[Merged]Sizzler. Your theory please.

[R.Mackey]

Be nice, guys. Even if he's a day or two late, he's head and shoulders above 99% of the Truth Movement.

Once one comes up with a hypothesis, one can begin to properly analyze the argument. The leaders of the Truth Movement never do this, which is why they make such astoundingly ridiculous conclusions -- they have no way to vet their own work for quality. Sizzler, assuming he follows through, will begin on a much more scientific reasoning path. It's a good thing.

 

[cisco]

Be nice, guys.

I'm being nice, and will continue to be so as long as he abides the reasonable requests made in this thread. If he fails I cannot see how he is anything more than a gadfly for trooth with an ulterior agenda - be it conscious or subconscious.

I'm perfectly willing to give Sizzler the benefit of the doubt as long as neither of the following two conditions come to pass:

1. Tonight lapses without him posting a hypothesis
2. He posts a hypothesis in direct contradiction to post #17

 

[Quad4_72]

Well tonights the night Sizzler. We are all anxiously waiting. If you are not going to post it tonight though, please let us know the reason for the delay and when we can expect your hypothesis.

 

[Quad4_72]

Well looks like its not gonna happen tonight. I guess we will shoot for tomorrow eh sizzler?

 

[Mobyseven]

Be fair. He's gotta sort out all the internal contradictions that riddle 'inside job' scenarios.

 

[Sizzler]

Be fair. He's gotta sort out all the internal contradictions that riddle 'inside job' scenarios.

Yes there are several hurdles to overcome when considering probabilities dealing in conspiracy.

My hypothesis will be late, so I'm afraid I'll have to take an extension. I'll let you guys know where I am as a small prize for having to wait so long. haha.

I've always accepted that there is no direct evidence linking 9-11 to an inside job. Therefore no one can even come close to claiming they know the who’s, how’s, and when’s of an inside conspiracy. However I do believe and feel I can support the claim that there is plenty of indirect evidence that can be interpreted as supporting an inside job. Evidence like witness testimony, fire temperatures, collapse progression, rubble temperatures, molten metal, dust signatures, etc, have been debated for quite some time. Such evidence would fit the following criteria.

1. Likely and/or possible under official hypothesis

2. Likely and/or possible under alternative hypothesis

For example; molten metal.

1. Likely and/or possible under official hypothesis. Aluminum and other materials are expected to melt and possibly resemble molten steel or iron given certain conditions.

2. Likely and/or possible under the alternative hypothesis. Molten iron is a by-product of therm?te. One would expect by-products of such a reaction.

(Above is simplified for summary's sake)

So the aim of my hypothesis is not to demonstrate that a conspiracy actually happened on 9-11 (who can make that claim without direct evidence anyway?), but instead to show that is was actually possible within the realm of evidence that currently exists.

So basically I am super stuck on the planes right now for two reasons.

1. If the conspirators set up WTC buildings for demo, they definitely would have ensured that those planes would hit the WTC buildings. BOTH OF THEM at specific locations!

2. Having 19 hijackers try to steal at least 2 planes and then actually hit the towers in a specific area is risky. Hijackers and hijackings are not dependable enough for such a huge conspiracy.

Therefore the planes need to be tampered with to ensure they hit the buildings.

I think I hit my limit of possibility right there. In the end it always comes back to the planes.

So I need to decide what road to take from here. I’ll keep you guys updated.

 

[alex04]

Yes there are several hurdles to overcome when considering probabilities dealing in conspiracy.

My hypothesis will be late, so I'm afraid I'll have to take an extension. I'll let you guys know where I am as a small prize for having to wait so long. haha.

I've always accepted that there is no direct evidence linking 9-11 to an inside job. Therefore no one can even come close to claiming they know the who’s, how’s, and when’s of an inside conspiracy. However I do believe and feel I can support the claim that there is plenty of indirect evidence that can be interpreted as supporting an inside job. Evidence like witness testimony, fire temperatures, collapse progression, rubble temperatures, molten metal, dust signatures, etc, have been debated for quite some time. Such evidence would fit the following criteria.

1. Likely and/or possible under official hypothesis

2. Likely and/or possible under alternative hypothesis

For example; molten metal.

1. Likely and/or possible under official hypothesis. Aluminum and other materials are expected to melt and possibly resemble molten steel or iron given certain conditions.

2. Likely and/or possible under the alternative hypothesis. Molten iron is a by-product of therm?te. One would expect by-products of such a reaction.

(Above is simplified for summary's sake)

So the aim of my hypothesis is not to demonstrate that a conspiracy actually happened on 9-11 (who can make that claim without direct evidence anyway?), but instead to show that is was actually possible within the realm of evidence that currently exists.

So basically I am super stuck on the planes right now for two reasons.

1. If the conspirators set up WTC buildings for demo, they definitely would have ensured that those planes would hit the WTC buildings. BOTH OF THEM at specific locations!

2. Having 19 hijackers try to steal at least 2 planes and then actually hit the towers in a specific area is risky. Hijackers and hijackings are not dependable enough for such a huge conspiracy.

Therefore the planes need to be tampered with to ensure they hit the buildings.

I think I hit my limit of possibility right there. In the end it always comes back to the planes.

So I need to decide what road to take from here. I’ll keep you guys updated.

Good post.

Therefore the planes need to be tampered with to ensure they hit the buildings.

^
(addressed to anyone) Could it be ruled out that plane could be tampered with to hit a specific location?

A problem i can see, is that for a plane to be tampered with - if the pilot lost control (i.e. some device took over the plane) then he'd know that something was wrong. To get a plane pointed in the exact direction so that it would hit a precise location, would give the pilot plenty of time to call and advise that something had gone wrong.

 

[Dave Rogers]

A good post, Sizzler - I hope I'm not the only one who likes to see this level of critical thinking. I'd just like to make a suggestion:

Evidence like witness testimony, fire temperatures, collapse progression, rubble temperatures, molten metal, dust signatures, etc, have been debated for quite some time. Such evidence would fit the following criteria.

1. Likely and/or possible under official hypothesis

2. Likely and/or possible under alternative hypothesis

I think you may be already doing this, but there are two other categories to consider:

3. Unlikely and/or impossible under official hypothesis

4. Unlikely and/or impossible under alternative hypothesis

These are the categories, if you can populate them, that are best for reaching a decision. For example, many truthers - Miragememories and Christopher7 are good examples - believe that the collapse of WTC7 was impossible without the use of explosives or incendiaries, whereas most, if not all, debunkers believe that the use of explosives was impossible without a far louder explosion than any that was heard, and that the use of incendiaries as suggested was impossible in any circumstances. Your consideration of the requirements on the piloting of the planes is another good example of this type of discriminator.

Dave

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

1. If the conspirators set up WTC buildings for demo, they definitely would have ensured that those planes would hit the WTC buildings. BOTH OF THEM at specific locations!

First of all, good post, kudos. Second, if you have been able to rig the towers with explosives, why bother with planes? Back in 1993 a bomb was used, so I see no reason why you would need to go through all troubles of using airplanes also. Third, you would be forced to hit an exact spot, not only to make it look like the planes were the reason for the towers to fall, but also to make sure you didn't accidently cause parts of the explosives to go off prematurely.

 

[Travis]

First of all, good post, kudos. Second, if you have been able to rig the towers with explosives, why bother with planes? Back in 1993 a bomb was used, so I see no reason why you would need to go through all troubles of using airplanes also. Third, you would be forced to hit an exact spot, not only to make it look like the planes were the reason for the towers to fall, but also to make sure you didn't accidently cause parts of the explosives to go off prematurely.

Exactly. Once you've gone through the trouble of getting the bombs there the planes simply become an unnecessary complication. Even if you can get the planes to hit where you want you still have to somehow ensure that the explosives don't detonate too early or simply fail to detonate at all. On the other hand the building had already been bombed once so telling people terrorists had got bombs in again would not have sounded too far fetched.

So, bottom line is:

With bombs you don't need planes.
Adding planes risks destroying the bombs.
&
With planes you don't need bombs.
Adding bombs risks early detection and compromise of plane plot.

In other words no logical scenario should include both planes and bombs.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Good post.

Agreed. Somebody is approaching the enlightment zone.

^
(addressed to anyone) Could it be ruled out that plane could be tampered with to hit a specific location?

Not entirely, but it would be very difficult and very very risky. Even with someone at the controls, it would be hard to hit a specific location (meaning within a few floors) with an airliner going 400+ kts. Even a fighter plane, with an experienced fighter pilot at the controls will have a considerable risk of missing such a target. All the more a much less agile airliner. And on remote control ...... Frankly, you'd have to be insane to base a mission critical action on that.

Hans

 

[Mobyseven]

Good post, Sizzler. You've hit a roadblock, but I'm confident you can work through it to a logical conclusion...

 

[GStan]

Good post.

^
(addressed to anyone) Could it be ruled out that plane could be tampered with to hit a specific location?

A problem i can see, is that for a plane to be tampered with - if the pilot lost control (i.e. some device took over the plane) then he'd know that something was wrong. To get a plane pointed in the exact direction so that it would hit a precise location, would give the pilot plenty of time to call and advise that something had gone wrong.

Could the tampering have included tampering with the communications systems as well, eliminating the pilot's ability to advise that something had gone wrong? Anyone devious enough to 'tamper' with a plane for this purpose is going to know that if its put into effect during an actual flight, the pilot's response is fairly predictable, and thus this must be accounted for in the tampering as well.

 

[mortimer]

Bumping so it doesn't get buried on page 2. I'm genuinely interested to hear a coherent theory for CD of WTC7. Take your time, Sizzler, but we won't let you forget about this

 

[alex04]

Could the tampering have included tampering with the communications systems as well, eliminating the pilot's ability to advise that something had gone wrong? Anyone devious enough to 'tamper' with a plane for this purpose is going to know that if its put into effect during an actual flight, the pilot's response is fairly predictable, and thus this must be accounted for in the tampering as well.

Fair point - i guess the next step would be to find out when (and what) the last transmissions were.. and also to verify the pilots voice.

I'd think by now there would be transcripts available?

 

[MRC_Hans]

More on tampering with planes, while we wait for Sizzler. A workable scheme could be something like this:

The steering system should be a remote control for directing the plane to the WTC, and a homing device that homes on a beacon placed in the tower. To passivate the pilots, a gas cartridge could be set off in the cocpit, the door locked to the rest of the plane, and, possibly, taped radio messages sent out. Taped speech could also be fed to the cockpit voice recorder, just in case it was found later (in the event, it wasn't).

By remote control, the plane is then directed to NY, and positioned on a final approach path for the target, and control is transferred to the homing device which steers it towards the planted beacon.

This is all technically possible, but, without Hollywood Sci Fi technology, frightfully complicated. Since you cannot have a plane trailing the airliner (ATC would see it on radar), you must rely on very long-range control. This requires either quite powerful transmitters, both on the ground and in the plane (without some positional feed-back from the plane the feat would be impossible), or very long wavelenghts. The first requires big, noticeable equipment, the latter big noticeable antennas. The modifications to the plane are extensive, and would be noticed by service personnel, unless either you make it shortly before take-off (which poses its own problems), or you ensure the silence of said service personnel.

And, of course, there are a number of failure risks:

- Flights are canceled, and you sit with a doctored plane ready to be discovered.
- The plane is redirected.
- Technical failure.
- A pilot is on the loo when the system is activated.

..etc.

In other words, a very, very risky operation, at best.

Of course, some of these failure modes also apply to the hijackers, but they can fail safely: Even if their actual mission is totaly foiled, the mere fact that it was attempted has a considerable terror effect. In contrast, inside people are ***** if their mission fails and is disclosed.

Hans

 

[Travis]

While it's possible, though not probable, to remotely control the plane this still leaves the question surrounding the phone calls from the plane that specifically told of hijackers. Was this remote control scenario done in conjunction with a set-up hijacking, with the hijackers being unaware, or were the calls themselves somehow manufactured?

 

[Sizzler]

Thanks for the comments everyone;

Dave R. wrote:

I think you may be already doing this, but there are two other categories to consider:

3. Unlikely and/or impossible under official hypothesis

4. Unlikely and/or impossible under alternative hypothesis

Yes these are categories 3 and 4. I didn't include evidence which fell into these categories because;

#3-->this has been debated to death and there is no solid/direct evidence suggesting such, yet

#4-->Any evidence that falls in this category would necessarily contradict my possibility of conspiracy hypothesis. Thus it was/is crucial to demonstrate that such evidence does not exist. Critique of my hypothesis would likely focus mostly on this category.

So in an indirect way, categories #3 and #4 do exist, yet it is assumed (#3) and argued (#4) that no evidence currently falls in either one.

Following this reason of thought, I am still stuck on the planes. There is simply no reliable evidence (that I am aware of) that suggests any conspiracy of plane tampering (drones, remote control, etc, etc).

Where can my hypothesis go without acknowledging that the planes must have been tampered with (reasoning given above in previous post)? Conspiracy must include the planes, yet nothing (that I am aware of) suggests any foul play.

...............

 

[DGM]

Sizzler:
Why not make your job more realistic (seeing you agree that the planes are real) and drop the CD? This would tie in the Pentagon and also allow for UAL 93 to be a plan gone wrong.

Like most plans that succeed you need to keep it simple (like 9/11 really was).

 

[GStan]

Thanks for the comments everyone;

Following this reason of thought, I am still stuck on the planes. There is simply no reliable evidence (that I am aware of) that suggests any conspiracy of plane tampering (drones, remote control, etc, etc).

Where can my hypothesis go without acknowledging that the planes must have been tampered with (reasoning given above in previous post)? Conspiracy must include the planes, yet nothing (that I am aware of) suggests any foul play.

...............

What about the possibility that the planes were not tampered with as part of the conspiracy, but that the hijackers were? Perhaps the 19 perpetrators were coerced into committing this heinous crime by some agent of the U.S. There is at least enough circumstantial evidence of the possibility of nefarious connections to construct a theory that, while not supported by any hard evidence, is not totally laughable.

Are you stuck on trying to come up with a theory that is plausible? Or can you not even get past coming up with one that is not impossible?
If it is the former, that's totally understandable given the wealth of evidence favoring the 'official story'. (Even if that wealth of evidence is all fake, no evidence has surfaced to even suggest that its fake.) If it is the latter, I'd say you are just a few posts away from coming to the dark side and joining the debunker movement.

Looking forward to your hypothesis. Thanks.