Flight 77 maneuver

[Jango]

That really is one of the more absurd and childish responses to a comment here I have ever seen. By virtue of Jango's hanging around so long, I more or less felt he created for himself at least a faint tint of legitimacy. Whatever he had just went out the window with this comment.

Informed questions, informed debate, informed skepticism, critical thinking and critical analysis - that is what impresses me. Not this grade-school prattle ..."What day do smart questions begin? 11th? 12th? 13th?"

Hyperbole. When someone says what they were saying, the natural counter to that is questioning when 9/11 reports from the media became credible if early reports are so casually dismissed as they are here.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Hyperbole. When someone says what they were saying, the natural counter to that is questioning when 9/11 reports from the media became credible if early reports are so casually dismissed as they are here.

This has been clearly explained to you in several posts already, if you wish to remain ignorant, that's your prerogative.

 

[Jango]

This has been clearly explained to you in several posts already, if you wish to remain ignorant, that's your prerogative.

I do understand what people have been saying, however, they are not addressing the obvious disconnect between their statements and the implications that they carry. It has been said that the first few days of reporting is bad and that's why they're ignoring them, hence, why I asked what I did: when do those "first few days" end because I've linked to reports months and years later that have been just as casually dismissed. Do you understand?

 

[beachnut]

Hyperbole. When someone says what they were saying, the natural counter to that is questioning when 9/11 reports from the media became credible if early reports are so casually dismissed as they are here.

The sad part, the report you used to manufacture a lie, debunks your lie, with a simple, "may have". Simple analysis.

You made up a lie from a report which did not support your lie.

I do understand what people have been saying, however, they are not addressing the obvious disconnect between their statements and the implications that they carry. It has been said that the first few days of reporting is bad and that's why they're ignoring them, hence, why I asked what I did: when do those "first few days" end because I've linked to reports months and years later that have been just as casually dismissed. Do you understand?

You failed to retract a lie you posted, and the report does not support your claim; no evidence for your claim from the report.

you have the disconnect, you failed to understand what the article said.

Do you still believe remote control?

 

[Dave Rogers]

It has been said that the first few days of reporting is bad and that's why they're ignoring them, hence, why I asked what I did:

A lot more has also been said, about the fact that further investigation has failed to corroborate some early reports, therefore those are the ones that are not taken seriously. Why are you ignoring that?

Dave

 

[beachnut]

A lot more has also been said, about the fact that further investigation has failed to corroborate some early reports, therefore those are the ones that are not taken seriously. Why are you ignoring that?

Dave

A smoke screen Gish Gallop quibbling tactic - the ancient art of saving face...

It is hard to admit being wrong.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I do understand what people have been saying, however, they are not addressing the obvious disconnect between their statements and the implications that they carry. It has been said that the first few days of reporting is bad and that's why they're ignoring them, hence, why I asked what I did: when do those "first few days" end because I've linked to reports months and years later that have been just as casually dismissed. Do you understand?

Read below.

A lot more has also been said, about the fact that further investigation has failed to corroborate some early reports, therefore those are the ones that are not taken seriously. Why are you ignoring that?

Dave

I believe most reasonably intelligent people are able to comprehend this post and like the other messages I mentioned above clearly articulates answers to your query.

Like I said, remaining ignorant is your choice.

 

[Jango]

A lot more has also been said, about the fact that further investigation has failed to corroborate some early reports, therefore those are the ones that are not taken seriously. Why are you ignoring that?
Dave

Because that first highlight in itself opens up an entire new can of worms. Failed to what extent: not in the open record, no FOI success?

 

[beachnut]

Because that first highlight in itself opens up an entire new can of worms. Failed to what extent: not in the open record, no FOI success?

You made up a lie, the article you used did not say the terrorists were trained at US based, it said "may have". In addition the article gives the other side, that they were not trained, and did not live on bases.

Your statement was a manufactured lie, due to failure to understand the article.

Now you are stuck, making up BS to cover-up your lie.

Why not say you were wrong?

... the hijackers, some of whom that lived openly, trained on U.S. military bases ....

Why do you stand by a lie, making up a cover-up, as if you were like the evil government 911 truth says is doing a cover-up.

