• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Has Malcolm answered a single question of substance with substance, yet? Is it time to get out the socks?
 
I see smoke & dust rising - which is something that happens when a fire is burning - I don't see the towers rising upwards & I didn't see the towers rising when I watched it on TV.
 
PhantomWolf said:
We've given you one, mutliple times. As of you your refutaions are that:

a) The crew could have fought back, but you ignore that they were trained not too and that no crew ever had previously.

b) The passangers would have fought back, but then ignore that no passangers ever have except those on Flight 93, and that was after Flights 11, 175 and 77 had hit their targets alerting the passangers onboard 93 to their likely fate.

c) No one would authorise it, assuming that someone actually needed to authorise it, something you have not proven and is not accepted as required in our senario.

d) That the plane had to hit WTC because it had explosives in it, which you have no proven and is not accepted as required in our senario.

thus your 4 objections to our hijacking senario have all fallen flat. Why then do you refuse to accept that we have presented a valid Hijacking senario.
Click to expand...

You astutely refuse to compare your scenario to mine.
I do not accept that my objections have fallen flat. You have all singularily failed to involve airport security, save to say that they would allow GPS and boxcutters on board without a backward glance. You know very well that the supposed hijackers couldn't fly a kite. You have spent all this time testing my mettle. Whatever best scenario you can come up with, will be fraught with if's, but's and maybe's. Finally you steadfastly refuse to place yourself in the judges seat. No one with a modicum of intelligence would want civilians queering the scene, in real life. It's your country that's getting slowly strangled. You that are on the road from freedom to fascism.
Maybe you're all neocon gatekeepers eh. If so, you're only delaying the inevitable.
 
If absolute 100% certainty about the outcome of any action were necessary before undertaking it, all human activity in the world would stop.

As it happens, we humans are generally willing to make plans based on what we estimate as out probability of success. By way of simple example, I'm about to leave my present location and drive home. I can't be absolutely sure that I will get there alive and unharmed, but based on my experience of the trip I have a reasonable expectation that I most likely will.

The hijackers had the opportunity to observe the typical security procedures for commercial airline flights and the routines aboard commercial airliners by doing some traveling while working on their planning. They were therefore able to form a reasonable, evidence-based opinion about their prospects of getting different types of weapon aboard the planes and to choose their weapons accordingly.

They could use the previous history of airline hijackings to form a reasonable opinion of how the passengers and crew of a hijacked plane would most likely behave and how that would impact their probability of success.

Having already embraced the certainty that they would die in carrying out their plot, their risk/benefit analysis would start from a baseline completely different from that of the average person- the likelihood of succeeding versus the likelihood of being thwarted would be the only consideration, their personal risks being off the table.

If their plans and methods were discovered after the fact it would be meaningless to them, since they would be utterly beyond the reach of any adverse consequences.

They could decide to act on the conclusion that they had a reasonable chance of pulling it off, rather than insisting on doing nothing without perfect certainty.

It's the convoluted fantasies of CTers that would require the evildoers to be absolutely certain that their plans are infallible. A suicide hijacker has no reason to worry about clues left behind, so long as they aren't discovered and correctly interpreted in time to foil the plot. OTOH, gummint officials plotting a scenario like that posited by our troofer would have to worry about everything- the possibility that the debris of the planes would reveal that they were remote-controlled military aircraft, that the people responsible for servicing, maintaining and guarding the remote-controlled planes to be used might notice that their charges had gone missing, or the people responsible for controlling air traffic in and out of the base the planes are taken from might notice the departures, and on and on. Since the eevil gummint plotters presumably intend to continue enjoying their lives, positions, wealth and power after the attacks, they need a high degree of certainty that there won't be any after-the-fact revelations to point the finger of suspicion at them.

A member of TPTB who is plotting an attack like those of 9/11 has a lot more to lose and a lot more reason to fear that a single detail going wrong will expose them than does a suicidal/homicidal fanatic who cares only about managing to wreak destruction.
 
Lensman said:
I see smoke & dust rising - which is something that happens when a fire is burning - I don't see the towers rising upwards & I didn't see the towers rising when I watched it on TV.
Click to expand...
What's on fire, concrete and steel?
 
ktesibios said:
If absolute 100% certainty about the outcome of any action were necessary before undertaking it, all human activity in the world would stop.

As it happens, we humans are generally willing to make plans based on what we estimate as out probability of success. By way of simple example, I'm about to leave my present location and drive home. I can't be absolutely sure that I will get there alive and unharmed, but based on my experience of the trip I have a reasonable expectation that I most likely will.

The hijackers had the opportunity to observe the typical security procedures for commercial airline flights and the routines aboard commercial airliners by doing some traveling while working on their planning. They were therefore able to form a reasonable, evidence-based opinion about their prospects of getting different types of weapon aboard the planes and to choose their weapons accordingly.

They could use the previous history of airline hijackings to form a reasonable opinion of how the passengers and crew of a hijacked plane would most likely behave and how that would impact their probability of success.

Having already embraced the certainty that they would die in carrying out their plot, their risk/benefit analysis would start from a baseline completely different from that of the average person- the likelihood of succeeding versus the likelihood of being thwarted would be the only consideration, their personal risks being off the table.

If their plans and methods were discovered after the fact it would be meaningless to them, since they would be utterly beyond the reach of any adverse consequences.

They could decide to act on the conclusion that they had a reasonable chance of pulling it off, rather than insisting on doing nothing without perfect certainty.

It's the convoluted fantasies of CTers that would require the evildoers to be absolutely certain that their plans are infallible. A suicide hijacker has no reason to worry about clues left behind, so long as they aren't discovered and correctly interpreted in time to foil the plot. OTOH, gummint officials plotting a scenario like that posited by our troofer would have to worry about everything- the possibility that the debris of the planes would reveal that they were remote-controlled military aircraft, that the people responsible for servicing, maintaining and guarding the remote-controlled planes to be used might notice that their charges had gone missing, or the people responsible for controlling air traffic in and out of the base the planes are taken from might notice the departures, and on and on. Since the eevil gummint plotters presumably intend to continue enjoying their lives, positions, wealth and power after the attacks, they need a high degree of certainty that there won't be any after-the-fact revelations to point the finger of suspicion at them.

A member of TPTB who is plotting an attack like those of 9/11 has a lot more to lose and a lot more reason to fear that a single detail going wrong will expose them than does a suicidal/homicidal fanatic who cares only about managing to wreak destruction.
Click to expand...

What would such a hijacker say, when he was about to die?
 
malcolm kirkman said:
What's on fire, concrete and steel?
Click to expand...

Furniture. Carpeting. Paper. Office machinery. Paint. Plastics. Fuel and lubricants from the planes. Possibly aluminum alloys from the planes. The bodies of murdered human beings.

Get the picture?

ETA: welcome to my ignore list, troll.
 
Last edited:
ktesibios said:
Furniture. Carpeting. Paper. Office machinery. Paint. Plastics. Fuel and lubricants from the planes. Possibly aluminum alloys from the planes. The bodies of murdered human beings.

Get the picture?

ETA: welcome to my ignore list, troll.
Click to expand...

All that pulverised concrete?
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
1. You asked what would happen if the passengers resisted
2. I provided Flight 93 as an example of one possible outcome


You are saying:
P1: If the terrorists could not have 100% certainty of success then they would not attempt the attack
P2: The terrorists did not have 100% certainty
C: They did not attempt the attack

You have done nothing to substantiate P1 and I do not agree to give it provisional agreement just for the sake of argument. Substantiate P1 or retract your claim.
Click to expand...
Do you, or do you not, agree that the twins and WTC7, were brought down by controlled demolition?
 
malcolm kirkman said:
You astutely refuse to compare your scenario to mine.
I do not accept that my objections have fallen flat.
Click to expand...

I didn't want to accept that the Patriots beat the Panthers in Super Bowl 38 but reality did care then either.

You have all singularily failed to involve airport security, save to say that they would allow GPS and boxcutters on board without a backward glance.
Click to expand...

No you have failed to understand that before 9/11 our security at airports was very poor.

You know very well that the supposed hijackers couldn't fly a kite.
Click to expand...

According to whom?

You have spent all this time testing my mettle.
Click to expand...
Actually we've been mostly mocking your ignorance.


Whatever best scenario you can come up with, will be fraught with if's, but's and maybe's.
Click to expand...

And yet the evidence supports us... Fancy that.

Finally you steadfastly refuse to place yourself in the judges seat.
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't becuase I only have a basic grasp of physics. (Granted that's still more than you but there you go.)


No one with a modicum of intelligence would want civilians queering the scene, in real life.
Click to expand...

So every hijacking in history was done by people with remote control planes?

It's your country that's getting slowly strangled. You that are on the road from freedom to fascism.
Click to expand...

Troofer fallback #1.

Maybe you're all neocon gatekeepers eh. If so, you're only delaying the inevitable.
Click to expand...

And fall back #2.

:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom