United 93 - Accident Investigation

[darrenf]

What faulty conclusions? I have not posted any conclusions.

Oh really?

For instance, that Popular Mechanics article is huge load of (you know what).

Underlined... Just stop right there, it's too easy, and I don't wanna tongue slap you with something loaded full of acrimony.

My suggestion to you is just stop. Stop! Just leave it be. I can honestly say that debating politics in the lavatory with wacofan is a lot more fun than exchanging posts with you.

An there it is, you disagree with me, so just be quiet. I would have to say the "debating" with Jim is much more enjoyable for me too, because he doesn't tell those that disagree to shut up. So much for seeking the truth, like you want us to believe you are doing. You simply look for the info that supports your predetermined position. I just can't argue with that level of crazy, so why bother? The only option you leave me unless I dedicate all my time to this nonsense is to point out how if you act like a whacko, err um conspiracy theorist, you probably are a conspiracy theorist.

 

[flyingbum]

Oh really?





An there it is, you disagree with me, so just be quiet. I would have to say the "debating" with Jim is much more enjoyable for me too, because he doesn't tell those that disagree to shut up. So much for seeking the truth, like you want us to believe you are doing. You simply look for the info that supports your predetermined position. I just can't argue with that level of crazy, so why bother? The only option you leave me unless I dedicate all my time to this nonsense is to point out how if you act like a whacko, err um conspiracy theorist, you probably are a conspiracy theorist.

Is that what you're doing? SEEKING the TRUTH? Your accusations are epically stupid.

First of all, If you weren't so busy clogging up the thread full of balderdash, maybe we could have a couple pages of information on display. Instead you would rather argue over beliefs. Why don't YOU start posting some information. You haven't posted didly squat. Like you said, you're just here to point out what YOU think is wrong. Do you have anything to back it up? Or do you just teleport it to the screen for only you to magically see with your special tin foil hat? How many references to some form of information have been posted in 14 pages of this thread? A little bit so far... And what do YOU come up with??? A list of 10 things that you need to chickety check yoself cause you already done wrecked yoself.

After reading that list of yours, you fit the bill for at least 80% of it. But like you say, it's all subjective. Hey, speaking of what's subjective, I believe you're a TROLL. I also believe that you might be SCARED of what information might come out on this public forum. That's right, you're nice and cozy in that little bubble of yours. Are you afraid of a needle popping it? Are you scared of what might be illuminated? I don't think you even made an effort to have an open mind here. Your mind was made up when it got here. Your true colors have really shown in this thread. Someone has a theory other than yours, deal with it.

You asked for it dude, and I have no problem telling you, you're trolling, hardcore.

 

[SteveC]

Hey guys, just poking my head in to see how we're doing in here. Everybody playing nicey-nice?

 

[flyingbum]

Here is a list of what makes a conspiracy theorist that I did not write but I can agree with. I'm posting from my iphone so please forgive any formatting wackiness.

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

Hmmm, guess there is a limit to how much you can post via Tapatalk. ( must be a conspiracy)!

Here is 9 & 10 from the list again.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's happened before.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

1. Arrogance. Yeah, you sure fit in nice and snug there.

2. Relentlessness. Yup, you've been trolling since page 1 or 2.

3. Inability to answer questions. Are those real questions you're asking? Or are they like pretend ones? Ya know, since
you're seeking the truth.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. Let's see, "crazy, loon, loonie, conspiraloon". Yeah, you have been labeling.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. WTF??? Who came up with that? Glen Beck? You must believe in coincidences? Don't ya know that the sun will come back up tomorrow?

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Because you're an expert on the subject? Right?

7. Inability to withdraw. Yeah, you've been at it since page one.......WINNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

8. Leaping to conclusions. You conclude that we conclude that someone else concluded? Did I get that right?

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. Actions speak LOUDER than words... Go find your 3rd grade teacher for an explanation...

10. It's always a conspiracy. Because you say so! Pass the charlie sheen dude......herdy derdy der!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bumblebee]

I've always heard you should practice what you preach.

I may ridicule your beliefs but I am not allowed to be insulting towards you personally

Maybe you aren't, but it appears other people are..check the first several pages of this thread. One poster even stated (post #167) that his answer is "government hit squads to kill these bozos" (truthers). Please tell me why that is ok?

you mean that post on page....8? come on man. I haven't real everything here, and he isn't a moderator, so if you have a problem with a post there is a report post feature. Although that was a general comment and the ones I am referring to are specifically targeted at particular users. There is a distinction.

I just re-read my previous post, #332, and it reads like I'm trying to start up more arguing, or whatever. Not my intent. Just my initial reaction to the post I quoted you on, #330.

there is also and edit and delete feature that are very helpful...I use the delete button most!

 

[hambone]

Hey guys, just poking my head in to see how we're doing in here. Everybody playing nicey-nice?

Oh it's wonderful.

 

[staledog]

you mean that post on page....8? come on man. I haven't real everything here, and he isn't a moderator, so if you have a problem with a post there is a report post feature. Although that was a general comment and the ones I am referring to are specifically targeted at particular users. There is a distinction.
there is also and edit and delete feature that are very helpful...I use the delete button most!

Yes the post on page 8. It doesn't matter what page it was on, the guy called for everyone that disagrees with him on the subject (several of which are posting here) to be killed. I saw that post days ago and it stuck out in my mind for that reason. I never said anything about it until today. Actually I thought the mods did read everything here, like maybe it's part of their job or something. Apparently not. You were telling Qutch about how he's "coming very close towards being insulting towards those who have allowed you free reign to make arguments"...even though all I saw from him were general comments toward the moderation, not anything "specifically targeted at particular users." If there was, I missed it. Although I HAVE seen MANY comments specifically targeted at particular users from the "truthers are loony" camp, and no mods have told them to cool it off. It seems to me like a double standard.

And yes, I'm well aware of the edit and delete features. I didn't want to delete my first post. Could have combined my second post with the first, but, I didn't think this thread was quite long enough I guess.

Once again, not trying to keep any arguments going, just giving my point of view.

 

[MQAAord]

If I tried to read every post on this site I would probably be arrested and have my kids taken away from me for neglect.

If you see something that you feel is in violation of the site's TOS, use the report post feature. See the little exclamation point in the triangle in the lower left-hand corner of every post? That's how you report a post. Report it, and a thread pops up in the mod section, and we'll deal with it. Expecting us to read & nitpick every post made here, when we ALL have lives, families and jobs is a little grandiose. We rely on EVERY user to help make this site friendly for everyone.

 

[SteveC]

...Actually I thought the mods did read everything here, like maybe it's part of their job or something. Apparently not...

Oh HELL no!

You were telling Qutch about how he's "coming very close towards being insulting towards those who have allowed you free reign to make arguments"...even though all I saw from him were general comments toward the moderation, not anything "specifically targeted at particular users." If there was, I missed it. Although I HAVE seen MANY comments specifically targeted at particular users from the "truthers are loony" camp, and no mods have told them to cool it off. It seems to me like a double standard.

And to add on to what Amber said above, the moderation team are NOT referees. We're fire fighters. If OFTEN happens that I'll pop in to take a look at a thread, see something that goes against the desired vibe of the site, and do a little moderating. I do not have time nor the inclination to dig back through pages of posts to try to figure out who started it, who made mean first, or especially to worry about if I'm being FAIR. Fair to me means that I moderate bad behavior when I see it, period.

One of the nice things about this website is that the moderation team really doesn't HAVE to spend all the time and effort to be FAIR. Our goal is to set the tone, help pass along Doug's desire for proper behavior in his virtual living room, and let people have a good time. Most of the long time members here know what is expected, and understand when they get their hand slapped that they probably deserved it, even if "the other guy started it".

I've got more, but I'm in the middle of a project here and I've already spent too much time on this one silly thread, so I'll save the rest of the speech.

Y'all be good now, ya hear?

 

[staledog]

Rodger that. Thanks for the info, MQAAord and SteveC.

 

[pullup]

Qutch, good points, opens my mind a little more. And your narrative? Couldn't be more hilarious!! Lol, oh Darren.

Anyway, our govt infected it's own citizens with STD's, enslaved its own citizens, has used its own citizens as pawns (Fast and Furious), has given our enemies weapons, food, etc. They have developed nuclear technology and not told the workers, they have more backdoor deals then Darren had rolled eye smilies )). Is it too far fetched that one person or one shadow group could initiate this operation? They wouldn't have to even see it through. Give Osama the plans, money, and paperwork and let it roll on its own.

