On the contrary, probability is evidence and often strong proof. I suppose that you reject every argument that is based on probability -- all of modern nuclear and particle physics research? Do you write off every strange thing as coincidence, no matter how unlikely? Or do you say at one point that it's unlikely to be coincidence and that an alternative explanation is more likely.
In this case, he hit the point of least damage, and he appear to aim for that and no other. (I may have been wrong about the nature of his circular dive. If he pulled out at 2000 feet above the ground, that's not nearly as bad.)
www DOT gwu DOT edu SLASH ~nsarchiv SLASH NSAEBB SLASH NSAEBB196 SLASH doc02 DOT pdf
Have you seen any of the quotes about how poor a pilot he was? If he had one, he shouldn't have. In any case, the document I "linked" to above shows how awful a time he had keeping the aircraft level when it was off autopilot. I think we can rule out his flying horizontally 30 feet above the ground without hitting the ground.
Precisely my point. Simplicity of a theory may simply be incompleteness. The theory has to explain the facts. The official story doesn't explain many of the facts.
Did I say anywhere that that anyone in our government was knowingly dying for the conspiracy?
In any case, does it really insult those in Iraq to point out that they are participating in aggressive war, a fantasy of conquest of our neocon elite who never had to go to war themselves? Does it insult those who fought and sacrificed their lives on the German side of WWII to suggest that they were part of aggressive war, invading and conquering other countries? The answer either has to be no or yes for both of them.
Again, I didn't claim that any of the participants sacrificed their own lives. They "sacrificed" other lives.
Precisely. Something else happened.
I wrote earlier: "1) Al Qaeda paralyzed our air security."
Your response: "They did not."
I suppose I should have inserted something to indicate sarcasm in my statement. Or perhaps I should have made a serious statement: "Our air security was paralyzed." Of course, the official story doesn't give any kind of reasonable explanation or accounting for the paralysis of our air security during 9/11.
Quick question: What does the 9/11 Commission's Report say in Chapter 1 about the possibility of fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base intercepting the approaching AA 77? (Not to mention any one of the bases near the path the plane flew.)
The answer to that question can be expressed in one word. (Explaining why Andrews failed to launch intercepters doesn't answer the question, what did the Report say?)
I wouldn't be surprised in the least. However, were those who sabotaged investigation the moles? Then how is it that they were promoted and rewarded? The officer who sabotaged Colleen Rowley's case was Marion Bowman, who was later given an FBI reward for exceptional performance.
My earlier quote: "3) Al Qaeda persuaded the Bush Administration to staunchly oppose investigation of the attacks, to stall and stonewall when investigation occured, to grossly underfund the 9/11 Commission, etc."
It wasn't nonsense, it was sarcasm. The Bush Administration committed every sin in my earlier quote. This fact doesn't fit the official story. And you are wrong in stating that the 9/11 commision was not an investigation into the attacks.
This was a quote from the prefix, page xvi. That includes investigating what happened. Have you forgotten all the complaints about the Bush Administration not producing documents, or stalling before producing them? When was the 9/11 Commission formed? How much money were they allocated? How do those answers compare with the Commissions investigating the two space shuttle disasters.
Does anyone recall Dick Cheney threatening certain senators with treason accusation in calling for investigation of 9/11?
That includes finding out what actually happened. That is, investigating. They might use the results of FEMA and NIST, but also check that they are reasonable and consistant with the facts.
Shortly after 9/11, there was at least one suggestion of a billion-dollar independent investigation. Ultimately, it only started 14 months after, with an initial allocation of 3 million dollars. (Total amount 15 million dollars.)
Thanks for conceding that the government's reluctance was unacceptable. But it was only understandable if 9/11 was an inside job. The Bush Administration was operating in coverup mode ever since 9/11 occured.
In fact, if someone were to ask me what kind of evidence would convince me of the official story, I would demand the following as a bare minimum:
1) Evidence that the 9/11 Commission was formed at most a month after 9/11, and initially allocated at least one hundred million dollars.
2) Evidence that NORAD got fighter jets up near the hijacked planes within twenty minutes of the first sign of something going wrong for each plane. And after the first plane hit the North Tower, the fighter jets did everything possible short of shooting down the hijacked planes, to prevent them from hitting their targets. (Notice that I didn't require actual shooting down. I understand a strong reluctance.)
My quote: "Religious zealots who enjoyed lap-dancing and drinking and other non-Islamic activities. Religious zealots who visited and participated in Las Vegas."
Your answer: "Yes."
There's a clue there. Were they really suicidal religious zealots?
No, just a majority of the victims there were construction workers.
You may have noticed that your numbers don't add up to over 100. Many more victims were killed. The most I will concede is that the construction was nearly complete and they began moving people in. Fewer than 1000 persons were there, as oppose to many thousands in the other wings.
