Conspiracy Theories are too Convoluted

[Hishighness]

The way I look at it is, all these 9/11 Conspiracy Theories I hear are so preposterous, like the missle shooting out of Flight 175, holograms, a missile hitting the Pentagon, Flight 93 being shot down instead of crashing or landing in Cleveland.

What I say to all this is why would anyone make the operation so complex? If it were me running it I'd simply hire guys to hijack the planes, or maybe have agents like Bin Ladin who work for me "recruit" them and then let them do their thing.

- Why would you shoot a missle or a different type of plane at the Pentagon? Why would you risk someone getting a picture of it and getting it to the media before you can stop them or seeing it clearly and blowing your cover?

- Why would you shoot down Flight 93 if it's on your side? Why would you deny shooting it down if you did? Again why risk someone seeing or recording it and proving you're a liar?


- Why would you need to shoot a missle out of flight 175? The impact and jet fuel would be enough.

- HOLOGRAMS?!?!?


Now, like I say general skeptism of any administration. especially this one is healthy, and I could believe that they either aided 9/11 or caused it to happen, but only in the way we've heard. To do it any other way would be too dangerous.

[Cuddles]

Because every time something is proved so wrong that even they have to accept it they have to come up with yet more reasons why the government did it. All the simple ideas have been used up, so the theory gets more and more complicated. Either that or they just have too much time on their hands.

[defaultdotxbe]

yeah, whenever something is proved wrong they have to change the "truth" to get around it

for example, planes hit towers, towers fall down, CTs say the towers shouldnt have fallen from being hit by planes, ASSE says they should have

so CTers now have to say there were no planes.....no planes, no fuel, no damage, no option but CD

i foudn that if i spend too much time tryign to make sense of conspiracy theories i get a massive headache

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And the major problems of post hoc reasoning are thus highlighted.

[XXX]

You didn;t mention the "low yield H-bomb" in the towers theory. I'm actually being hit with this one now.

[defaultdotxbe]

well first off, h-bombs (fusion warheads) arent low yeild, u-bombs (fission) are

[mrflame]

Hi, I'm a new Member of the Forum, so I beg your pardon for misunderstanding smth. :boxedin:
I won't explain my thoughts 'bout 9/11... for now. But as a parallel line I'll tell you a story 'bout a forein (for me, of course) plane landed on Red Square of Moscow in XX century.

In 1987 a German amateur pilot Matteus Rust flyed over Russian border and landed exactly on the Red Square. How could this happen? We (russians) have an awful air-defence? Or a pilot were not an amateus but hi-level spesialist? Knowing the facts I striktly say NO.

A friend of mine served in Russian army (we've got liability for military service) in the Air-defence force as a lieutenant. And every soldier on that base knows the situation: How could them stop him? The only way to stop the plane is to shot it down. An what do you think, could our goverment give such an order (as you remember that time The Cold war had not end yet). So they redirected responsibility to make such a decision to the commander of the guncrew, and he simply could't deal with it. So Rust happily went throw our defense (with the convoy of our fighters (Su-37)) and landed.

And accident (act of terrorism) happened to you is generally the same. The only difference is the following - your defensers couldn't shot them down because of two facts the lack of time to think and your citizens onboard. That is my opinoin.


As for different interpretations and thougths 'bout the accident, your goverment simply tryes to drive you demented and to decline all responsibility


P.S. Sorry for my English (I'm a Russian) :rolleyes:

Anton

[gumboot]

well first off, h-bombs (fusion warheads) arent low yeild, u-bombs (fission) are

But surely the cone of destruction makes a difference right? ;)

-Andrew

[defaultdotxbe]

But surely the cone of destruction makes a difference right? ;)

-Andrew

the real irony is the supposed "military expert" who wrote that theory could have claimed it was a nuclear device that was actually built and tested in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

[Cuddles]

This is a very good example, mrflame. Air defense was based around stopping military attacks, no-one had ever thought civilian aircraft would need to be shot down. In both your example and 9/11 there was no protocol to stop civilian aircraft and so no descision was made until it was too late. Most CTers can't seem to accept this for some reason.

[mrflame]

The metter is that in both variants (either the plane crashed into WTC or it had been shot down) innocent people onboard wouldn't survive (...it hard even to write it...) The another situation could be to the visitors of WTC (If the plane had not reached its horrible target).

But nobody can make such a decision to shot it down 'cause one understand that there are people onboard, their families are watching TVs, and one hopes that there IS another solving...and he can save everyone.... that's horrible but it is true

[tkingdoll]

In both your example and 9/11 there was no protocol to stop civilian aircraft and so no descision was made until it was too late. Most CTers can't seem to accept this for some reason.

I think the reason is obvious. In the minds of the CTists, who are a group of people who are struggling to accept the awful thing that happened (and this is their way of dealing with that), there should have been a protocol to stop civilian aircraft. There should have been something to stop civilian aircraft smashing into the twin towers. But there was not, and that is unacceptable to a certain mindset.

So, rather than face the fact that some people did something evil and the government was powerless to stop it (because that would mean that they, the CTists, the entire country as well, are vulnerable at any time, in any place), they create a fabrication that only removes the possibility that terrorists can and do attack America, but also lays the blame (and therefore the guilt) of the whole thing on the shoulders of the Government.

This way, it's not just the Government's failing to have a protocol to deal with a civilian plane attack (which is not enough BLAME for a crime so huge as 9/11), they are responsible for the whole thing. Bin Laden hasn't been caught, no-one has been punished properly for this atrocity. Someone must be blamed, and so these conspiracy theories crop up.

It's the perfect way of making the blame fit the crime.

That's my take on it, anyway.

[Hishighness]

You didn;t mention the "low yield H-bomb" in the towers theory. I'm actually being hit with this one now.

LOL, They're persistent I'll give them that.

How do they get around the complete lack of radiation sickness in NYC?

[gumboot]

LOL, They're persistent I'll give them that.

How do they get around the complete lack of radiation sickness in NYC?

Oh that's what all the Ground Zero workers are dying of...

Someone better tell the Naudet brothers...:rolleyes:

-Andrew

[mrflame]

there should have been a protocol to stop civilian aircraft.


Can you imagine such a protocol? I have to remind you that a plane is not a Hammer or a cow. One just cannot simply stop it but only shoot it down. And about such a fact I've aready told here at 04:22 PM.

But still I understand your resentment...

You see, we've already stepped in the XXl century and by this time non-pilot planes are invented and exist. Wy can't we install such a system on our civilian planes. Then we can remotly switch off the manual control of the plane and land it. To my mind it should be rather easy, why not? :eye-poppi

[Darth Rotor]

I think the reason is obvious. In the minds of the CTists, who are a group of people who are struggling to accept the awful thing that happened (and this is their way of dealing with that), there should have been a protocol to stop civilian aircraft. There should have been something to stop civilian aircraft smashing into the twin towers. But there was not, and that is unacceptable to a certain mindset.

So, rather than face the fact that some people did something evil and the government was powerless to stop it (because that would mean that they, the CTists, the entire country as well, are vulnerable at any time, in any place), they create a fabrication that only removes the possibility that terrorists can and do attack America, but also lays the blame (and therefore the guilt) of the whole thing on the shoulders of the Government.

This way, it's not just the Government's failing to have a protocol to deal with a civilian plane attack (which is not enough BLAME for a crime so huge as 9/11), they are responsible for the whole thing. Bin Laden hasn't been caught, no-one has been punished properly for this atrocity. Someone must be blamed, and so these conspiracy theories crop up.

It's the perfect way of making the blame fit the crime.

That's my take on it, anyway.
Well put. The Leadership in Washington during 9-11 were to my way of seeing it somewhat insecure in their political position. Barely squeaked out a win, and they were moving very furtively on a variety of policies other than tax cuts. The political courage to "do the right thing" and shoot down an aircraft (I am still wondering how the F-16 pilot would have felt when he reported "Fox One" had one of the airliners been ordered shot down) was in my opinion lacking. The fear of blame after the fact was in my opinion far too high until we all saw what lack of will woudl do.

Put in military air control jargon, any airliner in the air over the US must "squawk or die." Given that most of the airline pilots over the US are ex military, it's an easy sell.

DR

[tkingdoll]

Can you imagine such a protocol? I have to remind you that a plane is not a Hammer or a cow. One just cannot simply stop it but only shoot it down. And about such a fact I've aready told here at 04:22 PM.

But still I understand your resentment...




No, no, you misunderstand my sentiment. I harbour no resentment about 9/11, none whatsoever. I'm not talking about me at all.

I was offering my opinion into the mindset of CTists, in that one of their motivations may well be their lack of acceptance that anyone (especially someone from a less-developed country) could simply take over a plane and fly it into a New York skyscraper. In that mindset (not mine), there should have been mechanisms in place to stop that happening, because it just seems too impossible that anyone could succeed in an assault like that. And it's the impossibility of it that stops people accepting it as the truth. They would rather paint their own government as a fiendishly clever, plotting, genius evil conspiracy machine than accept that their goverment was, when it came to 9/11, completely powerless.

By 'should', I meant the same mentality that says 'he died from an overdose. I should have seen this coming, I should have known he had a problem'. It's not the same as saying "this was practically possible", it's just a way of apportioning blame.

[MRC_Hans]

The metter is that in both variants (either the plane crashed into WTC or it had been shot down) innocent people onboard wouldn't survive (...it hard even to write it...) The another situation could be to the visitors of WTC (If the plane had not reached its horrible target).

But nobody can make such a decision to shot it down 'cause one understand that there are people onboard, their families are watching TVs, and one hopes that there IS another solving...and he can save everyone.... that's horrible but it is trueWell, if they HAD shot down the planes, we would now be hearing the CTers clamoring that the planes were not even hijacked, they just had a slight navigation failure (or even that was faked), but the evil gubmint had somebody onboard they needed to silence ... or something along similar lines.

The hard and cynical fact is that the best thing the government could do in the situation was to let the planes continue; at least that made it clear to most people that it was an act of terrorism. Had they shot them down, even sensible people could be asking: Was that really necessary?

In the Rust case, it somewhat the same: They could shoot him down and face a lot of unpleasant music, or they could let him fly on and look incompetent - the devil or the deep blue sea. At least they would know that he was relatively harmless (it is very limited what nasty things can be onboard a small sports plane, together with fuel for such a long trip).

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

You see, we've already stepped in the XXl century and by this time non-pilot planes are invented and exist. Wy can't we install such a system on our civilian planes. Then we can remotly switch off the manual control of the plane and land it. To my mind it should be rather easy, why not? :eye-poppiWe can't because they are not safe enough. Same problem, really: IF a plane was taken on automatic and subsequently crashed (and what would keep hijackers from sabotaging it to crash?), people would be asking for absolute and irrefutable proof that the alternative was having hijackers fly it into a building, and how would you produce such proof, even post 9/11?

Hans

[gumboot]

(I am still wondering how the F-16 pilot would have felt when he reported "Fox One" had one of the airliners been ordered shot down)


Although it doesn't apply for the first aircraft... the guys who independently scrambled from Andrews were talking about ways to shoot down an airliner with only a few hundred rounds of practise ammunition for the 20mm.

They all concluded they'd just ram the wing root if necessary, and hope their fighter could blow a wing off.

They talked about getting the timing right and ejecting just before impact, but in the end, they were willing to sacrifice their own lives to stop an airliner. Of one thing they were adament - no more airliners were going to hit their targets that day.

(This was after the Pentagon crash but before UA93 IIRC).

It's a shame that NORAD were unaware of them - the 9/11 Commission made a big thing of the fact that NORAD could not have stopped UA93 if it had not crashed. While this might be true (it's questionable, but it might be true) the bottom line is the Andrews guys were already up, and someone (don't know who) had already told them they were free to engage. UA93 was never going to reach its target, even if it cost the lives of a couple of ANG fighter pilots on top of the passengers onboard.

Rather than inventing conspiracy theories, Americans should be expressing their gratitude that they have people of such calibre protecting them.

-Andrew

[mrflame]

2Tkingdoll:

To my mind both Government (for their strategy) and CTists (for their actions on site) are guilty. And thier blame grew because they did and doing almost nothing but apportion it (Do you know some new mesaures to prevent such a case in future? I don't)

It is disgusting and making angry when I see a happy and barefaced Bin Ladin on my TV. Why can't special forces catch him? And I even don't mean your Delta because Bin Ladin is the common enemy of every civilized state. For example, we (Russians) have Alpha SF, which captured Amin's castle in 15 minutes... Wy they can't I really don't know...

This case reminds me our war in Caucasus (Chechnya). At that time Russian army could innihilale all the chechen rebels during a couple of days, but they did not. Do you know why? Because every war is a profitable to some people enterprise and they simply didn't want to lose the income...I beg your pardon for my style of speaking but they are *****************!!! I mean it!! :mad:

[mrflame]

how would you produce such proof, even post 9/11?

Hans

But I wouldn't have to do it. I'm responsible in ather areas unlike CTists. They shoul take any measures to reduce down to zero the amout of killed...every measures... that was their job and they did it badly.

One can't say 'I havn't done it because otherwise I wouldn't be able to explain the propriety of my deed, so they are all dead.'

He have to Feel the right way and follow it reducing the amout of possible kills

[alfaniner]

...I have a sneaking suspicion that "hisHighness" is someone else that used to post a lot of threads here... just an fyi. I don't really care, I'm just sayin'

[MRC_Hans]

But I wouldn't have to do it. I'm responsible in ather areas unlike CTists. They shoul take any measures to reduce down to zero the amout of killed...every measures... that was their job and they did it badly.

One can't say 'I havn't done it because otherwise I wouldn't be able to explain the propriety of my deed, so they are all dead.'

He have to Feel the right way and follow it reducing the amout of possible killsProblem is, it is better to be accused of doing your job badly than of killing innocent citizens for no good reason.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

...I have a sneaking suspicion that "hisHighness" is someone else that used to post a lot of threads here... just an fyi. I don't really care, I'm just sayin'A fairly new poster coming in on an old subject, seemingly agreeing with us all, but still attempting to grind ye old axe?

I simply don't know how you get such ideas :rolleyes: ;) . I NEVER saw such action from a sock .... since last time.

Hans

[gumboot]

It is disgusting and making angry when I see a happy and barefaced Bin Ladin on my TV. Why can't special forces catch him?


The military can only be as effective as the intelligence that is guiding them, and getting good intelligence on something like Al Qaeda is incredibly hard because they're fanatics.

Why hasn't Osama bin Laden been caught?

Simple answer: we don't know where he is.

Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. NZSAS are regarded as the best combat trackers in the world, and they have been scouring the hills and mountains of Afghanistan for a very long time.

-Andrew

[Hishighness]

...I have a sneaking suspicion that "hisHighness" is someone else that used to post a lot of threads here... just an fyi. I don't really care, I'm just sayin'You're more than welcome to believe wht you will. All I can do is say I've never been here before I registered a few days ago.

You're more than welcome to ask the admins to PM you my IP address and to check in to it in any way you see fit. I'll save you the time and give it to you now, although I still give permission for an admin to give it out to you to confirm I'm telling the truth. It's 24.224.12.58 I live in Nova Scotia, Canada, My ISP is called Eastlink although it might still be under the old name Accesswave. (cuz my email still is)

Anyway I've never been here before I registered the other day. I don't even know who you're referring to, although if he thinks like me he must be a very bright guy. ;)

[Hishighness]

It is disgusting and making angry when I see a happy and barefaced Bin Ladin on my TV. Why can't special forces catch him?They're looking for him in the wrong country, (I imagine he's in Pakistan, not Afghanistan) the administration tied the army's hands so they couldn't properly secure the Afghan side of the border, allowing him to slip through, and they bought off warlords, many of whom were loyal to OBL and who probably either let him get through for nothing or got offered more money by him.

[mrflame]

2Hishighness:

That happens because any war can be profitable and the administration don't want to end it (there can be no money (even loss of them) but a lot of other cabal opportunities)

[kevin]

Hi, I'm a new Member of the Forum, so I beg your pardon for misunderstanding smth. :boxedin:
I won't explain my thoughts 'bout 9/11... for now. But as a parallel line I'll tell you a story 'bout a forein (for me, of course) plane landed on Red Square of Moscow in XX century.


I totally forgot about that but an excellent point. In fact it made me remember an incident at the White House where someone attempted to fly a private plane into the White House.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/ustreas/usss/t1pubrpt.html

Here's some weird coincidences (or non coincidences perhaps):
Supposedly (according to rotten.com) the initial al Qaeda plan to crash planes into the WTC was started 4 days after the incident.

The original incident started on Sept. 11 (he didn't crash until Sept. 12).

http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/terrorism/terror-tactics/kamikaze-jet-hijacking/

[kevin]

You see, we've already stepped in the XXl century and by this time non-pilot planes are invented and exist. Wy can't we install such a system on our civilian planes. Then we can remotly switch off the manual control of the plane and land it. To my mind it should be rather easy, why not? :eye-poppi

Very bad idea. Humans are particularly bad at thinking about security over remote links. I believe that compromising the automatic system would be easier than the manual system.

Not to mention that once you've compromised one aircraft pretty much ALL of them are at risk immediately, with no more people needed. At least for the manual mode people are needed for each plane.

Finally, if your security is all about airplanes then terrorists will move to trains. If you add in trains, terrorists will move to mailboxes. Fighting terrorism is about following money trails and good intelligence (and no, I don't think gathering everyone's phone records is good intelligence)

[Hellbound]

They're looking for him in the wrong country, (I imagine he's in Pakistan, not Afghanistan) the administration tied the army's hands so they couldn't properly secure the Afghan side of the border, allowing him to slip through, and they bought off warlords, many of whom were loyal to OBL and who probably either let him get through for nothing or got offered more money by him.

Actually, it's because we don't have enough people in the army to secure a border that long, in rough terrain. You'd need at least a pair of soldiers every half-mile, and that's the guards pulling 12-hour shifts 7 days a week. And we haven't even gotten into support functions, intel, or securing the rest of the country.

2Hishighness:

That happens because any war can be profitable and the administration don't want to end it (there can be no money (even loss of them) but a lot of other cabal opportunities)

See my response above. It had nothing to do with it being profitable. It had everything to do with it being impossible with the number of troops we had, or could have within any reasonable time span.

[aggle-rithm]

Very bad idea. Humans are particularly bad at thinking about security over remote links. I believe that compromising the automatic system would be easier than the manual system.

Not to mention that once you've compromised one aircraft pretty much ALL of them are at risk immediately, with no more people needed. At least for the manual mode people are needed for each plane.

Finally, if your security is all about airplanes then terrorists will move to trains. If you add in trains, terrorists will move to mailboxes. Fighting terrorism is about following money trails and good intelligence (and no, I don't think gathering everyone's phone records is good intelligence)

Even if remote-controlled airline flight were perfectly safe, they could never convince the passengers that it is. The passengers will want to pilot to be on the plane with them, and to share their fate should anything happen.

Something similar to this is keeping gamma-irradiation from being used as a pasteurization method, even though it's far superior to anything we have now (imagine milk staying fresh at room temperature for weeks!). It's supposedly perfectly safe, but consumers don't trust it.

[Brainster]

What I say to all this is why would anyone make the operation so complex? If it were me running it I'd simply hire guys to hijack the planes, or maybe have agents like Bin Ladin who work for me "recruit" them and then let them do their thing.

A conspiracy theory is like a shark; it has to keep moving or it dies. The CTers could have stuck with the Pentagon missile story, but that would have been pretty dull for the members. By allowing for more and more layers to be added to the CT, it makes it possible for fresh contributions to the 9-11 Denial Movement by tying in some new "evidence". Note for example, the way many Deniers have embraced the "Abel Danger" information.

[gumboot]

Actually, it's because we don't have enough people in the army to secure a border that long, in rough terrain. You'd need at least a pair of soldiers every half-mile, and that's the guards pulling 12-hour shifts 7 days a week. And we haven't even gotten into support functions, intel, or securing the rest of the country.


Isn't there some rule... every soldier in the field needs 10 people supporting them, or 20, or something?

In other words (pulling the number out of my behind) if it takes 10,000 troops to maintain the border, you need 100,000 troops supporting those 10,000.

-Andrew

[Brainster]

I think the reason is obvious. In the minds of the CTists, who are a group of people who are struggling to accept the awful thing that happened (and this is their way of dealing with that), there should have been a protocol to stop civilian aircraft. There should have been something to stop civilian aircraft smashing into the twin towers. But there was not, and that is unacceptable to a certain mindset.

This is generally referred to as historicism; the mistake of judging the people of the past through the eyes of today. Fetzer and Avery have both made obnoxious comments about what they would do if confronted by a hijacker with boxcutters. Fetzer at least was truthful (that the passengers would kill the hijackers--today, that is). Dylan famously claimed he would laugh in their face; I suspect that would be after he changed his underwear. Nobody would have either of those things prior to 9-11.

There are CTers out there who claim that all four planes should have been shot down by the military if proper procedure had been followed, which is absurd. When did the US military intentionally shoot down an America passenger plane? And yet we know planes have been hijacked many times in the past.

[defaultdotxbe]

There are CTers out there who claim that all four planes should have been shot down by the military if proper procedure had been followed, which is absurd. When did the US military intentionally shoot down an America passenger plane? And yet we know planes have been hijacked many times in the past.

according to markyX's latest pdf the "proper procedures" were put into place on sept 28th 2001

[gumboot]

There are CTers out there who claim that all four planes should have been shot down by the military if proper procedure had been followed, which is absurd. When did the US military intentionally shoot down an America passenger plane? And yet we know planes have been hijacked many times in the past.


Of course it's a mute point anyway - none of the four aircraft were intercepted, so none of them could be shot down.

-Andrew

[Brainster]

according to markyX's latest pdf the "proper procedures" were put into place on sept 28th 2001

Let me suggest that the proper procedure is to make sure that no doggone aiplanes get hijacked.

[mrflame]

Finally, if your security is all about airplanes then terrorists will move to trains. If you add in trains, terrorists will move to mailboxes. Fighting terrorism is about following money trails and good intelligence (and no, I don't think gathering everyone's phone records is good intelligence)

Heh, so we don't need to improve anti-terrorist systems because they can impove theirs methods. That is your point... it sounds awful. It leads to the following: we don't need to struggle against terrorism because it useless and reveals our secrets (your phone idea) we should simply wait for our death. :eek:


It had everything to do with it being impossible with the number of troops we had

You see, there such terms as tactics, strategy and intelligence in the war science. So one don't need to distribute his forces on the border. Should the terrorist attack, he supposed to know the exact time and place of their appearance.

[gumboot]

You see, there such terms as tactics, strategy and intelligence in the war science. So one don't need to distribute his forces on the border. Should the terrorist attack, he supposed to know the exact time and place of their appearance.


I think the idea of deploying troops on the border is to prevent them ESCAPING and CAPTURE them BEFORE they make any future attacks.

This may be considered "pre-emption" (another strategic studies term) although I like to just call it "smart".

-Andrew

[Cuddles]

Heh, so we don't need to improve anti-terrorist systems because they can impove theirs methods. That is your point... it sounds awful. It leads to the following: we don't need to struggle against terrorism because it useless and reveals our secrets (your phone idea) we should simply wait for our death. :eek:

I believe the point he was making is that there is no point focussing solely on planes. If we can find the terrorists before they attack then it is irrelevant how they planned on attacking. If we wait until someone attacks and then improve security in just that area then we will always be at least one step behind.

[kevin]

I believe the point he was making is that there is no point focussing solely on planes. If we can find the terrorists before they attack then it is irrelevant how they planned on attacking. If we wait until someone attacks and then improve security in just that area then we will always be at least one step behind.

Exactly. So far since 9/11 we've had one really good success at finding terrorists before they did something and it wasn't at the check-in point at security. Terrorists have the freedom of picking their targets and we've got a lot of targets. If we attempt to pick and choose they can simply wait until we've chosen what to protect then they attack the other thing.

Sure end point security is still necessary for many things but our real focus has to be on catching them earlier and that requires good intelligence and so far the US appears to fail on that front (mostly appears to be a failing in properly analyzing good intelligence, or good analysis being thrown out in favor of more political appealing results)

[mrflame]

So far since 9/11 we've had one really good success at finding terrorists before they did something and it wasn't at the check-in point at security. Terrorists have the freedom of picking their targets and we've got a lot of targets. If we attempt to pick and choose they can simply wait until we've chosen what to protect then they attack the other thing.



To my mind we should not protect but improve against hijacking any possible target (not only planes, and not only against muslim terrorist). And we should make our intelligence better. Because (and you are quite right) to prevent an attack is much more appropriate then to stop it.