The best evidence against a 9/11 conspiracy?

[MercutioATC]

11 years later, even those who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories can't agree on what the conspiracy was.

[Politicalboi]

1. Maybe some

Just ask yourself some questions and see if they make sense. Why didn't the Pentagon defend itself during the time the FAA knew they had hijacked planes? The second tower was hit at 9:03, the Pentagon at 9:38. Why didn't the Pentagon defend DC? Why do we accept a blurry video at the Pentagon that should have hundreds of cameras?

Why if these "terrorist" were dead set on attacking us, didn't they just get like 10 of them who master martial arts and take over a flight out of NY? We see videos of these "terrorist" camps. What do they do there if not train for war and confrontation. This was pre 9/11, so a plane with 10 middle eastern guys wouldn't really get much attention. So flying over military bases was a safer way to go I suppose.

And the conspiracy still lives today with the Patriot Act

[Flatulo]

7. Your question has a built-in premise that the Pentagon had defenses. Can you

verify this, or is it conjecture.

I mean, it's not like the Pentagon is a military base with battalions of marines at the ready.

It's just a really big office building.

It's been 11 years and I've seen no evidence of any sort of missile defenses. I'd love to be proven wrong.

[Angry Dragon]

2. What happened to all the gold??

[zappaman]

3. Duh.

[Shagman]

4. Short answer?

As Rumsfeld said, "We don't know what we don't know."

It's almost fifty years later, and we can't say for sure who killed Kennedy. All we do know is that there are too many holes in the "official version" to take it seriously.

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. Part of the problem towards a truth is

by having so many arguments and counter arguments, the entire issue is now too clouded to comprehend.
Add to the enormity of the catastrophe, it all becomes too much for most people and they just try to not think about it at all.
Not even to wonder why documents about Kennedy's murder are STILL top secret for another 50 years.

[Ace Acme]

39. The issue is pretty simple, really

The widows' 300 questions got only 27 answers, and NIST gave us only half a report on the Twin Towers.

So we're asking for answers to the widows' 273 questions, and we're asking for a complete and honest report on the Twin Towers

[freedom fighter jh]

6. That is evidence only that the powers that be have controlled information well enough . . .

. . . that a clear answer has not emerged.

But it is also clear that the official story cannot be true.

[William Seger]

8. Clear to whom?

People who start with the conclusion that it isn't true? Personal incredulity isn't evidence of anything and it's a poor substitute for a rational argument unless you can actually demonstrate why it cannot be true. Hand-waving doesn't count. The corollary to the OP is that the reason the "truth movement" never got past being a minor net cult and is now in decline is that it was never able to demonstrate "that the official story cannot be true," much less come up with a more believable one.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

9. A main problem of the "truth movement" is that it's....

....infected with massive disinformation, i.e. too many bewildering ideas that all seem to find some following. People don't stick to basic questions.

But as for evidence, I'm still waiting too. Or shall I accept the official story that some kids (novice pilots) qualified for a track meet (got some level of training) and then went out and set world track records (accomplished feats that regular experience airline pilots could not immediately replicate in simulators). That's not evidence. That's a fairy tale.

[William Seger]

10. It would seem that the reason you can't accept the "official story"

... is that you have instead accepted a ridiculously distorted version of what that story is. You can't even consider the possibility that hijacking planes and pointing them at buildings is much less difficult than you seem to think, and that that might be the reason why that attack was chosen over all the others considered. You do that despite having no logical reason whatsoever for why the alleged perps would have concocted such a complicated and risky hoax when something much less complicated and risky would have accomplished the same presumed purpose. It seems that JFK conspiracists started that trend (thereby defining modern conspiracism as imagining complex hoaxes for no apparent reason) when they imagined that the best scheme the alleged perps could come up with was to put a second shooter on the grassy knoll in crowded Dealey Plaza and then after implausibly getting away with that, engaged in a ridiculously complicated and risky coverup of where the fatal shot "really" came from. Don't you think a few minutes of thinking should have produced a dozen simpler and safer plots?

I assume that the "feat" you're referring to is the "truth movement's" highly exaggerated version of the slow, wobbly spiral that Hani Hanjour did to lose altitude to hit the Pentagon. That version grossly distorts how easy it actually was -- watch the animation sometime -- and ignores the fact that Hanjour damn near plowed into a bridge and then barely managed to avoid "lawn darting" short of his target. The real "official story" actually supports the notion that Hanjour was a crappy pilot with no experience flying a large jet.

