IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags questions , 911 conspiracy theory , 911 debunking resources

Reply
Old 6th February 2007, 02:33 PM   #321
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Yes, yes, there is very, very thin evidence that one of the hijackers may have had a gun. We all doubt it, but this is nothing we haven't heard before. Old news.

What I'd like to see, if you feel like you're being swarmed, is how having a gun => Israeldidit. I totally fail to see the connection.
oooooooooh that's EASY!

If he can prove they managed to get actual guns on board (those things that fire bullets out of the pointy end, rather than something which could be made to look like a gun from a distance in a confused and rapidly changing situation) then he can claim that the security at the airports allowed the guns to get on board.

Then he can go on to speculate that either the US government allowed this security breach, or that the companies contracted for security allowed it.

He can then speculate that the hijackers must have been from a country in the mid-east which was an ally of the US govt, or could have a controlling interest in the security companies.

and...voila! he has a jewish conspiracy.

of course, that still leaves the rather absurd notion of israeli operatives killing themselves to further a cause which had no gaurantee of being advanced by their actions.

I suppose mind control might be possible..........
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2007, 02:34 PM   #322
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,010
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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.
I'll let others address the question of the reliability of "intelligent, credible witnesses" who are under extreme stress. I'll just mention that they're not as reliable as most people think.

What I'll do is suggest, that even if there may have been some guns on the plane, you still haven't shown why that indicates that AQ could not have pulled off this job. Simply asserting that they could not have gotten guns on the planes doesn't cut it, as we know that other terrorists have gotten guns onto planes previously. Again, what, other than your own biases, indicates that the official story is wrong in it's most important details?

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!
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2007, 02:35 PM   #323
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
I was actually serious.

Like I already tried to point out, I have no doubt that Israeli commandos, in close quarters, are pretty darn dangerous with knives. This whole "they must have had a gun therefore they're Israelis masquerading as Arabs" thing just doesn't make any sense at all!
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2007, 02:41 PM   #324
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
and i was being (semi) serious too.

A-train thinks the issue of the guns points to complicity of either the US govt or the airport security.

That's why he doesn't think arabs did it because he doesn't believe arabs could have breached the security

and since the descriptions are of men of mid-east appearance, it must be the joos

EVERYTHING hinges on the question of guns, just as lyte trip thinks everything hinges on the north of citgo 'evidence'.

It's flimsy in the extreme, but it gives the woowoos hope that their cause isn't slipping away from them.

Of course that avoids the reality which is that their cause is slipping faster than paris hiltons knickers on a saturday night.
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2007, 05:30 PM   #325
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
I was actually serious.

Like I already tried to point out, I have no doubt that Israeli commandos, in close quarters, are pretty darn dangerous with knives. This whole "they must have had a gun therefore they're Israelis masquerading as Arabs" thing just doesn't make any sense at all!
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. The owner of ICTS at the time was Menachem Atzmon, a Likud party member who was convicted of fraud in Israel in 1996.

Besides the guns, there's plenty of other evidence pointing to a sophisticated conspiracy beyond the means of al-Qaeda.

Last edited by A-Train; 6th February 2007 at 05:46 PM.
A-Train is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2007, 05:44 PM   #326
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Except even silencers probably wouldn't be good enough. A silenced gunshot would have shown up on the CVR, unless it was a silenced .22, in which case it would have been far more trouble than it was worth.
You're absolutely right, a silenced gunshot would have shown up on the cockpit voice recorder. Maybe that's why we have not been allowed to listen to them? Of course, I'm sure you realize, none of the contents of any of the CVRs have been released to the public. We are told that all the black boxes from the two WTC planes were not recovered-- despite accounts from several firefighters who say they found the boxes and turned them over to the FBI.

The only CVR that anyone from the public has been able to listen to is the one from UAL93, played for a private audience of victims' families. Even some of them suspected the CVR had been tampered with. This was the CVR that somehow captured conversation among the heroes discussing how to break open the cockpit door, despite the fact that a CVR can only record what goes on inside the cockpit.
A-Train is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2007, 05:51 PM   #327
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,832
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
I don't need any evidence for silencers. I meticulously presented the evidence that there were guns aboard, based on the phone calls of Tom Burnett and Betty Ong, and the initial FAA report based on Ong's call. Most of you have decided to reject it, I think because it doesn't fit in to your own official conspiracy theory. Someone pointed out that if guns were used, passengers would have heard it and reported it in their phone calls. Well, two of them did. But nonetheless I pointed out that the guns could have had silencers.
There are some guys over at LCF as dumb as you are. Like Batman-guy. Are you the batman guy over at LCF?