By retracting the lie, by admitting you were wrong, you become smarter than I am. Why? Because you believe a lie, a false statement you made up. I know it is false from face value due to knowledge about 911; if you comprehend you are wrong, you have made more progress than I, and you are smarter; by quibbling you are doing what your drill instructor would have you doing what? Go ahead marine, tell me what you would be doing right now. Semper Fi, why do you lie

 

[WilliamSeger]

Because that first highlight in itself opens up an entire new can of worms.

Seems to me you're trying to make a can of worms out of a can of spam. Even if any of the hijackers trained at US military bases, as many people from allied countries apparently do, what does it have to do with 9/11?

 

[Jango]

You made up a lie, the article you used did not say the terrorists were trained at US based, it said "may have". In addition the article gives the other side, that they were not trained, and did not live on bases.

Your statement was a manufactured lie, due to failure to understand the article.

Now you are stuck, making up BS to cover-up your lie.

Why not say you were wrong?


Why do you stand by a lie, making up a cover-up, as if you were like the evil government 911 truth says is doing a cover-up.

By retracting the lie, by admitting you were wrong, you become smarter than I am. Why? Because you believe a lie, a false statement you made up. I know it is false from face value due to knowledge about 911; if you comprehend you are wrong, you have made more progress than I, and you are smarter; by quibbling you are doing what your drill instructor would have you doing what? Go ahead marine, tell me what you would be doing right now. Semper Fi, why do you lie

Kind of a hard example to use, but to answer you: if any Drill Instructor thought that I had or was lying to them, pain, lots and lots of pain was in my immediate future. It's not like the other boot camps where civilian lingo still exists, everything is: "Sir, Recruit Jango requests permission to speak with Drill Instructor Sergeant Romero, sir!" I would not be able to argue my case. If I slipped out of the precision of language I was constrained by, violence on my person and my mind would ensue. I wouldn't be able to tell them:

U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in Tuesday’s terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s.

THREE OF THE alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.—known as the “Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation,” according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.

Another of the alleged hijackers may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala., said another high-ranking Pentagon official. The fifth man may have received language instruction at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Both were former Saudi Air Force pilots who had come to the United States, according to the Pentagon source.

But there are slight discrepancies between the military training records and the official FBI list of suspected hijackers—either in the spellings of their names or with their birthdates. One military source said it is possible that the hijackers may have stolen the identities of the foreign nationals who studied at the U.S. installations.

I don't know how much I can quote of the article in question, but I'll stop with the above and address the entirety of the article: it is a lot of interesting and inconclusive information. Interesting because if the sources are correct, the implications are obvious. But it is inconclusive at the same time because there is talk of identity theft. If identity theft is the path rather than them being trained at U.S. military installations, so be it, but then who were they? Isn't it true that Osama bin Laden used the passports of mujaheddin who had died on the battlefield against the Soviets? The line that "both were former Saudi Air Force pilots" is interesting because there has been controversy over the 28 classified pages in the 2002 Joint Inquiry since it was mentioned. These 28 pages apparently discuss Saudi Arabia.
Obviously, I don't know what those 28 pages say. But I want to ask you personally, do you think anything like that (Saudi Air Force pilots) is in those 28 pages?

Alternatively, the F.B.I. hijacker chronology is on its website with redactions. I do not recall seeing the talked about Military Training Records.

If it isn't obvious by now, I am not comfortable with the ?'s that exist with this event nor the size of information we currently have in relation to the actual size of information on the topic that we do not have. Because of this disparity, the only way for you to win counterarguments is to cite open-source material, but you lose the war of arguments because you are constrained by the same universe of information (assuming you're not active duty with a security clearance) as I am and you cannot conclusively answer any of the questions that step beyond the current evidentiary base, and there is lot to question. I realize you'll never acknowledge that, which is fine.

 

[Jango]

Seems to me you're trying to make a can of worms out of a can of spam. Even if any of the hijackers trained at US military bases, as many people from allied countries apparently do, what does it have to do with 9/11?

How did they gain access with the shape their passports were in? Who were they being sponsored by? -- Easy out of the gate questions.