 

[flyingbum]

[video=youtube;wJsEGgc5L2c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJsEGgc5L2c&feature=player_profilepage[/video]

 

[Boris Badenov]

Well, since we're now in the realm of pure theorizing (and some pretty stilted attempts at "theory of knowledge" type logical morasses), the most viable "Unofficial" theory of 9/11 I've seen is that the attacks were, of course, quite real (no holograms), and staged by Al-Qaeda, but that the Mossad (and far less likely, but not outside the realm of possibility, the CIA) had penetrated far enough to know that they were going to happen, but found it in their political interest to allow them to happen. This theory has the virtue of eschewing all of the logistical/secrecy concerns that are (quite legitimately, IMHO) brought up by the "My Gummint wouldn't LIE to ME" Brigade, but still passing the smell test w/r/t "Real Politik" and what both Israel and the US have a long and documented track record of believing to be Cricket in their insane (rhetorical flourish, I admit) capito-religious quest to export some strange hybrid of corporatism and Dark Ages religious Eschatonic ferver to the rest of the world.

Discuss!

 

[PugetSoundMan]

.

Written to Qutch in the Military Forum

I agree. As a fellow "long-poster" myself, I think as long as you're respectful on the site (which clearly, you are), nobody minds if you write a lot to get your point across. Like I said a few posts ago, my very first post on this site 6 years ago was asking if anyone knew any other methods of teaching a fix-2-fix... so I'm loving this thread!

I've been following Qutch posts here at JC and on the aviation science author sites for some time and he has always been polite. He doesn’t lose arguments, he wins them, but politely. That's in the military sections and on science sites which as Bumblebee said, might have more polite users than we have here. But here Darren made the mistake of relentlessly hounding Qutch just for trying to answer hambone, jet and my questions about the reliability of the United 93 commission report. If Darren had read Qutch in military JC he'd have known that debating Qutch without first getting all the facts was a big mistake. Qutch did not call anyone a bozo or lunatic, post music videos or dump huge copies of clog material into the debate stream to frustrate Darren and his followers. And he didn't advocate killing anyone. Even if he had, I don't see how anyone here could complain since that has been openly practiced and tolerated here. Why would any of us think that should draw criticism from JC? Still Qutch didn't do any of that. All he did was call Darren on the carpet for firing off volleys of mean spirited responses to a post that Darren admittedly did not fully read completely before initiating his stream of attacks. Darren got himself into this mess running off half cocked. He doesn't need defending if his feelings were hurt by Qutch pointing out such a blatant mistake.

I agree that we should be polite and respectful. And I'm trying to be. I understand that the moderators can't read everything. If they want us to use forum alert tools when we encounter death threats and particularly viscious personal attacks, I'll do that. I'm not looking for a fight either. But I'm grateful that Qutch brought the issue to a head the way he did, and I thought considering the extreme behavior seen in this thread, he took the high road like he always does. Clever approach.

 

[staledog]

Well, since we're now in the realm of pure theorizing (and some pretty stilted attempts at "theory of knowledge" type logical morasses), the most viable "Unofficial" theory of 9/11 I've seen is that the attacks were, of course, quite real (no holograms), and staged by Al-Qaeda, but that the Mossad (and far less likely, but not outside the realm of possibility, the CIA) had penetrated far enough to know that they were going to happen, but found it in their political interest to allow them to happen.

Discuss!

That's kind of what I was thinking. War is big business. The CIA and/or other government agencies may have known this was going to happen, and thought it would make a great excuse to go to war. Maybe they thought the hijackers would be lucky to get one plane to hit the WTC, maybe they hadn't even thought that one tower would collapse, let alone two. Maybe the predicted death toll of a few hundred suddenly turned into a few thousand when the hijackers were much more successful than anyone who knew about the plot thought they would be.

OR maybe it wasn't even intentional. Maybe Joe Blow at the CIA uncovered this plot, and told his boss, but then that guy forgot to tell the next guy above him... or didn't think the threat was real. Maybe the government could have prevented this, but they totally dropped the ball, and they know it.

Either of these scenarios would warrant a cover up.

MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE...I don't think the entire truth is likely to come out in our lifetime, if ever. But I don't think that means we should stop asking the questions either.

 

[Boris Badenov]

But I don't think that means we should stop asking the questions either.

Questions are unpatriotic. And crazy.

I might be repeating myself here (pretty sure I am), but I know semi-personally a cop who laid hands on a bunch of Israeli nationals who were definitely standing on top of a building filming the second WTC hit. I suppose it's difficult to prove that they were "cheering", but there's not much question that they were there. This is not a leftist-type guy, nor is he a far-right nutter. What he mostly is, AFAICT, is confused. And maybe a bit suspicious. Now, if you (meaning whoever) accept that what I've been told by this guy is true, how do you explain it? I'm totally fine with you not accepting it, being third hand from an obviously dubious source (you know me too well). But let's say it is true. What does that mean for "you, your frame outlook of life, and everything" COL. BAT GUANO, IF THAT REALLY IS YOUR NAME?

