• 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.

Flight 77 maneuver

Jango said:
I like Completed Stories. Not 37.5% complete, not 50%, not 90%. I like 100% Why don't you? Why are you so comfortable with less than 100% told stories? You wouldn't tolerate that kind of thing if you bought a book off the shelf and discovered that the last three chapters are not included in your copy of the book (I mean, who checks books for completeness before purchasing them?). You would rightfully demand a refund for the lack of completeness. Yet, in matters of real importance such as this, you are perfectly fine with not having 100% completeness. I wonder why. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfectionism_(psychology)

Especially note: Normal vs. neurotic perfectionism
 
My God. The stupid, it burns! Every Truther or someone like jango who comes forth to "just ask questions!" makes the previous rocket scientist one look like an Einstein. Is there any sense to his verbal diarrhea? Can anyone make any sense of this? If this is the best the 9/11 "skeptics" have in terms of "asking questions", they're in for a long, long wait.

The hijackers never trained on a military base. That much is obvious. To suggest such or to throw that out as a reason for questioning this whole thing only accentuates the stupidity of the idea.
 
Pinch said:
My God. The stupid, it burns! Every Truther or someone like jango who comes forth to "just ask questions!" makes the previous rocket scientist one look like an Einstein. Is there any sense to his verbal diarrhea? Can anyone make any sense of this? If this is the best the 9/11 "skeptics" have in terms of "asking questions", they're in for a long, long wait.

The hijackers never trained on a military base. That much is obvious. To suggest such or to throw that out as a reason for questioning this whole thing only accentuates the stupidity of the idea.
Click to expand...

It's, in part, because the smarter ones eventually give up, either from figuring that they're wrong or that they have no chance to convince anyone.

Which leads to eventually two kinds of people still talking about 9/11. People who think they can still make money off it, and this kind of guy.
 
Jango said:
I like Completed Stories. Not 37.5% complete, not 50%, not 90%. I like 100% Why don't you? Why are you so comfortable with less than 100% told stories?
Click to expand...


No historical event can be known with 100% accuracy. That's not the standard by which historical events are judged. Why do you have a different standard for this occurrance than, say, the signing of the Declaration of Independence? I mean, exactly what did John Hancock eat for breakfast that day? What were the names of the horses for his coach? Who made his hat? I'm just asking questions.
 
Loss Leader said:
...than, say, the signing of the Declaration of Independence? I mean, exactly what did John Hancock eat for breakfast that day? What were the names of the horses for his coach? Who made his hat? I'm just asking questions.
Click to expand...

Earlier today I was trying to come up with a similarly absurd scenario, coincidentally for the same event in history. Only my McGuffin was the color of Ben Franklin's socks. Why? Because if we can't positively identify the man who signed it, then we can't be sure it wasn't signed by an imposter.

All I need to do is conjecture up some farfetched scenario where someone saw the real Franklin elsewhere that day wearing different socks. As long as it depends on some obscure detail lost to history, I can take perverse anti-comfort that it will never be either confirmed or refuted, and I can spin that hamster wheel forever.

That's not a meaningless straw man. What turns an insignificant detail into a suddenly-significant detail is the story I decide to tell about it. That framing creates the illusion of importance. We must know the detail, else we'll never solve the dilemma I just speculated into existence limbo.

No, the Warren Commission didn't explain every detail of that November day. Sometimes a bright spot on an astronaut's visor is just a random bright spot, not possibly the reflection of a studio lamp. And our supposed inability to determine a simple blood coagulation pathway doesn't immediately require a magical explanation. Conspiracism is based ever so heavily on requiring the conventional narrative to explain everything that can be observed, regardless of scope.
 
Jango said:
I like Completed Stories. Not 37.5% complete, not 50%, not 90%. I like 100% Why don't you? Why are you so comfortable with less than 100% told stories? You wouldn't tolerate that kind of thing if you bought a book off the shelf and discovered that the last three chapters are not included in your copy of the book (I mean, who checks books for completeness before purchasing them?). You would rightfully demand a refund for the lack of completeness. Yet, in matters of real importance such as this, you are perfectly fine with not having 100% completeness. I wonder why. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

so what are ya doing about it, sport?

I surmise that i have issued more 911 related FOIA requests than you have.

I issued 1.

How you doing on completing the story?

You say you wouldn't tolerate it, so what are you doing about it?

The smart money says nothing or trolling on the internet?
 
16.5 said:
I surmise that i have issued more 911 related FOIA requests than you have.

I issued 1.
Click to expand...

I asked him this several months back and was told he has made several FOIA requests, so I expect him to repeat a substantially similar answer here.

Maybe it's ad hominem, and if so I apologize, but I find it hard to believe someone married to an historian and having expressed an interest in the scholarly study of history would be so adamant about finding 100% of the whys and wherefores. I mean, we always try to get as much good information as we can. But there's simply a limit to what you can know about what happened in the past.

And this really doesn't have much to do with Flight 77. A lot of this page of discussion would probably fit better in the "Is there a legitimate reason?" thread.
 
pgimeno said:
Yes, I'm a perfectionist. Not sure what kind.
Click to expand...

Obviously the kind who seeks out the right answer (and optionally acts on it) rather than accusing the forum mods of censorship and then stomping off in a huff. I mean, you could still do that if you wanted, but I think it would lack a certain conviction.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I think Jango wants us to talk about Flight 100.

Dave
Click to expand...

Is there an award for secret subtle stuff of perfection... or are you the shill for making people read back-post to discover the meaning of "stuff".

JayUtah said:
... Conspiracism is based ever so heavily on requiring the conventional narrative to explain everything that can be observed, regardless of scope.
Click to expand...

"Conspiracism is based ever so heavily on requiring the conventional narrative to explain everything that can be observed or imagined, regardless of scope."
 
Jango said:
I like Completed Stories. Not 37.5% complete, not 50%, not 90%. I like 100% Why don't you? Why are you so comfortable with less than 100% told stories? You wouldn't tolerate that kind of thing if you bought a book off the shelf and discovered that the last three chapters are not included in your copy of the book (I mean, who checks books for completeness before purchasing them?). You would rightfully demand a refund for the lack of completeness. Yet, in matters of real importance such as this, you are perfectly fine with not having 100% completeness. I wonder why. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, in that case, I wouldn't suggest you study history.
 
Loss Leader said:
No historical event can be known with 100% accuracy. That's not the standard by which historical events are judged. Why do you have a different standard for this occurrance than, say, the signing of the Declaration of Independence? I mean, exactly what did John Hancock eat for breakfast that day? What were the names of the horses for his coach? Who made his hat? I'm just asking questions.
Click to expand...

You're right, however, why shouldn't we strive to have as much of the record as possible? Should we, in regards to 9/11, be happy with what we've got now?
 
Pinch said:
My God. The stupid, it burns! Every Truther or someone like jango who comes forth to "just ask questions!" makes the previous rocket scientist one look like an Einstein. Is there any sense to his verbal diarrhea? Can anyone make any sense of this? If this is the best the 9/11 "skeptics" have in terms of "asking questions", they're in for a long, long wait.

The hijackers never trained on a military base. That much is obvious. To suggest such or to throw that out as a reason for questioning this whole thing only accentuates the stupidity of the idea.
Click to expand...

I must have missed the post where I said that's why I am here. Could you locate it and confirm your claim about me?
 
Jango said:
You're right, however, why shouldn't we strive to have as much of the record as possible? Should we, in regards to 9/11, be happy with what we've got now?
Click to expand...

No, Jango. You asked who would be comfortable with less than 100%. Now you're changing horses to "as much as possible." A lot of us are comfortable with less than 100% of the putatively applicable facts because we know we could never possibly have all of them. A lot of us are relatively comfortable with the notion that we have as much of the truth as is possible at present to obtain, and can therefore draw reasonable conclusions on that basis. I think you owe some apologies.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
No, Jango. You asked who would be comfortable with less than 100%. Now you're changing horses to "as much as possible." A lot of us are comfortable with less than 100% of the putatively applicable facts because we know we could never possibly have all of them. A lot of us are relatively comfortable with the notion that we have as much of the truth as is possible at present to obtain, and can therefore draw reasonable conclusions on that basis. I think you owe some apologies.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sorry that you assume that every post I make is a standalone statement not intended to have another statement as the conversation naturally progresses, such as it is now and has been since my initial statement in the context we're discussing right now. And I'm sorry that my often repeated views on history have been forgotten by you. Lastly, I'm sorry that you're comfortable with what information we have presently accessible to us and for your lack curiosity, which has perhaps been born out of apathy. Have you given up?
 
Jango said:
You're right, however, why shouldn't we strive to have as much of the record as possible? Should we, in regards to 9/11, be happy with what we've got now?
Click to expand...

In the quest for 100 percent accuracy; post a lie.

Jango said:
... the hijackers, some of whom that lived openly, trained on U.S. military bases ...
Click to expand...

Have you retracted this lie?
Jango said:
... which has perhaps been born out of apathy. Have you given up?
Click to expand...
Oh, you don't care to retract 100 percent false information; you have given up.
Or do you stand by your 100 percent misinformation.
Jango said:
... the hijackers, some of whom that lived openly, trained on U.S. military bases ...
Click to expand...

Pinch said:
My God. The stupid, it burns! Every Truther or someone like jango who comes forth to "just ask questions!"...
Jango said:
I must have missed the post where I said that's why I am here. Could you locate it and confirm your claim about me?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Do you understand your action say why you are here, evidence of why.
Jango said:
* =... is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative? ...
Click to expand...
Your thread is "just ask questions!", as if personification of JAQ...

You are not the first to JAQ, and fail to present evidence for your doubts, and questions. You will not be the last if JFK BS is an indication of how long ignorance persists. How could you forget you started the JAQ thread, and fail to realize Pinch can read, and use logic? Did you forget you started the biggest JAQ thread in recent history? Pay attention, come to class prepared next time... good luck


Jango said:
... But working under the assumption that Hani was a part of the Bojinka plot, why keep that information secret? What implications does that reality create?
Click to expand...
Do you have evidence to back this up, or is this another 100 percent wrong type statement based on nothing. Explain why Hani, a pilot was needed for planting explosives on planes - why would a plot to blow up planes need the super pilot Hani? Can you summarize Bojinka, and explain how Hani would fit, or be used, in great detail. Use your 100 percent stuff
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom