Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other Flight 77 hitting the t[W:62,723,809:914***

[Thoreau72]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

Got an intelligent counter-theory?

No?

Yes, my counter theory is quite simple. It meets the demands of Occam.

Elegantly simple--the OCT is a damn lie.

It looks like an inside job because it was an inside job.

It looks like no Boeings at Shanksville and the Pentagon because there were no Boeings at either location.

It looks like something other than burning office furnishings brought down WTC buildings because something other than burning office furnishings DID bring down those towers.

The epidemiology of those working on the pile at WTC is identical to the epidemiology at other nuclear events like Chernobyl because it WAS a nuclear event.

And on, and on, and on....:shock:

 

[Jango]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

Much of the "contention" is (in my opinion) contrived.

The general narrative is pretty much fixed and generally accurate.

There are misunderstanding and inaccuracies though:

Some believe Osama Bin Laden was in direct charge. I do not believe this to be so. I believe he was the financier and he blessed the operation, but the evidence shows Mohammed Atta did the all the operational planning.
The conflation of 9/11 and Iraq. I believe Bush never openly stated Iraq was directly involved in 9/11, but did not shy away form others making the claim... Therefore plenty of Americans still equate Iraq/Saddam with 9/11
The after effects of the collapse... The dust. First it was considered relatively harmless.... Now not so much.

However, the general reality remains as is.

1) History is not static ergo neither is 9/11. A 9/11 historical change example would be: the F.B.I., after saying they couldn't infiltrate al Qaeda (USATODAY.com - FBI says it can't infiltrate al-Qaeda), it is revealed that they actually had done so pre al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. ( EXCLUSIVE: FBI had human source in contact with bin Laden as far back as 1993 - Washington Times + Exclusive: Mole Who Met Bin Laden Killed by Al Qaeda in Bosnia - NBC News + The Note’s Must-Reads for Wednesday, February 26, 2014 - ABC News)

2) The reason I say 'contentious' is because the before/during/aftermath *is* highly controversial. One example, which you pointed out, was the E.P.A. and Ground Zero air quality. It is extremely controversial (and condemnable) that the E.P.A. was co-opted by the Bush administration in declaring the air was safe… when it clearly was not. Another would be the interaction between a F.B.I. informant and 2 of the hijackers. Another would be the C.I.A.s knowledge of some (maybe all?) of the hijackers entering the U.S. and not passing that information along to the F.B.I. Another would be (according to government sources) that some of the hijackers trained on U.S. military bases. Another would be the extent of foreign involvement/knowledge, like with Saudi Arabia & Israel. -- There's a whole range of things that make the officially told version of 9/11 contentious, some I just laid out with many more in reserve.

3) The general reality of 9/11, like any historical event, could do a 180° turn tomorrow.

 

[Bob0627]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

Yes, my counter theory is quite simple. It meets the demands of Occam.

Elegantly simple--the OCT is a damn lie.

It looks like an inside job because it was an inside job.

It looks like no Boeings at Shanksville and the Pentagon because there were no Boeings at either location.

It looks like something other than burning office furnishings brought down WTC buildings because something other than burning office furnishings DID bring down those towers.

The epidemiology of those working on the pile at WTC is identical to the epidemiology at other nuclear events like Chernobyl because it WAS a nuclear event.

And on, and on, and on....:shock:

Or even simpler, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, smells like a duck .... it must be a _____

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

Yes, my counter theory is quite simple. It meets the demands of Occam.

Elegantly simple--the OCT is a damn lie.

It looks like an inside job because it was an inside job.

It looks like no Boeings at Shanksville and the Pentagon because there were no Boeings at either location.

It looks like something other than burning office furnishings brought down WTC buildings because something other than burning office furnishings DID bring down those towers.

The epidemiology of those working on the pile at WTC is identical to the epidemiology at other nuclear events like Chernobyl because it WAS a nuclear event.

And on, and on, and on....:shock:

A heaping helping of INCREDULITY and nothing to back it up.