 

[SeanD]

I dont believe Ive shared this here (possible with members over a beer). I feel Ill throw it out there for some food for thought. My mother, whom is a retired analyst from the CIA. She retired in 1998. Her job was to gather intel from field agents working for or with the CIA within the Middle East region. Primarily Afghanistan and the terrorist organizations within. She was responsible for what went into that section of the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) as well as all of the proof reading and fact checking. After 9/11 happened she was a complete wreck. It took time for her to snap out of it. She still refuses to watch any 9/11 footage. Prior to her final week at CIA, they were getting heavy information about Al Qaeda planning a massive attack on the U.S using airplanes and training pilots in the U.S. That was just one incident of related incoming information. A week later Jon Brennan threw her a retirement party and that ended her 25 year career there. She was the one who called me on 9/11, and in a calm tone told me " Turn on the TV.The US will be changed forever. It looks like they succeeded" My reaction was "who succeeded" This was after the first plan hit. Two minutes later the second plane crashed. My mother gasped, cried and said "we had this information years ago" Referring from her days with the CIA. The day after, I went to visit and she pretty much dumped it all out. Much of it I dont think I can share. Those who arent familiar with the relationship of the FBI and CIA prior to 9/11 should know they didnt work well together and lacked the ability to completely share information. This was the most heartbreaking thing to her after 9/11. Knowing it could have been prevented.

 

[Jet]

Presidents never lie!

 

[staledog]

Questions are unpatriotic. And crazy.

I might be repeating myself here (pretty sure I am), but I know semi-personally a cop who laid hands on a bunch of Israeli nationals who were definitely standing on top of a building filming the second WTC hit. I suppose it's difficult to prove that they were "cheering", but there's not much question that they were there. This is not a leftist-type guy, nor is he a far-right nutter. What he mostly is, AFAICT, is confused. And maybe a bit suspicious. Now, if you (meaning whoever) accept that what I've been told by this guy is true, how do you explain it? I'm totally fine with you not accepting it, being third hand from an obviously dubious source (you know me too well). But let's say it is true. What does that mean for "you, your frame outlook of life, and everything" COL. BAT GUANO, IF THAT REALLY IS YOUR NAME?

I'm not sure I understand this. I guess if I was in the vicinity, had a video camera and the opportunity to run to the top of my building and film the WTC after it was hit, I probably would. If they were just filming because the first tower had been hit, and then while they were filming, the second tower got hit, that could explain it.

As far as if they were cheering....who knows what that could mean or why they would.

 

[PugetSoundMan]

Those who arent familiar with the relationship of the FBI and CIA prior to 9/11 should know they didnt work well together and lacked the ability to completely share information. This was the most heartbreaking thing to her after 9/11. Knowing it could have been prevented.

Since Qutch did his big commission post I've been looking at everything on his Operation Able Danger (military intel) angle, and the FBI Director's claim that some military intel guys knew something big was up, but failed or were refused permission to pass the info to the FBI. The Able Danger congressional hearings I've been looking at seem to confirm your mother's story. There is alot of CSpan type video available on the public hearings. If true, pretty ugly stuff said in those hearings. By itself may not prove anything, but there is so much verified gov material on this angle it sounds about right. So the next question is why were they pulled off the investigation. Bungling? Or was somebody placing a "no interference" order on these guys, clearing a path for them. From what the angry 911 commissioners are saying, they couldn't get a straight answers out of the govt, so they aren't sure.


(Source: Qutch)
Operation Able Danger - After 911 a group of military officers, lead by Lt. Colonel Anthony Schaffer, stepped forward and reported that they had identified the 911 hi-jackers prior to 911 but were denied permission to pursue them. . Then, in the Wall Street Journal, former FBI Director Louis Freeh joined the attack on the 911 Commission for ignoring or suppressing the Operation Able Danger information, which would have revealed that U.S. Intelligence was on to the 911 plot, but was handcuffed and forced to stand by and watch it happen. . Colonel Shaffer and FBI Director Freeh are both alleging that even if the suppression of Operation Able Danger wasn't evidence of a 911 conspiracy, the cover-up of information and its exclusion from the 911 Commission Report was a conspiracy. . http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/17/122900.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7suTyXGybU&feature=relatedOperation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXO8tULizxs&feature=relatedOperation