History

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

Andrew — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:04:26 GMT

If there is nothing wrong, why confiscate the videotapes recording the plane flying over the Pentagon, and up to this day, won't show them. What are we going to see?

There is too much evidence to just dismiss an inside conspiracy as irrational rants of individuals .... PNAC, NORAD, building 7, and the lack of debris at Shanksville and the Pentagon.

And to those who say the gov't can't pull it off, I guess the atomic bomb was impossible to cover up for such a long time. Don't you find it odd that nobody told another country about what we were carrying one( but i'm not sure, maybe someone did). Surley, " Allies are making a top secret weapon in the time of escalating warfare" would gain high monetary gains, and that would be more believable that the " government intentionally created a murder of 3000 people for it's own power". No one would take that person seriously. So no money would be given, or people killed.

All of history tells us the state has done similar things to cause war and expand power. Why is it so unbelievable now? It is always the rational thinkers the state depends on. The fact that something is so absurd is the exact reason to do it and odds of things happening doesn't mean that they can't happen. The people that say " they would never do that" are the reason that it happens. The state plays not with the crazy maniac who believes there are ghosts in his microwave, but with rational, skeptical people like ourselves. The absurdity of things convinces rational thinking people that things like 9/11 can't happen, and the people who are nuts to begin with will never be believed, and the tyrant walks free.

The most intelligent man can act a fool, and a fool is not intelligent. So the man who acts a fool can never be blamed for sophisticated acts. A fool doesn't know who else is a fool, but a rational person does, so why would any rational person listen to an intelligent man who acts a fool so greatly that they can't tell the difference.

We are the rational men, and the state is the intelligent man acting a fool. We can not be fools for not noticing his act. For we are doomed to repeat it, if we are. Riechstagg anyone?

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

KarlHeinz — Thu, 29 May 2008 15:04:25 GMT

Doesn't sound too convincing. And most of the guys he references prefer to remain anonymous- afraid of ridicule perhaps? I'd be a bit more discerning about my sources. DoD has been using Salon to get its version of 9/11 out to the public.

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

Len Budney — Fri, 23 May 2008 01:20:55 GMT

liberty student:
Pilots for 9/11 have looked at the raw black box data, and I believe that there was an opinion that there is almost no chance a first time commercial airline pilot without formal training could pull such manuveurs off.

I'm sure there were. There were also pilots who said the opposite.

The ones who claimed it was impossible were speaking rationally, I'm sure: they were thinking what it would take for a man to perform such maneuvers competently--for example, and survive to land the plane. In precisely the same way, a lunatic in a police chase might perform 180's, hairpin turns, and even jumps and other maneuvers, which would provoke a stunt driver to say, "I studied for years to be able to do that." But the fact is that whipping the vehicle around crazily isn't the amazing achievement; doing it and surviving is. If you don't care about retaining control of the vehicle, avoiding accidents or, say, living, you can put on a mighty impressive show in the last moments of your life.

--Len

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

liberty student — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:24:22 GMT

Len Budney:
None--which is my point. Skill and panache are a display of aerobatics followed by a three-point landing on the Pentagon lawn without scratching the paint job. Any suicidal maniac can perform a series of near-suicidal maneuvers ending in actual suicide.

Pilots for 9/11 have looked at the raw black box data, and I believe that there was an opinion that there is almost no chance a first time commercial airline pilot without formal training could pull such manuveurs off.

Mind you, these are not libertarian forum experts, but (sic) non-expert pilots with thousands of hours of flight time, so feel free to discount their opinion as you see fit.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

Len Budney — Thu, 22 May 2008 21:26:29 GMT

Can you point me to any document that said cooperation included handing over control of the plane to hijackers?

Don't be an ass. Cooperate means comply with their demands, including taking them into the bathroom and initiating them into the mile-high club if that's their demand.

And what sort of skill or panache would allow someone to survive the impact from within the cockpit???

None--which is my point. Skill and panache are a display of aerobatics followed by a three-point landing on the Pentagon lawn without scratching the paint job. Any suicidal maniac can perform a series of near-suicidal maneuvers ending in actual suicide.

--Len

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

KarlHeinz — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:32:34 GMT

Len Budney:
What is this, Bill Clinton? It was the policy to cooperate with hijackers. Even after 9/11, flight crews were still being trained to cooperate. Are you honestly claiming to be unaware of that? You don't have to have read the 9/11 commission's report to have learned about it; it's been common knowledge since Carter was President.

