Conspire`s 9/11 Conspiracies

[NewTeaBag]

I resubmit my question regarding the evidence of flight 93 landing and what happened to all the pasenegrs?

[Conspire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if the planes could not have been diverted we could of atleast stopped the airliner crashing into the pentagon, we probably could of stopped the 2 airliners from crashing into the towers.

[/ QUOTE ]

how?

No one knew the planes were hijacked until after the first plance crashed into the WTC. Even after they knew there were planes being hijacked they didn't know how many or which ones were being so! Do you know how many commercial airliners are in the air over the U.S. at any give moment? A lot. A lot more than the military can keep tabs on.

You theory is preposterous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can understand why u think that this is preposterous. I would like u to look at the bigger picture though. The right people knew this was going to happen, and they had spent a great deal of time preparing for this attack. Our government has been trying to blow up the tower since atleast 1993. So I stand by my statement that this did not have to happen. 9/11 was a success because of so many failures, just like JFK. This is all tied to the New World Order (skull & bones). They need to instill fear into Americans so that our country can become a police state. Dont even get me started on the patriot act, which of course was put into effect after 9/11.


[ QUOTE ]
I resubmit my question regarding the evidence of flight 93 landing and what happened to all the pasenegrs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to find the right video where I got this information from, my next post will give an answer your question. I like where this thread is going so keep asking questions and keep calling me crazy. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[daveT]

This is indeed becoming an interesting thread.

YouTalkFunny, thank you for your annotations. I didn't realize that Howard Stern know Bin Laden's name. Interesting factoids.

I was attempting to illustrate two points in my post. One is that with the emotions involved with 9/11, people were ripe to believe just about any conspiracy. The first few things did not add up. This is touched upon in Esad's post. Emotions have long been understood to be the driving force behind many decisions. Dale Carnegie's entire book is based on how people are not cold and logical beings.

There are tons of holes in the conspiracy theorists stories, but there also tons of holes in the official story. The Bush administration still receives a lot of flack for it's secrecy.

Why did they take so long to open up the official files for the security counsel to view? What of the official report that Bush supposedly received a few weeks before 9/11, describing a planned hijacking. True, Bush could not have conceivably stopped all flights. Supposedly, the flight instructor in Florida sent a report to (?????) about these particular trainees, saying that they seemed like they were going to crash the plains into a building or something. Why did the instructor continue training these guys if he had so much concern? And why wasn't this investigated.

Lastly, do you really believe that these plains were jacked with 3 inch blades? And how, exactly were cell-phone calls made from a mile into the sky? I understand curvature, but cell phones need to be fairly close to a cell phone tower to work.

I don't agree with everything in this post, and my last question may seem like a non-issue, but that is how we "know" what happened.

I think that the truth has not been completely told. I do not believe that 93 was shot down or landed safely. Wasn't one of the victims a senators wife?

I believe that the real story is somewhere between the conspiracy and the official story.

[Conspire]

[ QUOTE ]
This is indeed becoming an interesting thread.

YouTalkFunny, thank you for your annotations. I didn't realize that Howard Stern know Bin Laden's name. Interesting factoids.

I was attempting to illustrate two points in my post. One is that with the emotions involved with 9/11, people were ripe to believe just about any conspiracy. The first few things did not add up. This is touched upon in Esad's post. Emotions have long been understood to be the driving force behind many decisions. Dale Carnegie's entire book is based on how people are not cold and logical beings.

There are tons of holes in the conspiracy theorists stories, but there also tons of holes in the official story. The Bush administration still receives a lot of flack for it's secrecy.

Why did they take so long to open up the official files for the security counsel to view? What of the official report that Bush supposedly received a few weeks before 9/11, describing a planned hijacking. True, Bush could not have conceivably stopped all flights. Supposedly, the flight instructor in Florida sent a report to (?????) about these particular trainees, saying that they seemed like they were going to crash the plains into a building or something. Why did the instructor continue training these guys if he had so much concern? And why wasn't this investigated.

Lastly, do you really believe that these plains were jacked with 3 inch blades? And how, exactly were cell-phone calls made from a mile into the sky? I understand curvature, but cell phones need to be fairly close to a cell phone tower to work.

I don't agree with everything in this post, and my last question may seem like a non-issue, but that is how we "know" what happened.

I think that the truth has not been completely told. I do not believe that 93 was shot down or landed safely. Wasn't one of the victims a senators wife?

I believe that the real story is somewhere between the conspiracy and the official story.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with a lot of this and have just right the link for u, will post shortly.

[esad]

The main problem with all conspiracy theories like those you listed is that they confuse facts and scientific research for speculation and innuendo. Here's a re-post of something I posted in politics about conspiracy theories in general.

[ QUOTE ]
There's a very comprehensive FAQ that deals with the JFK assassination here.

Section 8 of this FAQ deals with the type of tactics conspiracy books/theorists use to perpetrate their theories.

It's a excellent checklist when reviewing conspiracy theorist's "evidence." Here's a summary, but I'd recommend reading the entire section.


1. Sell emotion first

...powerful emotions flow from the belief in a conspiracy. When these feelings can be established upfront by the conspiracy author, typically by enjoining the reader in the author's own passion, the reader may be persuaded to drop his natural skepticism regarding fantastic plots.

