may or may not be in the Levant. What began with a single uncorroborated report of a possible firearm has grown to several firearms with silencers, poison gas, withheld or tampered CVRs, and an override of North American air defenses. And not one of these increasingly wild claims has the slightest support in physical evidence.

This theory is unstable. It is, therefore, not credible.

After a day's reflection, I have a corollary to my original formulation of the Inflationary Theory, namely its limiting case. A-Train's theory has not yet hit this limit, but it may do so soon. The limiting case is as follows:

RANT! The Inflationary Limit of Conspiracy Theories is reached when it requires those questioning the conspiracy theory to be a part of the conspiracy. This final excuse occurs because any alternate hypothesis, no matter how well it fits the known facts, is viewed as a threat to the conspiracy hypothesis. No further inflation is possible because, when this point is reached, any criticism is considered suspect -- thus encompassing the entire world outside the conspiracy hypothesis.

Conversely, reaching the Inflationary Limit logically implies that any alternate hypothesis is superior to the conspiracy hypothesis.

Therefore, a conspiracy theory that reaches the Inflationary Limit is by definition the worst of all possible hypotheses.


So, debunkers around the world, remember that the next time you are called a "shill" or a "disinfo agent." Unless they can back up that statement, such an accusation is logically equivalent to complete surrender.

It's a pity that logic is lost on the Troothers.
 
R.Mackey said:
In a previous post, I introduced my "Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories,"..............

It's a pity that logic is lost on the Troothers.
Click to expand...


:mad: You really take great delight in making us ordinary people feel very inadequate in the face of your brilliant posts, don't you?

:boxedin: (sulking)
 
Not delight, exactly.

I studied pure mathematics, along with physics, in undergrad. I just saw the opportunity for others to have to suffer through something similar, and took it. Moohoohahahahaa!
 
Excellent post, R.Mackey.

Debating with the more rabid CTs is quite like battling a Hydra, where every time you chop off a head, two grow back in its place.

I can see the appeal though in creating for oneself an unfalsifiable theory that can morph into anything required to maintain it; even if it's just in ones mind, the inability to loose any debate must be quite the opiate for some.
 
Originally Posted by R.Mackey
In a previous post, I introduced my "Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories,"..............

It's a pity that logic is lost on the Troothers.

:mad: You really take great delight in making us ordinary people feel very inadequate in the face of your brilliant posts, don't you?

:boxedin: (sulking)
Click to expand...

Is there room in that box? I hate looking inadequate in public
 
dubfan said:
My take on the red bandana is this:

The forces and accelerations involved in a commercial airliner crash are beyond our normal experience, and it is not surprising that surprising things happen. I wouldn't have thought that a flight recorder from the Space Shuttle Columbia would've survived its destruction in the upper atmosphere, and come to rest in a muddy swamp, in a nearly completely functional state. But it did.

So, no. I'm not surprised they found a bandana. And I'm not surprised at all that a lightweight piece of fabric could be ejected from a crash and be found intact. BFD.
Click to expand...
Good post, dubfan.

My question for ref is this: Can you describe, from a scientific and engineering perspective, exactly what happens when a plane free-falls from a high altitude? (No, and neither can I.) Do you know for sure, for instance, that the cockpit or cabin (the bandana may have been discarded there and was not necessarily on a hijacker's head when descent began), like I say, that the cockpit or cabin does not get ripped apart prior to impact, from the shearing forces of the air going down, throwing the bandana outward, prior to impact with the ground? If such a thing happened, would it not be quite logical the the bandana would float downward, sans blood, rips, or tears, and alight quite gently on the ground?

What would it mean if you are "right," and the bandana was not released from any place falling at free-fall? What are you saying - that CIA agents planted the bandana to agree with phone calls that they had no idea what the victims had said at that point to their relatives? (Oh, I forgot, the phone calls were faked using morphing technology, and wives did not recognize their husbands' voices, nor mothers' their children's voices. Oh yeah, right...)

So we have, in your theory, a perfectly undamaged bandana planted at the crime scene, to implicate hijackers whose descriptions had not been released by the victims' relatives yet. And the CIA wanted to make sure the bandana looked like it had been through a plane crash, right, so they ripped it in a few places, maybe put some dirt on it... No? You're saying they didn't do that? Not very clever CIA agents, were they? Hmmm...

You got bupkus, so you fling around clean bandanas (which merely support the victims' relatives' phone call stories) and other such idiocies...

To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, "Is this why we came here? Bandanas and bumbling CIA agents? Tell me you have more, Lieutenant Reffee... 3000 people's lives were lost..."
 
R.Mackey said:
Previously I showed how the hypothesis put forth by A-Train, namely that the hijackers on Sept. 11th were not Arabs at all, but in fact Israeli operatives going to great lengths to frame radical Islamic terrorists, had already gone through two inflationary steps of evolution. It began from this simple observation:
Observation 1: A few reports suggested guns might have been on the hijacked aircraft.​
Which is an accepted fact. However, rather than stop there, his argument immediately began to inflate, involving more and more people and more and more members of the Conspiracy, as follows:
Observation 2: No gunfire was reported by passengers. Therefore, the guns must have had silencers.

(There is no recovered debris that suggests firearms or silencers. There are no reports of silencers. There is no evidence to suggest silencers whatsoever. The theory has inflated to require this additional piece of rare equipment to remain credible.)
​
Click to expand...
Silencers are rare equipment? I don't suppose you can buy one at your local K-Mart, but do you think it would be especially difficult for an intelligence agency to get one?

Anyway, it is you who is inflating my argument. Remember, I started by laying out the evidence that there were guns in possession of the hijackers. I noted the call from Tom Burnett, and the FAA report filed as a result of Betty Ong's call. Someone else on this board then claimed the guns couldn't have been on board because if they were, a passenger would have heard them and reported it on a phone call. I replied that the gun could have been equipped with a silencer, greatly muffling the sound. I do not need to prove silencers were there; you need to prove silencers couldn't have been used if your argument against guns is that they would have been heard and reported. And what does it mean that there were no reports of silencers? Is that joke? The whole point of a silencer is that it muffles the sound. How can you report something you don't hear?

The evidence of guns on board is compelling. It stands on its own. That guns were reportedly not found in the debris means nothing.​

R.Mackey said:

Observation 3: Even with silencers, the CVR from Flight 93 would have recorded gunfire in the cockpit. Therefore, the CVR recording was altered when played back to relatives of the victims, and suppressed from the general public.

(There is no evidence other than amateur speculation that the CVR recording was altered. The theory has inflated to require members of the FBI or others to have willfully altered this information, and for many other people to have been fooled by the forgery.)​
Click to expand...
No, you're distorting my argument. My suspicions about the UAL93 CVR have never revolved around guns or silencers. My initial doubts came when I read in the Terror Timeline that several members of the victims' families suspected the CVR had been "tampered with." I also found it suspicious that of four flights, the only CVR that is recovered happens to tell a story very favorable to the government's theory.

Oh, and by the way, I just realized that cockpit voice recorders are a thirty minute loop. They record thirty or so minutes, then start over, erasing the previous thirty. They thus only record the last thirty minutes or so of a flight. They are only intended to record the last minutes before an incident. Since UAL93 was hijacked before 9:30, and the plane crashed sometime between 10:03 and 10:06, the CVR would not have recorded any gunshots at all, silenced or not. So all this discussion we have been having about cockpit voice recorders and guns is completely moot!


R.Mackey said:
(The theory has inflated again, this time to include evidence from Flight 77 in addition to Flight 93. The theory requires that the Flight 77 CVR was also suppressed, thus a second investigating team is now part of the conspiracy. This excuse ignores that the Flight 77 CVR was trapped in the fire at the Pentagon, and CVR losses when exposed to lengthy and hot fires are completely ordinary.)
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, it is you who are arguing that guns couldn't have been on board because the CVR would have recorded them. If the AAL77 CVR was indeed destroyed in the Pentagon fire, that only buttresses my argument, not yours. You are dependent on the CVR exposing any possible gunfire. But of course, as I've shown above, this debate is now moot anyway.

I would like to make another point, however. Suppression of evidence only means that you do not release it. It is not the same as being part of a conspiracy. There are many loyal federal agents who have participated in the suppression of 9/11 evidence. They are not part of any conspiracy. They are only following their orders. Most of them mistakenly believe in the official story. They do not understand the importance of the evidence they are keeping from the public.

R.Mackey said:
(Only a slight inflation here, namely the "poisonous gas." The 9/11 Commission Report discusses use of irritants, things that could have plausibly been brought on board, but not actual poison that would be much more difficult to smuggle.)
Click to expand...