It relates to 9/11 because if they did indeed train at military installations, which would require forms of identification to be exchanged, it implicates the military in the conspiracy even further given the Intelligence Community wide (Pentagon being the largest of that) knowledge that Islamic fundamentalism was on the rise and had the U.S., abroad or domestic, in its crosshairs. What further complicates this matter is the D.I.A.'s Able Danger program. And as Snowden said, "We actually had records of the phone calls from the United States and out. The CIA knew who these guys were."

There is a there there.

 

[Wolrab]

How did they gain access with the shape their passports were in? Who were they being sponsored by? -- Easy out of the gate questions.

OBL's little group. Plenty of cash for some plane tickets, flight school, and hotel rooms. OMG it must have cost thousands!

It relates to 9/11 because if they did indeed train at military installations, which would require forms of identification to be exchanged, it implicates the military in the conspiracy even further given the Intelligence Community wide (Pentagon being the largest of that) knowledge that Islamic fundamentalism was on the rise and had the U.S., abroad or domestic, in its crosshairs.

You can find out what all the terorists were up to preceding the attack if you look.

What further complicates this matter is the D.I.A.'s Able Danger program. And as Snowden said, "We actually had records of the phone calls from the United States and out. The CIA knew who these guys were."

There is a there there.

You obviously don't know the turf wars and laws surrounding what the FBI and CIA were allowed to do then. Again, a miniscule amount of research would fill you in.

 

[Jango]

OBL's little group. Plenty of cash for some plane tickets, flight school, and hotel rooms. OMG it must have cost thousands!

You can find out what all the terorists were up to preceding the attack if you look.

You obviously don't know the turf wars and laws surrounding what the FBI and CIA were allowed to do then. Again, a miniscule amount of research would fill you in.

Please. The so-called 'wall' is a convenient excuse -- it was talked about openly in the press years before 9/11, just like the lack of airport security was too. "We were not allowed to talk to each other." Who came up with that idea? Jamie Gorelick, 9/11 Commissioner, right? Gee, what a coincidence.

 

[WilliamSeger]

How did they gain access with the shape their passports were in? Who were they being sponsored by? -- Easy out of the gate questions.

It relates to 9/11 because if they did indeed train at military installations, which would require forms of identification to be exchanged, it implicates the military in the conspiracy even further given the Intelligence Community wide (Pentagon being the largest of that) knowledge that Islamic fundamentalism was on the rise and had the U.S., abroad or domestic, in its crosshairs. What further complicates this matter is the D.I.A.'s Able Danger program. And as Snowden said, "We actually had records of the phone calls from the United States and out. The CIA knew who these guys were."

There is a there there.

Oh, I see, so if you take Newsweek unsubstantiated claim that some of the hijackers may have trained at US military bases and add your own unsubstantiated claims that they were already involved with al Qaeda at the time and that their passports were invalid, then we've got a real mystery. You really love mysteries, dontcha.

 

[Jango]

Oh, I see, so if you take Newsweek unsubstantiated claim that some of the hijackers may have trained at US military bases and add your own unsubstantiated claims that they were already involved with al Qaeda at the time and that their passports were invalid, then we've got a real mystery. You really love mysteries, dontcha.

I like Completed Stories. Not 37.5% complete, not 50%, not 90%. I like 100% Why don't you? Why are you so comfortable with less than 100% told stories? You wouldn't tolerate that kind of thing if you bought a book off the shelf and discovered that the last three chapters are not included in your copy of the book (I mean, who checks books for completeness before purchasing them?). You would rightfully demand a refund for the lack of completeness. Yet, in matters of real importance such as this, you are perfectly fine with not having 100% completeness. I wonder why.

 

[GlennB]

I like Completed Stories. Not 37.5% complete, not 50%, not 90%. I like 100% Why don't you? Why are you so comfortable with less than 100% told stories? You wouldn't tolerate that kind of thing if you bought a book off the shelf and discovered that the last three chapters are not included in your copy of the book (I mean, who checks books for completeness before purchasing them?). You would rightfully demand a refund for the lack of completeness. Yet, in matters of real importance such as this, you are perfectly fine with not having 100% completeness. I wonder why.

Then, logically, you should be much more demanding towards the Truthers, who have about 1% of "the story", and an irrelevant 1% at that.

I'm a little uneasy about certain aspects of many scientific theories, for example wave-particle duality^WP. But I wouldn't use this nagging doubt as a blunt instrument with which to beat the whole world of quantum physics.

