Iconophili's Great Big Thread of Conspiracies!

[ICONOPHILI]

FIrst of all, Iconophili, you didn't look for the report on-line-- or if you did, you did a right poor job of it.

I typed '9/11 commission report' into Google. The very first listing returned was the website of The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission). A single click away from that webpage is the report. So you have absolutely no excuse for referring to the actual report, when it comes to that.

As far as your "experts" are concerned:

Morgan Reynolds is an economist. You can find criticisms of his theories linked to from the Wiki page on him. At any rate, I'm not impressed by his structural engineering expertise.

Robert M. Bowman comes across as a nutcase, frankly. Among his many other roles, he is apparently the archbishop of The United Catholic Church, which appears to be a vagante Catholic group of in the Vilatte chain of dubious consecrations.

Andreas Von Bülow at least seems to be sane. And he at least has some qualification concerning intelligence (the spy kind). But like the other conspiracy theorists, he seems to be working off of the same limited set of data.

Now, the story about links between the hijackers and the Saudi government is of some actual importance. But it doesn't lead to any of the conspiracy theories, Iconophili, especially the ones you like that say there were no hijackers. People who believe in the true story of 9/11 are concerned about these linkages too, because they show that the Saudi government is not of one mind in its supposed cooperation with the USA. Indeed, a constant complaint by those knowledgable about the Saudis is that the government has cozied up to the Wahhabists for support, in total contradiction to the Wahhabist aim to destroy the very visibly corrupt monarchy.

And the link from the Cuban website? Don't make me laugh. The 1972 Munich attack? The airliners blown up in the desert? Lockerbie? General Ivashov is full of bullhockey.

It would be nice if I could get you to understand that the "controlled demolition" theory on WTC 7 is never going to sway me. "Unprecendented" cannot mean "didn't happen". And as for as the collapse of the towers is concerned, I looked at the examples given of other buildings. If I recall correctly, the part of the south tower above the impact was as tall as any of these other buildings-- and none of them had a 757 hit it.

And for everyone's entertainment, I have some lovely footage from Sandia of an F-4 crashed into a concrete wall at speed. If you play it you will see the airplane simply disappear as it hits the wall. It was reduced to tiny shreds by the impact.

Now I'll give you a chance to proove me wrong, please show with links, with The 9/11 Comission Report, that Explains, 1. How the Terrorists were able to Fly 757/767's when they were trainning to fly Cessnas? 2. Show the Reports Exlaination, on how the Passangers Cell phones, mannaged to work at 25,000/30,000 feet? And your Right and yor wrong, about the F-4, Yes it disapeared, why? Because it's a small aircraft, campared to a 767, so your wrong, with you implacations, that "Because the F4 disappeared, it prooves a 767 can disapear into The Pentagon, with out throwing debrie out on the Pentagon Lawn."

[CGW]

Iconophili, nobody has any obligation to respond to every little quibble that you or anyone else raises. It is in the nature of real events that testimonies are inconsistent, that the explanation has to change somewhat over time, and that not all elements can be explained immediately (or sometimes ever).

The official story has the virtue of proceeding from the evidence. It hardly relies on deduction at all; plenty of people saw the airplanes and the crashes, the phone calls were received, the wreckage (what there was to find) and bodies were found. And it's a very simple story: a bunch of guys conspired together to get some basic flight training, picked a set of four flights, hijacked them, and flew three of them into buildings. The fourth flight was delayed, and therefore when the passengers found out what had already happened, they attempted to overpower the hijackers, and the plane was crashed far from its intended destination. The two towers in NY sustained enough damage from the impacts and subsequent fires that they completely collapsed, and later WTC 7, apparently due to fire and possibly damage from the other two collapses, also collapsed.

Many of the supposed inconsistencies you've linked to are incontrovertably wrong. I've already posted a list of testimonies that people saw an airliner, an American Airlines passenger jet, strike the Pentagon. That's good enough evidence for anyone to take the position that all of your supposed impossibilities are in fact not only possible, but did happen. If people saw the plane hit the pentagon, and almost all large debris is lacking, then you claims that it couldn't have happened that way are in error, and it's up to you to give up your erroneous opinion.

Then there's the footage from Sandia. Who-in-the-heck are you to dare to tell me that a bigger plane wouldn't have broken up when hitting a much larger and stronger wall in the same manner? You have absolutely no standing to even express an opinion, much less speak with the authority to which you presume.

And finally, the report. I haven't read all of it. I don't really feel the urge to read all of it. I've read the chapter that addresses the attack itself, and it is mostly concerned with the emergency response. I also scanned an earlier chapter which records the extensive preparations the hijackers made. But I feel no obligation to read it so I can become your teacher, Iconophili. I think you lied when you said that you had read it.

What's especially pathetic is how so many people, whose intelligence I would otherwise be willing to respect, are willing to believe in a theory of conspiracy which is largely belied by the administration's failure to organize what is right out in the open. Every time I've probed these claims at all, I've either found that the conspiracy theorists are speculating, or are flat out wrong, or are misrepresenting the facts. And again and again I find other evidence, outside the conspiracy sites (but often enough, on those very sites) which they are ignoring. One of the things which may not strike anyone as odd, at first, is how small the set of data that the conspiracy mavens present. We've already visited this in the case of the witness statements about the Pentagon attack. But think about it: two buildings in NYC hit in broad daylight, on a workday. The Pentagon hit next to a major highway. People all over all three buildings with phones. Camera crews at the ready for the South tower impact. The quantity of evidence is staggering, when you actually think about it. And yet the conspiracy sites trot out the same pictures, the same statements, the same claims, over and over again. The obvious conclusion is that they are carefully selecting a small part of the picture (and distorting much of it, at that) and ignoring the vastly larger body of evidence that shows they are wrong.

[尼古拉前执事]

Flying a plane is not hard and much like a car if you can drive one, you can figure out how to drive asnother kind. Landing and taking off is what is hard.

[AndyHolland]

The odds of getting hundreds to thousands of Americans to go along with a conspiracy to kill their own people is 0.

The odds of getting tens of Muslim nutcases trained in Afghanistan to conspire to fly planes into buildings is 1.0.

The degree of difficulty in flying a plane in flight when one has been rudimentarily trained on the flight deck is 0.

The imagination, ill will and lies required to reverse the odds by any contortion of reality - staggering.

If man can be so delluded about this, no wonder we are so delluded to follow the devil by following our own self willed view of reality.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Save us!

andy holland
sinner

[Ebor]

Flying a plane is not hard and much like a car if you can drive one, you can figure out how to drive asnother kind. Landing and taking off is what is hard.

Or as I saw a quote long ago:

"Thou shalt maintain thine airspeed, lest the Earth rise up and smite thee.'

Ebor

[Ebor]

Does this thread, taken together with its parent debate "Big Thread of Conspiracies", win the Euphrosynos Cafe award of "most number of responses" in this Orthodox forum's history?

To be fair, this thread is a number of threads all put together. It didn't "grow from one stalk" as it were.

Ebor

[Liudmilla]

"Thou shalt maintain thine airspeed, lest the Earth rise up and smite thee.'

Funny...very funny....thank you for the laugh!

Milla