Did you get this junk from LC, or are you just making up lies on your own?

Where is your source?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2007, 05:53 PM   #328
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,832
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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. The owner of ICTS at the time was Menachem Atzmon, a Likud party member who was convicted of fraud in Israel in 1996.

Besides the guns, there's plenty of other evidence pointing to a sophisticated conspiracy beyond the means of al-Qaeda.
Bring on the evidence. Lay all you facts on the table and let us see them. Do you have facts to back up your stuff? Come on. Proof?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2007, 06:00 PM   #329
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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. The owner of ICTS at the time was Menachem Atzmon, a Likud party member who was convicted of fraud in Israel in 1996.
Really?

I suppose getting 10,000 battle hardened veterans of the Afghani Campaign together to over throw an invading army in a neighbouring state doesn't count then?

No I am not talking about Afghanistan I am talking about the formal offer that was made by OBL to Prince Sultan, the Saudi Arabian Minister of defence to commit these people to taking on Saddam Hussein’s Army that had just invaded Kuwait, rather than allow US and coalition troops into Saudi Arabia before the start of the first Gulf War.

Keep laughing at them pal, keep belittling them,after all these people are totally not capable of getting 19 guys into the US to launch a terrorist attack.
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2007, 06:16 PM   #330
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
We are told that all the black boxes from the two WTC planes were not recovered-- despite accounts from several firefighters who say they found the boxes and turned them over to the FBI.
Try investigating that quote!
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2007, 06:25 PM   #331
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
A-Train - More claims without a shred of evidence to support them. You are just another clueless CTist with a political agenda and a soap box.

I'm curious, what kicks do you get by being embarrassed here? You claim you want to help us open our eyes, but you've been told numerous times that our eyes are open to evidence, but not baseless claims, yet you persist.

Do you have a job? If you do, in that job are allowed to make baseless claims?
Did you go to school? If so, were you allowed to answer all the questions with simple opinions?

I'm just trying to understand what motivates someone like you.
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2007, 08:14 PM   #332
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,010
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
You're absolutely right, a silenced gunshot would have shown up on the cockpit voice recorder. Maybe that's why we have not been allowed to listen to them? Of course, I'm sure you realize, none of the contents of any of the CVRs have been released to the public. We are told that all the black boxes from the two WTC planes were not recovered-- despite accounts from several firefighters who say they found the boxes and turned them over to the FBI.

The only CVR that anyone from the public has been able to listen to is the one from UAL93, played for a private audience of victims' families. Even some of them suspected the CVR had been tampered with. This was the CVR that somehow captured conversation among the heroes discussing how to break open the cockpit door, despite the fact that a CVR can only record what goes on inside the cockpit.
It seems your slowly slipping into traditional CT country. Now, in addition to phantom Israeli suicide agents using guns planted by an Israeli connected security firm, which guns were ID'd in surpressed phone testimonies (which suppression would involve the people who took the calls), you're also having large elements of the FBI and the NTSB conspiring to conceal evidence of said Israeli involvement by withholding or altering the cockpit recordings, and to suppress evidence allegedly supplied by some firefighters.

How much further into the Jones et al. CT territory will you go, before you admit you're not all that different?



And he was looking so promising at the start.......
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2007, 08:59 PM   #333
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
you're also having large elements of the FBI and the NTSB conspiring to conceal evidence of said Israeli involvement by withholding or altering the cockpit recordings, and to suppress evidence allegedly supplied by some firefighters.
I am not the one having anyone withhold or conceal evidence! This information has not been released, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with me. If I am mistaken, and it has been released, please let me know. I will admit my error. Tell me where I can find a transcript of the CVR from FLs 77, 11 and 175.

Remember the context of my comment. Someone else ridiculed my suggestion that guns with silencers were used by pointing out the noise would have been recorded by the CVRs. I replied by saying he was right, but that none of us have heard those CVRs because they have either been destroyed in the crashes (FL11 & 175), or have not been released to the
public (FL77 & 93). Why have the CVRs from the last two flights not been released to us? I don't know.
A-Train is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2007, 09:12 PM   #334
8den
Graduate Poster
 
8den's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,293
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
I am not the one having anyone withhold or conceal evidence! This information has not been released, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with me. If I am mistaken, and it has been released, please let me know. I will admit my error. Tell me where I can find a transcript of the CVR from FLs 77, 11 and 175.

Remember the context of my comment. Someone else ridiculed my suggestion that guns with silencers were used by pointing out the noise would have been recorded by the CVRs. I replied by saying he was right, but that none of us have heard those CVRs because they have either been destroyed in the crashes (FL11 & 175), or have not been released to the
public (FL77 & 93). Why have the CVRs from the last two flights not been released to us? I don't know.
Just two points here. So what if they had guns, Are you saying Arab terrorists lack the where withall to smuggle guns onto a plane?

