[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[VespaGuy]

Malcolm made all kinds of posts about how terrorists wouldn't have dared hijack the flight, because of the risks of taking utility knives and GPS units on the planes, and the risks of crew and passengers who may fight back, and the perceived difficulty of navigating back to NYC, but those are speculations and not reliable evidence.

Upon re-reading his claims within the thread, I think his arguement is actually that Rockefeller wouldnt have used the "terrorist" option due to the high risk that it could fail. He appears to be basing his "the hijacker plan was too risky" hypothesis on the false presumption that the plot was directed by Rockefeller. (At least this is how it appears to me)

He is incorrectly weighing this risk in the hands of Rockefeller,where if one single element went wrong, he'd be found out and the entire conspiracy would fall apart, as opposed to Al Queda's risks, where the entire operation didn't have to work for it to be a 'successful' strike against America (for instance if 1 of the 4 planes didn't hit their target).

His arguement also fails because he is assuming that the actual outcome was the desired outcome. Let's forget for a moment that 1 of the 4 hijackings DID fail (which only fits into Malcolms hypothesis if he claims that it was staged). What would have constituted a 'successful' terrorist attack? What if only one of the planes hit the towers in a way that it didn't collapse... wouldn't that still have been a success for the terrorists? Lives lost, international news, fear, etc?

So if you return Malcolm, please address these points...

Why were the 9/11 attacks too risky for a terrorist orginazation to attempt?

 

[jaydeehess]

I have not been following this thread for aday or two.

Has M ever produced the NOTAM that would substantiate his claim that only business jets were allowed to land or take off from Offut?

I suspect not. Odd that, since this would be the one single easiest peice of evidence he could obtain to back up any claim he has made.

Has M even stated what the name/title of the golf tournement that was the impetus for this NOTAM? If private jets were involved then it would have to have had some big names in it, either a PGA event or a celebrity event.

 

[SOMERLED]

Upon re-reading his claims within the thread, I think his arguement is actually that Rockefeller wouldnt have used the "terrorist" option due to the high risk that it could fail. He appears to be basing his "the hijacker plan was too risky" hypothesis on the false presumption that the plot was directed by Rockefeller. (At least this is how it appears to me)

He is incorrectly weighing this risk in the hands of Rockefeller,where if one single element went wrong, he'd be found out and the entire conspiracy would fall apart, as opposed to Al Queda's risks, where the entire operation didn't have to work for it to be a 'successful' strike against America (for instance if 1 of the 4 planes didn't hit their target).

His arguement also fails because he is assuming that the actual outcome was the desired outcome. Let's forget for a moment that 1 of the 4 hijackings DID fail (which only fits into Malcolms hypothesis if he claims that it was staged). What would have constituted a 'successful' terrorist attack? What if only one of the planes hit the towers in a way that it didn't collapse... wouldn't that still have been a success for the terrorists? Lives lost, international news, fear, etc?

So if you return Malcolm, please address these points...

Why were the 9/11 attacks too risky for a terrorist orginazation to attempt?

Of all the posts I have read since this moderating began. Yours is the closest.
Two things before we proceed,
1. I didn't complain, I found all the posts both original and amusing. I have appealed the moderating decision.
2. Will one of you kindly define the term 'evidence'. I ask this, so that we can proceed on a level playing field.
I maintain that the MSM not only gives out disinfo, as with this 'witness', declaring how the towers collapsed, when fire has never before dropped steel,
but also tells outright lies, as in the second vid, where the BBC is telling you that WTC7 is down, before the event.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3aAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFv_o8zlCSE
Before any response though, let's have an agreed definition of 'evidence'.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Of all the posts I have read since this moderating began. Yours is the closest.
Two things before we proceed,
1. I didn't complain, I found all the posts both original and amusing. I have appealed the moderating decision.
2. Will one of you kindly define the term 'evidence'. I ask this, so that we can proceed on a level playing field.
I maintain that the MSM not only gives out disinfo, as with this 'witness', declaring how the towers collapsed, when fire has never before dropped steel,
but also tells outright lies, as in the second vid, where the BBC is telling you that WTC7 is down, before the event.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3aAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFv_o8zlCSE
Before any response though, let's have an agreed definition of 'evidence'.

Scientific evidence is evidence where the dependence of the evidence on principles of inference is not conceded, enabling others to examine the background beliefs or assumptions employed to determine if facts are relevant to the proof or disproof of a purported hypothesis

Longino, Helen (March 1979). Philosophy of Science , Vol. 46, pp. 37-42

Now, can we please address

First step to substantiating, or falsifying [175 did NOT hit the South tower. A remote controlled flight from Offutt AFB did], is to examine the evidence available of the impact on the tower and see if the visual record and debris is consistent with that of UA Flight 175.

as whether or not MSM is under control is moot to this discussion point, as is WTC 7.

 

[Horatius]

2. Will one of you kindly define the term 'evidence'. I ask this, so that we can proceed on a level playing field.
I maintain that the MSM not only gives out disinfo, as with this 'witness', declaring how the towers collapsed, when fire has never before dropped steel,
but also tells outright lies, ...

Before any response though, let's have an agreed definition of 'evidence'.

Why don't you suggest a definition? Because, based on your comments about the MSM, I'm pretty sure any definition I could come up with wouldn't be acceptable to you. As an exercice, could you suggest some sort of evidence that we could provide you that could not be dismissed as "disinfo", bearing in mind that we are not insiders at any of the agencies involved in the investigation of 9/11?

Ultimately, all of us are dealing with "evidence" that is provided to us second- or third-hand. If we start off by assuming all the MSM sources we have are untrustworthy, how can we proceed with any sort of reasoned debate?

 

[jaydeehess]

Evidence is verifiable information that corroborates your position. So far you have made several assurtions but provided no material to corroborate them. I have asked you several times just to post the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) that corroborates your assurtion that only small jets were allowed to take off and land at Offut on Sept 11/01. You have ignored the request. That implies you do not have any evidence to back up this assurtion. I later found that the 911 conspiracy believer, Killtown, has a page that basically says the same thing that you do on this matter. Given the similarity in what you say and what is on that page I suspect that it is the source of your information but cannot understand why you failed to list it as corroborating your position. If it is your source then we can debate the veracity of the claims made there.

 

[SOMERLED]

Why don't you suggest a definition? Because, based on your comments about the MSM, I'm pretty sure any definition I could come up with wouldn't be acceptable to you. As an exercice, could you suggest some sort of evidence that we could provide you that could not be dismissed as "disinfo", bearing in mind that we are not insiders at any of the agencies involved in the investigation of 9/11?

Ultimately, all of us are dealing with "evidence" that is provided to us second- or third-hand. If we start off by assuming all the MSM sources we have are untrustworthy, how can we proceed with any sort of reasoned debate?

I propose that we follow already accepted proceedures.
The levels of proof are as follws,
1. Absolute proof = it happens every time = scientific law.
2. It happens every time, but every case cannot be shown = scientific hypothesis.
3. Shown beyond a reasonable doubt = legal criminal guilt
4. Shown on the balance of probabilities (51-49) = legal civil guilt
5. Bias = an interest that might or might not affect one's decision.
I further propose that evidence starts with reasonable suspicion.
This is the level whereby a court will issue a search warrant, in order for further enquiries to be made.
I finally propose that if I can show reasonable suspicion, then we consider the situation on the balance of probabilities.
If the above is broadlly agreed, then my first contention is that on the evidence already presented in the two vids in my previous post, then there is reasonable suspicion that the account by the MSM is biased and therefore disqualified.
In other words, MSM opinions are out of the argument on both sides.
We proceed on a level playing field.
I say that 175 did not hit the south tower, because there is no evidence that it did and plenty of reasonable suspicion that it did not. Therefore on the balance of probabilities, 175 did not hit the south tower. The unbiased evidence furthermore points to a strengthened 757/767 being the actual attack plane and on the balance of probabilities, just such a plane actually attacked the south tower.

 

[Corsair 115]

Malcolm,

Can we return to the navigation issue? We got sidetracked onto WII (a topic I'm always happy to discuss, but it would seem it should get its own thread), and didn't finish our discussion.

May I ask that you reiterate specifically what troubles you are having with the aircraft being navigated to NYC? Note that I am not talking about any supposed logistical difficulties in terrorits taking over the aircraft (let's leave that discussion for later), I am strictly asking about what it is you think would be so hard for someone to get the aircraft from Point A to Point B.

 

[pomeroo]

Verb transitive = correct.
Transitve verb = incorrect.

brown cow = normal

cow brown = strange

In the English-speaking world, adjectives are generally placed before nouns. Perhaps you once saw in an index the entry: verb, transitive.
The comma should tell you something. It's okay to write: The night, dark and gloomy, depressed his spirits.

 

[jsfisher]

I finally propose that if I can show reasonable suspicion, then we consider the situation on the balance of probabilities.

I see: Proof by assumption.

Since one can always claim suspicion of some other standard claim, how does this advance the cause?

If the above is broadlly agreed, then my first contention is that on the evidence already presented in the two vids in my previous post, then there is reasonable suspicion that the account by the MSM is biased and therefore disqualified.
In other words, MSM opinions are out of the argument on both sides.
We proceed on a level playing field.

Not agreed.

I say that 175 did not hit the south tower, because there is no evidence that it did and plenty of reasonable suspicion that it did not.

Say it all you like, but that does not make it true.

Therefore on the balance of probabilities, 175 did not hit the south tower. The unbiased evidence furthermore points to a strengthened 757/767 being the actual attack plane and on the balance of probabilities, just such a plane actually attacked the south tower.

There is no evidence whatsoever of a "strengthened" plane striking the tower, just your fertile imagination.

 

[pomeroo]

WW2 had been over for 3 months and 3 days by then.

Here on Earth, what we call World War II ended with Japan's surrender. Hirohito accepted the terms on August 14, 1945, an attempted coup to sequester the emperor and continue the war was narrowly averted, and the actual documents were signed on the USS Missouri on September 2. The thousands of Americans and Japanese killed and wounded between the collapse of Nazi Germany and the dropping of the second atomic bomb suggest that your conclusion that the war was over is insupportable.

 

[Horatius]

This is why I asked you to define "evidence". It's clear from your post that we are working with completely different notions of what "evidence" means.

I propose that we follow already accepted proceedures.
The levels of proof are as follws,
1. Absolute proof = it happens every time = scientific law.
2. It happens every time, but every case cannot be shown = scientific hypothesis.
3. Shown beyond a reasonable doubt = legal criminal guilt
4. Shown on the balance of probabilities (51-49) = legal civil guilt
5. Bias = an interest that might or might not affect one's decision.

See, none of this is what I would call evidence. This is merely a system of classifying evidence according to our confidence level in it. It says nothing about what the evidence is.

I further propose that evidence starts with reasonable suspicion.
This is the level whereby a court will issue a search warrant, in order for further enquiries to be made.

I'll propose you ask one of our resident legal experts if this notion of what is needed for a search warrant is valid. I'm not a legal expert, but I'm reasonably sure "suspicion" alone isn't grounds for a search warrant, absent some other kind of verifiable, objective evidence of a crime. Such objective evidence could be things like photos or videos of a person committing an act, or some such thing.

I finally propose that if I can show reasonable suspicion, then we consider the situation on the balance of probabilities.
If the above is broadlly agreed, then my first contention is that on the evidence already presented in the two vids in my previous post, then there is reasonable suspicion that the account by the MSM is biased and therefore disqualified.

I'll go out on a limb here and predict that it won't be broadly agreed. As such, further discussion is probably unwarranted at this point.

 

[pomeroo]

You're off again.
The Germans surrendered properly on May 5th.
Montgomery took the signings on May 6th.
Did somebody say something about grandma's and eggs?

I suppose I should slog on to the last page of the thread before I point out that although VE Day was celebrated in Britain and America on May 8, the final German surrender came in Heligoland on May 11.

 

[SOMERLED]

Let me qualify MSM OPINIONS.
The MSM isn't totally out of it, eg the towers did go down that day, as portrayed on MSM.
However, the MSM opinion that Moslem terrorists did it, is out.
You show me evidence that moslems did do it (hijack 175) and I'll show you evidence that they didn't.
Because you assert that 175 did hit the south tower, you can start by showing me some evidence that 175 even took off.

 

[Totovader]

I propose that we follow already accepted proceedures.
The levels of proof are as follws,
1. Absolute proof = it happens every time = scientific law.
2. It happens every time, but every case cannot be shown = scientific hypothesis.
3. Shown beyond a reasonable doubt = legal criminal guilt
4. Shown on the balance of probabilities (51-49) = legal civil guilt
5. Bias = an interest that might or might not affect one's decision.
I further propose that evidence starts with reasonable suspicion.
This is the level whereby a court will issue a search warrant, in order for further enquiries to be made.
I finally propose that if I can show reasonable suspicion, then we consider the situation on the balance of probabilities.
If the above is broadlly agreed, then my first contention is that on the evidence already presented in the two vids in my previous post, then there is reasonable suspicion that the account by the MSM is biased and therefore disqualified.
In other words, MSM opinions are out of the argument on both sides.
We proceed on a level playing field.
I say that 175 did not hit the south tower, because there is no evidence that it did and plenty of reasonable suspicion that it did not. Therefore on the balance of probabilities, 175 did not hit the south tower. The unbiased evidence furthermore points to a strengthened 757/767 being the actual attack plane and on the balance of probabilities, just such a plane actually attacked the south tower.

I'm curious to know where you got the idea that truth comes in degrees...

I disagree.

 

[CptColumbo]

I'll propose you ask one of our resident legal experts if this notion of what is needed for a search warrant is valid. I'm not a legal expert, but I'm reasonably sure "suspicion" alone isn't grounds for a search warrant, absent some other kind of verifiable, objective evidence of a crime. Such objective evidence could be things like photos or videos of a person committing an act, or some such thing.

I believe probable cause is needed to apply for a search warrant in the US, and enough probale cause to convince a judge that a search warrant is being executed properly. This would require the detectives to present all the evidence they have collected to this point and what they will be looking for. It is then up to the judge to determine if probable cause exists. He may elect to narrow the focus of the search warrant. For example, if you want to search for evidence in or around the suspects car, he may narrow your search to only the car or garage, rather than the entire property.

Probable cause has to be more than suspicion. It also has to involve the evidence that leads to that suspicion.

 

[pomeroo]

Let me qualify MSM OPINIONS.
The MSM isn't totally out of it, eg the towers did go down that day, as portrayed on MSM.
However, the MSM opinion that Moslem terrorists did it, is out.
You show me evidence that moslems did do it (hijack 175) and I'll show you evidence that they didn't.
Because you assert that 175 did hit the south tower, you can start by showing me some evidence that 175 even took off.

Can we agree that several assertions you've made have turned out to be flatly wrong?

Japan was, as everyone understands, very much a participant in World War II.

Grammarians distinguish between transitive verbs and intransitive verbs.

There is no evidence whatever for the existence of an armored version of the Boeing 767.

On each hijacked plane, there was a jihadist with the skills to pilot it.

The super-villain called "Rothschilde [sic]," whose tentacles stretch everywhere, is a ridiculous anti-Semitic fantasy, a ludicrously dated allusion to the once-influential Rothschild banking family.

In short, can you ever back away from an opinion that is hopelessly, demonstrably incorrect?

 

[SOMERLED]

Malcolm,

Can we return to the navigation issue? We got sidetracked onto WII (a topic I'm always happy to discuss, but it would seem it should get its own thread), and didn't finish our discussion.

May I ask that you reiterate specifically what troubles you are having with the aircraft being navigated to NYC? Note that I am not talking about any supposed logistical difficulties in terrorits taking over the aircraft (let's leave that discussion for later), I am strictly asking about what it is you think would be so hard for someone to get the aircraft from Point A to Point B.

You will be familiar with Occom's razor.
Clouds move, clouds also vary in height from the ground. How can you be confident that at the moment you find yourself in the pilot's seat, you can even see the ground? How do you know that you won't actually be in cloud?
There's a couple more for the Occum's razor on steroids that this scenario presents.
I know this isn't strictly in the navigation bit, it is however relevant.
No one, as yet, has even addressed the fact that according to MSM reports, all that happened was that the 'transponder' was turned off. What about the pilot issueing a mayday? How unlikely is it, that terrorists could stage their antics in the passenger compartment and then in the pilots cabin, with the pilots asleep or otherwise out of it? It's akin to a group of robbers herding all the customers in a bank about, whilst none of the staff presses the silent alarm.

 

[Totovader]

Let me qualify MSM OPINIONS.
The MSM isn't totally out of it, eg the towers did go down that day, as portrayed on MSM.
However, the MSM opinion that Moslem terrorists did it, is out.
You show me evidence that moslems did do it (hijack 175) and I'll show you evidence that they didn't.
Because you assert that 175 did hit the south tower, you can start by showing me some evidence that 175 even took off.

Perfect example of some serious errors in critical thinking and logic.

First of all- there is no such thing as evidence of and evidence against- "you show me x and I'll show you non-x" is a contradiction, and irrational. This is where your arbitrary definitions of "levels of truth" really hurt you. Additionally, this is a middle ground fallacy. You believe that sliding to the other end and claiming absolute disbelief is appropriate- and therefore you can claim that there is "evidence against", when really it's just your personal beliefs, as we can see from your next claim.

"Prove it even took off". This is not the voice of reason- this is philosophical skepticism- not to be confused with the skepticism you see here as it is applied to events. You could infinitely regress back to "prove you even exist" and we'll be here for years. The fact of the matter is, there is no valid reason to doubt that the planes took off- and even if there was, the burden of proof would be on you to support that claim.

Further reading:
Infinite Regression^WP
Burden of Proof^WP
Ambiguous Middle Ground Fallacy^WP

 

[SOMERLED]

Evidence is verifiable information that corroborates your position. So far you have made several assurtions but provided no material to corroborate them. I have asked you several times just to post the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) that corroborates your assurtion that only small jets were allowed to take off and land at Offut on Sept 11/01. You have ignored the request. That implies you do not have any evidence to back up this assurtion. I later found that the 911 conspiracy believer, Killtown, has a page that basically says the same thing that you do on this matter. Given the similarity in what you say and what is on that page I suspect that it is the source of your information but cannot understand why you failed to list it as corroborating your position. If it is your source then we can debate the veracity of the claims made there.

Killtown was indeed one of my sources. However, I prefer to examine the veracity of my claims not his.