911: The chain of evidence

[Gravy]

4x ask now
ask much make tired

C.E.:
Read Report?
If so
What wrong?

R.S.V.P.

 

[SezMe]

Gravy
getting cold
lumpy
must reheat

Q.E.D.

 

[delphi_ote]

Which you dismiss, supposedly because it's tainted second-hand knowledge. You claim to want first-hand facts, but you seem to readily accept third and fourth hand accounts. This seems inconsistent to me.

That said, we're never going to get anywhere with your quesiton unless we can establish some common ground. Some baseline of truth. Were planes flown into those buildings? Were they hijacked planes? Are you specifically asking for proof that those 19 people were the hijackers, or are you also looking for proof that the planes were hijacked? Do we have to prove that the planes existed in the first place? Do we have to produce evidence that the Twin Towers actually existed? If you'd genuinely like our help answering these questions, we've got to have a place to start.

Also, what will you accept as evidence? Eye witness testimony? Expert testimony? Mainstream media reports? Do I have to physically mail you a piece of each hijacker's DNA and a video tape of each taking over the flight and navigating it to the crash site?

The problem we frequently run into with conspiracy theorists and proponets of pseudoscience is that they don't have a consistent burden of proof. They alter what they'll accept as evidence based on whether it supports or detracts from their belief. I'm not accusing you of this, just warning you that people here have little patience for that kind of run around.

So honestly ask yourself, "What would it take to change my mind?"

Just to be fair, I'll let you know what would change my mind. If I found that several eye witnesses gave consistent and independent testimony soon after the event that contradicted the established story, I would certainly have to re-examine my position. If several experts (intelligence officials or the coroners or the air traffic controllers) came forward and testified that the facts were inconsistent, I would seriously question the official story. If a main stream media outlet published a detailed report and sited sources as mentioned above, I would certainly investigate further and re-evaluate my position. If I found physical evidence myself or was shown clear video evidence that the event did not take place (i.e. video footage of someone else hijacking the plane,) obviously I'd have to doubt my version.

Clearly this last example is unreasonable, but I think it's quite realistic to expect to find the rest of my proposed evidence if what I currently believe was wrong. I'm sure there's more, but I think this list will do for now.

My mind can be changed. Can yours?

Do let us know if there's any kind of evidence that would convince you to re-examine your position, Child.

 

[Pardalis]

I did not present a detailed CT and i will continue to refuse presenting one (nice try, delphi_ote).

[...]

What does all this mean? My impression is that a nexus of financiers, organized crime, "intelligence", polititians and corporations exists which was involved in 9/11 and wants to make us believe the story of the lone highjackers and Osama as evil genius in the background. A rogue element in western (and middle eastern) society. They try to play the oldest game in the book and to create a backlash into fear and barbarianism to save their interests - at a moment in history when it's time for humanity to grow up.

How does a global criminal amalgam of such different denominations get to be so unified and organised as to plan these attacks so perfectly? How did they get to have this single objective in mind so clear?

How many of these financiers/politicians/corporations had to be involved in secrecy, and who did what, and how? With facts please, not "impressions".

Who is the chief of operations, the one making the final decisions? Who makes this thing go in one direction, keep everything in check?

What is their motive to kill 3 000 innocent New Yorkers, and to destroy the world's most important financial complex?

What is their motive to want a war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan?

What exactly is their link to the 19 terrorists who hijacked the planes?

What makes the people who worked on the commision suspicious of anything because they were involved with these different agencies and companies (the ones mentioned in Wiki)? Wouldn't that make them even more expert on the matter?

What about the bombings in London, Bali, Madrid, and Iraq? How is this "global mafia" connected to all this? And what are their motives in each of these cases? What part of their international scheme does these attacks play?

Usually, when dealing with thieves, you usually get alot of detractors and wistleblowers. Usually criminals can be easily bribed, they will go the the most offering hand and change their "camp" without remorse. Why haven't on of them spoken out yet? Is this "global mafia" so rich that no one has deserted?

But hey, these are just questions.

All you got here are some links between people. No actual proof of involvement in the specific 9/11 plot, no motive, and no cohesive, all encompassing and conclusive narrative that would help draw a picture of what happened.

Guess what, the 9/11 Commission has all that, and so far, to me, it makes sense and holds up to scrutiny. But you could be right, your "impressions" may possibly be on to something, keep researching. It's a free world. But until then, we want facts, not inuendos and impressions.

 

[R.Mackey]

Childlike: Welcome back. Dubfan covered most of the important points, but let me add to that with my reply.

Isn't it possible that both are wrong? Did you really search for errors in the official story with the same enthusiasm you did for "the CTs"?

No, it isn't really possible that both are wrong, not in the sense you mean. Let me explain the mechanics of discourse and scientific thought.

We know that something caused the events of Sept. 11th. Therefore, there is a explanation, somewhere.

Any hypothesis is an attempt to approximate the true explanation. As a consequence, at any time, there is a leading hypothesis, that is to say the one that appears to be closest to the truth. I believe I can speak for most people here when I say that, for us, the leading hypothesis is very close to the 9/11 Commission Report, owing for small corrections such as those pointed out by Dubfan.

Different people may have different opinions on which hypothesis is most likely, of course. But everyone taking part in the debate has a leading hypothesis.

The arrival of new evidence, or unexplained questions, is no different than comparing two different hypotheses. When this happens, what we do is find a way to discriminate between the two hypotheses. We go back to the original sources, perform some calculations, run experiments, etc. Then we compare the results to the two hypotheses and see which one fits better. A result that fits both, or that fits neither, is not a discriminant. In that case we find a different test.

What this means is that we cannot debunk one theory without confirming the other. It is a symmetric approach. When we debunk conspiracy theories, we are not presupposing the alternative. So when our result weakens the conspiracy theory, it also confirms the leading hypothesis.

Thus the answer is yes: We have searched the official story for errors with the same enthusiasm. If my experiments found an error in the official story, I would post it here for the world to see, and expect others to look for holes in my reasoning. That's the way science works. Even if I'm wrong, I win, because I've learned something.

Same here. I learned i was wrong with the budget and other details - i have no problem with accepting facts. One fact is, you can't convince me that the Commission Report is true with "debunking" LC.

This is a non sequitur. If, for you, the Commission Report is not the leading hypothesis, then you must have a better one in mind. If you want to discuss that, fine, let's talk about it. But if you don't, you're just being obstinate.

It's like the joke about the two campers threatened by a bear, one runs while the other hangs back and laces up his track shoes... Our theory doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be the best. We refine our theories through competition with other ideas. If you don't like my theory because you've got a better one, I'm interested, please share it with me. But if you don't like my theory "just because," that's your problem. You have nothing to teach me in that case. We are not obligated to make you believe.

So any time you want to show why my theory is impossible, or why your theory is better, let us know.

 

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Hermann Göring, 1946 :
Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. (...) The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

(I thought you might not agree with this particular Wikipedia definition, but I'm giving it a shot)

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Well done, posts #184 and 185.

 

[Belz...]

Nominated.

Seconded.

 

[rikzilla]

Seconded.

Thirded

 

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein, 1932 :
Experience proves that it is rather the so-called intelligentsia’ that is most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions.

Relevance? Context?

Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority)

 

[Eos of the Eons]

With all the crap on the net, one of my brothers bought a conspiracy film with a few well known faces saying that the pentagon was not hit by a plane, but a missile. They use shots at angles that omit most of the debris, and shows a little tiny hole in the pentagon. We can dig up pictures that show completely the opposite, but he now believes the tape instead of anything else.

I like the Flight 93 movie by A&E because it clearly timelines everything that happened that day.

http://www.aetv.com/flight_93/f93_history.jsp I relived all my feelings of shock as I realized these planes full of people were being slammed into buildings on purpose. I also remember the footage of pakistanis and other populations that celebrated that day. They were overjoyed! I, for the first time, realized how hated the US was. I started to investigate why. It blew my mind. It was mostly due to scapegoating and religion, but also due to percieved and actual meddling by the US in foreign affairs. There are some very very angry people out there. Some of the angry people have a lot of money and time on their hands to recruit and convince people to fight the infidels.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/21stCenturySurvival/message/2308?viscount=100&l=1

Kent added groups like al-Qaeda "dip into the mainstream aspects of &[Islamic] tradition, extract an array of ideas on the value of martyrdom and use this to justify violent action.''

And not to mention, those tapes from laden himself:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/alqaeda/alqaeda49.html

http://www.rickross.com/groups/alqaeda.html
http://www.rickross.com/reference/alqaeda/alqaeda17.html
http://www.culteducation.com/binladen.html


http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/usterror.html
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/arabis.html
http://www.september11news.com/

BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Arab-Israeli Conflict | Arab World | Arab Americans | Biological Defense | Books | Civil Rights | Economics | Energy
Federal Agencies | Federal Agency Reports | Foreign Economics | Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution | Journals | Laws and Regulations
Military Background | News | Psychology | Religion | Statistics | Terrorism | Think Tanks | Treaties

Laden exists, Qaeda exists, and many support them in their efforts to rid the world of "pharaohs" and infidels.

". . . Bush, the pharaoh of the century . . ." In the language of the Koran, "pharaoh" is a phrase often used to refer to all infidel rulers, not just of Egypt. It has been adopted by radical Islamists to describe non-Islamic rulers of Muslim nations, and as a term of derision for Western leaders.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/alqaeda/alqaeda40.html

 

[pgwenthold]

So let's go to the bare basics, here. CE claims there is NO evidence for the 19 highjackers. Really?

Which of the following facts are in dispute?

1) Four planes were hijacked on 9/11
If this is true, that means we can seriously limit the number of suspects. Heck, IIRC, one of the planes only had something like 45 passengers, which means that there is a very short list of suspects

2) The accused 19 highjackers were passengers on those planes
That means that those 19 highjackers are among the top suspects for the highjacking

3) In order to do what the highjackers did with the planes (fly them into buildings, and just not being completely lost in the cockpit) means that the highjackers had some pilot training.

Now given the short list of suspects, and the requirement that they have some pilot training, then we can pare the suspect list down to those passengers who we know have had pilot training. That makes the list very short indeed, but it still contains many (all?) of the accused highjackers.

4) Relationships with other highjackers: there is also good reason to suspect anyone who is known to have relationships with other highjackers, including those suspects identified by using steps 1-3. If 1-3 does not account for all 19 highjackers, then step 4 will provide the basis for suspecting the rest.

Now, this is all very straightforward information. What parts are in dispute? That planes were hijacked? That some/many/all of the accused highjackers had pilot training? That those who didn't have pilot training had some relationship to those who did?

If nothing else, the fact that the accused highjackers were on the plane is evidence that they were highjackers. Of course, it is not sufficient to ID them to the exclusion of all the others on the plane, but it does put them onto the short list.

Blood type doesn't ID a criminal to the exclusion of all other people, but finding the blood at the scene of a crime with the same blood type as the accused (knowing that the criminal was injured while committing the crime) is still evidence.

Hence, in order for CE's claim that there is NO evidence to be correct, she would have to argue that either no planes were hijacked, or that the actions of the hijackers did not require some pilot training, or that none of the people accused had any pilot training, or that they weren't on the planes.

 

[Pardalis]

4) Relationships with other highjackers: there is also good reason to suspect anyone who is known to have relationships with other highjackers, including those suspects identified by using steps 1-3. If 1-3 does not account for all 19 highjackers, then step 4 will provide the basis for suspecting the rest.

http://www.orgnet.com/prevent.html

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Here's bin laden bragging about it in a transcript:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2001/12/13/transcript.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,618261,00.html

Speaking to a room of supporters, possibly in the Taliban's former stronghold of Kandahar, Bin Laden said that none of the 19 hijackers knew the details of the operation until just before they boarded the planes.

"The brothers who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America, but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter.

"But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the plane," he added.

He confirmed that Mohammed Atta was the leader of the group

 

[pgwenthold]

http://www.orgnet.com/prevent.html

Very nice.

So which of the highjackers are known to have taken pilot's lessons?

 

[Gravy]

With all the crap on the net, one of my brothers bought a conspiracy film with a few well known faces saying that the pentagon was not hit by a plane, but a missile. They use shots at angles that omit most of the debris, and shows a little tiny hole in the pentagon. We can dig up pictures that show completely the opposite, but he now believes the tape instead of anything else.

The U.S. has some impressive military hardware, but that would have to be a REALLY special missile.

First, it would have to work in conjunction with some kind of mass-hallucination technology that made all these people see an airliner hit the Pentagon right in front of them.
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

That technology would also have to work on the Air Traffic Controllers, and on the crew of the C-130 that saw the attack:

Reagan National controllers then vectored an unarmed National Guard C130H cargo aircraft, which had just taken off en route to Minnesota, to identify and follow the suspicious aircraft. The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:38, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower: "looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir." (From the 9/11 Commission Report)

Then, for it to damage the light poles and generator, it would either have to have a wingspan of over 100 feet, or it would have to take the path shown by the red line below.

Then, it would have to somehow scatter tons of American Airlines debris over the Pentagon lawn and through the building, while leaving no trace of itself..

Finally, it would have to deposit the remains of all of flight 77's passengers and crew (The remains of one two-year-old weren't recovered. Perhaps that child is responsible for the attack).

My apologies to whoever did the graphics overlay on the Pentagon photo above. I don't remember who did it. I just drew the red line.

Sorry for the aside. I'm impressed with the clear thinking being displayed here. Carry on.

 

[pgwenthold]

Hey Gravy, what do the green and red spots correspond to?

It looks like light blue are light poles still standing, and those in yellow were knocked down.

 

[Gravy]

Hey Gravy, what do the green and red spots correspond to?

It looks like light blue are light poles still standing, and those in yellow were knocked down.

Yes, the aqua spots are intact light poles, the yellow, damaged ones. The green rectangle by the building is the generator trailer that was struck. The spots on the building indicate damaged columns, IIRC.

 

[Childlike Empress]

2) The accused 19 highjackers were passengers on those planes

Please show me the evidence.

 

[Belz...]

Please show me the evidence.

No, no. First I need evidence that you're really a person.

Have you even READ the reports ?