Quote:
The Palestinian hijack of Air France Flight 139 is brought to an end at Entebbe Airport, Uganda by Operation Entebbe: Israeli commandos assault the building holding the hijackers and hostages killing all Palestinian hijackers and rescuing 105 persons, almost all Israeli hostages; three passengers and one commando are killed.

1997: Lufthansa Flight 181 (also known as the Landshut) was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists on a flight from Palma de Mallorca to Frankfurt. The ordeal ended in Mogadishu when GSG 9 commandos stormed the plane. Three hijackers were killed and 86 hostages were freed. The pilot was
killed. The hand of German Red Army Faction was suspected.

the defense minister of UAE negotiated the release of the passengers. It was related to the Sikh secessionist struggle in the Indian state of Punjab.
  • 1984: Lebanese Shi'a hijackers divert a Kuwait Airways flight to Tehran. The plane is taken by Iranian security forces who were dressed as custodial staff.[1]
  • 1985: Palestinians take over EgyptAir Flight 648 and fly it to Malta. All together, 60 people died, most of them when Egyptian commandos stormed the aircraft.
  • 1995: Iranian defector and flight attendant Rida Garari hijacked Kish Air flight 707, which landed in Israel. No casualties.
  • 1996: Hemus Air Tu-154 aircraft was hijacked by the Palestinian Nadir Abdallah, flying from Beirut to Varna. The hijacker demamded that the aircraft be refuelled and given passage to Oslo, Norway after landing at Varna Airport. All of the 150 passengers were freed at Varna, afterwards the crew continued the flight to Oslo.
  • 1986: 22 people are killed when Pakistani security forces storm Pan Am Flight 73 at Karachi, carrying 400 passengers and crew after a 16-hour siege.
  • 1988: Two Kuwaitis are killed in 1988 when Shi'a gunmen hijack a Kuwait Airways flight from Thailand and force it to fly to Algiers with more than 110 people on board; the hijack ends after 16 days when the hijackers free the remaining hostages and are allowed to leave Algiers.
Secondly Al Qaeda the terrorist group you feel is incapable of commiting this out has also managed to
Quote:
Yemen 1992

The first militant attack that al-Qaeda allegedly carried out consisted of three bombings at hotels where American troops were staying in Aden, Yemen, on December 29 1992. A Yemeni and an Austrian tourist died in one bombing.

Somalia 1993

There are disputed claims that al-Qaeda operatives assisted in the shooting down of U.S. helicopters and the killing of U.S. servicemen in Somalia in 1993. (see: Battle of Mogadishu)

Operation Bojinka

Ramzi Yousef, who was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (though probably not an al-Qaeda member at the time), and Khalid Sheik Mohammed planned Operation Bojinka, a plot to destroy airplanes in mid-Pacific flight using explosives. An apartment fire in Manila, Philippines exposed the plan before it could be carried out. Yousef was arrested, but Mohammed evaded capture until 2003.

Saudi Arabia 1995-96

Al-Qaeda is often listed as a suspect in two bombings in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996: the bombing at a U.S. military facility in Riyadh in November 1995, which killed two people from India and five Americans, and the June 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, which killed American military personnel in Dhahran. However, these attacks are usually ascribed to Hizbullah.

1998 U.S. embassy bombings

Al-Qaeda is believed to have conducted the bombings in August 1998 of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing more than 200 people and injuring more than 5,000 others.

1999 and 2000 attacks

In December 1999 and into 2000, al-Qaeda planned attacks against U.S. and Israeli tourists visiting Jordan for millennial celebrations; however, Jordanian authorities thwarted the planned attacks and put 28 suspects on trial. Part of this plot included the planned bombing of the Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California, but this plot was foiled when bomber Ahmed Ressam was caught at the US-Canadian border with explosives in the trunk of his car. Al-Qaeda also planned to attack the USS The Sullivans on January 3, 2000, but the effort failed due to too much weight being put on the small boat meant to bomb the ship.
Despite the setback with the USS The Sullivans, al-Qaeda succeeded in bombing a U.S. warship in October 2000 with the USS Cole bombing. German police foiled a plot to destroy a cathedral in Strasbourg, France in December 2000. See: Strasbourg cathedral bombing plot
8den is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2007, 09:22 PM   #335
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,010
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
I am not the one having anyone withhold or conceal evidence! This information has not been released, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with me. If I am mistaken, and it has been released, please let me know. I will admit my error. Tell me where I can find a transcript of the CVR from FLs 77, 11 and 175.

Remember the context of my comment. Someone else ridiculed my suggestion that guns with silencers were used by pointing out the noise would have been recorded by the CVRs. I replied by saying he was right, but that none of us have heard those CVRs because they have either been destroyed in the crashes (FL11 & 175), or have not been released to the public (FL77 & 93). Why have the CVRs from the last two flights not been released to us? I don't know.
You theory requires them to be withholding the CVRs because the evidence on them would prove that guns were used, rather than them being withheld out of respect for the families of those who were recorded on the CVRs.

If the CVRs were withheld for the reasons you seem to suggest, it inevitably follows that some elements of the FBI and NTSB are knowingly particpating in a coverup. And it would have to be large elements - anyone in the investigations who would normally have access to such things, which I expect would be a large number. It would also start to encompass everyone involved in the 9/11 Commission report, who acted to cover-up this cover-up.

So now we're back to large portions of the US government being involved in the attacks - which doesn't seem that different from what other CTists have claimed.

Unless, in the "context of your comment", you're just starting to pull things out of your ass, in order to allow you to continue believing as you do, without worrying about the holes in your hypothesis.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2007, 09:56 PM   #336
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
The Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories

Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
You're absolutely right, a silenced gunshot would have shown up on the cockpit voice recorder. Maybe that's why we have not been allowed to listen to them? Of course, I'm sure you realize, none of the contents of any of the CVRs have been released to the public. We are told that all the black boxes from the two WTC planes were not recovered-- despite accounts from several firefighters who say they found the boxes and turned them over to the FBI.

The only CVR that anyone from the public has been able to listen to is the one from UAL93, played for a private audience of victims' families. Even some of them suspected the CVR had been tampered with. This was the CVR that somehow captured conversation among the heroes discussing how to break open the cockpit door, despite the fact that a CVR can only record what goes on inside the cockpit.
Your story is disintegrating. Before I explain, let me briefly point out that we discussed the "missing" black boxes here, and the reports that they were found are simply a lie; and that a Cockpit Voice Recorder, commonly referred to as a CVR, is fairly sensitive and indeed quite capable of picking up yells and other conversation outside the cockpit door, particularly when hundreds of people are willing to replay every scrap over and over and over again until they figure out what's on tape.

Let me also say that I do appreciate that you, A-Train, have actually provided us some details on what you think happened. Very few Troothers ever do this, most are content to complain about anomalies without attempting any explanation at all. You still haven't brought much in the way of evidence, but perhaps we'll work on that next.

------

Now, then, let me explain what's going on with your theory. There's a fine line in the Scientific Method, one that you have crossed. I refer to the fine line between refining a hypothesis and making excuses.

Virtually all hypotheses can use refinement, whether it's in the form of added details, more explicit explanations, moving assumptions from merely "credible" to "supported by evidence," and sharpening numbers. This is true of the so-called Official Theory of Sept. 11th as well -- starting from the rough hypothesis of "19 terrorists hijacked four airliners and crashed them into three buildings," it has since been refined in terms of who the terrorists were, how the planes were hijacked, what preparations led up to the event, why safeguards failed, and precisely how buildings performed after being hit.

Refining hypotheses is a necessary part of science, and should always be done when new or conflicting facts are discovered. Sometimes, we cannot add precise refinements, but must instead make assumptions. This is a subjective process, hence the fine line. So how do we evaluate our assumptions?

Some measures are simple -- an assumption that violates all known physical laws is a poor one, for instance. Others, such as "Occam's Razor" or the observation that simpler assumptions are in general preferred, are difficult to evaluate on their own. The simplest hypothesis is not always the correct one.

But, in this case, we don't have to evaluate assumptions on their own, because we have multiple hypotheses, all being tested against the same body of facts. An assumption that strengthens one hypothesis against those facts is a good one. An assumption that evades the known facts, or depends on new facts that are not readily available, is not. This is just a way of preventing a factual test from applying to the hypothesis.

The latter case is an "excuse." Excuses are bad assumptions because the only purpose they serve is to keep viable an otherwise untenable hypothesis. If there are no valid hypotheses currently in the running, then speculation is warranted, but if there are, we should simply accept that the other hypotheses are better. We can still continue to look for new facts, of course, and we need not completely abandon our own pet hypothesis, but we cannot use these excuses without acknowledging that they are a serious flaw.

As an example, consider two hypotheses, what I will call the Official Theory (OT) and the A-Train Theory (ATT), held up to new facts. (This isn't really a new fact, but let's treat it as one to examine the process.)

New Fact: A small fraction of phone calls made from the hijacked aircraft suggest that firearms may have been on board.
OT: We need to add the assumption that the reports may have been mistaken, as is often the case, similar to mistaken reports of bombs on the planes. Alternately, we need to consider that firearms may have been present, in which case there is an additional security failure that needs investigating.

ATT: We need to add the fact that guns were taken on board the aircraft. This means there was an additional security failure that needs investigating.
So far, so good, right? Ah, but these assumptions have consequences.

Consequence: There is no record of gunfire on the recovered Cockpit Voice Recorders.
OT: Per our theory, there should have been no need for gunfire on board the aircraft. Guns, if present, could have merely been an additional deterrent used to aid the hijackers in taking control of the aircraft.

ATT: The guns must have had silencers.
Aha. There's our first excuse. There's no evidence for silencers at all, this is pure speculation -- and it's speculation that needs to be true in order for the competing theory to remain credible. Let's continue:

Consequence: Even with a silencer, gunfire would probably have been audible on the Cockpit Voice Recorder.
OT: As before, there is no need for gunfire, silenced or otherwise. This fact does not challenge our hypothesis.

ATT: In that case, the CVR records must have been suppressed or altered.
There's the second excuse, and it's a big one. In order for that to be true, you need to believe that many people consciously altered a CVR record, interfering in a supremely important investigation -- and many, many more people let it happen, failed to report inconsistencies, or were simply duped.

This is not impossible in the strict sense of the word, but it's hardly likely, and nobody should accept this assumption without some pretty hard evidence behind it. Already we see a "snowball effect" as the excuses get bigger and bigger, and the Conspiracy Theory grows along with it.

Thus, my Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories, stated thus:

RANT! "A Good Theory can be distinguished from a Conspiracy Theory as follows: When repeatedly exposed to scrutiny, the Conspiracy Theory requires more and more people involved, and more and more extraordinary events in order to prevent self-contradiction. A Good Theory, in contrast, remains approximately static in complexity as it is refined."


This is the same principle that makes little kids such rotten liars. Whenever they fib, they don't have enough experience to make things consistent, so they throw out any old thing that pops into their head. Upon questioning it doesn't match, the lies get bigger, and so on.

Back to A-Train, if you can figure out how to explain your theory without bringing the whole FBI, FAA, NTSB, and the nation of Israel into it, then please do. But if you can't, then I'm afraid your hypothesis isn't worth a thing.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2007, 10:03 PM   #337
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
RE R. Mackey: Nominated! Bookmarked! Fekkin etched in titanium and worn as "The One Ring"!
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 12:15 AM   #338
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,987
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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.
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!

Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
The owner of ICTS at the time was Menachem Atzmon, a Likud party member who was convicted of fraud in Israel in 1996.
I like the relevance of these details (whether true or not).
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
Besides the guns, there's plenty of other evidence pointing to a sophisticated conspiracy beyond the means of al-Qaeda.
You have already admitted that there was a precedent of Arab terrorists hijacking four planes simultaneously. So, besides the hypothetic guns, where is that "plenty of other evidence pointing to a sophisticated conspiracy beyond the means of al-Qaeda"?
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan

Last edited by Firestone; 7th February 2007 at 01:21 AM.
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 12:39 AM   #339
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,987
OK, at the risk of being sued:

Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
the evidence pointing to Israeli-Zionist direct involvement is overwhelming
Well, so far, the "evidence" you provided is: "ICTS (International Consultants for Targeted Security), a foreign firm, is the owner of the Huntleigh firm that controlled security for flight UA175".
(not a quote, but my summary)

Where "foreign firm" means Israeli firm.

Quite underwhelming, you know ...
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 12:40 AM   #340
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,832
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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. The owner of ICTS at the time was Menachem Atzmon, a Likud party member who was convicted of fraud in Israel in 1996.

Besides the guns, there's plenty of other evidence pointing to a sophisticated conspiracy beyond the means of al-Qaeda.
I think you got this stuff from an anti semite web site. Right? Are you another white power guy?

You are not related to the dolt Christopher Bollyn, are you?

You got this junk from a mentally unstable guy; right?

Are you a jews did it guy? Are you trying to say Israel did it? Come on and say it; come on; you do want to say it, so when will you do it and stop being a coward repeating lies from other nut cases. You can do it.

You know what? You already did it! Are you CB?

Last edited by beachnut; 7th February 2007 at 12:52 AM. Reason: Christopher Bollyn is the a train from hell! right?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 12:47 AM   #341
MortFurd
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,010
Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade View Post
RE R. Mackey: Nominated! Bookmarked! Fekkin etched in titanium and worn as "The One Ring"!
Seconded.
MortFurd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 07:32 AM   #342
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,010
Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade View Post
RE R. Mackey: Nominated! Bookmarked! Fekkin etched in titanium and worn as "The One Ring"!
Yep. Once again, R.Mackey says it all much better than I did.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 07:48 AM   #343
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Consequence: There is no record of gunfire on the recovered Cockpit Voice Recorders.
I'm not following you here. Are you stating as fact that there is no record of gunfire on the recovered CVRs, which would be from FL93 & FL77? What are you basing that on? The CVR from FL93 has only been played for a few members of the victims' families, some of whom suspected it had been tampered with. [Terror Timeline 10:02 AM] The CVR from FL77 has never been released. Are you assuming that if evidence of a gun was on this CVR, someone would have told you about it?

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Back to A-Train, if you can figure out how to explain your theory without bringing the whole FBI, FAA, NTSB, and the nation of Israel into it, then please do. But if you can't, then I'm afraid your hypothesis isn't worth a thing.
I am completely on board here. You will never hear me hypothesize anything that requires the large scale involvement of any US government agency-- nor even "the nation of Israel" for that matter. There are too many honest, patriotic people working in the government for that to succeed. I know that, because I am one of them.

However, while federal agents and soldiers may be patriotic, the reality is that they work for very hierarchical organizations where orders are followed often without question. Those who have a habit of questioning orders and acting on their own find themselves at the bottom of the totem pole.

With respect to the CVRs, I would say that whoever recovered them was ordered to hand them over immediately to the authorities in Washington D.C., obviously without listening to them first. What percentage of agents of the FBI, FAA and NTSB actually listened to the CVRs? Want to speculate? 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.
A-Train is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 08:05 AM   #344
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,010
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
I'm not following you here. Are you stating as fact that there is no record of gunfire on the recovered CVRs, which would be from FL93 & FL77? What are you basing that on? The CVR from FL93 has only been played for a few members of the victims' families, some of whom suspected it had been tampered with. [Terror Timeline 10:02 AM] The CVR from FL77 has never been released. Are you assuming that if evidence of a gun was on this CVR, someone would have told you about it?
Check out:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...id=98&catid=18

and search on "CVR"

Quote:
82. See Jere Longman, Among the Heroes—United Flight 93 and the Passengers and CrewWho Fought Back (Harper-Collins, 2002), p. 107; Deena Burnett interview (Apr. 26, 2004); FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from Jeremy Glick, Sept. 11, 2001, through Sept. 12, 2001; Lyzbeth Glick interview (Apr. 22, 2004). Experts told us that a gunshot would definitely be audible on the CVR.The FBI found no evidence of a firearm at the crash site of Flight 93. See FBI response to Commission briefing request no. 6, undated (topic 11).The FBI collected 14 knives or portions of knives at the Flight 93 crash site. FBI report,“Knives Found at the UA Flight 93 Crash Site,” undated.
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
With respect to the CVRs, I would say that whoever recovered them was ordered to hand them over immediately to the authorities in Washington D.C., obviously without listening to them first. What percentage of agents of the FBI, FAA and NTSB actually listened to the CVRs? Want to speculate? 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.
And after all R.Mackey's hard work, here you go again, snowballing the assumptions. Why don't yo try investigating how the CVRs were actually handled, rather than just assuming things?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 08:07 AM   #345
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
 
volatile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,729
I don't get it. They might have had a gun. So what?

People have smuggled all kinds of things - bombs, knives, guns - onto planes, before 911 and since:

From 2000 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/...400231,00.html

"In October security at Stanstead airport in Essex was criticised when it emerged that government inspectors smuggled a gun and a fake bomb past security checks."

See also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/954183.stm


From 2005 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4146985.stm

"An Israeli man forgot he was carrying a loaded pistol in his hand luggage when he flew into Britain for a holiday, a court has heard. Benjamin Lehman, 48, from the West Bank, managed to pass security checks at Tel Aviv and Heathrow without the weapon being discovered."



There's no need for a huge conspiracy even if guns were on board. Security screeners make mistakes sometimes.

Last edited by volatile; 7th February 2007 at 08:12 AM.
volatile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 08:21 AM   #346
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Quote:
"You theory requires them to be withholding the CVRs because the evidence on them would prove that guns were used, rather than them being withheld out of respect for the families of those who were recorded on the CVRs." -Horatius
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.

