Further verification of the Inflationary Theory
So
A-Train, I wasn't going to bother responding to you any more, since it became clear, ever since your speculations of "identity theft" and your refusal to acknowledge the real hijackers' bragging videos, that you are unalterably wedded to your theory, and that you've got nothing new for us. Your suggestion that your pet firearms could have been
thrown out the window of a jetliner, pressurized and travelling at cruising speed, only confirms my suspicions. But nevertheless, you have continued to provide me with an absolutely sterling example of the Conspiracy Theory in action.
Anyway, it is you who is inflating my argument.
That won't wash. I quoted you faithfully and in context at every step. I welcome you or anyone to go back and check.
But, since you still don't get the point, buckle yourself in tight. I will now use your last post, and only your last post, to completely destroy the statement above.
Your theory, of course, was destroyed pages ago.
Silencers are rare equipment? I don't suppose you can buy one at your local K-Mart, but do you think it would be especially difficult for an intelligence agency to get one?
That isn't the point. The point is that there's no evidence for silencers. You speculated there could have been silencers, in an attempt to make your theory look less silly. That's inflation, and you're still doing it.
I do not need to prove silencers were there; you need to prove silencers couldn't have been used if your argument against guns is that they would have been heard and reported. And what does it mean that there were no reports of silencers? Is that joke?
No, that isn't "joke," that's fact. We have no evidence for silencers. Nobody saw them. Somebody may have seen a gun, and you call that "compelling," but nobody at all saw a silencer -- something normally attached to a gun -- so isn't that "compelling" as well?
I also found it suspicious that of four flights, the only CVR that is recovered happens to tell a story very favorable to the government's theory.
You find it suspicious that evidence is consistent with the government's theory? Does that imply that you would be less suspicious if the CVR
didn't agree with the government's theory?? This is nuts.
The theory is based on evidence, including the CVR, so of course it agrees.
Oh, and by the way, I just realized that cockpit voice recorders are a thirty minute loop. They record thirty or so minutes, then start over, erasing the previous thirty. ... Since UAL93 was hijacked before 9:30, and the plane crashed sometime between 10:03 and 10:06, the CVR would not have recorded any gunshots at all, silenced or not. So all this discussion we have been having about cockpit voice recorders and guns is completely moot!
Aha! Now that's actually a good point. So the rational conclusion is that, well, perhaps nobody altered the CVRs after all. The rational conclusion refines the theory to make it simpler.
But do you do this? Why, no. You still insist the CVRs were altered, but for a different reason.
Even though you came up with a better argument all by yourself, your hypothesis doesn't change. You then invent a new speculation that preserves your hypothesis.
This is inflation in action. I couldn't have come up with a better example if I tried.
I would like to make another point, however. Suppression of evidence only means that you do not release it. It is not the same as being part of a conspiracy. There are many loyal federal agents who have participated in the suppression of 9/11 evidence. They are not part of any conspiracy. They are only following their orders. Most of them mistakenly believe in the official story. They do not understand the importance of the evidence they are keeping from the public.
And here is your inflation again. You require (a) "most of them" to be dupes, not understanding the importance of the evidence (evidence that you don't have, but you need in order to prove your theory), and (b) somebody at the top, someone who
does understand the importance, to issue orders preventing their release.
You have made assumptions about the entire agency to preserve your conspiracy theory.
I didn't do that. You did that all by yourself.
The 9/11 Commission talks about things that can "plausibly brought on board," because they started from the assumption that the official story is true. The hijackers used connections in airport security to bring their guns on board.
You have no proof, indeed no evidence that they used
nnections in airport security." The only evidence you have for such a connection is, surprise surprise, that they were able to bring guns on board. And they were able to bring guns on board, because they had connections in airport security. Nice, tight, circular argument, an almost
ideal example of the species.
And it's also inflation. It requires airport security to be part of the conspiracy. You did that by yourself too.
I can assure you I have burned much midnight oil contemplating how the NORAD stand down was accomplished. Let me just say this, it was not ordered from above-- not by Bush or Cheney or anyone. Nor is it fair to say that NORAD was "in the conspiracy." The NORAD stand down could have been carried out by a very small number of officers in the command structure, officers who were loyal not to America but to a foreign nation.
Let me just say that there is no evidence that a NORAD stand-down occurred at all.
