A Pretty Big Hole

[JohnM307]

This is the first time I've started a thread, and its a test of my ability to start one. I went to the Internet Detective site mentioned in another thread, debunking the "Loose Change" video.

http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-4

I found the following interesting comment:

Quote:

Avery admits he doesn't know what happened to the original planes if others were used in the attacks, which would seem to be a pretty big hole in his theory.

Consider the following hypotheticals:

1. An expensive piece of jewelry may or may not be in a box. Some people claim it is, some people claim it isn't. Someone decides to test the theory by opening the box and looking inside. He says that the jewel is not in the box.

Someone challenges him, "Then where is the jewel? Isn't that a gaping hole in your theory?"

2. A defendent is accused of a crime -- a street mugging (say). It turns out that the defendent was in jail at the time of the crime. So the defense attorney argues that the defendent was clearly innocent of the crime.

The prosecutor challenges the jury (in his closing argument, so the defense attorney can't reply), "If the defendent didn't do it, who did? Isn't this a gaping hole in the defense's theory?"

3. Someone argues from photographic or video evidence of scenes at the Pentagon that what hit the Pentagon wasn't Flight 77. So he is challenged, "What happened to Flight 77 then?"

In all cases, the proper response is, "How the heck would he [or I] know?" The challenges should earn the challengers a one-way ticket to the nuthouse, to find his place among the squirrels.

For some reason, 9/11 turns the minds of ordinary intelligent persons to mush. How often is the challenge repeated, "What happened to Flight 77?" (or any of the other flights) when a 9/11 skeptic tries to argue that something else hit the Pentagon?

It would seem to me that anyone figuring out where an aircraft went from photographs of a spot where the aircraft isn't, would win the Randi paranormal challenge.

[Arus808]

I think that comment however, is due to AVERY's insistance that drones were used, so that the "real" planes remain "lost". But evidence prove that the planes hit the towers and the pentagon, and one crashed in Shanksville. So, him saying that "he doesn't know" pretty much puts a hole into this his theory that planes OTHER THAN those flights were used that day.

[Zach]

I saw it as a hole in his theory because his reasons for believing different planes/no planes were used are already quite unsound, and not having an explanation for this weakens his theory even further. If he did have a more solid concept of what happened to the original planes, it would at least give his theory a bit more credence. Instead, he just speculates over the fact that the black boxes from Flights 11 and 175 weren't found. He did try explaining what happened to Flight 93, though that also turned out to be flawed.

[defaultdotxbe]

Quote:

1. An expensive piece of jewelry may or may not be in a box. Some people claim it is, some people claim it isn't. Someone decides to test the theory by opening the box and looking inside. He says that the jewel is not in the box.

this is a false analogy, you are implying the planes are supposed to be somewhere (where they can be seen and verified) and arent, but the planes were destroyed, and wreckage from all 4 planes was found where they were destroyed

if dylan claims this wreckage was not from the planes its supposed to be from, the burden is on him to prove it isnt, producing the "destroyed" plane intact would be a major piece of evidence in this respect, however neither dylan (nor any "truther") can find the planes, or even posit where they might be

[Triterope]

I think "where did the passengers go?" is the best question a debunker could ask a Loose Changer. It is the biggest hole in their theory. Not because it's harder to explain away than any other conspiracy argument, but because it's impossible to explain away without twisting the knife into the victims.

Dylan Avery et al either have to admit they can't explain what happened to the passengers, or make up some ridiculous and insulting story about them (they were collaborators, they never existed, their voices were faked, they're living the vida loca in Europe, etc.) The families of the victims, as well as the millions of Americans who've heard those horrible phone calls, tend not to be receptive to such arguments.

Debunkers can raise cogent arguments about the properties of concrete, steel, and jet fuel all day long. But when concrete, steel, and jet fuel are destroyed, nobody mourns their loss.

Being a Looser requires you to slander the victims of 9/11. It requires you to fabricate their lives and motivations. It requires you to speak of their role in the plot the same way you would speak of the physical properties of wallboard. It requires you to literally dehumanize them. Debunkers should force Loosers to admit this at every possible opportunity. And all it takes is one simple question: "so, what happened to the passengers?"

[T.A.M.]

Avery's theory is, in its simplest form this:

200 passengers boarded 4 different planes. Those Jets took off from their respective airports...time elapsed....more time elapsed....later that day those same 200 passengers were now on board a single plane, which landed in Cleveland airport, where the passengers got off the plane, and were never seen again...

