Conspiracies, sheeple, the universe and everything

[MH]

..... what a story.
Everthing was planted... are we talking about Pamela Anderson here?

[mapuc]

Can't we agree on that we do not agree on how we look at this 9-11 stuff

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

For the "official" story to be true, several things have to have happened that some people don't want to believe. That's fine. Some people question all the evidence. That's a good thing.

On the other hand, for the CT version to be true several hundred people have to have acted in concert, planting explosives and evidence, silencing witnesses, hiding the hundred or more passengers who were supposedly on the "real" flight, silencing certain witnesses...basically getting away with a huge deception and hoping that not one single person involved will come forth and admit the deception. This also raises question, that the Truthers are careful to avoid thinking about. Where is the real plane? More importantly, where are all the passengers?

Most important of all, the CT version relies on the concept that while these conspirators are very good at planting evidence and fooling all the sheep, they are also so incompetent, so bad at it that they couldn't even get parts from the right airliner, couldn't get all the witnesses to agree and couldn't get their stories straight.

So if they're so good at it why doesn't the evidence match up (or so the Truthers claim), and if they're so bad at it why isn't there absolute proof?

As for eyewitnesses giving different versions, here's a known real-life incident: On November 1, 1949, an Eastern Airlines DC-4 and a Lockheed P-38 fighter collided over Washington DC, Killing everyone on the airliner. As a boy I read about it in a book called The Probable Cause, an investigation into several airliner crashes, written by aviation expert Robert J. Serling. In the book Serling recounts the testimony given by several eyewitnesses on the ground. I don't have a copy of the book now, so I'm only going on memory, but the eyewitnesses apparently didn't see the same incident. The fighter hit the airliner. The airliner hit the fighter. The fighter shot the airliner down, then crashed. One witness even said the airliner did a full loop and then fell on the fighter.

The point is that "eyewitness testimony" doesn't always add up, and going by what different witnesses said doesn't really prove very much one way or the other. Just ask any detective with crime scene experience.

My other point is that while the Truthers accuse anyone who doesn't believe them of being sheep who only believe what they are told, they themselves only believe what they want to believe, and refuse to accept that sometimes things really are what they seem.

[AVGWarhawk]

Excellent point Steve. The bigger issue is where are the parts of the plane? Well, there were parts. Landing gears. Bits of engine. Questions on why there is no tail sectoin. The plane simply disintegrated.

Take a look at this clip. Where is the tail section after impact?



Planes are not designed to withstand hitting anything let alone a multi-walled standing structure.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

On the other hand, for the CT version to be true several hundred people have to have acted in concert, planting explosives and evidence, silencing witnesses, hiding the hundred or more passengers who were supposedly on the "real" flight, silencing certain witnesses...basically getting away with a huge deception and hoping that not one single person involved will come forth and admit the deception. This also raises question, that the Truthers are careful to avoid thinking about. Where is the real plane? More importantly, where are all the passengers?

Most important of all, the CT version relies on the concept that while these conspirators are very good at planting evidence and fooling all the sheep, they are also so incompetent, so bad at it that they couldn't even get parts from the right airliner, couldn't get all the witnesses to agree and couldn't get their stories straight.

So if they're so good at it why doesn't the evidence match up (or so the Truthers claim), and if they're so bad at it why isn't there absolute proof?

There you go. You have the most likely, most probable and most doable explanation with witnesses vs the least likely, least probable and the most difficult to do explanation, also with witnesses. On top of that you have to explain why either possibility was undertaken. A known terrorist group attacking America again, or the U.S. Govt. faking an attack as an excuse to start 'the war on terror'.

[eddie]

Heck Steve, when it comes to eye witness accounts of a crime or a traffic accident, ask a cop how many different versions of what actually happened that they have to sort through!

[Stealhead]

Here is some better film footage of a real crash a B-52 that flew into the ground.As you can see very little was left and it hit the ground and at a much lower speed that than the aircraft flown during 9/11.