The "official story" IS the official story because it's the one supported by the evidence we have. Declaring all that evidence to be fake just because it desperately wants a different story is the main problem with the "truth movement," because that precedes all the nonsensical and unsupported stories they try to sell.

[. .]

11. William Seger - Please come to the Window of Exposure thread

...and offer your thoughts.

[William Seger]

12. Here will do

What you are doing there is called the "affirming the consequent" logical fallacy.

[. .]

13. So you're unwilling to enter "Window of Exposure"...

...and you're unable to use your own words to defend your presumed stance.

[William Seger]

14. Read the article

It explains why this type of argument is invalid:

1. If P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, P.

Your argument is:

1. If Rumsfeld were guilty of being part of an "inside job," he'd do these things.
2. Rumsfeld did those things.
3. Therefore, Rumsfeld is guilty of being part of an "inside job.".

If you don't understand why that logic is not valid, I don't think I can help. Since the logic is faulty, there's no need to discuss whether or not your dubious premises are really true: The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

[eomer]

15. Proof in a criminal case is not the same thing as proof in Mathematics.

Scott Peterson was convicted of murder largely because he acted the way he would have if he was guilty.

Maybe you know a name for the fallacy you committed - that of applying a standard of proof that is inapplicable to the question at issue.

[William Seger]

17. There's only one standard for what constitutes a "valid" logical inference

A logical inference is "valid" if and only if it necessarily follows from the premises, in the sense that if the premises are true then the conclusion cannot be false. An argument is "sound" if the inference is valid and the premises are actually true. An argument is considered to be fallacious if it is either invalid or unsound (or both), and it isn't necessary to put a name to the fallacy involved.

You claim that Scott Peterson was convicted of murder "largely" because he acted in a guilty manner. If anyone is convicted of murder based solely on invalid logic, then I would suggest that I am not the one applying an inapplicable standard of proof, sir.

[. .]

21. quote: "and it isn't necessary to put a name to the fallacy involved"

why don't you try, though?

[William Seger]

36. I did

"Affirming the consequent."

[eomer]

23. But, of course, a valid logical inference is not the standard in a criminal case.

The standard of proof in a criminal case is something else.

[. .]

27. I think you've managed to convince...

...William Seger to blather less, learn more.

something about guys like this, that really makes me wonder...

[William Seger]

34. Say WHAT?!? What country do you live in?

I'd rather not risk setting foot there.

[William Seger]

38. Less snarky response

Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

It is possible to get a criminal conviction based only on circumstantial evidence, provided that the required inference is both valid and sound "beyond reasonable doubt."

If you think Mr. . . has built such a case against Rumsfeld, then I sincerely hope that neither of you are ever asked to serve on a jury. (OK, it's only a slightly less snarky response.)

[. .]

20. This person is a runner

can't have a serious discussion to save his ass.

[. .]

16. So...

Are you suggesting that he did not deliberately increase the probability for further mass murder?

Or are you suggesting that he did increase the probability for further mass murder, but that he didn't mean to, or...?

[William Seger]

18. I'm "suggesting" exactly what I said

Your argument is invalid, without even examining your dubious premises.

[. .]

19. Please help me understand

How is it dubious?

[William Seger]

35. Are you saying that you still don't understand

... why "affirming the consequent" is a logical fallacy?

[William Seger]

37. But anyway, here's the dubious premise behind your faulty logic

> Step by step, point by point, it was the only possible way to achieve the desired goal. Any Secretary of
> Defense > who was committed to such intentions would be faced with doing exactly this, and it is exactly
> as Donald Rumsfeld did. I would challenge anyone to show otherwise.

This assertion is ridiculous and it's easy to show otherwise: Rumsfeld's behavior that morning was not the "only possible way to achieve the (presumed) goal" and it certainly was not the best possible way. The most direct way to achieve the presumed goal would have been to order a stand-down, as conspiracists accuse Cheney of doing. But even if Rumsfeld being "out of the loop" would have made any difference (which is itself disproved by what actually happened), then the best thing for Rumsfeld to do would have been to be completely out of the loop, i.e. not even in his office and completely out of communication, and with a credible excuse for it. You're not just accusing him of complicity; you're accusing him of being too stupid to come up with any semblance of an alibi for his inaction. Sorry, but you haven't explained why he "deliberately" chose a course of inaction that made him look like a confused old man who had his head up his ass that morning. You're just trying to force the facts to fit you preconceived conclusion, so even if your logic were valid (which it clearly isn't), your argument isn't sound because your premise isn't credible.