But, more realisticly, what we know is like this:

200 passengers boarded 4 different planes. Numerous witnesses attest to these flights taking off from their airports with said passengers aboard, confirmed by official passenger manifests, which include the names of all 19 hijackers. Air Traffic Control Monitored their activity, and through this we come to discover that the planes were hijakced, and that 2 of the planes hit the twin towers, another of the planes hit the Pentagon, and the 4th went down in Shanksville, PA. Each of these "Crashes" were observed by numerous witnesses, except shanksville, which was indirectly witnessed via people seeing a plane head toward the ground, followed by an explosion. Hundreds of people worked on these crash sites, and found nothing that would point to any other conclusion than a plane had crashed there. Later, a single radio station, in all the chaos of that time, broadcast wrongfully, that 2 aircraft had landed at Cleveland, one was Flight 1989, the other flight 93. The radio station later recanted the story as false. Cleveland airport has never confirmed the 2nd plane, the phantom Flight 93, but has confirmed flight 1989...

So I would agree that Avery's theory has a huge hole (as in absence of evidence or plausibility) in it.

TAM

[gumboot]

I have to agree, to a degree, with the OP of this thread. However, I have rarely seen such a line of reasoning brought up in discussion here at JREF.

When someone starts up about "no plane at the Pentagon" people here don't immediately go "Well, where did the plane go then?" What usually happens is Gravy spams them with an enormous amount of evidence that AA77 did hit The Pentagon.

It seems to me the "well where did they go" argument is the sort of thing that would be raised by someone who believed the official version, but didn't really have a good grasp of the evidence or details. You won't find such people here.

-Andrew

[T.A.M.]

radio station or web site...cant quite remember, but I think it was a radio station, was it not...so many details, so little coffee...TAM

[LashL]

Originally Posted by Triterope

I think "where did the passengers go?" is the best question a debunker could ask a Loose Changer. It is the biggest hole in their theory. Not because it's harder to explain away than any other conspiracy argument, but because it's impossible to explain away without twisting the knife into the victims.

Dylan Avery et al either have to admit they can't explain what happened to the passengers, or make up some ridiculous and insulting story about them (they were collaborators, they never existed, their voices were faked, they're living the vida loca in Europe, etc.) The families of the victims, as well as the millions of Americans who've heard those horrible phone calls, tend not to be receptive to such arguments.

Debunkers can raise cogent arguments about the properties of concrete, steel, and jet fuel all day long. But when concrete, steel, and jet fuel are destroyed, nobody mourns their loss.

Being a Looser requires you to slander the victims of 9/11. It requires you to fabricate their lives and motivations. It requires you to speak of their role in the plot the same way you would speak of the physical properties of wallboard. It requires you to literally dehumanize them. Debunkers should force Loosers to admit this at every possible opportunity. And all it takes is one simple question: "so, what happened to the passengers?"

Very well put, Triterope. It also explains why avery & co made a point of saying that they would not respond to questions about the passengers a while back, and why they were reduced to saying (as shown on the 9/11 Deniers Speak video) that "the people are really secondary".

Repeat: "the people are really secondary".

The troofers' true colors have come out - they are in this only for their own benefit and they don't care how often they have to stomp all over the bodies and memories of the victims to get there.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by JohnM307

It would seem to me that anyone figuring out where an aircraft went from photographs of a spot where the aircraft isn't, would win the Randi paranormal challenge.

The problem here is that there was an aircraft in (and around) that hole in Pennsylvania, so your analogy becomes more like "OK, there's *a* jewel in that box, but it's not the same jewel.

You would have to answer the question of what airplane was in the hole, and where the the airplane associated with UAL93 is now. And airplanes are not little things that are easily misplaced.

[JohnM307]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

200 passengers boarded 4 different planes. Numerous witnesses attest to these flights taking off from their airports with said passengers aboard, confirmed by official passenger manifests, which include the names of all 19 hijackers.

Do official passenger manifests exist for all four flights? Do they include the hijackers? (Everything I've heard indicates they acted under Arabic names, rather than non-Arabic pseudonyms.) Could someone point to a verified official manifest?

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by JohnM307

Do official passenger manifests exist for all four flights? Do they include the hijackers? (Everything I've heard indicates they acted under Arabic names, rather than non-Arabic pseudonyms.) Could someone point to a verified official manifest?

these arent actual manifests, they are boarding lists or something of the like

http://pics.xbehome.com/thumbnails.php?album=4

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by CurtC

The problem here is that there was an aircraft in (and around) that hole in Pennsylvania, so your analogy becomes more like "OK, there's *a* jewel in that box, but it's not the same jewel.

