The Passenger/pilot question. Fun way to play with Truthers.

[EGarrett]

Ask them what happened to the passengers and pilots who supposedly died. Their conspiracy quickly falls apart and it becomes obvious that the whole thing, with victims, would be impossible to fake without involving hundreds of thousands of victim's family members and airline owners and employees being involved.

The only plausible answer they can give is to say that the government hired the hijackers. In which case you bring up their pasts and they have to explain why or how Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda agreed to help orchestrate September 11th.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Ask them what happened to the passengers and pilots who supposedly died. Their conspiracy quickly falls apart and it becomes obvious that the whole thing, with victims, would be impossible to fake without involving hundreds of thousands of victim's family members and airline owners and employees being involved.

The only plausible answer they can give is to say that the government hired the hijackers. In which case you bring up their pasts and they have to explain why or how Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda agreed to help orchestrate September 11th.

Why?

I can't wait for this.

[beachnut]

Ask them what happened to the passengers and pilots who supposedly died. Their conspiracy quickly falls apart and it becomes obvious that the whole thing, with victims, would be impossible to fake without involving hundreds of thousands of victim's family members and airline owners and employees being involved.

The only plausible answer they can give is to say that the government hired the hijackers. In which case you bring up their pasts and they have to explain why or how Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda agreed to help orchestrate September 11th.
The truth movement does not use logic; you are right they fail to come up with rational ideas when this comes up.

[AJM8125]

Every time you guys start playing with teh twoofers you break them and never put them back in the box. If you guys don't stop it, I'm telling.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Every time you guys start playing with teh twoofers you break them and never put them back in the box. If you guys don't stop it, I'm telling.

Of course you'll tell. You're the teachers pet and what else do you have?

[Jontg]

Actually, there are plenty of possible answers. The most obvious one is "Dead."

[EGarrett]

Actually, there are plenty of possible answers. The most obvious one is "Dead."Why?

I can't wait for this.If they think the pilots of the planes were in on it, then either the pilots agreed to kill themselves for the NWO or right to get oil in Iraq...or the pilots didn't exist and the airline, the families, the colleges where they were educated and all kinds of other institutions agreed to pretend that they existed.

If they think the government hired known Al-Qaeda members to hijack the plane in completely unrehearsed fashion, with no cooperation by the passengers and pilots (and thus no guarantee that it would work)...then you can ask why or how Al-Qaeda would agree to help the government do this and then take full blame without ever speaking up.

It really causes their side to fall apart like a Sloppy Joe.

[Homeland Insurgency]

If they think the pilots of the planes were in on it, then either the pilots agreed to kill themselves for the NWO or right to get oil in Iraq...or the pilots didn't exist and the airline, the families, the colleges where they were educated and all kinds of other institutions agreed to pretend that they existed.

If they think the government hired known Al-Qaeda members to hijack the plane in completely unrehearsed fashion, with no cooperation by the passengers and pilots (and thus no guarantee that it would work)...then you can ask why or how Al-Qaeda would agree to help the government do this and then take full blame without ever speaking up.

It really causes their side to fall apart like a Sloppy Joe.

Holy Mackerel.

[OneShotKi11]

Ask them what happened to the passengers and pilots who supposedly died. Their conspiracy quickly falls apart and it becomes obvious that the whole thing, with victims, would be impossible to fake without involving hundreds of thousands of victim's family members and airline owners and employees being involved.

The only plausible answer they can give is to say that the government hired the hijackers. In which case you bring up their pasts and they have to explain why or how Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda agreed to help orchestrate September 11th.

What does this all mean?
Do "they" deny them dying? Do "they" deny they even got on the plane?

To me it depends on who your asking. Which is why i hate the fact you label all truthers/conspiracy theorists/Non-Official version believers as "Twoofers"!
Seems silly to claim total victory over the entire situation because you have labeled them all as having the same beliefs and logic. When they clearly do not.
Its sort of a cheap stance i feel some at JREf have taken to combat the hordes of truthers, but i also can understand that you dont have the time to actually debate every version of the story with them.
Still it remains a cheap tactic that i frown upon. (But who am i anyway?)

Should have made a point to atleast state what sect of "truther" you were referring too.

[johnny karate]

What does this all mean?
Do "they" deny them dying? Do "they" deny they even got on the plane?

To me it depends on who your asking. Which is why i hate the fact you label all truthers/conspiracy theorists/Non-Official version believers as "Twoofers"!
Seems silly to claim total victory over the entire situation because you have labeled them all as having the same beliefs and logic. When they clearly do not.
Its sort of a cheap stance i feel some at JREf have taken to combat the hordes of truthers, but i also can understand that you dont have the time to actually debate every version of the story with them.
Still it remains a cheap tactic that i frown upon. (But who am i anyway?)

Should have made a point to atleast state what sect of "truther" you were referring too.

Truthers, or whatever term you prefer, are notorious for being inconsistent with each other and even with themselves. They are also notorious for being vague and indistinct in their underlying beliefs. Neither of these things are any fault of ours. We can only work with what we're given.

To save us some small measure of that difficulty, perhaps you can give us a brief synopsis of what you believe occurred on 9/11, and then we can formulate our questions accordingly.

[EGarrett]

What does this all mean?
Do "they" deny them dying? Do "they" deny they even got on the plane?

To me it depends on who your asking. Which is why i hate the fact you label all truthers/conspiracy theorists/Non-Official version believers as "Twoofers"!
Seems silly to claim total victory over the entire situation because you have labeled them all as having the same beliefs and logic. When they clearly do not.
Its sort of a cheap stance i feel some at JREf have taken to combat the hordes of truthers, but i also can understand that you dont have the time to actually debate every version of the story with them.
Still it remains a cheap tactic that i frown upon. (But who am i anyway?)

Should have made a point to atleast state what sect of "truther" you were referring too.Honestly, I'm not sure what your point is...anyone who disbelieves the official explanation has to give SOME method by which the passenger/pilot deaths happened, and it's nigh impossible to do. Furthermore, I don't see the insult in referring to them by a term they use to refer to themselves.

Did I mention that the pilots had wives and children? Were the kids in on it or did the pilots just decide to up and kill themselves without telling them?

[gumboot]

I think most would argue that the passengers and crew were rounded up by NWO Kitty and shot, before being cremated and having their remains liberally distributed through 4,000 tonnes of high grade kitty litter.

Or possibly the passengers and crew were rounded up, executed by NWO Kitty, and then butchered into unrecognisable chunks and generously scattered about the various crash sites.

The stupidity of either theory really doesn't bear contemplating.

[EGarrett]

The airline would still have to be in on that...so they would vouch for the actual flights taking off and not being landed or rerouted to the kitty butcher zone.

[Jontg]

Garrett, every single person on this forum disbelieves the official version. The official version involves Saddam Hussein.

[beachnut]

The airline would still have to be in on that...so they would vouch for the actual flights taking off and not being landed or rerouted to the kitty butcher zone.
When you learn about the DNA evidence and the oversight of the collection and identification; hundreds of people are added to the delusional CT 9/11 truth movement acting more like terrorist apologist and terrorist loyalist, operating on pure hearsay, hate, and lies.

The usual truther suspects are here, confirming they have zero evidence, as they fail to explain how their world of lies, hearsay, and delusions can shed light on the OP issue.

[Wowbagger]

they have to explain why or how Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda agreed to help orchestrate September 11th. That's easy! Al-Qaeda wasn't informed they were working for U.S. agents. The U.S. agents, themselves, worked undercover as terrorist organizers: Folks with a common enemy and goal as Al-Qaeda! And, they could easily be allies in the destruction of the Evil Western Infidels!

As part of the agreement, these undercover agents would grant Al-Qaeda permission to claim sole responsability for it all, just to sweeten the deal.



Legal Note: Wowbagger was playing Devil's Advocate, and DOES NOT really agree with the above statements.

[1337m4n]

Every time you guys start playing with teh twoofers you break them and never put them back in the box. If you guys don't stop it, I'm telling.

My twoofer is missing a piece; have you seen it?

[Sizzler]

OP is flawed. It assumes that patsies know they are patsies. This however does not have to be the case.

My answer to OP.

1. All people on the flights actually boarded planes. Those planes were destroyed and those people died.

2. The "terrorists" aboard the planes may or may not have actually been terrorists. They could have just been regular passengers or they could have been patsies, but this being unknown to them.

I think the biggest obstacle to this kind of plan is that the planes would have had to have been "guided" into their targets.

This means they were;

1. Pre-rigged with a guidence system

2. Guided by someone into the buildings

For #1, the people who pre-rigged the planes wouldn't have to know the grand outcome of such actions. They have may been told it was a legitimate part of a plan to test new technology or something.

For #2, this person would need to know the entire conspiracy.

So in my plan only 1 person needs to know the overall conspiracy, not thousands or even hundreds.

[AJM8125]

My twoofer is missing a piece; have you seen it?

Most twoofers are missing something; gray matter, common sense, the point, etc. It isn't clear if this is due to abuse or a manufacturer's defect. I'm afraid you'll need to be a little more specific.

[Whiplash]

My twoofer is missing a piece; have you seen it?

You may have to write to the manufacturer.

[RedIbis]

If they think the pilots of the planes were in on it, then either the pilots agreed to kill themselves for the NWO or right to get oil in Iraq...or the pilots didn't exist and the airline, the families, the colleges where they were educated and all kinds of other institutions agreed to pretend that they existed.

If they think the government hired known Al-Qaeda members to hijack the plane in completely unrehearsed fashion, with no cooperation by the passengers and pilots (and thus no guarantee that it would work)...then you can ask why or how Al-Qaeda would agree to help the government do this and then take full blame without ever speaking up.

It really causes their side to fall apart like a Sloppy Joe.

This is really the only two possibilities you can think of?

[OneShotKi11]

Honestly, I'm not sure what your point is...anyone who disbelieves the official explanation has to give SOME method by which the passenger/pilot deaths happened, and it's nigh impossible to do. Furthermore, I don't see the insult in referring to them by a term they use to refer to themselves.

Did I mention that the pilots had wives and children? Were the kids in on it or did the pilots just decide to up and kill themselves without telling them?

Im just saying that i have seen truthers who believe the Planes were legitimately high jacked, and that other things were more suspicious on 9/11.

Different people have different ideas about that day. Some dont refer to themselves as truthers. Just disbelievers....

[EGarrett]

That's easy! Al-Qaeda wasn't informed they were working for U.S. agents. The U.S. agents, themselves, worked undercover as terrorist organizers: Folks with a common enemy and goal as Al-Qaeda! And, they could easily be allies in the destruction of the Evil Western Infidels!

As part of the agreement, these undercover agents would grant Al-Qaeda permission to claim sole responsability for it all, just to sweeten the deal.First paragraph is a very good one. It at least pushes the question back onto how the U.S. itself would be able to infilitrate and manipulate Al-Qaeda. (You can't really ask why they would then refuse to find Bin Laden because the Truther could say they use him as a bogeyman who can always be on the loose.)

The second paragraph I think starts to fall apart again, though. I can see the argument then going "how did the US get Al-Qaeda to claim responsibility." "they faked the tapes." "why hasn't Al-Qaeda said the tapes were fake?"

OP is flawed. It assumes that patsies know they are patsies. This however does not have to be the case.

My answer to OP.

1. All people on the flights actually boarded planes. Those planes were destroyed and those people died.

2. The "terrorists" aboard the planes may or may not have actually been terrorists. They could have just been regular passengers or they could have been patsies, but this being unknown to them.So far so good...(except that Al-Qaeda would have to be in on it for their own operatives to be patsies on the planes)

I think the biggest obstacle to this kind of plan is that the planes would have had to have been "guided" into their targets.

This means they were;

1. Pre-rigged with a guidence system

2. Guided by someone into the buildings

For #1, the people who pre-rigged the planes wouldn't have to know the grand outcome of such actions. They have may been told it was a legitimate part of a plan to test new technology or something.

For #2, this person would need to know the entire conspiracy.

So in my plan only 1 person needs to know the overall conspiracy, not thousands or even hundreds.Problem! This doesn't answer the pilot half of the question. You have a group of pilots with employment history, families and friends who just died and disappeared.

I assume you're proposing that the pilots themselves guided the planes somehow, or were aware they were being guided, OR at the least agreed to pretend they were being hijacked. This means that the pilots were in on it and didn't tell their families/friends/children/co-workers that they were going to die or disappear, or those thousands of people are in on the conspiracy.

And if the pilots thought they were being legitimately hijacked, then who the heck was hijacking the plane?

This is really the only two possibilities you can think of?That's the only possibility YOU can think of for why I would only list two?

Im just saying that i have seen truthers who believe the Planes were legitimately high jacked, and that other things were more suspicious on 9/11.They must examine their own version of events in the same way that they examine the official version. That means they should definitely think about these things.

Different people have different ideas about that day. Some dont refer to themselves as truthers. Just disbelievers....Okay. How about I refer to them as "The Explanatorily Challenged." Is that nice enough for you?

[X]

OP is flawed. It assumes that patsies know they are patsies. This however does not have to be the case.

My answer to OP.

1. All people on the flights actually boarded planes. Those planes were destroyed and those people died.

2. The "terrorists" aboard the planes may or may not have actually been terrorists. They could have just been regular passengers or they could have been patsies, but this being unknown to them.


But you agree, then, that the individuals identified as "terrorists" (regardless, for the time being, of them actually being terrorists) were onn the plane, and were idnetified using the DNA and other evidence?
If so, why the tantrum over the DNA?



I think the biggest obstacle to this kind of plan is that the planes would have had to have been "guided" into their targets.

This means they were;

1. Pre-rigged with a guidence system

2. Guided by someone into the buildings

For #1, the people who pre-rigged the planes wouldn't have to know the grand outcome of such actions. They have may been told it was a legitimate part of a plan to test new technology or something.

For #2, this person would need to know the entire conspiracy.

So in my plan only 1 person needs to know the overall conspiracy, not thousands or even hundreds.


And the people who pre-rigged the plane have not spoken out.
It doesn't matter. The "guidance system" claim has been shown to be impossible in the application considered.




And all this is irrelevat to the OP, which is for truthers to explain what happened to the passengers and crew.
You seem to be saying they died in the crashes, but that they had no control over the plane.
Other truthers, especially those who claim no planes or fake planes, have a very serious problem in EGarrets post.

Thus far, there heven't been very many responses from the normally vociferous "faked crash" set.

I wonder why...

[RedIbis]

That's the only possibility YOU can think of for why I would only list two?



When you present two possibilities, it appears you are presenting two possibilities. Which is what you did. This is known as the false choice fallacy.

[1337m4n]

When you present two possibilities, it appears you are presenting two possibilities. Which is what you did. This is known as the false choice fallacy.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The false dilemma fallacy is where you, for instance, provide two possibilities when there are actually three or more.

If, however, you provide two possibilities when there are actually...well, just two, then there is no fallacy and the argument is logically sound.

The burden is on the person claiming "false dilemma" (in this case, you) to show that there is at least one option not listed.

I've noticed you have a habit of doing this, RedIbis. Claiming "False dilemma!" without providing even one example to back it up, or even understanding what a "false dilemma" actually is.

[RedIbis]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The false dilemma fallacy is where you, for instance, provide two possibilities when there are actually three or more.

If, however, you provide two possibilities when there are actually...well, just two, then there is no fallacy and the argument is logically sound.

The burden is on the person claiming "false dilemma" (in this case, you) to show that there is at least one option not listed.

I've noticed you have a habit of doing this, RedIbis. Claiming "False dilemma!" without providing even one example to back it up, or even understanding what a "false dilemma" actually is.

If you think I'm wrong, you're suggesting that there are only two possibilities and your imagination is just as limited as the author of the OP. Is that what you're going with?

[Dave Rogers]

If you think I'm wrong, you're suggesting that there are only two possibilities and your imagination is just as limited as the author of the OP. Is that what you're going with?

If you think you're right, all you have to do is provide a third possibility and demonstrate that it's distinct and different to the first two. Then everyone will have to admit that you had a point. Fancy a try?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

I think the biggest obstacle to this kind of plan is that the planes would have had to have been "guided" into their targets.

This means they were;

1. Pre-rigged with a guidence system

2. Guided by someone into the buildings

For #1, the people who pre-rigged the planes wouldn't have to know the grand outcome of such actions. They have may been told it was a legitimate part of a plan to test new technology or something.

For #2, this person would need to know the entire conspiracy.

So in my plan only 1 person needs to know the overall conspiracy, not thousands or even hundreds.

But this supposes that, as a minimum, two Boeing 757s and two Boeing 767s were equipped with automated guidance systems capable of overriding the physical movements of the controls made by the pilot(s), whether airline pilot or unwitting patsy hijacker. It's been shown repeatedly that this would require radically different control systems to those fitted to either of these types of airliner. These four modified airliners would have to have been either:

(1) Different aircraft, already in existence prior to the attack, and their existence unrecorded, because there are no other 757s or 767s unaccounted for from that day. This requires that Boeing be in on the conspiracy at some level, because even if they were unaware of the significance of having produced additional planes at the time of production, it's hardly possible that everyone concerned is still unaware of that significance.

Or:

(2) The actual airliners claimed to have been destroyed in the 9/11 attacks. These four aircraft would therefore have to have been temporarily withdrawn from service by AA and UA while the required modifications were carried out, and AA and UA would have to have been consulted and to have complied with the modification process. It utterly beggars belief to suppose that nobody working for either of these airlines would subsequently happen to notice that the two of their airliners destroyed on 9/11 just happened to be the same two that were modified to be remote control capable.

Therefore, as an absolute minimum, the remote control theory requires the collusion, at least after the event, of significant numbers of people working for either Boeing or AA/UA.

It gets worse, though. The people who pre-rigged the airplanes would not then lose their memories of the modifications carried out. They may well have been told that it was part of a legitimate plan to test new technology, but for how long could this deception be maintained? And, more importantly, how would the one person at the head of the conspiracy be able to safeguard the secret against the possibility that one of the technicians would talk?

This is where all the only-a-few-needed-to-know theories fall down. Even though it might be possible to construct the attacks without large numbers of people knowing in advance, there is no conceivable way to construct a suitable conspiracy where the reasonably intelligent cannot easily divine the nature of the conspiracy after the fact. And since this certainty is impossible, the conspiracy itself becomes too dangerous to contemplate.