[. .]

24. Reality Check (please read)

Just a reminder that thousands of good people died. Many of them were crushed, shredded and burned alive. Others made the terrifying decision to leap to their deaths.

So if a person chooses to "play stupid" or chooses to troll the subject in any way, they are doing so in the face of innocent death.

Out of respect, please use only the seriousness this subject deserves.

[MercutioATC]

25. I'm an air traffic controller of 21 years

I take this issue seriously.

I've posted numerous explanations of the inner workings of the air traffic control system in the past and I believe that the real travesty is the need for some to use this tragedy to promote their own private conspiracy theories.

What happened on 9/11 was horrific and was, in part, due to the failings of a system that had never seen this kind of attack. Those issues have been largely rectified and we now have a safer system. To suggest that there was an air of passivity or intent on the part of the people who have pledged to keep our fellow Americans safe is unconscionable.

[. .]

26. You are wrong.

MercatioATC, you said: "To suggest that there was an air of passivity or intent on the part of the people who have pledged to keep our fellow Americans safe is unconscionable."

This is absolutely untrue. I would challenge you to bring this argument to the Window of Exposure thread.

[MercutioATC]

28. Actually, I have a lot more insight into the issue than you.

I know that it's fun to believe in faceless entities that control things from the shadows, but sometimes there are just mechanical breakdowns that result in bad things happening. It's just that simple.

[. .]

29. MercutioATC, you said: "I know that it's fun to believe in faceless entities that control things...

...from the shadows", which tells me you haven't even read the thread you're supposedly referring to.

If you're going to represent yourself as someone with superior insight, please attempt to do so genuinely.

[. .]

30. Funny how...

on a subject like this, people can't help but to reveal who they really are.

[MercutioATC]

31. I wasn't referring to any thread.

I was referring to every committed conspiracy theorist I've encountered.

There are people who have questions or doubts who are interested in learning more. I have no issue with those people. There are also those that have an agenda. They get off on imagined cloak and dagger scenarios and have the gall to frame it as a moral quest to reveal the truth for the victims. They don't want information, they want fuel for their fire.

It's my personal impression that the thread to which you refer panders to those of the latter ilk.


I'm an air traffic controller with 21 years of experience and more insight into ATC procedures than my security clearance allows me to tell you. Who the hell are you? I do have superior insight and that's a genuine statement.

[. .]

32. If you had even glanced at the thread in question,

you would know it doesn't have a damned thing to do with air traffic control.

[MercutioATC]

33. I've replied in the thread that you requested I view.

I don't think you'll like my response there, either, but understand that ATC IS the central issue here. Our procedures were the first (second, if you consider airport security) to fail on 9/11. Those failures were the result of the way the system was traditionally handled, nothing more.

Neither Rumsfeld nor Bush nor any other boogeyman you dredge up could have gotten past a myriad of other systems (including ATC) that worked. 9/11 was no conspiracy, it was a multi-system failure that happened because we had become complacent.

[Ace Acme]

40. "The system was blinking red" but we were complacent

Can you explain that?

There'd been the USS Cole attack, the African Embassy bombings, and the 1993 WTC bombing.

How much warning is needed?

[zappaman]

41. Your asking for an explanation for incompetency?

Cuz that's what the Bush Admin was on just about every level.

[Ace Acme]

42. They seemed pretty competent to me.

Last edited Mon Oct 28, 2013, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)

They managed to do two illegal wars, steal two elections, up the military and security budgets to benefit their friends, intimidate the media, geld the left, and cap it all off by demanding a $700 billion payoff for their bankster friends and ensuring that the succeeding administration would not only not prosecute, but not even investigate their crimes.

What's incompetent about that? Incompetence was an act that fits the neocon meme very well, and you fell for it. Every time those chardonnay-sipping volvo-driving liberal elitists sneered at "stupid" George Bush, it made the Red Staters identify with him all the more.