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 7th February 2007, 10:09 AM   #361
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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!"
Just because it doesn't fit your theory is no reason to automatically suspect it. Now just how much critical thinking is that?
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
Old 7th February 2007, 10:13 AM   #362
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
The black boxes are specifically designed to survive just about anything.
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.
__________________
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, 10:13 AM   #363
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
 
JimBenArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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!"
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?
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
JimBenArm 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, 10:17 AM   #364
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post
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?
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 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, 10:19 AM   #365
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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.
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...
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
Old 7th February 2007, 10:32 AM   #366
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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.
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 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, 10:34 AM   #367
HyJinX
Graduate Poster
 
HyJinX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,662
Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post
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?
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.
__________________
What? You pooped in the refrigerator? And you ate the whole... wheel of cheese? How'd you do that? Heck, I'm not even mad; that's amazing. - Ron Burgundy
HyJinX 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, 10:44 AM   #368
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post
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?
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 ...
__________________
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, 10:45 AM   #369
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post
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?
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 by A-Train; 7th February 2007 at 10:48 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, 10:48 AM   #370
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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.
We should also consider the possibility that you are totally wrong. Deal?
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
Old 7th February 2007, 10:49 AM   #371
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,172
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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.
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".
__________________
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, 10:50 AM   #372
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
I think we should also consider the possibility that it was a false flag operation masterminded by Alex Jones.
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, 11:01 AM   #373
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Okay, this is just stupid. How could it be anything but a suicide mission?
It's well known that, if you jump up in the air right before the plane hits...
__________________
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, 11:13 AM   #374
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
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.
__________________
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 7th February 2007, 11:25 AM   #375
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
I must give A-Train credit. He's concocted a fantasy CT that cannot be proven wrong.
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...?".
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
Old 7th February 2007, 12:22 PM   #376
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
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!
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 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, 12:29 PM   #377
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,172
(oops)
__________________
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

Last edited by Horatius; 7th February 2007 at 12:30 PM. Reason: Hit submit too soon....
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, 12:30 PM   #378
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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?
He was an Israeli and he was murdered.
Very suspect indeed.

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?

Originally Posted by Firestone View Post
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!
__________________
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 12:40 PM.
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, 12:31 PM   #379
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,852
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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.
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?
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, 12:40 PM   #380
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,172
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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?
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!



Oh, hell, how'd that get there?!?
__________________
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, 01:05 PM   #381
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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.
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 by stateofgrace; 7th February 2007 at 01:07 PM.
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, 01:23 PM   #382
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post
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.
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.
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, 01:34 PM   #383
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by Firestone View Post
He was an Israeli and he was murdered.
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 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, 01:35 PM   #384
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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!"
Have you ever been on a plane?
tsig 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, 01:39 PM   #385
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
[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.]
And on what is this understanding based?

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!
__________________
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 02:30 PM. Reason: Found a smoking gun showing the Swedes did it !!!
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, 01:39 PM   #386
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Have you ever been on a plane?
Or more pertinently, has he ever been out of his room?
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 7th February 2007, 01:43 PM   #387
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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.
The same Napoleon who invaded Egypt and Russia

Got it wrong both times.

French seem to love a looser.
tsig 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, 01:43 PM   #388
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by uk_dave View Post
Or more pertinently, has he ever been out of his room?
well, he had to move from the nursery to the basement sometime!
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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, 01:46 PM   #389
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
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?
Why do you claim they have done no such thing when they have done that very thing?

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

Quote:
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?
"Blindly swallow". Heh. The irony is very prevalent here.

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

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

Quote:
NISTer Logic:

Planes flying into buildings = warps the field and laws of the physical world into a realm of infinite possibilities and probabilities.
No...

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

Quote:
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)
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.
__________________
Writing.com Account

Last edited by Lonewulf; 7th February 2007 at 01:48 PM.
Lonewulf 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, 01:55 PM   #390
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
[quote=uk_dave;2322487]Or more pertinently, has he ever been out of his room?[/QUOTE

The real word is amazing.

When you leave home.
tsig 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, 02:11 PM   #391
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 10,270
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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>
Hearsay.

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

What, don't you believe me?
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin 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, 03:29 PM   #392
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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.
I have highlighted the most sensible and factual thing you have said to date.
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, 11:10 PM   #393
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
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:

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.
(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.)

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.
(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.)

Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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.
(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.)

Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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.
(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.)

Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
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.
(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.)

Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
Now we're getting somewhere. The attacks were clearly carried out with the support of a state apparatus, in my opinion.
(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 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, 11:16 PM   #394
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
In a previous post, I introduced my "Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories,"..............

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

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

(sulking)
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 7th February 2007, 11:18 PM   #395
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
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!
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 8th February 2007, 04:07 AM   #396
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
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.
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
Old 8th February 2007, 04:14 AM   #397
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Quote:
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.

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

(sulking)
Is there room in that box? I hate looking inadequate in public
MG1962 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 8th February 2007, 05:50 AM   #398
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
 
JimBenArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
Is there room in that box? I hate looking inadequate in public
Meh. When you get as experienced as I am at it, it'll be no big deal anymore.
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
JimBenArm 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 8th February 2007, 09:38 AM   #399
Trigood
Muse
 
Trigood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 980
Originally Posted by dubfan View Post
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.
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..."
__________________
Many of us spend our whole lives running from feeling with the mistaken belief that you cannot bear the pain. But you have already borne the pain. What you have not done is feel all you are beyond that pain. - Kahlil Gibran
Trigood 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 8th February 2007, 10:04 AM   #400
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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.)
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.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post

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.)
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!


Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
(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.)
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.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
(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.)
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.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
(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.)
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.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
(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.)
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.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
(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.)
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.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
[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.
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 by A-Train; 8th February 2007 at 10:07 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
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 10:07 PM.
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.