If it did, why does nobody in the rank-and-file at NORAD say that it was stood down? You honestly think those orders wouldn't have been questioned? You are indeed involving all of NORAD in the conspiracy. Like the FBI, you claim the entire organization are unwitting dupes, and the leadership are active and malicious participants in the conspiracy. You did indeed inflate this point. Not me, you.
I have a great deal of experience with air traffic control. When I heard that a fighter was scrambled to pursue a coast track south of New York that was said to be AAL11, I knew there was foul play. The officer who issued that order is certainly part of the conspiracy.
Certainly, yes, but only if we assume your theory is correct. Again, that's inflation in action. Rather than change your theory to fit the facts, you require facts to fit your theory.
Up till now, Mr. Mackey, I've had respect for your general argument technique. But with this paragraph, you have gone completely over an inflationary cliff. Almost every sentence above is erroneous. I do not believe the hero story was predetermined. I believe the decision to crash the plane into the ground may have been a Plan B, decided upon after the plane was delayed on the ground at EWR. The heroes were heroes. They did attempt an assault on the hijackers. We know that from the phone calls. I just don't believe they ever made it to the cockpit.
Any error I've made here in interpreting your theory is because your theory is incoherent -- so much so that I attempted to find the only logically consistent interpretation. But now that you've closed that avenue, let me show you the contradiction. You've claimed:
1) It wasn't a suicide mission
2) The hijackers had complete control of the plane, and passengers never reached the cockpit
3) They crashed the plane anyway
4) They made the decision to do so before they left the ground
Those four statements are logically inconsistent. According to you, the hijackers decided to commit suicide before they made a single move, and with no fear of being identified, thanks to your claims that "airline security was in on the plot." How is this
not a suicide mission?
More to the point, how am I supposed to guess what you meant, when even you don't know?
If your theory sounds completely insane when read back to you, that's because it is.
The Commission members are not members of any conspiracy! They're just dunces. They had to accept the official story as a starting point for their comical "investigation."
This is still inflation. You need to assume the 9/11 Commission members are idiots for your story to hold. And I mean serious idiots, people who would merely regurgitate what they were fed to by, according to you, a very small number of high-level sneaky people.
Yes, but "a state apparatus" is not the same thing as "the nation itself." There's a huge difference. And it differs from country to country. The CIA, for example, must answer to the elected president and explain its actions to intelligence committees made up of elected representative of the House and Senate. In other countries, that is not the case. For example, I learned in Victor Ostrovsky's book By Way of Deception that Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad, is answerable to almost no one in Israel.
There is no practical difference. Either the nation in question is in control and managed this operation officially, or the nation in question is totally out of control and unable to handle its own apparatus. Either case is an enormous, unsupported assumption on your part. (Ostrovsky's books are questionable to begin with, and he left the Mossad in 1986. You may as well complain about the no-longer-existent KGB.) This is inflation in action.
That's total BS and I think you know it. I don't think you or anyone on JREF is part of any conspiracy. I've tried to make it very clear that this conspiracy was very tight and small, and did not include our President, our military, or any significant participation of our investigative agencies.
I made it clear that this limiting case did not yet apply to you. But, so predictably, you do the following in the very next sentence:
As for you guys, I think most of you defend the official story not so much because you really believe it, but because you're repulsed by the so-called Truth Movement and the ideas of the people within it. For that, I don't blame you. I'm repulsed by them too. You're doing what so many on this board have done-- trying to lump me in with all the other "CTers."
Rather than adjust your theory and face criticism, you've decided to attack me and the rest of the board.
I didn't lump you anywhere. You lumped yourself. If you don't want to be like all the other "CTers," don't act like them. And that includes making yet more speculation about our motivation, as yet another excuse to avoid improving your theory.
I don't blame you for doing that, because they are easy to defeat. But my ideas are not like theirs. I put the blame squarely on those who had the means, motive and a past precedent of similar attacks. That is not true of the "official story," nor is it true of "the official conspiracy theory."
And here we have the final stage of inflation starting to appear. I've never heard of an "official conspiracy theory" before -- you are the first to coin this term. But apparently the "official conspiracy theory," by its mere existence, threatens your theory. Instead of backing up your claims, you'd rather complain about other people.
As promised, I have demonstrated that your statement:
Anyway, it is you who is inflating my argument.
... is totally false.
If you really fancy yourself unlike the other Conspiracy Theorists, and it bothers you that I'm using you as an archetypical example of their thinking, then you need to stop acting like one. What details your theory contains does not change the fact that it's pure fantasy.
