bigstrads wrote:
carlgo wrote:I knew one of the principle defenders on Flight 93 quite well. Frankly, I think that the wild conspiracy theories are an insult to him and the others. It is dangerous when the Wrights of the world promote cartoon views of real and dangerous situations.
911 was an amazingly difficult and well-planned attack. It was lucky to have succeeded. Would Bush, and the zillion others at all levels that would have had to be involved, picked such a difficult operation to get us involved? No way, not in a million years.
Bush didn't need 911 to go into Iraq. The WMD argument was enough for that. His administration simply made sure that its view prevailed by not allowing any dissident views to confront them with facts. That isn't as sexy as a huge conspiracy orchestrated from Cheney's underground lair, but one is possible and one is impossible.
It is always puzzling when people pick the least likely scenario to explain things. Bush didn't plan 911, Clinton didn't bomb the government building in Oklahoma, Roosevelt didn't plan Pearl Harbor. And, you know, Kennedy was undoubtedly killed by crazy Oswald (that is the hardest one). Aliens do not fly their crafts through billions of light years only to crash into each other once they get to earth, AIDs is not a planned genocide for blacks...
No, it isn't sexy, but most tragic events are the result of craziness, arrogance, laziness, bad luck, lack of preparedness, bureaucratic inertia and every other human condition.
When people blame Bush for 911, it makes it seem that he is under attack from the loony fringe and that makes him look better in comparison and thus bails him out. Stick to the actual offenses. Yes, it is more work to prove a case than it is to make wild accusations, but it is the kind of work that needs to be done.
Wow...............dont really know where to start.
Flight 93, when you say "defenders" I presume you mean you knew someone on the plane? if not, then let us know what you mean.
From the stuff I have gathered on Flight 93, it seems to me to be the only one that made any kind of sense, Im not gonna say that a missle took it down............but there arent any facts that say anything to the contrary of the official explanation.
"911 was an amazingly difficult and well planned attack"..........well, that makes it even more suspicious then doesnt it? how would a bunch of Muslim extremists, already under scrutiny and watchful eye be able to pull of such a difficult act?
It had to be a massive attack, with lots of casulties, to get America united behind the "war".............all I ask is that people take off there rose tinted glasses and look at the scientific facts that disprove the official explanations in one foul, easy swoop.
IF all the things you mentioned are what they explained them to be..........as it was so simple as they say they were.............then why not explain them to dispell any possibility of conspiracies? why destroy the evidence that would 100% prove there explanations? like the remains and ruble from the Twin Towers = it was all destroyed, even before the commisioned report could expect it.........why? well, there would be alot of evidence in those remains, and if they were able to be looked at and have someone say "Well, there was no traces of explosives" then why would you not want that?...........the mere fact that all the necessary evidence to dis-credit conspiracy theories is hidden or destroyed, makes the conspiracy theories even more possible and plausible............why put your self in that position?
There are a 1000 more things I could say on this but you obviously have some kind of emotional attatchment to these things, so there really is no point.............youll be fine, believing what you do.............Ill be fine believeing in the cold hard facts that make a hell of alot more sense to me as a logical/thinking human.
Once more for the record.............I dont do conspiracy theories, I do my research of the scientific facts and things that cannot/havnt been explained.
He was one of the guys that rushed the cabin on 93. He was a really big energetic Div I athletic guy and was in the huddle with the guy that organized the passenger uprising. Nobody knows who was really involved, but he and a couple of others were placed at the scene, so to say. I like to believe that some little old ladies hit the aholes with frying pans...
I think your reference to scientific evidence pertains to the properties of steel under heat stress. Some say there weren't enough btus to melt the steel and so shadowy government figures must have packed two giant buildings with tons of additional explosives and then hijacked airlines piloted by amateur pilots would hit the buildings in exactly the right place, two buildings, and the explosives would then be detonated by shadowy government figures. Of course, if any stage of this attack failed, investigators would have found the tons of unexploded material and that just might have raised some suspicion.
Actual scientific evidence shows that thousands of gallons of jet fuel will indeed overcome the insulation builders spray over the steel beams. The amount they use is enough to counter the typical building fire caused by a bad electrical outlet.
"Scientific evidence" is, as you know, often not. "Scientific evidence" shows, according to Xtian fundamentalists, that there isn't enough dust on the moon, so it must only be 6000 years old. I worked with a lady who often quoted her religious support literature's "scientific" research that showed that there were no dinasaurs, and a host of other "proofs" of things that supported fundamentalist views.
A guy I worked with got religion and his new-found pastor seemed to spend a lot of time debunking the Apollo moon landings. Clearly, he was trying to create doubt about science so that people would accept his teachings.
Missiles downed 93? So, all the tapes that recorded the cockpit struggles and the hijackers agreeing to "put it down" were all fakes? The passengers really did nothing? More shadowy government audio experts? How about all the cell phone calls from passengers? Manipulated by shadowy government AT&T operators? Fighter pilots, air crews, armament loaders, radar operators...hmmm, all shadowy government figures.
Shadowy government operatives destroyed the evidence? Good grief, there were millions of tons of rubble. There were fights over the asbestos and other hazardous materials. Huge convoys of trucks hauled this stuff to the dump. Did government agents then hide it somewhere. Now, more agents are involved, shadowy truck drivers, bulldozer, loaders, dump site employees...
How did fanatical Muslims do all of this while under scrutiny by the government? They weren't in those days. Some spy-types warned of this, but in typical government fashion, they seemed to be more worried about their budgets, powers and positions.
Too hard a feat for a small band of people to pull off? Maybe it was actually more possible because there weren't too many hands involved. If the Bushies tried to do the same thing on an Iranian plane, it would have involved 10,000 people and would have become so complicated that it would fail.
These people are as smart as anyone. All it took was a few guys that could fly a plane a little, some strongmen with knives and a lot of dry runs, planning and, of course, their famous fanaticism.
The first flights that were jacked were fairly easy because the passengers thought it was just another hostage-type situation and that is was best to just endure it. 93 fought back because they heard about the towers and knew they were fked.
The most surprising thing to me was the skill of the pilots. Unless you believe that suicidal shadowy government pilots went to flight schools pretending they were not pilots, just to get a cover.
Any plot as hugely, enormously big as 911 would require hundreds, if not thousands, of shadowy government operatives. Not one of them would feel bad about the thousands of deaths, the war and casualties, hate Bush, get religion, want a book deal? Come on, the conspiracy theory is the least likely explanation.
Here is a real conspiracy: Nixon (who supposedly was really smart) and Watergate. That is the type of stupid plot you could really expect. And what happened there? Ratting each other out, book deals, talk shows...that is real life, folks.
You know, the CIA, FBI and other shadowy governmental agencies are made up of fanatical right-wingers dedicated to the overthrow of democracies...No, not really. Their employee base is recruited from the most prestigious and allegedly most liberal colleges, law schools and specialty institutions. They do not have job fairs for white supremists, Hells Angels, NRA life members or the like.
The point is that it is harder than you might think to organize any huge conspiracy and people just seem to be incapable of actually succeeding at them if they try.
So, I do believe that 911 is what it seems to be: clever and lucky fanatics and a poorly prepared government. I completely reject the notion that the Bushies, of all administrations, were capable of organizing anything like this. Look at their incredible record of bumbling. Listen to all the rats leaving the sinking ship, trying to sell books. You really think that it is even the teeniest bit possible these idiots could have organized this?
The reference to "rose-colored glasses" is somewhat insulting, implying that some people, but not you, view the world through reality-distorting filters, poor fools.
I am a camera guy and have several red and orange filters that really alter a black and white view of the world, but I use them judiciously because I know that they can create a false image. You know what I mean?
So, I think my filters are selective and I like to think I can use them when I want to have fun and leave them off when a reality view is needed.
I believe there was a thread where you discussed coming to the US and going to a good school like Stanford. I admire your passion and involvement. I do hope you get at least one tough and intellectually honest professor who holds your feet to the fire a bit when you throw out an unlikely theory, call it scientific, accuse others of a distorted vision and then seal the deal by saying you only deal with fact. That is wrong on several levels and you must defend it. Maybe you can.
Anyway, it has been fun but I gotta go. Damn UN black helicopters are dissecting my cows again.