Guess what people when a large aircraft loaded down with fuel flies into a solid object it simply disintegrates into at most very small parts.

The claims of the tails being left behind are from aircraft that crashed upon landing or just after take off where the crew had attempted to make a control landing and where at a much more resolvable AOA and air speed than the 9/11 aircraft where or this B-52 was.



Same B-52 better view(at the end of the clip)


And here is the recent 747 crash in Afghanistan


Sorry CTers but when planes crash with great force they freaking disintegrate to claim other wise is to deny physics.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

For the "official" story to be true, several things have to have happened that some people don't want to believe. That's fine. Some people question all the evidence. That's a good thing.

On the other hand, for the CT version to be true several hundred people have to have acted in concert, planting explosives and evidence, silencing witnesses, hiding the hundred or more passengers who were supposedly on the "real" flight, silencing certain witnesses...basically getting away with a huge deception and hoping that not one single person involved will come forth and admit the deception. This also raises question, that the Truthers are careful to avoid thinking about. Where is the real plane? More importantly, where are all the passengers?

Most important of all, the CT version relies on the concept that while these conspirators are very good at planting evidence and fooling all the sheep, they are also so incompetent, so bad at it that they couldn't even get parts from the right airliner, couldn't get all the witnesses to agree and couldn't get their stories straight.

So if they're so good at it why doesn't the evidence match up (or so the Truthers claim), and if they're so bad at it why isn't there absolute proof?

I've noticed that conspiracy theorists seem to have an innate inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. They never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in most of the alternative accounts.

Also, doesn't it seem odd that the government that could conjure the great illusion on Sept. 11, couldn't conjure up some WMDs in Saddam's Iraq at the end of the war to avoid getting political egg all over their face.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

Also, doesn't it seem odd that the government that could conjure the great illusion on Sept. 11, couldn't conjure up some WMDs in Saddam's Iraq at the end of the war to avoid getting political egg all over their face.

All this time and I never even thought of that! Good point!

[Jimbuna]

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

The "troof" goggles.You just put them on and all is revealed.

You also find out that you have been raising someone else's kid for past 20 years.

[Mittelwaechter]

Let's be evil and plan the Pentagon attack. We are the government and want to make the public believe Al Qaeda attacked the building.

Autopilot or remote operator don't match the difficult area.
We have no suicide pilot to fly the Jetliner into the Pentagon.
We have to fake it. The pilot has to survive in our szenario.
How?
Let him fly low and let the people watch him, then distract the people while he disappears. (Good idea Mr Copperfield)
When they see the airliner heading at the Pentagon, they will expect it to crash into the building, because every station aires the WTC attacks.
Ask the pilot to come as close as possible to the construction site at the Pentagon. There our preparations will be unsuspect and we can restrict access.
Let him fly over the prepared impact point and distract the public with the expected explosion. They see the plane, the heading, they hear the radio, they see the explosion.
They will be shocked. They will believe.
Some stupid guys will doubt it. Witnesses will claim they saw the airliner over the roof or climbing in the sky.
Uh - let's order a second aircraft into the area. Everybody shall see it. Discredit the witness and ask him how there should have been three airplanes around the Pentagon.
Other witnesses will report our second airplane, the explanation for the stupid witnesses watching our pilot disappear.
But some may see him how he climbs to make it over the roof.
Uh - we need some hard evidence he didn't. Let's check the foto here. The trees? No. Better something more close to emphasize he couldn't make it over the roof.
The light poles here! See, incoming from here he could hit five light poles. Good idea. How does he hit them and makes it over the roof?
Uh - it doesnt work, but we could cut the poles with some internal device or explosive at the right time.
Well, they would simply fall, but there wouldn't be the impression they were hit by the airplane.
We could cut and damage them the night before the attack and place them. Maybe we can camouflage them and uncover just after the impact?
Nice. But what if someone watches it? Daylight, traffic?
Uh - we need some hard evidence they were ok before the approach. Evidence to discredit the witness.
Get a civillian, someone harmless and sympatic, some Joe and let him proof the light poles were intact.
How?
Let's fake the airliner hits the lightpoles and one of them hits the car of that guy. How should that be possible without the airliner hitting the pole?
What? How should that work?
Let the guy wait on the road, some problem with the car. Here - 60 yards from the bridge with the light poles.
With the explosion everybody distracted smash the windshield or if too much traffic, wait until we have closed the road.
Put the prepared pole close to his car and let him tell, someone unknown helped him to get the pole out of the car.
We can search for this unknown with the media, if it is necessary to proof it happend like stated by our guy.
We can search publicly for the evidence and a trustable Mr X will show up and tell the story of the poor guy with the pole in his car.
No witness will stand against this.
We have hard evidence the airliner hit the poles now and we can discredit any witness with evidence for our story.
The flight path of our pilot has to match the light posts. So he has to come down south of the Navy Annex.
Should be no problem I guesss.
Well - the impact point and the building damage must support this flight path to keep up the imagination.
Let's talk about this now...


