-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
9/11
- Thread starter Harry
- Start date
Disco08 said:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think the planned attack and destruction of the WTC Twin Towers along with their thousands of occupants by the US government would constitute an extraordinary claim. I have yet to see any sort of convincing argument to the contrary (and I have read quite a bit about it). Which "not so little" coincidences do you find most convincing?
There are a lot easier ways to start a war that a fake terrorist attack on the WTC, the Pentagon, and the other target (Congress or the White House - whatever it was to be).
Never bought the conspiracy theories on this one, they are all disproven too easily (like the myth that no Jews were in the WTC during the attack).
Never bought the conspiracy theories on this one, they are all disproven too easily (like the myth that no Jews were in the WTC during the attack).
antman said:
Why must there be thousands involved? We're led to believe that a handful of immigrants with only reasonable resources and funding were able to pull it off, why couldn't a handful of professionals with unlimited resources and funding do the same?
Panthera tigris FC said:
One of the less revealing but to me most compelling facts is that on 9/11/01, all NORAD defenses were taking part in a drill simulating an attack on the east coast by hijacked passenger aircraft. What are the odds?
Another convincing argument comes from commercial pilots and instructors who say that based on FDR and other evidence it is all but impossible for a 757 to traverse the flightpath flight 77 supposedly took, even if flown by an experienced pilot, let alone a rank amateur whose instructor described him as virtually useless.
These are by no means even a scratch on the surface of things which don't add up with the events of 911 but I think both are quite compelling and also requiring explanation.
I disagree that you need extraordinary evidence too. All you can do is look at the facts as they stand and draw whatever conclusion seems logical, however mundane or extraordinary that may be. Like I said, in this case it's many pieces of evidence and fact that add up to the conclusion that the official explanation is a long way from the truth.
Disco08 said:
There had to be thousands involved in the cover-up, not necessarily the attacks themselves.
http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm
These training exercises occur annually, so the odds aren't that long. In fact, if anything NORAD was probably in a better position to deal with the attack because all of the staff were deployed for the exercises that were going on.
Patrick Smith an airline pilot deals with this theory in an article in Salon:
This is an extremely popular topic with respect to American 77. Skyjacker Hani Hanjour, a notoriously untalented flier who never piloted anything larger than a four-seater, seemed to pull off a remarkable series of aerobatic maneuvers before slamming into the Pentagon. The pilots of American 11 and United 175 also had spotty records. They should have had great difficulty navigating to New York City, and even greater difficulty hitting the twin towers squarely. To bolster their belief that the 19 skyjackers were Oswaldian pawns, the conspiracy-mongers invoke impressive-sounding jargon and fluffery about high-tech cockpits, occasionally trundling out testimony from pilots.
Reality: As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.
It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.
"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."
"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."
"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."
That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.
I am yet to see one that is even remotely convincing of a massive conspiracy.
You may disagree, but that still won't stop sceptics disbelieving. This occurs in science whenever a paradigm shift occurs. The new theory remains hypothetical until enough evidence accumulates to sway the sceptics. In this case you (and others) are making a claim that is not supported by the evidence at all (IMO).
Panthera tigris FC said:
I'm only making the claim because of what I've read, mostly expert opinion. If no evidence exists that conflicts with the official version of events why are such a wide range of experts asking questions and pointing out discrepancies?
I'm not going to do a Livers and post a whole list of links because it's simple enough to find.
Panthera tigris FC said:
That site makes the completely false assumption that none of these people are asking the question they're saying should be asked. The fact is many of these people are asking questions.
Panthera tigris FC said:
I'd call 350/1 quite long. Is there a reasonable explanation as to why a system that has been in development and refinement for 40 years and had billions of dollars spent on it and the training of its officers couldn't even come close to performing the duty they were specifically trained to do?
Panthera tigris FC said:
The first paragraph sounds a bit like a good creationist rant. Other than that it quotes 4 people saying it was possible and quotes their experience. 5 seconds on Google can find you a list of many more than that with equal or more impressive credentials and experience who are convinced these events are highly unlikely at best.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Have you seen anything that you find remotely convincing that conflicts with official accounts?
I still think this was an inside job.
Strange how for years after it happened, Bush started chasing Hussein instead of the alleged Bin Laden though....hmmmm....
I don't know if anyone saw a ridiculous 'set-up' documentary from a US magazine company called 'Popular Mechanics' who was totally pro-Bush on this matter. Made me laugh.
Strange how for years after it happened, Bush started chasing Hussein instead of the alleged Bin Laden though....hmmmm....
I don't know if anyone saw a ridiculous 'set-up' documentary from a US magazine company called 'Popular Mechanics' who was totally pro-Bush on this matter. Made me laugh.
jb03 said:
Who really knows jb.
The JFK one has been on for 40+ years and still going strong.
Sometimes I can't understand what morality the CIA and FBI actually bring to their country considering there are so many stories of government corruption (e.g. Watergate).
jb03 said:
Have to admit I had similar views.
Disco08 said:
This is common with any calamity. My personal view is if we accept looney mad men can do such a thing, we are more vulnerable. This is because its too easy, and we desperately want these kind of events to be part of some great master plan, not dumb luck by lunatic radicals.
Some believe the US Govt deliberately let people in New Orleans die during the hurricanes. Better to believe that than believe the Govt was ineffective and unable to act. Its a similar situation with 9/11 in my opinion.
TigerForce said:
cheaper to let people die than properly fix the levies and evac people efficiently. As such, you put your hands up and go "oh dear I wish we could do more", go through the motions, but essentially let people die. This got a lot of currency because many of the more effected areas were primarily poor, and often black.
As mentioned, I don't hold any credence in it, but its surprising how many do.
Disco08 said:
Just because he believes it doesn't make it right. If I google enough I can find any number of reputable people who believe in the Great Jewish Conspiracy, or that the UN is part of a global conspiracy to create a one world government.
As for technical disputes, these are common. I am in the field of technical interpretation, and I am still surprised how often you can get different interpretations of regulations or standards between various people who are all equally qualified and credentialed. And this is with a Standard, where its a detailed written document drafted to minimize the scope for interpretation as much as possible.
<
Hillsong Houstons
|
Dan is dead
>