Can you point me to any document that said cooperation included handing over control of the plane to hijackers?

Len Budney:

It was crappy flying. Anyone can fly a jet by stick and rudder--not well, but "well" wasn't required here. And anyone can do hard turns, steep dives and other crazy maneuvers if he doesn't give a care whether he passes out, or the plane breaks up, or of course he crashes. It's a piece of cake if you're a suicidal madman who intends to crash. Actually hitting the Pentagon was no feat: at his shallow approach angle, hitting it was likely.

What would take impressive skill and panache would be coming out alive afterward. But if you remove that as a consideration, anyone can do it.

This is complete foolishness. Are you a pilot? Do you know what pilots have to say about Hanjour's manouevre? Besides a recent token pilot debunker at 911myths.com (and some self-professed pilots at JREF), I challenge you to find pilots who say Hanjour's observed skill set jives with what he did on 9/11. You might want to check out the following site:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

And what sort of skill or panache would allow someone to survive the impact from within the cockpit???

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

Len Budney — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:21:45 GMT

Handing over controls of the plane to hijackers is policy?

What is this, Bill Clinton? It was the policy to cooperate with hijackers. Even after 9/11, flight crews were still being trained to cooperate. Are you honestly claiming to be unaware of that? You don't have to have read the 9/11 commission's report to have learned about it; it's been common knowledge since Carter was President.

But don't take my word for it. Find out what pilots have to say about Hanjour's flight manoeuvre.

It was crappy flying. Anyone can fly a jet by stick and rudder--not well, but "well" wasn't required here. And anyone can do hard turns, steep dives and other crazy maneuvers if he doesn't give a care whether he passes out, or the plane breaks up, or of course he crashes. It's a piece of cake if you're a suicidal madman who intends to crash. Actually hitting the Pentagon was no feat: at his shallow approach angle, hitting it was likely.

What would take impressive skill and panache would be coming out alive afterward. But if you remove that as a consideration, anyone can do it.

No, being indifferent to whether the SuperBowl or 9/11 gets investigated is what's offensive.

You want me to pay for your investigation? Come and get the money.

--Len

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

KarlHeinz — Thu, 22 May 2008 15:46:43 GMT

Len Budney:

Len, why are you still using this inappropriate analogy?

It's not inappropriate at all: it explains perfectly why humans suck at estimating probabilities. We're built to spot coincidences and assume they aren't. Natural selection ensures this: a homo erectus who irrationally associates falling leaves with panthers survives, however unhappy; a homo erectus who ignores falling leaves knowing that there's no panther 80% of the time, is eaten every fifth time when there IS a panther.

The three items you site are trivial. Getting control of a plane has been moronically easy ever since planes were invented. It was commonplace in the '70s, and at that time a policy was instituted of cooperating with hijackers. Steering a plane to its target is a piece of cake, and there were no domestic air defenses worth mentioning. You're amazed at something that's no tougher than stealing a car, avoiding the occasional traffic cop and successfully arriving at the Dunkin' Donuts of your choice.

As for your analogy about "having to pay for a meal anyway," that's just offensive. Expropriation is theft, and comparing it to a voluntary transaction is mendacious.

--Len

Handing over controls of the plane to hijackers is policy? Could you provide some proof please. You sure are a tough man to please. I thought that the actions performed by the hijackers was far from trivial. But don't take my word for it. Find out what pilots have to say about Hanjour's flight manoeuvre. And your new analogy is even more absurd.

No, being indifferent to whether the SuperBowl or 9/11 gets investigated is what's offensive.

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

Len Budney — Thu, 22 May 2008 15:19:55 GMT

Len, why are you still using this inappropriate analogy?

It's not inappropriate at all: it explains perfectly why humans suck at estimating probabilities. We're built to spot coincidences and assume they aren't. Natural selection ensures this: a homo erectus who irrationally associates falling leaves with panthers survives, however unhappy; a homo erectus who ignores falling leaves knowing that there's no panther 80% of the time, is eaten every fifth time when there IS a panther.

The three items you site are trivial. Getting control of a plane has been moronically easy ever since planes were invented. It was commonplace in the '70s, and at that time a policy was instituted of cooperating with hijackers. Steering a plane to its target is a piece of cake, and there were no domestic air defenses worth mentioning. You're amazed at something that's no tougher than stealing a car, avoiding the occasional traffic cop and successfully arriving at the Dunkin' Donuts of your choice.

As for your analogy about "having to pay for a meal anyway," that's just offensive. Expropriation is theft, and comparing it to a voluntary transaction is mendacious.

--Len

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

KarlHeinz — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:42:48 GMT

liberty student:
If you see only Bush and Cheney as criminals, not Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Clinton, Ford, Nixon, Johnson etc then unfortunatly I believe your focus is too narrow. The neocons like to call your perspective, BDS, or Bush Derangement Syndrome. The cast and crew of criminals spans the entire government. John Yoo, David Addington amongst the names I mentioned earlier. The side show is that you are obsessed with two men who will be retired in 8 months, and the odds of them facing war crimes charges, let alone the war ending anytime soon, are very small in my estimation.

This point seems to be missed by so many, perhaps most notoriously by Noam Chomsky. JFK and 9/11 expose the gangster nature of the state. Until the perpetrators are brought to justice for those crimes (not Vietnam or Iraq) do not expect any move towards libertarianism.

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

KarlHeinz — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:33:55 GMT

Len Budney:

liberty student:
Also, I would add that the notion that it would be too big to plan secretly, is somewhat undone by the ability to cover it up. The # of coincidences required for things to have gone down as they have been explained is mind boggling.

That's a standard mistake all humans make: we all suck at guesstimating probability. Every event is surrounded by thousands of interesting "coincidences." The odds of them all happening is incredibly tiny, if you ask that question in advance. But the odds of finding multiple coincidences after the fact are extremely high.

Consider meeting a woman in a bar, and learning that her mother and yours have the same middle name. You'd ask, "What are the odds of that happening?" But there are infinitely many things you might have noticed: you might have had the same birthday, or a grandparent from Norway, or a best friend with a Corvette, or a one-armed lover, or a deaf nephew, or...

And no matter which coincidence you discovered, you'd have asked, "What are the odds of that?" as if you had gone into the bar looking for someone with a one-armed lover--which you hadn't.

Len, why are you still using this inappropriate analogy? Your analogy involves an almost infinite number of combinations that can be checked to get a match. How many main events are there from 9/11? Let's stick with:

1- Hijackers successfully get control of planes.

2- Hijackers manually steer planes to targets, avoiding air defenses.

3- Hijackers hit their targets.

3 out of the 4 planes do this successfully. Hani Hanjour was a complete misfit yet he pulled off the most difficult manoeuvre of the day. Your analogy is not appropriate here.

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

KarlHeinz — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:24:13 GMT

Quite seriously though, if the Senate can waste time investigating steroids and NFL spygate, then surely this is a more appropriate excuse for the appropriation of funds.

Len Budney:
Since we're going to be raped anyway, at least we should be treated to a nice dinner first. Is that it? Your priorities are REALLY screwed up.

No, you're going to have to pay for a meal anyway. Might as well make it something tasty.

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

pauled — Wed, 21 May 2008 00:59:40 GMT

Juan:
I find it really odd that people supposedly interested in freedom readily believe what the politicans say and attack people who don't fall in line.

Yup. And i find it odd that people have watched the videos of those buildings collapse into a pile of pulverized concrete and uniformly cut 30 foot steel beams, all on top of molten steel, to be quickly cleared away without an investigation, and yet accept that this can possibly be accomplished by what the establishment would have us believe accomplished this. It's over the top.

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

Juan — Tue, 20 May 2008 22:16:04 GMT

...It is the same approach exhibited by all statist economists.

I find it really odd that people supposedly interested in freedom readily believe what the politicans say and attack people who don't fall in line.

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

liberty student — Tue, 20 May 2008 21:52:24 GMT

Caley:
Let's face it. The inside job notion began as a hunch and expanded on a foundation of dogmatic pursuit. There was a clear reason for that hunch from the outset and nothing "discovered" since has altered that as the pillar of the notion.

How can you say this, unless you are familiar with everything discovered?

I'm always intrigued by self-proclaimed denouncer/experts who are unaware of the details. I mean, I can be an expert on anything, at any time as well. Doesn't make me right, but it does make me feel really smart and important.