2. Scare the reader away from primary documents

A careful reader would examine reports to check whether it is being accurately represented in the conspiracy books. (It's frequently not.) To forestall this examination, which risks exposing the author's deceit, the report is described as unreadable or utterly worthless.

3. Distort the evidence

Since most people will trust a book, and not double-check its claims against the source material, it is a simple matter to alter the import of the evidence by eliminating key details.

4. Emphasize eyewitness testimony

The weakest major class of evidence is eyewitness testimony. This is because of the inherent unreliability of human memory. Not only does memory change over time, even surprisingly short periods, but it is seldom accurate in the first place.

5. Emphasize unsworn witnesses

...interviews given to authors. These are usually conducted in an informal atmosphere, where freewheeling speculation and factual recollection may become mingled. The subject is under no obligation to be truthful, and the author has the freedom to follow suggestive lines of inquiry. The author can also quote out of context since his notes are a private document.

6. Raise non-essential issues

Every piece of evidence has to be challenged. Raising doubts ...even when it is of no import.

7. Omit the complete context of the evidence

Conspiracy authors omit much of the context of their evidence, only it is usually for worse motives than concealing controversy. It is more often to make the evidence sound more sinister than it is.

8. Promote yourself to expert

The vast majority of conspiracy books are written by laymen, persons with no relevant expertise to the technical issues in the case. This is not necessarily a bar to writing a well-researched book. Many generalists make excellent journalists. However, such writers know their limitations and rely on unbiased experts in the various fields. Too many conspiracy authors, on the other hand, pass judgment on technical issues without consulting the real experts.

9. Don't solicit the other side of the story

Often in conspiracy books, the author cites a quote or two, or a memo or handwritten notation, from some person involved with case, and tells us that the person is inconsistent and must therefore be incompetent or have something sinister to hide.

10. Accuse the defenseless

In the great conspiracy hunt, many innuendos get tossed around, suggestive of lying, cover-up, of acquiesence and complicity in extremely serious crimes. However, there is a risk for the conspiracy author of libel sanctions. The careful reader will therefore discern a measure of caution in the way things are worded. Outright accusations are seldom made unless the victim is unable to defend themselves, either because they are public figures who can't legally retaliate, or they are dead.

11. Emphasize preliminary information

...hasty judgments are often poor judgments. If such judgments are made to the press, whether right or not, they become immortalized in print or on film.

12. Recycle discredited evidence

In one of the most seriously deceptive techniques employed by conspiracy books, old issues are raised to provoke the readers' anxiety, but the reader is not informed of the resolution to the issue. It's one thing to dispute the resolution, it's another to conceal it from the unwitting reader.

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote is a good example of this:

[ QUOTE ]
On 9/11 there were war game exercises taking place (a plane hijacking scenario) many of our fighter jets were doing these exercises (some of which took place in alaska). There were only 8 jets that were able to respond. Not to mention mass confusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I know someone that was scrambled when the planes begin to hit. There weren't only 8 planes available.

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention mass confusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to whom? The fighter pilot I know and his wing didn't experience "mass confusion."

But, even though I say that and this information can easily be checked you'll see conspiracy theorists still parrot these same types of "facts" over and over again.

Belief in conspiracy theories is a very good barometer of judging if someone can think logically and distinguish relevant facts from emotion and heresy. Sadly too many people fail this simple test.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]

Belief in conspiracy theories is a very good barometer of judging if someone can think logically and distinguish relevant facts from emotion and heresy. Sadly too many people fail this simple test.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would refine that to something more akin to belief in spooky ideas and theories. Then we can bring in stuff that's legitimately kooky, like astrology, which is where such statements really pertain. Your phrasing sounds more like simple conservatism, in that it seems to posit that there is only one interpretation of events possible, and even thinking of others is a sign of a sort of mental defect. (At least you didn't claim it indicated a moral one!) This strikes me as more legitimate to an age of popes and kings than of democracies and free presses.

[revots33]

I generally scorn conspiracy theories, but Flight 93 in particular has always bothered me.

Picture the scenario:

Planes already hit WTC and Pentagon.
Fighter jets scrambled.
Flight 93 hijacked and apparently on its way to attack another target.

Now, what makes a more feel-good story for the American people:

1. US Air Force shoots down a passenger jet filled with civilians?
2. Passengers on hijacked jet heroically fight back and bring down the jet, sacrificing themselves to save untold others?

Given reports I've read from eyewitnesses in the area, it seems extremely possible that the jet was shot down, and the "Let's Roll" phone call was used to fabricate a more palatable story.

Not sure why people think it landed - as conspiracies go, it being shot down seems to make more sense given the events of the day.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
Given reports I've read from eyewitnesses in the area, it seems extremely possible that the jet was shot down, and the "Let's Roll" phone call was used to fabricate a more palatable story.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd be interested in the eyewitness accounts, but basically they're either going to say a plane crashed or did not crash. Very binary. As for the "let's roll" thing, that implies a whole 'nother layer of conspiracy - by the families of the dead - which seems implausible to me.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the "let's roll" thing, that implies a whole 'nother layer of conspiracy - by the families of the dead - which seems implausible to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily... I don't doubt the "let's roll" call was actually made. Does that mean they actually succeeded in getting into the cockpit and forcing down the plane? Not necessarily.

[SmokeyRidesAgain]

What about the bombs planted on the george washington bridge! Four non-arabs arrested during the emergency, then it disappeared from the news