Quote:
"If the CVRs were withheld for the reasons you seem to suggest, it inevitably follows that some elements of the FBI and NTSB are knowingly particpating in a coverup. And it would have to be large elements - anyone in the investigations who would normally have access to such things, which I expect would be a large number. It would also start to encompass everyone involved in the 9/11 Commission report, who acted to cover-up this cover-up." -Horatius
No, you're wrong. It would not have to be a large number at all. It could be very small. As for the 9/11 Commission people, they were probably told the CVR contained nothing of interest, and they accepted that unquestioningly.

It should be noted that it is possible that some federal agents may have heard the CVRs and heard the presumptive evidence of a gunshot. However, like many on this board, they may have sincerely assumed that the gunshot came from an al-Qaeda terrorist. They therefore do not consider themselves to be participating in a true coverup, since the evidence they are concealing doesn't make much of a difference in the overall picture. This is how coverups often are carried out by honest, patriotic officials who are only following orders and who do not understand the overall implications of the details they are withholding from the public.

Quote:
"So now we're back to large portions of the US government being involved in the attacks - which doesn't seem that different from what other CTists have claimed."
No, we're not. There was no large scale involvement of the US government or military in the 9/11 attacks.
A-Train is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 08:41 AM   #347
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4904600.stm

Then why did they not use the gun to suppress the passengers fight back?

Why if they had a gun did they not shoot the first passengers that charged up to the cockpit?

They were in an enclosed area; it would have been easy to suppress any counter attack by simply shooting the first people that made any move.

Why did the pilot roll the plane violently to try and suppress the attack?

They had a gun, why not just open up, suppress the attack and carry on with the plan?
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 08:49 AM   #348
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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.
It's not being "withheld". It was damaged by the impact & fire & no data could be recovered. Or at least, that's what has been reported: if you're going to attack something, it might as well be the account that's being put forward.
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 08:49 AM   #349
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,010
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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.
"None" except for the pilots who had their throats cut (or were "shot").

And how often are CVR recordings completely released, even in regular air crashes?

As for no excuse, it's standard procedure not to publish information that may be used as evidence in a criminal trial, so as to avoid biasing potential jurors. Even if you don't believe the official story, you must believe there are still some perps out there who have yet to be put on trial for their actions, right? So why would you want to potentially screw up those trials?


Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
No, you're wrong. It would not have to be a large number at all. It could be very small. As for the 9/11 Commission people, they were probably told the CVR contained nothing of interest, and they accepted that unquestioningly.
...
No, we're not. There was no large scale involvement of the US government or military in the 9/11 attacks.
And here we're back to pure speculation. Why don't you try finding out exactly how many people were involved in dealing with the CVRs? At least then, we'd be disagreeing about actual numbers, rather than made up ones.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 08:51 AM   #350
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,010
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
It's not being "withheld". It was damaged by the impact & fire & no data could be recovered. Or at least, that's what has been reported: if you're going to attack something, it might as well be the account that's being put forward.
Or what he said
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 08:57 AM   #351
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
I'm not following you here. Are you stating as fact that there is no record of gunfire on the recovered CVRs, which would be from FL93 & FL77? What are you basing that on? The CVR from FL93 has only been played for a few members of the victims' families, some of whom suspected it had been tampered with. [Terror Timeline 10:02 AM] The CVR from FL77 has never been released. Are you assuming that if evidence of a gun was on this CVR, someone would have told you about it?
Correct. At this stage of your theory's Inflation, we have to assume, like I said above, the CVRs were "suppressed or altered."

Again, it is not physically impossible that everyone who heard the CVRs, everyone on the investigation, and everyone who would normally have examined the CVRs but was mysteriously prevented is keeping their mouths shut, not mentioning the presence of BANGs, the ring of ejected .45 brass, and pilots suddenly going silent (or crying out) on the recordings. But you have no support for this, this means the whole thing has grown vastly compared to your initial hypothesis, and the Official Theory doesn't suffer from this problem.

If you can't admit that the Official Theory is superior to yours at this point, you are not being honest. Without new evidence that presents similar problems to the Official Theory, evidence that you have not supplied, your hypothesis is now left in the dust.

Release of the full CVRs is not necessary to make this comparison. If it was, I agree it would present us with new facts, and we would go through this process again. But your theory requires things to be true that we simply don't know. Exceptional things. That is an undeniable flaw.
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post

With respect to the CVRs, I would say that whoever recovered them was ordered to hand them over immediately to the authorities in Washington D.C., obviously without listening to them first. What percentage of agents of the FBI, FAA and NTSB actually listened to the CVRs? Want to speculate?
Absolutely not. No speculation is required. We already have a workable theory for which the number of tricksters within the FBI, FAA, etc. is zero. This beats your theory, period.

Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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.
Now that's just rude. Once again, your theory has inflated, for no reason other than to make excuses.