Actually, there are shards and fragments of a jewel in the box, fitting the precise description of the original jewel (down to the lazer engraving), and we are expected to believe that someone has substituted a fake jewel for the real one, which is nowhere to be found. Said substitution must have fooled hundreds of eyewitnesses, left no fingerprints, and have been accomplished in broad daylight. Oh, and the jewel is the size of a plane.

Better?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by JohnM307

Do official passenger manifests exist for all four flights? Do they include the hijackers? (Everything I've heard indicates they acted under Arabic names, rather than non-Arabic pseudonyms.) Could someone point to a verified official manifest?

This is one of the more persistent lies of the 9/11 denier movement. For 5 years these guys have been claiming there were no Arab names on the passenger manifests. Trouble is, as their proof they point to a victims list - not the passenger manifest. Of course, the perps aren't on the victims list. The slightest amount of research would have revealed to them that the passenger manifests were obtained and published by the Boston Globe withing 2 days of 9/11 - and yet they have pushed this lie for 5 years now. Does that make you doubt the integrity of your little movement John, or will you brush it off and move on to some of the other lies they tell you? The passenger manifest lie is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to their lies.

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by JohnM307

Do official passenger manifests exist for all four flights? Do they include the hijackers? (Everything I've heard indicates they acted under Arabic names, rather than non-Arabic pseudonyms.) Could someone point to a verified official manifest?

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g7...1Manifesta.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g7...1Manifestb.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g7...1Manifestc.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g7...7Manifesta.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g7...7Manifestb.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g7...3Manifesta.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g7...5Manifesta.jpg

[T.A.M.]

Beyond the wonderful links Stewy has provided above, go to the Moussaoui Trial exhibits. Download the passenger lists etc.. for all 4 flights. Now these are official court documents, accepted by both defense and prosecution, and by the courts. I don't think just "making up" the names and seating placings of the hijackers would work for the "defense" so I am guessing they had official documents to verify the placements of the hijackers in their "flash" demo that shows where all the hijackers were located.

TAM

[Triterope]

Originally Posted by WildCat

This is one of the more persistent lies of the 9/11 denier movement. For 5 years these guys have been claiming there were no Arab names on the passenger manifests. Trouble is, as their proof they point to a victims list - not the passenger manifest.

I've investigated this argument before. Somebody filed an FOIA request for the flight manifest, was given a list of identified victims (that's two criteria they have to meet), and ran around yapping about the discrepancies between the FOIA list and the published lists of people on the flight. And because it's a valid letter from a verifiable government employee, it looks convincing.

FOIA does not require the government to release information that is relevant to an ongoing crime investigation. So they could legally withhold the names of the hijackers.

There are other discrepancies. One name that appears on media-published lists but not the FOIA report is that of an infant, presumably because the infant was not identified. But the conspiracy idiots never point this out, because it's not relevant to what they wish to prove. They'll stamp their feet about the list being off by 5 names, when it was actually off by 6.

If there is such a thing as "being dishonest about dishonesty," this is it.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Triterope

I think "where did the passengers go?" is the best question a debunker could ask a Loose Changer. It is the biggest hole in their theory. Not because it's harder to explain away than any other conspiracy argument, but because it's impossible to explain away without twisting the knife into the victims.

Yes, the passengers are always the part that the Deniers try to hardest to avoid. Here's Jim Fetzer playing dodgeball and Alan Colmes tries to pin him down on the passengers; it's a textbook example on how to steer the conversation away from your weak points:

Quote:

Colmes: Well, planes did hit the building, right?

Fetzer: Yeah, of course!

Colmes: Who was in them?

Fetzer: Well, that’s a very interesting question, who was in them. We can explain a lot, without being able to explain everything. My opinion, about those planes, is that they were probably military versions that were refueling tankers of 767s so they carry more fuel.

Colmes: You mean they weren’t the real planes that took off from JFK (sic)? Or Logan Airport?

Fetzer: The real planes from JFK (sic) are something of a mystery, Alan. Let me tell you something, just a couple of things about them, okay? By Federal Law, the National Transportation Safety Board is obligated to conduct an investigation of any crash of a commercial airliner, in this case, there were allegedly four, the NTSB has investigated none of them. Zero.

Colmes: But we know there were actual passengers on those planes who died.

Fetzer: Alan, what do you know about it? You weren’t there, you have no idea about those planes.