Creationists use this shoddy technique all the time, finding something apparently inexplicable by evolutionary theory and claiming "Therefore, creation!"

 

[WilliamSeger]

I like Completed Stories. Not 37.5% complete, not 50%, not 90%. I like 100% Why don't you? Why are you so comfortable with less than 100% told stories? You wouldn't tolerate that kind of thing if you bought a book off the shelf and discovered that the last three chapters are not included in your copy of the book (I mean, who checks books for completeness before purchasing them?). You would rightfully demand a refund for the lack of completeness. Yet, in matters of real importance such as this, you are perfectly fine with not having 100% completeness. I wonder why.

One of the known aspects of conspiracy theorist psychology is that they have a very low tolerance for ambiguity. That's the same reason people invent religions. Of course it's frustrating not knowing a lot of things, but I don't consider that frustration to be a license to fill in the gaps with my own imagination; I try to do the best I can with what I do know. We've already established that you can't prove that any of the hijackers were actually trained at US military bases, and now I see that you're not even going to try to substantiate your claims that they were already involved with al Qaeda at the time, that their passports were invalid, and that US intelligence knew all of that. I'm not (yet) claiming that I know you're wrong; I'm asking you why anyone should believe unsubstantiated claims until they're disproved and then try to use those claims to support implausible conspiracy theories? I would be afraid that that sort of "reasoning" would probably lead me pretty far astray.

 

[JayUtah]

Why are you so comfortable with less than 100% told stories?

Because I live in the real world and I am neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

You wouldn't tolerate that kind of thing if you bought a book off the shelf and discovered that the last three chapters are not included in your copy of the book...

Real life is not a novel.

...you are perfectly fine with not having 100% completeness. I wonder why.

Because I've spent enough time doing real-world investigation within my field to know you'll never be able to explain everything you can observe. William Seger is spot-on. People who can't live with ambiguity or inconsistency are the ones you have to watch out for, because they'll make up all kinds of nonsense just to appear to have a complete narrative. When completion is your sine qua non criteria for credibility, then truth goes out the window.

Great, so you "like 100%." How do you propose to achieve 100-percent knowledge for real, rather than the illusion or appearance of it? Remember when you were trying to defend disclosure of classified materials and it was pointed out that your strategy allowed you the "out" of claiming that there might be even more classified stuff that we don't yet know exists? You've set it up so you'll never be satisified, never have 100%. Do you see how that paranoid nonsense keeps you spinning and spinning in useless, anxious ambiguity?

 

[beachnut]

Wow, quote mine an article to come up with a lie? Complain about inconclusive evidence, and manufacture BS with "may have".

http://www.newsweek.com/alleged-hijackers-may-have-trained-us-bases-152495

A report with 5 "may have". Wow, the report is a list of facts gathered, and "may have" means they have to check the thousands of leads, the endless BS found while investigating 19 terrorists actions for years prior. And you make up a lie, and quibble about it.

I like Completed Stories. Not 37.5% complete, not 50%, not 90%. I like 100% Why don't you? Why are you so comfortable with less than 100% told stories? You wouldn't tolerate that kind of thing if you bought a book off the shelf and discovered that the last three chapters are not included in your copy of the book (I mean, who checks books for completeness before purchasing them?). You would rightfully demand a refund for the lack of completeness. Yet, in matters of real importance such as this, you are perfectly fine with not having 100% completeness. I wonder why.

So you make up lies? Your Gish Gallop of BS to cover one lie, rests on the ironic you like complete stories so you take zero percent complete stories to make up a lie?

You take a zero percent complete story and make up a lie...

... the hijackers, some of whom that lived openly, trained on U.S. military bases .....

Your lie, based on the zero percent complete story, the gathering evidence and facts, which "may have" a bearing on reality; and "may have" turned out to be "Did Not".

Google can find evidence, but you have to check your sources. Better luck with finding proof of aliens.

Do you still stand by your lie?

... the hijackers, some of whom that lived openly, trained on U.S. military bases .....

So you make up a lie and throw up a Gish Gallop of BS to hide it.

Not retracting a lie, not admitting being wrong, exposes shallow research, faulty logic, and hypocrisy with the percent complete story BS.
Taking a zero percent complete story, the Newsweek article, and making false statements which you post as being true.