Dave

[EGarrett]

When you present two possibilities, it appears you are presenting two possibilities. Which is what you did. This is known as the false choice fallacy.And you presented one possibility for why I might do so in your reply, which appears that you are presenting only one possibility. This is known as ignorance of the many reasons I might have posted that way.

[1337m4n]

If you think I'm wrong, you're suggesting that there are only two possibilities and your imagination is just as limited as the author of the OP. Is that what you're going with?

That's exactly what I'm going with. Let's see your counterexample, smug guy. I won't let you dodge your way out of this one. Counterexample. Now! *snaps fingers*

[PhantomWolf]

The major problem for the Truthers is that their hate of Bush has them focused on the Republican Party. They seem to believe that an idiot like Bush and a fool of a Rumsfield could manage to put together a delicate and well orchestrated plan like 9/11 in just seven months, and some how have managed to allow the "Patsies" into the US before Bush even announced he was running for President. How dumb can you be?

The real genius behind 9/11 was the pot smoking, draft dodging, Monica wearing, William Jefferson Clinton!

That's right, the whole thing was not to get oil from Iraq (what a silly idea, if you want oil, invade Canada,) it was to destroy the Republican Party!

Think about it. In the November 8th, 1994, elections, the Republicans gained control of Congress, just three months later, on February 7th, 1995, Ramzi Yousef, the WTC Bomber, was arrested at the Su-Casa Guest House in Islamabad, Pakistan, as he tried to escape to Afghanistan and join Al Qaeda. We have since learned that he was not alone there. The Guest House registry shows that one Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was there at the same time. Since the US Authorities were looking for him also at the time how is it possible they overlooked his presence right under their noses? The answer is they didn't.

It is obvious that they arrested both and saw an opportunity to get a man inside Osama Bin Laden's organisation. Yousef refused and so was deported to the US and tried for the WTC Bombing. Khalid however did agree to become a double agent and so was let go with the flimsy excuse that they never knew he was there.

Now comes the darkest and most treacherous part. Seeing Clinton's rating dropping, and knowing that they would be in trouble, the Leadership of the Democrats came up with a devious plan. First they got in contact with their double agent and started him working through the Al Qaeda Networks he had now successfully infiltrated. They already had a plan, he'd worked it out years back, so all they had to do was green light it and make sure that once his operatives were in the US, they weren't uncovered, that is easy when you control both the FBI and the CIA and get to make the rules on how much they can talk. Next they would throw the 2000 election and make sure that the Republicans were in full power in the USA's darkest hour, but even more cunning, it would be thrown in such a way as to make the Republicans look like they stole it.

It was already known that Florida was a swing state, and with Bush's brother there as Governor, it was the perfect place for an ambush. By carefully pushing the votes in the right direction they could make sure that everything hinged on Florida. By carefully making sure that invalid votes and wrongly marked votes all gave the exit polling a large Gore majority, but in the counting lead to a defeat, they could swing the public's opinion to believed that the Republicans stole it, after all who would be checking up on the apparent losers, right?

So by February 2001 the pieces had fallen into place. Bush had been given the presidency, KSM's men were in place and training up, the Democrats even managed to pull off a minor coup by getting Democrat appointees Clarke and Tenet to keep their posts under the new Republican Executive. This meant that two of the most crucial pieces on the board weren't replaced as one would expect, and where able to later add further to the claims of Bush's incompetence in the seven moths leading up to the attack.

The Democrats knew, just like everyone else should have, that Bush hated Sadaam and just needed an excuse to go after him. Sadaam had attempted to assassinate Bush the Elder along with W's mum, a small spark in Sadaam's direction was all that would be needed. When the attacks happened and the buildings came down, all without the need for hidden explosives, remote controlled aeroplanes, or concrete disintegrating space lasers, the Democrats believed that Bush would rush to war, the fact he didn't was actually the most unexpected part of the whole plan. Things seemed to be going wrong, so Bill rang his good friend Tony (people often forget that Bill and Tony were buddy/buddy before GW ever entered the picture.) Tony quickly made sure that evidence for WMD and links to Al Qaeda were dropped onto GW's desk, finally the things he needed to make his war. Note here that the Democrats didn't try and stop him, no they were there cheering him on!

To further seal it we can head to 2004. I mean come on; can anyone even suggest with a straight face that Kerry was really there to have a chance against Bush? What better way to make sure of your plans than to ban the guy that has a chance (Gore) and instead put up a candidate that would have lost to a chimp (actually I think he did, but that's a different conspiracy.)

We often hear people say "Who had the most to gain?" Well I know who did. For the first time since 1994 the Democrats control Congress. They will soon most likely control all three branches of the Legislature. The Republican Party is at an all time low, despised and hated by many. The Democrats have the chance to come in and be seen as the heroes that not only got the US out of two unpopular wars, but were able to restore the world's opinion of the US. They have the chance to return to the times before 1955 when they almost exclusively held power and all because of one President. Yet time and again all the strings lead back not to Bush, but to Clinton and the DNC! It was Clinton that appointed Tenet and Clarke. It was Clinton that setup the rules on communications between Law Enforcement and Intelligence. It was Clinton that stripped the ANG of its readied planes. It was on Clinton's watch that the Hijackers got into the country. It was Clinton that time and again refused to allow strikes against Osama even when they had good intel on where he was. Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. The evidence is undeniable!

edited to add: Oh I should point out to make this more on topic.... How many of the Passangers were major Democrats? None! But look at the listings for Republicans. The wife of the man who won Bush's case for President was on one of the planes. More proof it was the Democrats! What better way to punish the lawyer that "beat" you in court than to kill his family?

[RedIbis]

That's exactly what I'm going with. Let's see your counterexample, smug guy. I won't let you dodge your way out of this one. Counterexample. Now! *snaps fingers*

Just for being obnoxious, I'll make you wait.

[CurtC]

This means they were;

1. Pre-rigged with a guidence system

2. Guided by someone into the buildings

...

So in my plan only 1 person needs to know the overall conspiracy, not thousands or even hundreds.
No, there are still at least hundreds who would have knowledge that could blow the whole conspiracy apart. It would take the work of hundreds of people to retrofit a control system onto a 757/767 that couldn't be overriden by the pilots. Every one of them would be the loose thread that could unravel the whole conspiracy. Your conspiracy theory would require that every one of at least hundreds of people could be relied on never to either develop a conscience (if they had prior knowledge), or to spill the beans on the big guys who murdered 3000 of their fellow citizens (if they didn't have prior knowledge).

Every one of them. So, Sizzler, since you seem to have the idea that people can be kept quiet about treasonous dealings simply by buying them off, that must mean that you have your price. So what would it take for you, Sizzler, to cover up the murder of 3000 fellow Americans? A million bux?

[OneShotKi11]

They must examine their own version of events in the same way that they examine the official version. That means they should definitely think about these things.

Well what exactly does that mean?
Everyone who looks at 9/11 has to definitely think about these things.
Whats your point?

This is where my point comes in. Your assuming that all of them are examining the situation and coming to the conclusions you stated they have in your OP. Thus you post your argument clearly disproving that thought process and then claim victory over all conspiracy theorists.
When in all actuality you gave "them" there flawed argument and then you disproved it.
(Yes, i know some do actually believe it in this version. So to be fair you infact have stumped those who do so cleverly)

Like i said not all of them believe the same thing. So claiming to have victory over all of them because you disproved this version is silly.

[OneShotKi11]

PhantomWolf.....

OMG!

Write a book! Go get rich quick and then come back and debate us from your own privately owned island.

[RedIbis]

If you think you're right, all you have to do is provide a third possibility and demonstrate that it's distinct and different to the first two. Then everyone will have to admit that you had a point. Fancy a try?

Dave

Sizzler has already provided several beyond the two presented by the OP. Not to say any of these is the actual scenario, only to suggest that there are a multitude of scenarios within the realm of possibility.

[johnny karate]

Sizzler has already provided several beyond the two presented by the OP. Not to say any of these is the actual scenario, only to suggest that there are a multitude of scenarios within the realm of possibility.

Unless "several" means "one", you might want to go back and count how many scenarios Sizzler actually provided.

And if you would have kept reading, you would have seen in the very next post after the one you quoted, Dave demonstrates how Sizzler's scenario is actually just a version of the first option in the OP, i.e. some type of convoluted fakery that would involve the collusion of many people.

So we're back to your spurious "false dilemma" claim being unsubstantiated. Ball's in your court, champ.

[Wowbagger]

The second paragraph I think starts to fall apart again, though.The second part was not as important as the first. I mean, maybe Al-Qaeda was just greedy. They took all the credit for themselves, in spite of their help from their friends in the other terrorist group, just because they're the kinds of freaks who would act that way.

[RedIbis]

Unless "several" means "one", you might want to go back and count how many scenarios Sizzler actually provided.

And if you would have kept reading, you would have seen in the very next post after the one you quoted, Dave demonstrates how Sizzler's scenario is actually just a version of the first option in the OP, i.e. some type of convoluted fakery that would involve the collusion of many people.

So we're back to your spurious "false dilemma" claim being unsubstantiated. Ball's in your court, champ.

Well, we'll just have to disagree because I didn't see the OP affording for the possibilities that Sizzler described.

[johnny karate]

Well, we'll just have to disagree because I didn't see the OP affording for the possibilities that Sizzler described.

Disagree all you want, but you're wrong.

Their conspiracy quickly falls apart and it becomes obvious that the whole thing, with victims, would be impossible to fake without involving hundreds of thousands of victim's family members and airline owners and employees being involved.

Egarrett is describing a scenario involving fakery and the complicity of certain groups of people.


1. All people on the flights actually boarded planes. Those planes were destroyed and those people died.

2. The "terrorists" aboard the planes may or may not have actually been terrorists. They could have just been regular passengers or they could have been patsies, but this being unknown to them.

I think the biggest obstacle to this kind of plan is that the planes would have had to have been "guided" into their targets.

This means they were;

1. Pre-rigged with a guidence system

2. Guided by someone into the buildings

Sizzler is describing a scenario involving fakery (remotely controlled airplanes) and the complicity of a certain group of people (the airline technicians and employees who installed and/or were aware of the guidance systems).

You'll need to explain how those scenarios differ enough to consider them separate options before you're off the hook for claiming a false dilemma fallacy.

[1337m4n]

Well, we'll just have to disagree because I didn't see the OP affording for the possibilities that Sizzler described.

Sizzler is already answered in the OP!

Ask them what happened to the passengers and pilots who supposedly died. Their conspiracy quickly falls apart and it becomes obvious that the whole thing, with victims, would be impossible to fake without involving hundreds of thousands of victim's family members and airline owners and employees being involved.

Dave's analysis shows precisely this. The OP affords for Sizzler's possibility, then promptly shoots it down.

[funk de fino]

Well, we'll just have to disagree because I didn't see the OP affording for the possibilities that Sizzler described.

You have an aknowledgment in the willie and rosie thread to the poster who got the source you asked for. You know, the one that proves willie is a liar.

You really should start manning up when you get shown up instead of running from it and hoping no-one notices.

[Pinch]

Ask them what happened to the passengers and pilots who supposedly died.

Yeah...its always fun to watch them go into catatonic vapor lock, sputtering with veins popping on their forehead and throbbing in their neck.

Predicatable, though, as they go into their pre-determined excuse matrix:

1) I don't know! That's for you to find out!
2) I'm only asking questions!
3) It was destroyed/flown out over the ocean and shot down/landed in Cleveland/landed at DCA/landed somewhere!
4) I'm not answering because it is off-topic. So there. Pthhhhhhh.

[Dave Rogers]

1) I don't know! That's for you to find out!
2) I'm only asking questions!
3) It was destroyed/flown out over the ocean and shot down/landed in Cleveland/landed at DCA/landed somewhere!
4) I'm not answering because it is off-topic. So there. Pthhhhhhh.

You forgot:

5) There's another perfectly sensible explanation, but I'm not telling you what it is because you were nasty to me.

Not that anyone's tried that round here lately.

Dave

[I Ratant]

I tell the twoofer to get the passenger list for the flight that didn't hit the Pentagon, and go to the homes of the survivors, and ask as to the "true" whereabouts of the persons on the list.
And caution the twoofer to have an ambulance right there, he'll be needing it to get to the ER.

[240-185]

Ask them what happened to the passengers and pilots who supposedly died.

Already asked.
All I got was a " " or a "But look at the hole! You'll see that blah blah blah"

[Sizzler]

Dave R. wrote:

Even though it might be possible to construct the attacks without large numbers of people knowing in advance, there is no conceivable way to construct a suitable conspiracy where the reasonably intelligent cannot easily divine the nature of the conspiracy after the fact. And since this certainty is impossible, the conspiracy itself becomes too dangerous to contemplate.

This quote sums up much of the responses to my earlier scenerio.

The problem is that this is an argument from personal incredulity.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

The truth movement likes to use arguments from personal incredulity a lot too.

1. No plane could enter airspace around pentagon.
2. Interceptors are efficient always.
3. Skyscrapper don't "globally" collapse due to fire.
4. Office fires don't produce sulfidization of steel.

and the list goes on...


p.s. I missed a lot of other comments (sorry for wide brush). Repost and I will reply if you desire.

[johnny karate]

The problem is that this is an argument from personal incredulity.

Incorrect.

The key word here is "personal". If I claim your position is invalid because I personally am incredulous of it, that is an argument from personal incredulity.

However, if I claim your position is invalid because it flies in the face of reason, that is not an argument from personal incredulity anymore than doubting the existence of unicorns is an argument from personal incredulity.

You have outlined a scenario that Dave has rather succinctly demonstrated to be untenable. It is up to you to demonstrate the contrary. You don't just get to claim "argument from personal incredulity" and declare victory.

[Sizzler]

Incorrect.

The key word here is "personal". If I claim your position is invalid because I personally am incredulous of it, that is an argument from personal incredulity.

However, if I claim your position is invalid because it flies in the face of reason, that is not an argument from personal incredulity anymore than doubting the existence of unicorns is an argument from personal incredulity.

You have outlined a scenario that Dave has rather succinctly demonstrated to be untenable. It is up to you to demonstrate the contrary. You don't just get to claim "argument from personal incredulity" and declare victory.

First and foremost I am not declaring victory. My scenerio was brief and does indeed have a lot of problems that could be addressed.

His argument; this one,

Even though it might be possible to construct the attacks without large numbers of people knowing in advance, there is no conceivable way to construct a suitable conspiracy where the reasonably intelligent cannot easily divine the nature of the conspiracy after the fact. And since this certainty is impossible, the conspiracy itself becomes too dangerous to contemplate.

fits perfectly with this definition (bolding mine for emphasis)

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

Sorry but it is true, as are the examples I provided of truth movement fallacies.

[johnny karate]

Sorry but it is true, as are the examples I provided of truth movement fallacies.

If you believe that then you woefully misunderstand what the argument from personal incredulity fallacy is or how to apply it.

You can't just make up any stupid scenario and then cry "argument from personal incredulity" to everyone that tells you how stupid it is.

Your scenario must first be logical and have some basis in reality. Yours is neither.

[Sizzler]

If you believe that then you woefully misunderstand what the argument from personal incredulity fallacy is or how to apply it.

You can't just make up any stupid scenario and then cry "argument from personal incredulity" to everyone that tells you how stupid it is.

Your scenario must first be logical and have some basis in reality. Yours is neither.

His claim is that there is NO WAY to create a conspiracy that wouldn't be "discovered" after the fact, in particular, by any workers that installed hypothetical guidence systems into the planes. He further states that any reasonably educated person would not only figure it out, but also report it to the authorities.

He cannot support such claim, so he simply asserts it as IMPOSSIBLE.

This argument by lack of imagination is sometimes expressed in the form "Y is absurd (because I can not imagine it), therefore it must be untrue," or "It is hard to see how..." [ie I personally cannot see, or lack imagination, how]

[Jontg]

That's not an argument from incredulity, it's an argument from logistics. The only way the conspiracy you postulate could have existed this long without a single whistleblower, leak, or plain old rat is if every single person who was involved is either a psychopathic robot or dead.

[Sizzler]

That's not an argument from incredulity, it's an argument from logistics. The only way the conspiracy you postulate could have existed this long without a single whistleblower, leak, or plain old rat is if every single person who was involved is either a psychopathic robot or dead.

Says you.

[Dave Rogers]

Sizzler, your original argument was:

For #1, the people who pre-rigged the planes wouldn't have to know the grand outcome of such actions. They have may been told it was a legitimate part of a plan to test new technology or something.

I have demonstrated that it would be necessary for either Boeing to have produced four airliners whose existence was never recorded, or for American Airlines and United Airlines to have withdrawn the aircraft used for flights AA11, AA77, UA175 and UA93 on 9/11. Either of these would require large numbers of people to be aware of the fact that something unusual was in progress. In either case, there is also a requirement for a completely new remote control system to be designed, tailored to fit the physical and flight characteristics of the 757 and 767, parts sourced and paid for, the installation work carried out, and the airliners tested. This requires the involvement of large numbers of people, who would be aware that they had carried out these operations. They would therefore be in possession of knowledge about the nature of the conspiracy. It's conceivable that the four airplanes could have been withdrawn and modified separately in such a way that nobody was aware of the modification of more than one, but this multiplies by four the number of people involved. It is not an argument from incredulity to claim that all the people involved would therefore possess sufficient knowledge to arouse suspicion. It is, perhaps, an argument from incredulity to claim that some of them must therefore act on this suspicion, but it forms no part of your original claim that they would or would not have.

I think your problem here is that your definition of an argument from incredulity is excessively broad. From a solipsistic point of view, every possible argument must be an argument from incredulity, as it assumes the implausibility of the scenario where every aspect of perceived reality is either simulated or imagined. We have to take a more limited view of the argument from incredulity. In this case, it is reasonable to state that people who have carried out certain actions must be aware of the actions they have carried out; it is not an argument from incredulity for me to say that I cannot conceive of anyone radically modifying the control systems of an airliner without being aware that they had, in fact, radically modified the control systems of an airliner.

Dave