Regnad Kcin said:
You may speculate all you like, reverse-engineer all you like, doubt all you like, but until you present proof of your allegations you simply have nothing. Or next to it.
This is a case of not responding to what I actually wrote.
My response above was very much a result of your words. That I did not take the time to detail every flaw in your post meant they were, to me, sufficiently self-evident.
You disregarded what followed that statement.
What followed your statement was what you say led you to your conclusion. I certainly did regard it, for the moment it required, but considering you presented nothing but wild conjecture, there was little need to pick it apart. I can if you like.
You and I must have different definitions of the term, then.
The logic goes like this: The attackers went out of their way to do the least possible damage to the Pentagon...
You don't know that. You present no supporting evidence whatsoever.
...at a virtual certain risk of complete failure to the mission.
You don't know that. Yours is a complete guess, backed up by no supporting evidence whatsoever.
They would not have attacked the Pentagon that way, if the attackers were terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon.
Tell me, aside from not presenting any evidence of what the terrorists wanted to do, how is it you know how they "would not have attacked?" In answering, please refrain from guesswork.
Therefore, they were not terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon.
Considering your conclusion is a result of flawed reasoning and empty of supporting evidence, it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm frankly astounded that you choose to propose, much less maintain, such a scenario, especially when the conventional wisdom as to what happened at the Pentagon is so rich with supporting material. Also, there is Occam's Razor to reflect on.
Regnad Kcin said:
Considering what alternative-9/11-conspiracy theorists propose would be one of the most complex undertakings of its kind -- not only to plan, but to implement, and continue to cover-up -- evidence and proof should be dropping from the trees like over-ripe apples. That it isn't might tell you something.
JohnM307 said:
Forsooth!
What makes it any harder for a secretive cabal in the US to do something in the US than a secretive cabal in Afghanistan? What can they possibly do in Afghanistan that they can't do in the US -- and leave out "doing things in Afghanistan." What makes it "one of the most complex undertakings of its kind" for the US goverment, but not for a secretive cabal in Afghanistan?
Let's set aside the fact the "secret cabal in Afghanistan" is not at all secret, but your "secretive cabal in the US" is unidentified, any "inside job" would require,
at a minimum:
- Two instigators at a sufficiently high level with the desire and ability to conceive and develop a master plan
- One thoroughly trustworthy underling who would be instructed by the instigator/overseers to research all aspects of the plan. This to include, but not be limited to:
-Human resource recruitment
-Materials procurement for multiple methods and sites
-Method(s) for masking any and all physical evidence in case of discovery
- Transportation of people and materials (including housing and temporary storage)
- Installation of materials and equipment at each site
- Secure communications from point of inception through culmination of the event(s)
- Security
- "Official" cover story creation, with all aspects of back story, including 19 "terrorist" biographies and their recent histories, etc. all put in place within the relevant departments of the CIA and FBI
- Post-event clean-up
- Contingency plans for each aspect of the plan at each site
- Ongoing (to present day and beyond) cover-up
- Sufficient funds to pay for all materials as well as all manpower (including ongoing hush-money)
- Personnel (unknown number) technically qualified and able to install all manner of hardware and systems for each aspect of the plan. This to include, but not be limited to:
-WTC explosives, wiring, and detonators (the requisite amount and methods necessitating sufficient time and real-time secrecy)
-Remote-control systems for four jet aircraft
-Real-time "voice morphing" equipment and personnel for use during faked hijacking (not to mention advance script-writing for several not-yet-known passengers) (not to mention advance research on who each of those passengers might call in an emergency, along with their phone numbers)
And on and on. Such a thing would be, as I said, one of the most complex undertakings of its kind in the history of man. Compare it to:
- A small number of enemies of the state with a demonstrated desire and willingness to engage in terrorist activity
- Access to the open borders of a free society
- The recruitment of 19 or 20 soldiers, only a few under the direction of the above enemies
- The procurement of 19 or 20 passports
- Sufficient funds to support the 19 or 20 with rent, food, tuition, transportation, and miscellaneous small expenses during their limited time in the U.S.
- Basic flight training for a handful of the men
- Limited need for communications once the plan is first initiated
- Use of the element of surprise during the operation in order to take control
- Simple, easy-to-conceal, though dangerous hand weapons to be used against unarmed opponents in close-quarters
- Use of intimidation and fakery during the operation as well as the suggestion that cooperation will result in a safe outcome
- Extreme ease of crashing each airplane into some portion of a heavily-populated area (at the very least), thereby achieving a result of terror
- Somewhat more difficult task of crashing each airplane into some significant landmark, also achieving a measure of terror
- No need for subsequent secrecy
Any questions?
As for evidence and proof "dropping from the trees like over-ripe apples," all it takes is for the evidence and proof to be persistantly disregarded and its presenters demonized as "conspiracy theorists."
It's unfortunate that you feel put upon. Nevertheless, guesswork, conjecture, supposition, imaginings, and especially questions are not evidence, nor do they proof make.
Also, like it or not, if you are proposing a conspiracy theory then you're a conspiracy theorist.
The persistant tendency of the press to minimize coverage of things that damage the Bush Administration is another factor.
Never mind the wild generalization of your statement, it's entirely beside the point.
RK said:
JohnM307 said:
As I mentioned earlier, there was no sarcasm. When I originally responded to you, you had posted four times. I routinely greet people I encounter for the first time when I see they have less than 20 posts.
As is noted that the first response I encounter (outside the introductory thread) is precisely what I complained about. I presented the evidence. You disregarded it.
I hope I've sufficiently detailed why nothing you've presented is evidence of anything apart from a modest ability to write fiction. No offense.
Or maybe you didn't recognize that my post was a reply to a long post talking about the circular dive of the plane, pulling out and skimming the ground without touching it. Maybe you were unaware that the Pentagon was hit where it was under construction.
Others have pointed out your errors with regard to those two points.
Maybe you were unaware that less than 200 persons were killed in the Pentagon attack, instead of thousands.
So?
And please don't suggest something along the lines of it somehow proving that a large team of U.S. citizens, going to work each day, for months, on a project that would indiscriminately and without warning slaughter thousands of their fellows, decided at some point their consciences wouldn't allow them to do a bit more killing. Or something.
Please read what I write, and respond rationally to what I actually say.
I've given your posts every consideration. You've not been flamed or ridiculed. However, your words will stand or fall on their own. If they don't, you might consider it indicative of their strength.
The JREF is a place that encourages critical thinking on all matter of topics. There's plenty of enjoyment to be had here. Again, welcome. But, I hope you'll understand, as has been said here (and elsewhere) many times, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
)