Colmes: Are you saying there were not passengers on those planes?

Fetzer: None of those hijackers were named on any passenger manifest. None of them was the subject of any autopsy. Five, six or seven have turned up alive and well, living in the Middle East.

Colmes: Now you’re talking about the hijackers, but the passengers there were actual passengers on those planes, right?

Fetzer: Well, there were passengers somewhere, but whether there were actual passengers on the planes as they were impacting the building is an interesting question. Everything was pulverized, Alan. All the concrete on the office floors was pulverized, all the office furniture was pulverized,

Colmes: No, but there are passenger records of people on those flights.

Fetzer: And they don’t include any hijackers, Alan.

Colmes: But they were real airplanes with real passengers on them.

Fetzer: Yeah there were real airplanes, but let me tell you something, if you look at the NTSB’s raw data, for these aircraft, which I observed on a spreadsheet this weekend, Dylan Avery who made Loose Change showed me the spreadsheet. You go for those four planes and you cross on the data and it’s all blank—it’s all blank Alan. Now, the NTSB had a formal obligation to investigate those crashes and it hasn’t done so. Why do you think it hasn’t done so, Alan?

Colmes: I don’t know the answer to that question, but what I’m trying to—my job is to ask the questions, you’re going to answer them—but my point is that there were civilians, Americans who were on those flights, right?

Fetzer: Well, there were some, but the whole business about how many were paid and that whole sort of thing or compensation—

Colmes: What do you mean, paid?

Fetzer: Alan it’s very spotty.

Of course, the initial line there, "We can explain a lot, without being able to explain everything," is the one that most Deniers stick to like it was a sanctuary. So the question is how to get them off that? You can just insist as Colmes does that they answer the question, or at least provide some speculation. Dylan, of course, hosed himself in the Wing TV interview when he said that "We know what happened to Bernard Brown, Jr.," as he can't hide anymore.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Yes, the passengers are always the part that the Deniers try to hardest to avoid. Here's Jim Fetzer playing dodgeball and Alan Colmes tries to pin him down on the passengers; it's a textbook example on how to steer the conversation away from your weak points:

UGH!

What a [rule8]. I feel like punching my computer.

Not just his blatant dodging, but I counted quite a few blatant false statements just off the top of my head!

-Andrew

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Triterope

FOIA does not require the government to release information that is relevant to an ongoing crime investigation. So they could legally withhold the names of the hijackers.

The Boston Globe obtained the manifests within a day or 2 of 9/11, I think it was the 9/13 edition.

[JohnM307]

defaultdotxbe: Thanks for the links to the photos.

chipmunk stew: Ditto.

Originally Posted by WildCat

This is one of the more persistent lies of the 9/11 denier movement. For 5 years these guys have been claiming there were no Arab names on the passenger manifests. Trouble is, as their proof they point to a victims list - not the passenger manifest. Of course, the perps aren't on the victims list. The slightest amount of research would have revealed to them that the passenger manifests were obtained and published by the Boston Globe withing 2 days of 9/11 - and yet they have pushed this lie for 5 years now. Does that make you doubt the integrity of your little movement John, or will you brush it off and move on to some of the other lies they tell you? The passenger manifest lie is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to their lies.

Don't get in such a huff, WildCat, in response to a simple inquiry. I assume that the Boston Globe manifests you refer to were the pictures like:

http://graphics.boston.com/news/pack...1_manifest.gif

and not lists like:

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/12/victims_list.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/200109130...ctims_list.htm

which source "family members, friends, co-workers and law enforcement."

http://indymedia.all2all.org/news/2004/05/84711.php

I don't think that the article at the URL above qualifies as part of your "persistant lie." After linking to the CNN list, the article comments, "It says that there were 92 people aboard, but if you count the names listed there are 87 - and no Arabic names. On the surface, this seems reasonable. One can speculate that CNN has published the names of all 87 innocent victims, and deleted the names of the 5 hijackers for sensitivity reasons."

I have verified some of the discrepencies the article mentions, including discrepencies between the two Boston Globe sources. It is interesting that the media persisted in publishing false victim names in the face of the existance of an actual manifest. For example, CNN lists both "Robin Caplin" and "Robin Kaplin" but the Boston Globe GIF only lists "Robin Kaplin".