No, no inflation at all. You seem to view the Commission Report like it is the word of God or something. I prefer the actual words of Betty Ong, which we can listen to ourselves on the internet. "we can't breathe in business class" sticks very poignantly in my mind. Poison may or may not be the right term; but if you can't breathe, what's the difference?

The 9/11 Commission talks about things that can "plausibly brought on board," because they started from the assumption that the official story is true. The hijackers used connections in airport security to bring their guns on board. They got the poison gas/irritant-- whatever you want to call it-- on board the same way.

R.Mackey said:
(The theory inflates considerably to include NORAD into the conspiracy. The NORAD stand-down is not proven, in fact there is monumental evidence to the contrary, but the theory dismisses this without a single thought.)
Click to expand...

Is this the same "monumental evidence" that WTC7 was brought down by a diesel tank on fire? What a laugh. But please, let's not go there now.

I can assure you I have burned much midnight oil contemplating how the NORAD stand down was accomplished. Let me just say this, it was not ordered from above-- not by Bush or Cheney or anyone. Nor is it fair to say that NORAD was "in the conspiracy." The NORAD stand down could have been carried out by a very small number of officers in the command structure, officers who were loyal not to America but to a foreign nation. I have a great deal of experience with air traffic control. When I heard that a fighter was scrambled to pursue a coast track south of New York that was said to be AAL11, I knew there was foul play. The officer who issued that order is certainly part of the conspiracy.

R.Mackey said:
(There are two enormous inflations here. The first is to claim that the "hero story" of Flight 93, as determined by the 9/11 Commission, was predetermined, thus implying that the Commission members are also part of the conspiracy. The second is the "not a suicide mission" speculation -- his theory insists the hijackers had complete control of the aircraft and were obviously not so badly trained as to crash by accident, and now he claims that the "hero story" was planned. Thus he now entertains the possibility that the hijackers of Flight 93 are still alive, and whether they are or not, the passengers of Flight 93 are also now inducted into the conspiracy. As before, there is no evidence for any of this, and utterly incontravertible evidence that no one survived Flight 93.)
Click to expand...

Up till now, Mr. Mackey, I've had respect for your general argument technique. But with this paragraph, you have gone completely over an inflationary cliff. Almost every sentence above is erroneous.

I do not believe the hero story was predetermined. I believe the decision to crash the plane into the ground may have been a Plan B, decided upon after the plane was delayed on the ground at EWR.

The heroes were heroes. They did attempt an assault on the hijackers. We know that from the phone calls. I just don't believe they ever made it to the cockpit.

The Commission members are not members of any conspiracy! They're just dunces. They had to accept the official story as a starting point for their comical "investigation."

The passengers are part of the conspiracy? Where did you come up with that? I never suggested they were, and I believe they all died at Shanksville.

R.Mackey said:
(The theory inflates by another huge leap. Now A-Train is claiming "a state apparatus" was involved. This is no longer the work of a few rogue agencies within a nation, but the nation itself. I assume you can all guess what nation he is referring to in his insinuations.)
Click to expand...

Yes, but "a state apparatus" is not the same thing as "the nation itself." There's a huge difference. And it differs from country to country. The CIA, for example, must answer to the elected president and explain its actions to intelligence committees made up of elected representative of the House and Senate. In other countries, that is not the case. For example, I learned in Victor Ostrovsky's book By Way of Deception that Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad, is answerable to almost no one in Israel.

R.Mackey said:
RANT! The Inflationary Limit of Conspiracy Theories is reached when it requires those questioning the conspiracy theory to be a part of the conspiracy. This final excuse occurs because any alternate hypothesis, no matter how well it fits the known facts, is viewed as a threat to the conspiracy hypothesis. No further inflation is possible because, when this point is reached, any criticism is considered suspect -- thus encompassing the entire world outside the conspiracy hypothesis.
Click to expand...
RANT!

That's total BS and I think you know it. I don't think you or anyone on JREF is part of any conspiracy. I've tried to make it very clear that this conspiracy was very tight and small, and did not include our President, our military, or any significant participation of our investigative agencies. As for you guys, I think most of you defend the official story not so much because you really believe it, but because you're repulsed by the so-called Truth Movement and the ideas of the people within it. For that, I don't blame you. I'm repulsed by them too.

You're doing what so many on this board have done-- trying to lump me in with all the other "CTers." I don't blame you for doing that, because they are easy to defeat. But my ideas are not like theirs. I put the blame squarely on those who had the means, motive and a past precedent of similar attacks. That is not true of the "official story," nor is it true of "the official conspiracy theory."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom