• 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.

conspiracy psychology debunked

Sabrina said:
Again, though, armchair psychology or no, the fact remains that all the facts and evidence that can be logically reviewed and examined supports the so-called "official theory"; that 19 men hijacked four planes and flew them into three buildings on the morning of 9/11, while one was forced down by the passengers. and crashed in a field. There is no hand-waving away these facts; it happened that way, and claiming that our psychology analysis is flawed does not translate to 9/11 Truth is suddenly right.
Click to expand...

This is precisely the type of presumptuousness that calls the debunker position into question. You argue as if it is a foregone conclusion, yet even your summary exposes your lack of knowledge about the events.

If there was the slightest shred of humility, perhaps a productive investigation could ensue, but arguing simply to reinforce your beliefs is counter to skeptical inquiry.

I've bolded to highlight an oft assumed "fact" that has no support whatsoever from evidence or the flawed Commission Report for that matter.
 
RedIbis said:
This is precisely the type of presumptuousness that calls the debunker position into question. You argue as if it is a foregone conclusion, yet even your summary exposes your lack of knowledge about the events.

If there was the slightest shred of humility, perhaps a productive investigation could ensue, but arguing simply to reinforce your beliefs is counter to skeptical inquiry.

I've bolded to highlight an oft assumed "fact" that has no support whatsoever from evidence or the flawed Commission Report for that matter.
Click to expand...

So what are you claiming? the field was the hijackers intended target?
 
From what I can see, that the plane was forced down by the passengers is the ONLY explanation supported by ANY evidence at all. What is wrong with assuming it's true until compelling contrary evidence is presented?
 
The recovered voice recorder from Shanksville included audio that would seem to support the conclusion that the passengers attempted to take the plane back from the hijackers and the hijackers crashed the plane as a result. What then is so wrong about offering that as a conclusion given the lack of evidence supporting ANY other conclusion, RedIbis? In the absence of anything else, that is the only explanation that the evidence supports. Produce something new and we'll talk; until then, I will happily stick to that conclusion.
 
Sabrina said:
The recovered voice recorder from Shanksville included audio that would seem to support the conclusion that the passengers attempted to take the plane back from the hijackers and the hijackers crashed the plane as a result. What then is so wrong about offering that as a conclusion given the lack of evidence supporting ANY other conclusion, RedIbis? In the absence of anything else, that is the only explanation that the evidence supports. Produce something new and we'll talk; until then, I will happily stick to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Are you asserting that the passengers entered the cockpit, or are you asserting that these murderous jihadists heard banging outside the locked cockpit door and decided to ground the plane?
 
Well, considering pre-9/11, it wouldn't have been very robust, the chances of them getting THROUGH the cockpit door was incredibly high. Therefore, the door would no longer be locked.
 
RedIbis said:
Are you asserting that the passengers entered the cockpit, or are you asserting that these murderous jihadists heard banging outside the locked cockpit door and decided to ground the plane?
Click to expand...

Neither.

I'm asserting that, based on the audio recovered from the flight data recorder, the passengers mounted a rebellion of sorts and attempted to take control of the plane, and in the ensuing confusion either the hijackers made the deliberate decision to crash the plane in order to prevent the imminent takeover or did so accidentally (the audio doesn't indicate one way or another). As tri said, cockpit doors prior to 9/11 were rather flimsy affairs; I find it logical to conclude that the passengers were about to break in just before the hijackers either accidentally or deliberately flew the plane into the ground. But there's no indication merely from the audio one way or another that the passengers did break in or that the hijackers deliberately flew the plane into the ground or did so accidentally.
 
RedIbis said:
Are you asserting that the passengers entered the cockpit, or are you asserting that these murderous jihadists heard banging outside the locked cockpit door and decided to ground the plane?
Click to expand...

IIRC, in another thread a while ago we alreeady discussed how the FDR recorder recorded manipulations of the controls that are consistent with an intentional crash into the ground.
The Voice Recorder recorded sounds consistent with a conflict between passengers and hijackers in cockpit.
Correct me if I am wrong, please.


This leaves two possibilities:
  1. The hijackers grounded the plane intentionally irrespective of passenger action
  2. The hijackers grounded the plane intentionally because of passenger action

If you consider 1 to be more plausible, can you give a reason for why the hijacker should have done that?

Most of us go with #2, without going too deep into speculative details about who was how close to doi what to whom.
We could be wrong of course. Your alternative scenario is welcome. Just make sure it fits the actual evidence, and, well, makes remotely sense.
 
Isn't there a transcript available of the last few moments?

ETA: Yep, found it here.

From my reading of it, the pilots were concerned about the passengers breaking into the cockpit; couldn't say whether the crash was deliberate from the transcript though. Oystein, do you have a link to that other thread where it was discussed?
 