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tra...1.victims.html

Until today, I hadn't seen any lists that included the hijackers -- they were all "victims lists" -- except for those on the Wikipedia (and articles copied from them). No sources were listed:

http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casu...ane_passengers

More damning is that the 9/11 Commission's report only cites the official manifest for UA Flight 93, in establishing that the hijackers were aboard the plane. Other sources are cited for the other flights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...Report_Ch1.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...port_Notes.pdf

For example, establishing that Hanjour and the other hijackers were on AA Flight 77, it writes, "17. See AAL record,SABRE information for Flight 77, Sept. 11, 2001;AAL response to the Commission’s February 3, 2004, requests, Mar. 15, 2004." As I understand it, SABRE is used by travel agencies for reservations, ticketing, check-in, and seat assignments. But does it record actual boarding, and can it substitute for the official manifest?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...hijackers.html

The article above says about Hanjour, "His name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket."

[Triterope]

Originally Posted by WildCat

The Boston Globe obtained the manifests within a day or 2 of 9/11, I think it was the 9/13 edition.

Maybe, but did they get it from an FOIA request? I doubt it, since the government's own website on FOIA says to allow 20 business days for processing, and there are plenty of other ways it could have been acquired.

Here's the relevant section of the US Code, according to my armchair legal analysis:

Quote:

(b) This section does not apply to matters that are--

(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

Clearly, it would not be too hard for the government to find some provision of the FOIA law that would allow them not to release the hijacker names if they didn't want to. Especially so soon after the attacks.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by JohnM307

Don't get in such a huff, WildCat, in response to a simple inquiry. I assume that the Boston Globe manifests you refer to were the pictures like:

http://graphics.boston.com/news/pack...1_manifest.gif

That's a graphic they made from the manifests. The actual manifests make for a hard-to-read newspaper illustration.

Quote:

http://indymedia.all2all.org/news/2004/05/84711.php

I don't think that the article at the URL above qualifies as part of your "persistant lie." After linking to the CNN list, the article comments, "It says that there were 92 people aboard, but if you count the names listed there are 87 - and no Arabic names. On the surface, this seems reasonable. One can speculate that CNN has published the names of all 87 innocent victims, and deleted the names of the 5 hijackers for sensitivity reasons."

It''s blatantly misleading. CNN posted a victim's list. The hijackers were the perps, not the victims.

As for the rest of your post, I have no clue as to how this proves any conspiracy. Rather it exposes the complete incompetence of the 9/11 denier movement at best, and their blatant lies and misleading research at worse.

[JohnM307]

Originally Posted by WildCat

T
As for the rest of your post, I have no clue as to how this proves any conspiracy. Rather it exposes the complete incompetence of the 9/11 denier movement at best, and their blatant lies and misleading research at worse.

Did you even read the rest of my post? If so, then you saw that a strong case was made that official passenger manifests don't exist confirming that hijackers were on the planes except Flight 93: the 9/11 Commission didn't cite them.

You also saw that the media repeatedly produced inaccurate victims lists, including CNN, even when the official manifests were available.

And could you please tell me what in my post exposed the "complete incompetence of the 9/11 denier movement at best, and their blatant lies and misleading research at worse"?

Perhaps I could say that your post illustrates the complete incompetence and pathological illiteracy of those who defend the official conspiracy theory.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by JohnM307

Did you even read the rest of my post? If so, then you saw that a strong case was made that official passenger manifests don't exist confirming that hijackers were on the planes except Flight 93: the 9/11 Commission didn't cite them.

Yes, they do exist...

Quote:

You also saw that the media repeatedly produced inaccurate victims lists, including CNN, even when the official manifests were available.

So in the rush to put out the story news media makes mistakes? And this proves a massive gov't conspiracy how?

Quote:

And could you please tell me what in my post exposed the "complete incompetence of the 9/11 denier movement at best, and their blatant lies and misleading research at worse"?

Here's an example: 6 posts above yours chipmunk stew linked to the manifests you still claim not to exist, complete w/ the hijackers names and seat assignments. Real crack researching skills you must have...

Quote:

Perhaps I could say that your post illustrates the complete incompetence and pathological illiteracy of those who defend the official conspiracy theory.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by JohnM307

...the official conspiracy theory the mainstream accepted explanation of events.

Corrected your post.

[WildCat]

John? Have you looked at the manifests yet?

[JohnM307]

Quote:

It''s blatantly misleading. CNN posted a victim's list. The hijackers were the perps, not the victims.

As for the rest of your post, I have no clue as to how this proves any conspiracy. Rather it exposes the complete incompetence of the 9/11 denier movement at best, and their blatant lies and misleading research at worse.

The first paragraph of this post of yours was patently false. Nothing was misleading about his statement, when it leads to your very same conclusion. The thought processes were a little different.

The second paragraph of yours was stated without any support or evidence whatsoever. Could you point out in the rest of my post #21 where the blatant lies or misleading research occured?

I didn't even expressly conclude there that the manifests didn't exist; I only presented the facts regarding the 9/11 Commission, and called it "[m]ore damning."

Originally Posted by WildCat

Yes, they do exist...

Then in my next post, I said that "a strong case was made" that the manifests didn't exist. That might have been a lousy choice of words, but it was a strong case. (Again, I didn't baldly state that the manifests didn't exist.) The facts that I presented were accurate.

The logical argument goes like this (of course):

Major premise: If the manifests existed mentioning the hijackers, the 9/11 Commission would have cited them to establish the hijackers' presense aboard the planes.

Minor premise: The 9/11 Commission didn't cite them (except for Flight 93).

Conclusion: The manifests (except for Flight 93) mentioning the hijackers don't exist.

The minor premise is definitely true. If the conclusion is wrong, the major premise is false. If the links point to genuine manifests, then the Conclusion is wrong. Yes, I did look at the links -- chipmonk stew's photographs appear to be the same as defaultdotxpes.

So the manifests exist. The 9/11 Commission didn't cite them. So, what can we conclude?

Quote:

So in the rush to put out the story news media makes mistakes? And this proves a massive gov't conspiracy how?

It's more that the media persist in making mistakes long after the rush is over. Also that the manifests seemed to disappear from sight after the initial publication. It's also the fact that, as far as it goes, the CT article I cited (http://indymedia.all2all.org/news/2004/05/84711.php) was mostly correct. Nothing was misleading about it.

Mostly likely, the mainstream news media is just plain lazy.

Quote:

Here's an example: 6 posts above yours chipmunk stew linked to the manifests you still claim not to exist, complete w/ the hijackers names and seat assignments. Real crack researching skills you must have...

Again, in the first post after he presented the links (post 21), I didn't baldly assert that the manifests didn't exist. I presented the damning facts regarding the 9/11 Commission, with the implied conclusion that the manifests didn't exist. (I didn't even state that conclusion.)

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...6&postcount=21

And in the second post, I said that I'd made a "strong case" that the manifests didn't exist. I stated it as a conclusion. It was a conclusion following from certain premises. In any case, it is rather damning that the 9/11 Commission didn't cite the official manifests (again, except for Flight 93).

Back to my first post (post #21) after the links were posted. I started a passage with the phrase, "Until today," and I described what I'd noticed before then: the only lists I'd seen including the hijackers were on the Wikipedia (easily edited, and without sources) -- AND the 9/11 Commission didn't cite manifests except for Flight 93.

Post 21 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...6&postcount=21) was accurate, and you jumped to highly unwarranted conclusions from it.

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by JohnM307

The first paragraph of this post of yours was patently false. Nothing was misleading about his statement, when it leads to your very same conclusion. The thought processes were a little different.

The second paragraph of yours was stated without any support or evidence whatsoever. Could you point out in the rest of my post #21 where the blatant lies or misleading research occured?

I didn't even expressly conclude there that the manifests didn't exist; I only presented the facts regarding the 9/11 Commission, and called it "[m]ore damning."



Then in my next post, I said that "a strong case was made" that the manifests didn't exist. That might have been a lousy choice of words, but it was a strong case. (Again, I didn't baldly state that the manifests didn't exist.) The facts that I presented were accurate.

The logical argument goes like this (of course):

Major premise: If the manifests existed mentioning the hijackers, the 9/11 Commission would have cited them to establish the hijackers' presense aboard the planes.

Minor premise: The 9/11 Commission didn't cite them (except for Flight 93).

Conclusion: The manifests (except for Flight 93) mentioning the hijackers don't exist.

The minor premise is definitely true. If the conclusion is wrong, the major premise is false. If the links point to genuine manifests, then the Conclusion is wrong. Yes, I did look at the links -- chipmonk stew's photographs appear to be the same as defaultdotxpes.

So the manifests exist. The 9/11 Commission didn't cite them. So, what can we conclude?



It's more that the media persist in making mistakes long after the rush is over. Also that the manifests seemed to disappear from sight after the initial publication. It's also the fact that, as far as it goes, the CT article I cited (http://indymedia.all2all.org/news/2004/05/84711.php) was mostly correct. Nothing was misleading about it.

Mostly likely, the mainstream news media is just plain lazy.



Again, in the first post after he presented the links (post 21), I didn't baldly assert that the manifests didn't exist. I presented the damning facts regarding the 9/11 Commission, with the implied conclusion that the manifests didn't exist. (I didn't even state that conclusion.)

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...6&postcount=21

And in the second post, I said that I'd made a "strong case" that the manifests didn't exist. I stated it as a conclusion. It was a conclusion following from certain premises. In any case, it is rather damning that the 9/11 Commission didn't cite the official manifests (again, except for Flight 93).

Back to my first post (post #21) after the links were posted. I started a passage with the phrase, "Until today," and I described what I'd noticed before then: the only lists I'd seen including the hijackers were on the Wikipedia (easily edited, and without sources) -- AND the 9/11 Commission didn't cite manifests except for Flight 93.

Post 21 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...6&postcount=21) was accurate, and you jumped to highly unwarranted conclusions from it.

You presented what you felt was a strong case against the existence of manifests based on a logic of inference.
We presented what we felt was stronger counter-evidence of their existence based on scanned copies of physical evidence that appears to be authentic.

Do you believe these documents are authentic?
If so, does this change your conclusion?
If so, there must be a flaw in your logic--what potential flaws might there be in your logic?

[Peephole]

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g7...1Manifesta.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g7...1Manifestb.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g7...1Manifestc.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g7...7Manifesta.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g7...7Manifestb.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g7...3Manifesta.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g7...5Manifesta.jpg

Look's like there's a pretty big hole indeed.

IN JohnM307'S LOGIC

[JohnM307]

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

You presented what you felt was a strong case against the existence of manifests based on a logic of inference.
We presented what we felt was stronger counter-evidence of their existence based on scanned copies of physical evidence that appears to be authentic.

Do you believe these documents are authentic?
If so, does this change your conclusion?
If so, there must be a flaw in your logic--what potential flaws might there be in your logic?

First, I am not sure what to conclude. For now, I will assume that the documents are genuine. The documents definitely include the alleged hijackers. That doesn't change the logic reproduced below:

Quote:

Major premise: If the manifests existed mentioning the hijackers, the 9/11 Commission would have cited them to establish the hijackers' presense aboard the planes.

Minor premise: The 9/11 Commission didn't cite them (except for Flight 93).

Conclusion: The manifests (except for Flight 93) mentioning the hijackers don't exist.

The conclusion is false. The minor premise is true. Therefore the major premise is false. In otherwords, the manifests exist but the 9/11 Commission didn't cite them, and instead used inferior sources.

Bear in mind that an alternative theory of 9/11 is that the Arab hijackers went about their activities blatantly as possible, drawing attention to themselves in connection with 9/11, to blame the attacks on Arabs rather than our government. This is a simplified statement of that alternative theory.

Given the theory, the source cited by the 9/11 Commission is not merely inferior, but invalid. It stands to reason that in this theory, the alleged hijackers would do everything short of actually boarding the planes. (Buy tickets, check in, get seat assignments, pass through security,...)

A conclusion is that the 9/11 Commission was incompetent. Another conclusion is that the Commission was rushed for time, overworked, working on reduced sources, etc. and didn't have time to document the job properly.

I'm afraid my conclusion is quite tentative here. But are you satisfied?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by JohnM307

First, I am not sure what to conclude. For now, I will assume that the documents are genuine. The documents definitely include the alleged hijackers. That doesn't change the logic reproduced below:



The conclusion is false. The minor premise is true. Therefore the major premise is false. In otherwords, the manifests exist but the 9/11 Commission didn't cite them, and instead used inferior sources.

Bear in mind that an alternative theory of 9/11 is that the Arab hijackers went about their activities blatantly as possible, drawing attention to themselves in connection with 9/11, to blame the attacks on Arabs rather than our government. This is a simplified statement of that alternative theory.

Given the theory, the source cited by the 9/11 Commission is not merely inferior, but invalid. It stands to reason that in this theory, the alleged hijackers would do everything short of actually boarding the planes. (Buy tickets, check in, get seat assignments, pass through security,...)

A conclusion is that the 9/11 Commission was incompetent. Another conclusion is that the Commission was rushed for time, overworked, working on reduced sources, etc. and didn't have time to document the job properly.

I'm afraid my conclusion is quite tentative here. But are you satisfied?

First off, you are stating your premise in such a way as to make it overly confusing.

You are stating

P1: If the flight manifests showed the hijackers then the Commission must include them in the report
P2: The commission report does not include flight manifests showing the hijackers
C1: The flight manifests must not exist

The problem is that you haven't defended P1 as being true.

[T.A.M.]

For documents to be accepted into court as evidence, they have to be accepted as authentic by (1) the judge (2) the denfence (3) the procecution. The Moussaoui Trial Flash presentation of the flights, there passengers, and the hijakcers, along with the SEATING ASSIGNMENTS for all of them were admitted and accepted into the list of evidence exhibitions. Now do you think the defence would just let the procecution make up such a list out of thin air? No, so obviously the lists, including the hijackers, along with seating locations was gotten from a source that all parties considered official...like, oh, i dunno, the airlines??

TAM

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

For documents to be accepted into court as evidence, they have to be accepted as authentic by (1) the judge (2) the denfence (3) the procecution. The Moussaoui Trial Flash presentation of the flights, there passengers, and the hijakcers, along with the SEATING ASSIGNMENTS for all of them were admitted and accepted into the list of evidence exhibitions. Now do you think the defence would just let the procecution make up such a list out of thin air? No, so obviously the lists, including the hijackers, along with seating locations was gotten from a source that all parties considered official...like, oh, i dunno, the airlines??

TAM

Um ... TAM, I'm generally a fan but you're not exactly right on the law.

For a document to be accepted into evidence, the judge must be convinced that there is some reason to think it is relevant and reliable. There must be some evidence presented of its authenticity but that evidence need not be overwhelming or even convincing to all sides. A great deal of documents come into evidence that are objected to by one side or another (and, rarely, by both sides). And many documents that come into evidence are shown by the other side to be misleading, mistaken, forgeries or more so that the jury gives them zero weight.

The fact that the exhibits were entered into evidence at the Moussaoui trial only means that the judge had some reason to believe the documents were what they purported to be.

[Metullus]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Um ... TAM, I'm generally a fan but you're not exactly right on the law.

For a document to be accepted into evidence, the judge must be convinced that there is some reason to think it is relevant and reliable. There must be some evidence presented of its authenticity but that evidence need not be overwhelming or even convincing to all sides. A great deal of documents come into evidence that are objected to by one side or another (and, rarely, by both sides). And many documents that come into evidence are shown by the other side to be misleading, mistaken, forgeries or more so that the jury gives them zero weight.

The fact that the exhibits were entered into evidence at the Moussaoui trial only means that the judge had some reason to believe the documents were what they purported to be.

So did the defense impeach the manifest evidence? I have found nothing to suggest that it did, at least not successfully. I would be interested if anybody has trial transcripts that suggest that the defence even tried to do so.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Metullus

So did the defense impeach the manifest evidence? I have found nothing to suggest that it did, at least not successfully. I would be interested if anybody has trial transcripts that suggest that the defence even tried to do so.

Oh, I'm not saying a word about what actually did or didn't happen in the Moussoui case. I was just talking from the standpoint of how the rules of evidence operate in court. I would assume, since the jury found him guilty, that the total weight of the evidence supported the fact that he was a co-conspirator in 9/11 beyond a reasonable doubt. In order for that to be true, one would think that the jury determined 9/11 actually, you know, happened.

[Metullus]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Oh, I'm not saying a word about what actually did or didn't happen in the Moussoui case. I was just talking from the standpoint of how the rules of evidence operate in court. I would assume, since the jury found him guilty, that the total weight of the evidence supported the fact that he was a co-conspirator in 9/11 beyond a reasonable doubt. In order for that to be true, one would think that the jury determined 9/11 actually, you know, happened.

I understood what you are doing, no problem. It just made me wonder if counsel tried to impeach the evidence.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Metullus

I understood what you are doing, no problem. It just made me wonder if counsel tried to impeach the evidence.

You'd have to read the trial transcripts. I'm sure that they didn't work too hard at it. Their theory wasn't that the hijackings didn't happen, it was, "Our guy's out of his damn mind; please don't kill him."

[Metullus]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

You'd have to read the trial transcripts. I'm sure that they didn't work too hard at it. Their theory wasn't that the hijackings didn't happen, it was, "Our guy's out of his damn mind; please don't kill him."

I searched but, alas, to no avail.

Would've made interesting reading, though. Could have called Avery as a witness for the defense.

[Brainster]

Why does the CT crowd criticize the 9-11 Commission Report? Because it doesn't answer all of their questions. Okay, but you can't then turn around and decline providing answers of your own.