Again, I can't proof anything over the internet. I have no access to any government data or physical parts of debris, witnesses or enclosed material etc.
I have only available what is in public domain on the net. I can't do anything but seach for inconsistencys or alternative interpretations of the official reports.

I have no influence on American politicians, but I can try to make you doubt the 9/11 reports and question your Senators and Congress Members as other officials to engage in finding the truth.
They have tons of material enclosed - it's all out there, but they are not motivated to act.

If you are comfortable with the actual situation, if you know everything is ok, you should stay out of any discussion, any engagement. Relax and be happy. Its not your business.
If you start to doubt, do it. But do it consequently and change your attitude. If there is any doubt ask questions. If you find satisfying answers - disengage, switch back to comfortable and stay out.
If you find no good answers - act accordingly. Discuss ideas and theories with like minded, supportive people. Those won't discourage and mock you.

I gave you a pretty good explanation for the Pentagon attack, assuming it was not the arabian prince steering AA77.
All important factors are logically connected and line up. Details may be different, no trucks but containers, the internal situation at the construction site etc.
This is the best you will get over the internet.

Now you jump at me and ask me to explain all the connected strings to this. What do you smoke?
I do this for a few days and the missus is giving me the bad eye already. If you think it is justified to search for answers, I expect you to act like descibed above.

You 'know' (=believe) or you want to be delivered (= change believe) with the complete true story of 9/11. I doubt the official story and have to split it down into pieces, to work on them.
I'm a one man show.
I fully understand, my partial success counts nothing to you. But do you beam yourself into your car park or do you go there step by step?

My general approach to 9/11 is to doubt, more than 90% of my fellow citizens do so.
Maybe I will work further on this topic, but not with you bloodhounds on my neck.

But before you can't sleep tonight, some thoughts about AA77

The situation justified to order all airborne aircraft to land and all starts to cancel.
AA77 may have been in the air or not. If grounded it could be at the airport of planned departure.
Or it was somewhere else parked and waiting.
If it was airborne it was ordered to land somewhere.
I guess there was chaos at the airports. Good conditions to veil the truth.

Military airbases are available, with big hangars. Authority and orders may have hidden or hide AA77.
I would prefer the military version, to keep the conrol over the situation.
Papers and data were more easily to fake and even the passengers could be ordered to stay quiet.
Security reasons you know...
No military personnel would be astonished to see a commercial landing at their base.

The passengers may have been confused not to be on AA77 at their departure and would do as ordered.
It would help at a civillian air port either. I can't proof it, but it is a possible version.

[Tchocky]

Ah....Jesus....what?

Originally Posted by Dowly

You just went full troofer, never go full troofer...

I think you spoke too early.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

Let's be evil and plan the Pentagon attack. We are the government and want to make the public believe Al Qaeda attacked the building.

Why?

I doubt the official story

Why?