Last edited:
I think we're just rehashing old territory here. There's no amount of evidence that will convince a CT that the 93 crash was directly or indirectly caused by the passengers. The interesting question, to try to stay somewhat within the context of this thread, is why they think this way? Why does the evidence appear overwhelming to most people, and yet insufficient to the CT mindset?
 
Last edited:
TexasJack said:
I think we're just rehashing old territory here. There's no amount of evidence that will convince a CT that the 93 crash was directly or indirectly caused by the passengers. The interesting question, to try to stay somewhat within the context of this thread, is why they think this way? Why does the evidence appear overwhelming to most people, and yet insufficient to the CT mindset?
Click to expand...

Frankly, I haven't studied the UA93 evidence in depth and consequently I, personally, am not overwhelmed by it.
Does it matter?
It's a good enough explanation, and if someone finds a better one, so be it.
We know it was piloted by hijackers, and control inputs made it crash long before getting close to Washington. What does it matter if passengers caused this or not?

RedIbis certainly has zero evidence that woukd speak for a different story that somehow invalidates the big picture (19 islamists -> 4 planes -> death and destruction)
 
Oystein said:
Frankly, I haven't studied the UA93 evidence in depth and consequently I, personally, am not overwhelmed by it.
Does it matter?
It's a good enough explanation, and if someone finds a better one, so be it.
We know it was piloted by hijackers, and control inputs made it crash long before getting close to Washington. What does it matter if passengers caused this or not?

RedIbis certainly has zero evidence that woukd speak for a different story that somehow invalidates the big picture (19 islamists -> 4 planes -> death and destruction)
Click to expand...

In the case of 93, it's called circumstantial evidence. That type of evidence, if you ask any prosecuting attorney, is often more powerful than direct evidence (i.e, eyewitness testimony). We will never know what exactly happened on that plane, but the circumstantial evidence tells us the passengers had something to do with it. The terrorists were trained to deliberately crash the plane if they could not reach the intended target. But as I said, 93 discussion is a separate argument for a different thread.

Putting 93 aside, let's look at the "big picture." Why does a CT disregard the overwhelming evidence that 19 jihadists hijacked 4 planes and caused the destruction on that day? Why do they think this way?
 
Last edited:
TexasJack said:
Putting 93 aside, let's look at the "big picture." Why does a CT disregard the overwhelming evidence that 19 jihadists hijacked 4 planes and caused the destruction on that day? Why do they think this way?
Click to expand...

Because a few loons can't believe that 19 people from the Middle East would ever plan such a thing so massive. Their bigotry about "cavemen" goes beyond reason.

How can a Truther sit there and claim that those 19 men lived in "caves"? I've seen those "caves" on TV plenty of times, and they sure look like homes rather than caves to me. Truthers are a subhuman species!
 
triforcharity said:
Well, considering pre-9/11, it wouldn't have been very robust, the chances of them getting THROUGH the cockpit door was incredibly high. Therefore, the door would no longer be locked.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what you think the chances that they entered the cockpit were, there is no evidence that it ever happened. Even the Commission Report does not suggest they entered the cockpit.

I highlighted this misconception because it's indicative of how the myth has become assumed fact.
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Because a few loons can't believe that 19 people from the Middle East would ever plan such a thing so massive. Their bigotry about "cavemen" goes beyond reason.

How can a Truther sit there and claim that those 19 men lived in "caves"? I've seen those "caves" on TV plenty of times, and they sure look like homes rather than caves to me. Truthers are a subhuman species!
Click to expand...

Bin Laden's brother has a brand of perfume on the market. Odd thing for a caveman to do.
 
RedIbis said:
Regardless of what you think the chances that they entered the cockpit were, there is no evidence that it ever happened. Even the Commission Report does not suggest they entered the cockpit.

I highlighted this misconception because it's indicative of how the myth has become assumed fact.
Click to expand...

Just like the myth about controlled demolitions that is current amongst a tiny minority of the population.
 
RedIbis said:
Regardless of what you think the chances that they entered the cockpit were, there is no evidence that it ever happened. Even the Commission Report does not suggest they entered the cockpit.

I highlighted this misconception because it's indicative of how the myth has become assumed fact.
Click to expand...

The cockpit voice recorder has the evidence that contradicts your claim.

You weren't there onboard Flight 93, so who are you to assume anything?
 
RedIbis said:
This is precisely the type of presumptuousness that calls the debunker position into question. You argue as if it is a foregone conclusion, yet even your summary exposes your lack of knowledge about the events.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I wonder what psychologists would say about a person who persists in pushing an alternative story which is not supported by the evidence? And chastises others for taking the direct evidence (CVR transcripts and FDR data) at face value?

And attempts to distract from the overwhelming body of evidence for a hijacking scenario by introducing a fallacious objection?

Hmm, just wondering what kind of mind would do that.

ps, the CVR recordings are utterly independent of the 9/11 Commission report - they are a matter of public record for all to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom