911 Truth Movement

[evo]

Surely you can see how remotely controlling the planes using their own flight control computers would make more sense of the flight paths than 3 absolute novices with zero experience flying these highly sophisticated aircraft.

Ahhh.......no.

The scenario is basically the same except for the pilots. The hijackers still hijack the planes.

http://911review.com/means/remotecontrol.html

So the planes were hijacked? That's some concession to sanity, I suppose. The hijackers went down with the plane, I presume. You can't parachute out of a plane going as fast as a jumbo.

Commited fellas, I must say. And all to cover up a bond trade.

One has to wonder why the extra layer of story. Why can't the hijackers just fly the planes without the whole remote control palava?

No one could ever accuse troofers of being William of Ockham fans, thats for sure.

 

[Rosy]

Yeah I'm gonna listen to you and ignore all the experts that disagree with you.

Because novice pilots who have never flown a large passenger jet before are more skilled than computers?

That paints a funny mental image of a computer sitting at the controls in the cockpit making decisions. Computers are that skilled though.

 

[Disco08]

Ahhh.......no.
So the planes were hijacked? That's some concession to sanity, I suppose. The hijackers went down with the plane, I presume. You can't parachute out of a plane going as fast as a jumbo.

Commited fellas, I must say. And all to cover up a bond trade.

One has to wonder why the extra layer of story. Why can't the hijackers just fly the planes without the whole remote control palava?

No one could ever accuse troofers of being William of Ockham fans, thats for sure.

That's the problem. Plenty of experts can't see how inexperinced and reportedly substandard pilots could have possibly flown with such precision.

You really think it's rational to assert that it's completely normal for a novice pilot hijacker to have declined the option of flying directly into the Pentagon via the easiest direct route which would have targetted the SoD's offices or the Armed Forces Command Centre to instead fly the actual route flown by AA77? That route not only made the task so much harder (to the point where experts are incredulous) but also made the chances of being intercepted much higher. All to supposedly coincidentally slam directly into the ON who coincidentally were deep into an investigation into $240B worth of illicit funds created by the same people who were coincidentally grossly negligent to the point that an entire state of the art defense system coincidentally couldn't intercept a plane headed towards its most sensitive assets despite the fact it was being tracked by the FAA and NORAD because it had turned its transponder off just as the two planes who had just flown into the twin towers had done. All this under the threat of multple warnings of terrorist attacks using hijacked planes which would target the Pentagon and WTC.

The hijackers could have known nothing about this too. They could have done the hard part only to have their planes flight control computers remotely hijacked from under them.

Do you know anything about modern autopilots and the like? You don't think its more plausible that a sophisticated computer could have flown the sophisticated route of AA77 than a dude with zero hours on any plane other than a Cessna?

As for Occam's Razor - you're going to tell me the official narrative satisfies it better than a coverup perpetrated by people with a history of covering up their dubious actions?

been away from this thread for a while, but this sentence, both style and substance, is a doozy. Sentence of the thread for me. Its a little painful to think of where to start to refute it, and also the pointlessness of attempting that.

So in other words you have no idea how to refute it.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The deisgner of the towers insists it would have been possible.

Are these the same designers who said they were designed so that planes would bounce off the steel exo-structure?

 

[Disco08]

Dunno. What difference would that make?

 

[evo]

As for Occam's Razor - you're going to tell me the official narrative satisfies it better than a coverup perpetrated by people with a history of covering up their dubious actions?

I've never denied there were elements of cover-up. In fact I think that is the one thing nearly every participant in this thread agrees upon. I just have problems with the plausibility of anti-gravity balls, missiles shot at the pentagon, large building demolitions and remote control/ holographic planes. These are the fancies of people who watch too many Bruce Willis movies.

Tim made an excellent point. The conspiracy theorists are hilarious in the way one group says it's a holographic plane, another group say it was definitely remote controlled, a third says it a military plane, a fourth says it is an anti gravity ball, but one thing we can all be sure of it's definitely not an American Airline flown by pilots. Anyone who believes that is a shill for Haliburton!

It was only a few weeks ago that you triumphantly presented this thread with the Anti Gravity Ball hypothesis from the dude with the mock studio in his mums basement. A week before that it was a grey military plan. Now ia remote controlled regular airline is the story.

This is your idea of simple and coherent explanations?

 

[Disco08]

Serioulsy? You reckon presented old mate's video "triumphantly"? If I was so convinced by the gray plane theory why would I have disproved it for myself and then posted as much? I'm also not asserting that the planes were definitely remote controlled.

Maybe the problem here is you guys all seem to want to treat this as a point scoring exercise rather than an honest discussion of facts/theories/events surrounding 9/11.

 

[Soda]

Serioulsy? You reckon presented old mate's video "triumphantly"? If I was so convinced by the gray plane theory why would I have disproved it for myself and then posted as much? I'm also not asserting that the planes were definitely remote controlled.

Maybe the problem here is you guys all seem to want to treat this as a point scoring exercise rather than an honest discussion of facts/theories/events surrounding 9/11.

What surprises me is that there are no backups of this apparently destroyed information at both the WTC and the Pentagon. Data Storage 101 dictates you never house backups of important info at the very place that important info is - offsite backups were common place in 2001.

It's almost too convenient for the truthers that all this info that would expose the truth was totally destroyed.

Maybe a truther was behind it all?

 

[evo]

Serioulsy? You reckon presented old mate's video "triumphantly"?

I can't find the post where you first pasted that youtube video(this thread is massive now!), but I specifically remember you beig rather happy with it's thoroughness. If you could point to where it is approximately, I'll show you. I'm hopeless with the search button.

 

[tigertim]

Serioulsy? You reckon presented old mate's video "triumphantly"? If I was so convinced by the gray plane theory why would I have disproved it for myself and then posted as much? I'm also not asserting that the planes were definitely remote controlled.

Maybe the problem here is you guys all seem to want to treat this as a point scoring exercise rather than an honest discussion of facts/theories/events surrounding 9/11.

Ahem, WE have been discussing facts, you've been discussing theories. The problem as I see it is that you seem to treat this as an issue for to show how much "cleverer" you are by not being "fooled" by the big bad yanks and the mainstream media.

 

[Disco08]

Well if you accept the 9/11 CR as the whole truth then I'm afraid to say I don't think you're being very rational. No offense. The number of facts you need to completely ignore to hold that belief is very impressive.

I can't find the post where you first pasted that youtube video(this thread is massive now!), but I specifically remember you beig rather happy with it's thoroughness. If you could point to where it is approximately, I'll show you. I'm hopeless with the search button.

Yeah no doubt. The dude went to a lot of effort. That doesn't mean I was presenting it as definitive proof. I found a few parts of it interesting (the point about the bizarre color schemes of much of the news footage especially) so posted it for everyone to have a look at. Just because I don't accept the OR doesn't I mean blindly believe every conspiracy theory or that I can't have a laugh at some of the more entertaining characters like old mate.

What surprises me is that there are no backups of this apparently destroyed information at both the WTC and the Pentagon. Data Storage 101 dictates you never house backups of important info at the very place that important info is - offsite backups were common place in 2001.

It's almost too convenient for the truthers that all this info that would expose the truth was totally destroyed.

Maybe a truther was behind it all?

Coincidentally the hard copy records for the ONI research were held at WTC7. That's the one that thousands of experts say looks and behaves exactly like a controlled demolition and the one from which eyewitnesses and audio recordings appear to attest to explosions within.

There's evidence remaining though. Have you read the essay?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Theres the small problem of the other 10000 odd workers in the 3 buildings not noticing it being installed. We obviously have different concepts of what constitutes plenty of evidence. To me "plenty of evidence" would be something like a company specialising in thermite demolitions coming forward and saying "yes, we wired the 3 buildings for thermite. Look here is a documentary footage of us demolisihing a simillar size building last fall. See we put charges, here here and here."

The deisgner of the towers insists it would have been possible.

Are these the same designers who said they were designed so that planes would bounce off the steel exo-structure?

Dunno. What difference would that make?

I think it goes to the credibility of the witness your honour. They thought their building design would repel an attack from a jet airliner, they were wrong, spectacularly and catastrophically, and fatally. Why should we take them at their word that you could sneak in a team of mute ninja demolition experts? They were completely and utterly wrong about something they ought to be experts on, what is the nature of their credibility when talking about something that absolutely is not their area of expertise?

 

[Disco08]

They really thought that a 767 would bounce off the steel outer columns? Wouldn't that be the fault of the steel engineers rather than the designers? Wouldn't a designer know exactly what access was available to the central areas of the structure that housed the main columns?

 

[AngryAnt]

Well if you accept the 9/11 CR as the whole truth then I'm afraid to say I don't think you're being very rational. No offense. The number of facts you need to completely ignore to hold that belief is very impressive.

I don't recall a single post here where anyone has said the official report is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

[Disco08]

Yes, I beleive the general report ( but I can't say that I 've absorbed every little detail of it)

 

[Disco08]

I don't recall a single post here where anyone has said the official report is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Which elements of it are you critical of ant?

 

[tigersnake]

So in other words you have no idea how to refute it.

No, no and no, that is nowhere near a paraphrasing of what I meant. There are so many false assumptions and total fallacies in this sentence, quoted again below, it makes my head hurt. The thing is, heaps of your assertions have been refuted by various posters on this thread, but you ignore any compelling evidence and just keep getting whackier.

 

[tigersnake]

Again it's a fairly curious coincidence that both planes just happened to impact exactly where they would cause the most devastation to the firms most associated with the transactions required to clear the BEFT bonds surreptitiously.

For starters, this sentence contains a bunch of untruths, half-truths or outright falsehoods. None of it can in anyway be taken as fact. Is it a 'curious coincidence'? or even a coincidence? If you listen to the truthers, yes it is. I don't even know what BEFT bonds are, but I highly doubt they were 'cleared surrupticiously'. Its all a bunch of crap.

One point that interests me though is the flying of the planes. My intuition told me that with some research and maybe some experience, it wouldn't be that hard to point any vehicle, plane, truck, dozer, car, boat, at a large target and aim for it. As we discussed at length a while back, pilots land on smaller targets as a matter of routine. THEN, Poppa piped in, someone who has actually flown a plane, he not only confirmed what a lot of us thought, he went further, saying that it is in fact easier to aim for something at pace than it is when you are slowing down to land.

How did you react to all that? Scoff scoff, my truther mates don't buy it so neither do I. Then came up with some new stuff on computers remote controls, robots, dexter from perfect match, or holograms or something I dunno, This is ridiculous, fair dinkum, ridiculous.

 

[Disco08]

No, no and no, that is nowhere near a paraphrasing of what I meant. There are so many false assumptions and total fallacies in this sentence, quoted again below, it makes my head hurt. The thing is, heaps of your assertions have been refuted by various posters on this thread, but you ignore any compelling evidence and just keep getting whackier.

Sure mate. Feel free to actually point something out specifically.

 

[AngryAnt]

Which elements of it are you critical of ant?

In order to answer that I'd have to actually read it.