Stop speculating and go find some evidence. I find your willingness to smear anyone with any connection to Israel extremely disturbing.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 09:42 AM   #352
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4904600.stm

Then why did they not use the gun to suppress the passengers fight back?

Why if they had a gun did they not shoot the first passengers that charged up to the cockpit?

They were in an enclosed area; it would have been easy to suppress any counter attack by simply shooting the first people that made any move.

Why did the pilot roll the plane violently to try and suppress the attack?

They had a gun, why not just open up, suppress the attack and carry on with the plan?
I agree with everything you're saying here. I believe the gun(s) were included, not only to kill the pilots quickly, but as a preventative against a mass passenger attack. In such an event, the passengers would have been mowed down with the gun. Using knives for that purpose would have been a bloody mess, even for trained professionals.

I believe that passengers on UAL93 were planning an attack from the back of the plane where they had all been herded. I believe they commenced that attack at about 9:58 or so. We know this from the phone call evidence which I consider to be credible.

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.

You may vehemently disagree with this assessment. But you will have to concede that the only evidence we have of an actual struggle for the cockpit comes from the CVR. There is no other corroborating evidence.

Last edited by A-Train; 7th February 2007 at 09:47 AM.
A-Train is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 09:47 AM   #353
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,987
You assume things about the CVR's you haven't heard, and claim that the CVR's that you have heard were tampered with because you don't like what you heard.

All without any evidence

Still underwhelmed ...
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 09:52 AM   #354
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,190
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
But you will have to concede that the only evidence we have of an actual struggle for the cockpit comes from the CVR. There is no other corroborating evidence.
What about the plane crashing in the middle of nowhere? Isn't that corroborating evidence?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 09:57 AM   #355
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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. The owner of ICTS at the time was Menachem Atzmon, a Likud party member who was convicted of fraud in Israel in 1996.

Besides the guns, there's plenty of other evidence pointing to a sophisticated conspiracy beyond the means of al-Qaeda.
Let me see if I understand you correctly: ASSUMING there were guns on board, and ASSUMING that getting guns on board required some sort of collusion with airport security, and ASSUMING that arranging such collusion was beyond the means of al Qaeda, and ASSUMING that if al Qaeda was not behind it, then it had to be the Isrealis...

Assumptions built on assumptions built on assumptions. See the problem? If even one of these assumptions is wrong, then your whole argument falls apart.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 10:00 AM   #356
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
I agree with everything you're saying here. I believe the gun(s) were included, not only to kill the pilots quickly, but as a preventative against a mass passenger attack. In such an event, the passengers would have been mowed down with the gun. Using knives for that purpose would have been a bloody mess, even for trained professionals.
I am not agreeing with you I asking you a series of questions based on your claims. You have failed to answer them, so I will ask again.
If,as you claim this highly trained professional Israeli suicide squad had guns,why did they not use them to suppress the attack?
Why did the pilot roll the plane violently to suppress it?

Quote:
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.
So why did the plane crash ?
Quote:
You may vehemently disagree with this assessment. But you will have to concede that the only evidence we have of an actual struggle for the cockpit comes from the CVR. There is no other corroborating evidence.
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?
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 10:02 AM   #357
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
What about the plane crashing in the middle of nowhere? Isn't that corroborating evidence?
Yes, A-Frame, if the passengers were never a threat, then why did the hijackers cut their mission short and crash into a field? They risked losing their shot at Paradise and 72 virgins for...what, exactly?

Oh, that's right. You think they were Israelis.

In that case, it makes perfect sense that they would rather crash into an empty field than complete the mission they'd spent years preparing for...
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

Last edited by aggle-rithm; 7th February 2007 at 10:07 AM.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 10:05 AM   #358
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post
I am not agreeing with you I asking you a series of questions based on your claims. You have failed to answer them, so I will ask again.
If,as you claim this highly trained professional Israeli suicide squad had guns,why did they not use them to suppress the attack?
Why did the pilot roll the plane violently to suppress it?


So why did the plane crash ?

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?
I have a feeling the list of assumptions necessary to hold his "theory" together is about to grow longer.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 10:06 AM   #359
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
It's not being "withheld". It was damaged by the impact & fire & no data could be recovered. Or at least, that's what has been reported: if you're going to attack something, it might as well be the account that's being put forward.
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!"
A-Train is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2007, 10:06 AM   #360
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
What about the plane crashing in the middle of nowhere? Isn't that corroborating evidence?
Plus, we have eye witness accounts from those on the plane that an attempt on the cockpit was planned. Of course it's not proof it occurred, but it does corroborate when added to the CVR and the fact the plane did indeed crash.

That most certainly is more evidence than Israelis with guns.
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.