Surprise, surprise.

So, your EVIDENCE something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? And, no. A blurry photo ain't hacking it.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

1) History is not static ergo neither is 9/11. A 9/11 historical change example would be: the F.B.I., after saying they couldn't infiltrate al Qaeda (USATODAY.com - FBI says it can't infiltrate al-Qaeda), it is revealed that they actually had done so pre al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. ( EXCLUSIVE: FBI had human source in contact with bin Laden as far back as 1993 - Washington Times + Exclusive: Mole Who Met Bin Laden Killed by Al Qaeda in Bosnia - NBC News + The Note’s Must-Reads for Wednesday, February 26, 2014 - ABC News)

2) The reason I say 'contentious' is because the before/during/aftermath *is* highly controversial. One example, which you pointed out, was the E.P.A. and Ground Zero air quality. It is extremely controversial (and condemnable) that the E.P.A. was co-opted by the Bush administration in declaring the air was safe… when it clearly was not. Another would be the interaction between a F.B.I. informant and 2 of the hijackers. Another would be the C.I.A.s knowledge of some (maybe all?) of the hijackers entering the U.S. and not passing that information along to the F.B.I. Another would be (according to government sources) that some of the hijackers trained on U.S. military bases. Another would be the extent of foreign involvement/knowledge, like with Saudi Arabia & Israel. -- There's a whole range of things that make the officially told version of 9/11 contentious, some I just laid out with many more in reserve.

3) The general reality of 9/11, like any historical event, could do a 180° turn tomorrow.

I noted the air quality as one contention. And the informant did not clue in the FBI. As far as "trained on military bases". A quick look shows the number of "dual use" airfields is huge. Especially out in the 'boonies". Yuma International airport is an example. Oakland airport was dual use for a while.

And a rogue star could slam in to our solar system wiping out all living beings... Now what is the probability of it happening? (I suspect more likely than the "truther" story being true)

What is the probability of the 9/11 tale doing a 180° turn tomorrow?

 

[NWO_Spook]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

A heaping helping of INCREDULITY and nothing to back it up.

Surprise, surprise.

So, your EVIDENCE something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? And, no. A blurry photo ain't hacking it.

They have absolutely no evidence that anything other than AA77 hit the Pentagon, while there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that it was AA77.

To support the truther position is simply stupid at this point without evidence, as it is merely based on faith, not reason.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

Much of the "contention" is (in my opinion) contrived.

Indeed, it is the material that came out years after the attacks that shows the truther position is false, not the other way round.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

Yeah, when there is an ongoing crisis, like with the Boston Marathon bombing last year, the media takes just about any scrap of information they get, officially or unofficially, and put it out over the wire. I recognize that and have since I started paying attention to news/politics.

That is a by-product of 24 News on cable and satellite TV. The agencies are desperate for any snippet in order to fill the programming slots.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

Yes, my counter theory is quite simple. It meets the demands of Occam.

The two sentences are not an accurate representation of reality.

One, your counter-theory is NOT a counter-theory of any sort. When you get one please visit the appropriate thread.

Two, your normal comments are in direct contradiction of Occam's razor.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

Investigations designed to support a preconceived story for the purpose of covering up a crime are not investigations. And that was the agenda of ALL the pretend government 9/11 investigations, that couldn't be more than OBVIOUS. There was never an official unbiased forensic criminal investigation into 9/11 ever conducted, period.

hahahah

I wonder who's bringing their preconceived notions into this debate, and then has the gall to dismiss people's opinions, as he loudly proclaims all this silliness as fact.


Period.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

hahahah

I wonder who's bringing their preconceived notions into this debate, and then has the gall to dismiss people's opinions, as he loudly proclaims all this silliness as fact.


Period.

I really don't know why anyone bothers with this guy. He says much, yet nothing.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

I really don't know why anyone bothers with this guy. He says much, yet nothing.

Be assured that, when I periodically carve up a contemporary sample of his "wall of text", I have in mind amusement of the honest members and any learning they may experience from the explanations - whether technical, logical, legal or procedural... :mrgreen:

 

[Jango]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

That is a by-product of 24 News on cable and satellite TV. The agencies are desperate for any snippet in order to fill the programming slots.

Exactly. There's the rush of being the first to break the story, which draws people in, and then keep them there with newer information.

 

[Jango]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

I noted the air quality as one contention. And the informant did not clue in the FBI. As far as "trained on military bases". A quick look shows the number of "dual use" airfields is huge. Especially out in the 'boonies". Yuma International airport is an example. Oakland airport was dual use for a while.

And a rogue star could slam in to our solar system wiping out all living beings... Now what is the probability of it happening? (I suspect more likely than the "truther" story being true)

What is the probability of the 9/11 tale doing a 180° turn tomorrow?

Granted, the chances of the official version doing a 180° turn is low, but as Elsberg/Manning/Snowden have shown, it's not impossible for official government narratives to go credibly unchallenged forever.

Re the informant: IIRC, that was left open-ended.

Yes, there are dual use airfields, but some of them got training on actual bases.

 

[Mark F]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

Exactly. There's the rush of being the first to break the story, which draws people in, and then keep them there with newer information.

Like CNN - who spent two months being the first to tell us nothing about the missing Malaysian airliner.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

Granted, the chances of the official version doing a 180° turn is low, but as Elsberg/Manning/Snowden have shown, it's not impossible for official government narratives to go credibly unchallenged forever....

Sure but don't fall for the truther trap of the implied false generalising. i.e. that if one bit is wrong the whole lot is wrong.

There will not be a turnaround on:
1) 9/11 happened;
2) Several WTC buildings came down;
3) There was no CD (therefore even if "it" was an "inside job" the CD cold not be an inside job.)
4) Lots of people alive before 911 have not been seen alive since...
etc
etc
126) (Whatever 126 is)

Leave the loose logic open scope statements with the associated lies by inference to the truthers.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

Sure but don't fall for the truther trap of the implied false generalising. i.e. that if one bit is wrong the whole lot is wrong.

There will not be a turnaround on:
1) 9/11 happened;
2) Several WTC buildings came down;
3) There was no CD (therefore even if "it" was an "inside job" the CD cold not be an inside job.)
4) Lots of people alive before 911 have not been seen alive since...
etc
etc
126) (Whatever 126 is)

Leave the loose logic open scope statements with the associated lies by inference to the truthers.

That's the main thing. The idea that "it's all fake" is something truthers need. And it's just nonsensical.

If it came out that someone running sources planned for those operatives to crash those planes, in the hopes of that happening, I'd be shocked and I'd need a lot of evidence. But at least that wouldn't take thousands of people working in conjunction without a single leak.

But what truthers push currently? All but impossible. Just silly comic book thinking.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

That's the main thing. The idea that "it's all fake" is something truthers need. And it's just nonsensical.

If it came out that someone running sources planned for those operatives to crash those planes, in the hopes of that happening, I'd be shocked and I'd need a lot of evidence. But at least that wouldn't take thousands of people working in conjunction without a single leak.

But what truthers push currently? All but impossible. Just silly comic book thinking.

The thinking on MIHOP/LIHOP is infested with the same "false generalising" "false global" logic from both sides.

Treating the issues as if the options were ONE overall grand master plan to MIHOP or LIHOP.

Nonsense. So lets think it through from the bottom end of the parts needed to make up a whole.

There must have been lots of little bits of LIHOOI at the level of individual persons making erroneous judgement calls or being tardy in providing data or....many more.

No way could there not be many individual person errors. No way could there be zero errors from everyone involved in a complex large scale emergency. There must have been low level LIHOOI and a lot of it.

