Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Different Inputs Same Output

As Pat just mentioned the new videos don't tell us much. Unfortunately security cameras are not made to capture jetliners cruising by at 500MPH. I guess for now we will have to rely on the testimony of hundreds of witnesses who saw a large commercial jetliner, its wreckage, body parts of the passengers etc. versus the one guy who says he saw a small passenger plane, and the exactly zero people who claim to have seen a cruise missile.

And regardless this is the perfect example of the way conspiracy theorist logic works. No matter what input you use, you reach the same conclusion.

Input: The Pentagon didn't release the crash video

Conclusion: This proves that they are hiding something and part of the coverup of the conspiracy.

Input: The Pentagon is going to release the crash video.

Conclusion: The video must be faked, therefore they are covering up the conspiracy.

Input: The video released by the Pentagon is inconclusive.

Conclusion: See, we told you that an airplane didn't hit the Pentagon, there must be a conspiracy!

42 Comments:

At 16 May, 2006 12:53, Blogger nes718 said...

More answers would be found conclusively if we see the videos from the Hotel and the Gas station. To my knowledge, and the questioning of a 9/11 committee spokesman on Fox "I am not aware those video exists. We saw all videos available."

Major points for Loose Change on that one!

 
At 16 May, 2006 12:57, Blogger James B. said...

So, you have already stated that any video showing a plane must have faked anyway. What is the point? No matter what evidence comes out you will believe there was a conspiracy. If you aren't going to believe hundreds of witnesses, what is one grainy surveillence camera?

 
At 16 May, 2006 12:59, Blogger RanDomino said...

You can't trust witnesses, especially in a high-stress, unexpected situation.

My high school history teacher had a great illustration of this. A couple decades ago, he was explaining how we don't know exactly what happened at many historical events, because witnesses are unreliable, but one student just didn't believe him. So he talked to the teacher he co-coached some academic competition team with and set up an example.

The next class, the other teacher came in, acting furious about some disagreement they'd had about the team, yelling and waving his arms around. He got so much into it that he picked up a wooden chair and threw it against a wall, and a leg and part of the seat broke off! This shocked him back into reality and he left.

Then my history teacher, not expecting that much, regained himself and turned to the class and asked, "What color was Mr. (name)'s tie?"

Some students said red. Some said blue. Others, striped.

He wasn't wearing a tie at all.

The student got enligh- er, immediately understood that witnesses are unreliable.

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:07, Blogger James B. said...

It is easy to miss a tie, much harder to miss a 100 ton jetliner!

Hell, I don't remember what kind of earrings my wife wore this morning, but if she drove a car through our living room, I would probably recall whether it was a Honda Civic or a Ford Expedition.

Not to mention the fact that the salvage workers pulled out the blackboxes, pieces of the fuselage, bodies of the passengers still in their seats. Kind of hard to misinterpret that...

As I said, hundreds of people identified the jetliner, one guy identified a smaller commercial plane, exactly ZERO saw either an A-3 Skywarrior or a cruise missile.

Hmm, who should I go with?

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:11, Blogger nes718 said...

I doubt "hundreds of witnesses." How many people were actually looking up and see this thing go down?

But look at the debris filed in the photos, you can clearly see aircraft parts painted to look like an airliner. However, the damage doesn't looke like the government is telling us. They look exploded rather than burned or compression damaged.

So we have a small aircraft that many saw traveling at 500+ MPH painted to look like a commercial aircraft. That's most likely what the witnesses saw. Remember, not all will have the same account as it is all left up to interpretation.

explosive damage 1

source

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:12, Blogger Unknown said...

"Hmm, who should I go with? "

If you have a three digit IQ, the answer is obvious. If you are a conspiradroid, you assume hundreds of eyewitnesses were either "in on it" or were mistaken...

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:13, Blogger nes718 said...

It is easy to miss a tie, much harder to miss a 100 ton jetliner!

Going 500 MPH? The cameras couldn't even capture it how did all those "witnesses?" This is especially so if the military plane was painted to look like a commercial airplane.

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:16, Blogger nes718 said...

you assume hundreds of eyewitnesses were either "in on it" or were mistaken...

A well planeted story in the "press" can say thousands saw this plane hit; doesn't make it so.

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:19, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Going 500 MPH? The cameras couldn't even capture it how did all those "witnesses?"

The human eye is designed to take in more than one image every half-second. If you eye works like those security cameras I must ask you to stop driving any vehicles.

Eyewitnesses can make mistakes. But one can get a general idea of what is going on from their comments. The fact that witnesses were split between the Titanic going down in one piece or two pieces does not change the fact that they all saw it sink.

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:25, Blogger nes718 said...

Eyewitnesses can make mistakes.

Especially the "hundreds" the press told us saw it and which I doubt.

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:27, Blogger James B. said...

Yeah, OK, so if every news network known to man independently reports eyewitnesses to a crash, you can't trust those reports.

But if it shows up in the white supremacist anti-semitic American Free Press, then it must be true!

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:32, Blogger Realist06 said...

Loose Change +2
Screw Loose Change -1!

"hundreds of witnesses"

testimonials please?

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:33, Blogger Realist06 said...

You SLC guys are grasping. Kinda like the government!

Your hopes were dashed when that video was released. There's no plane in the video. Period. You can make all the excuses you want. But this is a fact. And you want to deal with facts right?

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:34, Blogger nes718 said...

What about these guys? Most here seem pissed the Gov. released this and many here feel negative towards 9/11 "conspiracy theorist." I bet many are starting to release the truth. Read the comments.

http://hotair.com/

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:35, Blogger nes718 said...

Yeah, OK, so if every news network known to man independently reports eyewitnesses to a crash, you can't trust those reports.

Hundreds can but they are usually from 1 AP wire.

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:46, Blogger truthcommission said...

Do you guys really think these video stills "debunk" the "conspiracy theories?" First of all, these are by no means 'new' pictures. The five frames showing the impact have been available on the internet for at least a year now. The only difference is the police car that passes the checkpoint in the beginning -- something obviously inconsequential. Here are some of my outstanding questions that still go unanswered:
1. Where is the Sheraton Hotel video footage? This footage should be able to provide a much clearer picture of the aircraft.
2. Where is the Virginia DOT traffic cam footage? This should be the most conclusive angle.
3. Why didn't the Pentagon missile defense system target Flight 77 once it entered it's airspace?
4. Why would the terrorists strike the west side of the building? The west side was recently renovated and reinforced to withstand such an attack and contained significantlly less people that any other part of the building. Assuming they would want to cause the greatest possible damage, why not target the east side where the top military brass was, including Secretary Rumsfeld? Also, according to the purported flight paths, why would Hanjour, an amateur pilot at best, go out of the way to hit the strongest, least-inhabited part of the building? Obviously this question cannot really be answered but it is nonetheless important to consider.
5. According to Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's 9/11 Commission testimony, who was the young military officer who periodically came into the situation room to ask VP Cheney if the "orders still stood?" What were those orders and who gave them? Why does the Final Report neglect this?

Instead of going back-and-forth calling eachother 'moonbats' and 'ignorant right-wing coincidentalists', we should instead unite and seek answers. This is obviously something that affects us all, regardless of ideology.

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:51, Blogger MeToo said...

Still hoping someone can answer me this: why the hell would the conspirators fire a missile at the Pentagon when they'd just hijacked a perfectly good airplane? Wouldn't it be easier (and considerably more sensible) to just crash an actual airliner? Just as effective and eliminates the need for messy cover ups. Or do we think these government conspirators are murderous imbeciles?

Or are y'all suggesting that the plane wasn't hijacked and Sentor whats-his-name's wife and all the rest of the dead passengers and crew were imaginary pod people?

As any law enforcement pro will tell you: you want to show someone guilt of a crime you need to show MMO (means, motive, opportunity). Just what is the motive for using a missile instead of an airplane? C'mon, it's not as though these alleged government conspirators were squeamish about committing mass murder!

Think about it - it's like someone deciding to kill his wife, buying a shotgun for the job and then stabbing her to death and CLAIMING she was shot with a shotgun. It just doesn't make sense.

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:56, Blogger nes718 said...

Still hoping someone can answer me this: why the hell would the conspirators fire a missile at the Pentagon when they'd just hijacked a perfectly good airplane? Wouldn't it be easier (and considerably more sensible) to just crash an actual airliner? Just as effective and eliminates the need for messy cover ups. Or do we think these government conspirators are murderous imbeciles?


The real criminals wanted a 99% success rate. To crash the actual plane required many things on being the passengers themselves. A missile or military drone only has one objective while a planeload full of passengers could have many. It's not too hard figure out why thing went down the way they did.

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:59, Blogger nes718 said...

Or are y'all suggesting that the plane wasn't hijacked and Sentor whats-his-name's wife and all the rest of the dead passengers and crew were imaginary pod people?

That's another curious aspect of all the 9/11 flights. On average, they only were 25% full of passengers. This is highly unusual. The people you're talking about are the Olsens. But if you've ever heard about the witness protection plan, you know it's feasible to make people "disappear."

 
At 16 May, 2006 14:05, Blogger Damian P. said...

The videos don't show a cruise missile, military plane or alien spacecraft, either. Using the conspirozoids' logic - no airliner in the video means no airliner at all - doesn't that prove their theories are wrong, too?

 
At 16 May, 2006 14:10, Blogger BobAlienson said...

1. Where is the Sheraton Hotel video footage? This footage should be able to provide a much clearer picture of the aircraft.

2. Where is the Virginia DOT traffic cam footage? This should be the most conclusive angle.


What makes you say that? For all you know it might not give a better view than what has already been released.



3. Why didn't the Pentagon missile defense system target Flight 77 once it entered it's airspace?

Because no such system exists. Are you stupid, or don't you see the problem with having a system that would automatically target and shoot down aircraft in an area that has several airspace instrusions every week, and that is right next door to a major airport? To this day, there is no such system installed (with the exception of a couple of mobile NASAMS batteries purchased from Norway following 9/11.)



4. Why would the terrorists strike the west side of the building?

Because it wasn't their original plan. They probably intended to hit the Pentagon head on, but overshot their target.



Also, according to the purported flight paths, why would Hanjour, an amateur pilot at best, go out of the way to hit the strongest, least-inhabited part of the building?

It happened exactly because he was an amateur pilot. Do you honestly think it was planned?

 
At 16 May, 2006 14:24, Blogger MeToo said...

NESNYC: Ok... so you're not claiming that the people on Flight 77 weren't hijacked - or that they aren't dead (or "disappeared').

So that means that the evil-doers in your scenario DID take over an airplane and kill (or "disappear") the passengers and crew. As long as they were doing that - why not just crash the plane into the Pentagon? Why mess with a missile?

And don't tell me that your evil-doers couldn't be sure they could control the passengers - if they're going to the trouble of hijacking the plane, voice-printing the folks on board to make phony phone calls and then killing/disappearing them, I think they could have figured out a way to subdue everyone on board. Gas the passengers, crash the plane into the building and voila! job's done. From a purely rational point of view, adding a missile into the scenario is just "Expontentially More Complicated Than Necessary."

 
At 16 May, 2006 14:38, Blogger James B. said...

I have already posted on the witnesses. Considering you CTs spam just about every post we put up, you might try actually reading some of them.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/all-of-washington-dc-is-involved-in.html

 
At 16 May, 2006 14:47, Blogger nes718 said...

It happened exactly because he was an amateur pilot. Do you honestly think it was planned?

Let's see, PENTAGON. That's 6 sides right? What are the odds an armature pilot overshoot his target and later hit the only side that was reinforced to withstand such an impact? Whelp, guess that's just another "coincidence" that makes the offical version true, NOT.

The coincidence theorists win!

 
At 16 May, 2006 14:54, Blogger Alex said...

"The real criminals wanted a 99% success rate."

Why? What difference would it have made if the aircraft had missed the pentagon and instead hit the gas-station across the street? Are you telling me you seriously beleive that such an outcome would in any way have changed anything? You think people would have said "oh, well, they missed the pentagon, so there's no way we can attack Afghanistan now"?

"But if you've ever heard about the witness protection plan, you know it's feasible to make people "disappear."

Making several hundred people "dissapear" into the witness protection program would be rather difficult without their consent. So what you're saying is that you beleive every one of those passangers was a willing co-conspirator, and that not one of them has had a change of heart since then.

How does someone become this delusional?

 
At 16 May, 2006 14:58, Blogger James B. said...

Let's see, PENTAGON. That's 6 sides right?


Five genius. I guess we can add high school geometry to our list of things you are clueless on.

 
At 16 May, 2006 14:59, Blogger nes718 said...

meetoo, put is this way. Does an assassin usually kill someone with his bare hands or does he use a gun? Both achieve the same means but one is much more likely to produce results.

Sending a hijacked airplane may or may not work that is why the perpetrators didn't leave that up to chance and used a drone or cruise missile instead. Additionally, we’re not even sure if the planes were indeed hijacked as the identities of the hijackers is seriously in question. For all we know the planes could have been commandeered via remote control landed and the passengers killed on the ground. You have to keep in mind, this was a military operation and nothing was left to chance.

This isn't some nutty "conspiracy" claim, the Joint Chiefs tried to promote this idea during the Kennedy Administration in Operation Northwood.

 
At 16 May, 2006 15:02, Blogger nes718 said...

Making several hundred people "dissapear" into the witness protection program would be rather difficult without their consent.

I never said that. Maybe only Barbara was put in the program and the rest killed; but that's all speculation. We have to deal with the real facts like not engines or black boxes have ever been recovered from flight 11, that is highly suspect.

 
At 16 May, 2006 15:04, Blogger nes718 said...

Five genius. I guess we can add high school geometry to our list of things you are clueless on.

Mmmmkay, I made a mistake. So if you're not so clueless, what are the odds Mr. Honjour would hit ONE of those FIVE sides that just happened to be reinforced? Nice way to skirt around the real issue huh?

 
At 16 May, 2006 15:06, Blogger BobAlienson said...

nesNYC said...

"Let's see, PENTAGON. That's 6 sides right?"
No.

"What are the odds an armature pilot overshoot his target and later hit the only side that was reinforced to withstand such an impact?"
So, tell us... What was the point in this maneuver (the rapid descent and 270 degree turn) if it was intentional and conducted by a professional CIA pilot?

 
At 16 May, 2006 15:16, Blogger nes718 said...

So, tell us... What was the point in this maneuver (the rapid descent and 270 degree turn) if it was intentional and conducted by a professional CIA pilot?

To hit the side that was beefed up to withstand the hit. THEY (military industrial complex) didn't want to completely destroy their headquarters, that’s obvious.

 
At 16 May, 2006 15:25, Blogger James B. said...

what are the odds Mr. Honjour would hit ONE of those FIVE sides that just happened to be reinforced?

The same odds that it would have hit one of the other 5 sides. The Pentagon is the largest building in the world, it would not have been "destroyed" regardless of which side it got hit on. As it was the plane penetrated through 3 rings of the pentagon. Way more than a cruise missile would have.

 
At 16 May, 2006 15:27, Blogger Brian Tiemann said...

"THEY (military industrial complex) didn't want to completely destroy their headquarters, that’s obvious."

But destroying the WTC, through which a huge amount of the economy runs-- that was perfectly reasonable. Got it.

Remember, the Pentagon was a *secondary* target. Flight 77 was originally headed for the White House. The pilot probably couldn't find it, circled around, and went for the Pentagon.

 
At 16 May, 2006 15:33, Blogger Brian Tiemann said...

Oh, and if they wanted a "99% success rate", I guess United 93 was that 1%, huh? Or was it all part of the plan for that one flight to just go missing?

 
At 16 May, 2006 15:38, Blogger BobAlienson said...

"nesNYC said...

To hit the side that was beefed up to withstand the hit. THEY (military industrial complex) didn't want to completely destroy their headquarters, that’s obvious."


It wouldn't have been "completely destroyed" no matter where it had been hit. Not that it matters, since my question was not why they would pick that section, but rather why a professional pilot would perform such a completely unnecessary and dangerous maneuver.

Why would The Man not fly in a manner that would arouse as little suspicion (in your eyes) as possible, and have the absolute highest chance of succeeding?


Also, I take it you will never again be mentioning your "Pentagon missile defense system" claim, right, seeing as it's completely untrue?

 
At 16 May, 2006 16:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with the refusal to release the video is that there seems to be nothing in it which could compromise national security.

Why was it classified?

 
At 16 May, 2006 17:09, Blogger Chad Chandler said...

Responding to the first comment:

Are you familiar with DC at all, or do you just throw out these speculations built on hearsay?

The Pentagon is on the Virginia side of the Potomac. The only thing in between the Pentagon and the Potomac on the North side of the building is Jeff Davis Hwy, the GW parkway and parking lots, and that's the complete opposite side of where the plane flew in. There's also a marina (from the movie Enemy of the State), but I have a pretty good feeling that any cameras would be pointed at the boats. Plus, there are no hotels or gas stations there.

There's a parking lot that wraps so far and deep around the west side of the Pentagon -- the world's largest building -- that no cameras are going to capture anything other than a flash and dust anyway.

There are some hotels on the southeast side of the Pentagon, but there's the overlooked problem of having the very wide Interastate 395 in between those Crystal City hotels and the Pentagon.

Directly to the west is Arlington National Cemetary. It's pretty big too, and that's a huge understatement. Plus, there are no hotels or gas stations in between the cemetary and the Pentagon.

So you must be talking about just the south side - where the plane went in. There are some barricks on that side, and eventually hotels and gas stations, but they're not close either.

There's really no way to grasp the size of the Pentagon unless you see it. Even when you drive past it, you're looking beyond thousands of parking spaces and fully fledged bus depot.

So for everyone that trots out the tired canard that the hole wasn't big enough, or that other cameras would have caught a better perspective, you're failing to grasp how mammoth this building really is, and how far away everything is from it.

 
At 16 May, 2006 17:41, Blogger Chad Chandler said...

Before anyone tries to dismiss my argument becuase I said the south side of the building is where the plane went it, I said it because the plane actullay went in the south side - geographically. "West" has to do with the technical name of that face of the Pentagon. If you looked at a compass, it would read SSW.

And on another topic; some people think it's chic to buy into these ridiculous conspiracy theories. I think it's because people see a surprisingly complex effect and believe irrationally and emotionally that it must be the result of a very complex cause. Simple minded people reject simple explanations for 9/11 as logistically unfit, and seek to ‘Rube Goldberg’ the cause.

Moreover, simple minded people can't accept that they can't hold anyone accountable for death and destruction, so they try to blame everything on abstract evils like "the government" or "the military industrial complex" or, more easily, "Herr Bush!"

This is a intellectual cop-out at best and insane at worst. I've written more on this poisonous way decicion making process in a post titled, Kool-Aid, Spiked With With Vitriol.

(yes, that was shameless self promotion)

Oh, and Brainster, I had no idea that this many people have bought into this farce. Tomorrow I’ll make ‘Screw Loose Change’ the featured site in the sidebar of my blog.

 
At 16 May, 2006 20:32, Blogger pyro4444 said...

Ok so if the hotel and gas startion video securety cameras seen it all why not release them? Also why all the wait? in my eyes it still doesnt prove jack, it could have easily been edited for it to look diffrent. Also if this "plane" did crash and just disapear how did they identify like 170 some odd bodies out of 180 some thing. If the inferno was hot enough to destroy some of the toughest materials on earth how could they ID all those bodies? Also how do you know people wherent paid or "miss informed" to tell they it was a 747. I think its all bs the engine they found that wasnt a 747's adds more to my ideas. I just hope one day when ever they just go out an release it all or acctually have an investigation, kinda like the Watergate skandel.

 
At 17 May, 2006 10:02, Blogger James B. said...

I think its all bs the engine they found that wasnt a 747's adds more to my ideas.

I completely agree, it was a Rolls-Royce RB211-535, found on a Boeing 767-200.

 
At 17 May, 2006 10:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to the new movie, they may have hit the west side of the building because they were searching for another target, gave up, and turned into the pentagon when they saw it.

Why would they know the pentagon was being renovated?

 
At 17 May, 2006 14:04, Blogger Alex said...

And what the hell kind of sense does it make for the government to hit the side of the building they just finished renovating? Personaly if I had to pick a part of my house to demolish, I'd probably go for the shed in the back yard. Why spend millions building something, only to destroy it soon after?

Ohh, wait, I can see the Conspiracy Theory forming! They didn't REALLY renovate it....they just SAID they renovated it....but really they shipped the whole renovation budget to Israel! THAT's why they hit that side of the building. To hide the fact that they used the money for something else!

How am I doing guys? :)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home