Now if we work up the scale - up the hierarchy. At the mid level of agency and inter-agency activity a range of potential agency level incompetence PLUS "turf protection" against other agencies and withholding information - possibly doing nothing so the agency doesn't stick its neck out and let's another agency wear the blame. Many different ways these games are played. And you can bet on agency level LIHOOI, LIHOP and inter-agency rivalry driven MIHOP at those middle levels BUT no overall plan.

So despite what I suggest is inevitable reality the internet forum field has been very quiet on those aspects.

Probably because the "black or white" "all or nothing" simplification is easiest to manage in this forum environment of rapidly typed words.

In addition "LIHOP" has a more subtle aspect which should also be acknowledged. In many emerging/evolving situations "let's see how it pans out" is the best approach. If some consequence has, say, a 1 in 10 chance of happening the managing the pre-emptive defence NINE times when not needed could cost a lot more than allowing the 1 in 10 to emerge then spending high energy reigning it in. "let's wait and deal with it if it happens could well be the better tactic. I'll leave it there - no need for me to teach "Political Risk Management 305" - the point should be clear.

 

[Jango]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

Like CNN - who spent two months being the first to tell us nothing about the missing Malaysian airliner.

:lol:

That was hilariously sad on their part.

It's funny to imagine their creative meetings (or whatever it's called): Executive Producer "Okay, there's no real news on the Malaysian flight but we're going to run it anyway."
Wolf Blizter "Sounds good to me."

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

:lol:

That was hilariously sad on their part.

It's funny to imagine their creative meetings (or whatever it's called): Executive Producer "Okay, there's no real news on the Malaysian flight but we're going to run it anyway."
Wolf Blizter "Sounds good to me."

And General Francisco Franco is still dead.

 

[Jango]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

Sure but don't fall for the truther trap of the implied false generalising. i.e. that if one bit is wrong the whole lot is wrong.

There will not be a turnaround on:
1) 9/11 happened;
2) Several WTC buildings came down;
3) There was no CD (therefore even if "it" was an "inside job" the CD cold not be an inside job.)
4) Lots of people alive before 911 have not been seen alive since...
etc
etc
126) (Whatever 126 is)

Leave the loose logic open scope statements with the associated lies by inference to the truthers.

I know you were making a valid point, but the list of unchangeable things would not extend to #126.

 

[Jango]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

And General Francisco Franco is still dead.

Que…?

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

A heaping helping of INCREDULITY and nothing to back it up.

Surprise, surprise.

So, your EVIDENCE something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? And, no. A blurry photo ain't hacking it.

Finally, we agree on something--a blurry photo ain't hacking it, for sure.

Yet as a member of the Pentagon Church of The Poisoned Mind, you defend a blurry photo as proof positive that UA77 hit the building.

Arguably the most secure building in the world, with the very best in surveillance cameras bristling on all corners and surfaces, and all they can find to support their position is a parking lot camera? That's absurd, and only the most gullible amongst us still defend that as being rational 13 years later.

OMG, those minds are poisoned.

 

[Mark F]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

Finally, we agree on something--a blurry photo ain't hacking it, for sure.

Yet as a member of the Pentagon Church of The Poisoned Mind, you defend a blurry photo as proof positive that UA77 hit the building.

Arguably the most secure building in the world, with the very best in surveillance cameras bristling on all corners and surfaces, and all they can find to support their position is a parking lot camera? That's absurd, and only the most gullible amongst us still defend that as being rational 13 years later.

OMG, those minds are poisoned.

But a "blurry photo" is not what is relied on to determine Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Conspiracy theorists look at only one piece of evidence at a time. Those of us in the real world look at the sum total of evidence. I outlined the process in these two posts, maybe you missed them:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...itting-pentagon-w-62-a-32.html#post1063297793

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...itting-pentagon-w-62-a-38.html#post1063300735

Or is that just too many words to take in all at once?

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Henry David's EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon [W:

It's just too much sophistry at once Mark, that's all. Even though I am accustomed to it coming from yourself, it's just too much nonsense that I've heard for years. Actually used to believe that nonsense for years.