Friday, May 12, 2006

Thought For the Day

From Perry Logan on some of the logical fallacies committed by Loose Change:

THERE ARE TOO MANY HOLES IN THE "COVER STORY." Once again, you'll notice my mind goes in the opposite direction from the conspiracy guys'. They're the ones poking the holes, after all. But here's how I figure it. If you're planning a hoax, you work very hard on that cover story. Your cover story is the whole point of your subterfuge, right? You want that story to be as seamless as can be. The bad guys would not, for example, have tried to fake a crash into the Pentagon...then forgotten to leave out bodies & debris. The imagined perps are said to be very clever. They therefore could not have been so inept as to FORGET to leave the bodies & wreckage! This gets us into "bad comic book" territory again, as well as bolstering our suspicions that conspiracy people are just basically dim. Not that we don't love them.

So every time the conspiracy people find a "hole," it actually suggests it was not a conspiracy.

Yep. One of my favorite little bits in Loose Change is when they question why somebody would say "Mom, this is Mark Bingham". The federal government has this voice-morphing technology, according to Loose Change. So wouldn't the actors hired to do the voices have precise scripts that they were supposed to follow without deviation? Indeed, if we assume (as they assure us in their Q&A sessions) that very few people had to be in on the secret, wouldn't the plotters make sure that the actor handling this role didn't know Mark's last name, considering how famous Mark ended up becoming?

Update--Thanks to Allahpundit for the link from Hot Air, and the suggestion to check out how Buzz Aldrin responds to a conspiracy nutjob!


At 12 May, 2006 18:21, Blogger Unknown said...

Thre are two links that are relevant to the overall subject area being discussion here:

Vid: Did Tower 7 commit suicide?

Vid: (Brand New) Everybody Gotta Learn Sometime

At 12 May, 2006 19:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NYC is too big to pull something like people planting hundreds of explosives to pull a building without the op being blown.

It's that kind of town, where a curious janitor bumps into a big package and says "what the fuck, who's the asshole that left this shit where I eat my bagel", and tells everyone about it until five others have the same story, and figure it out.

At 12 May, 2006 20:40, Blogger roger_sq said...

I want to thank you all for being more or less civil and reasoned in your counter arguments. Given the open forum style at Loose Change, there are a fair number of those who I affectionately refer to as 'whack jobs'.

Ultimately, I am sure both sides are wrong. The beauty of logic, with evidence to support logic, is that it stands on its own merits.

I side with the conspiracy theorists. I'm amused by your characterization of them as being not very smart. Most aren't. Most rightwingers aren't either. Most (I daresay "all") individuals who subjugate their own beliefs to a collective of self-interested politicians aren't very bright.

It is a fact that no jets were scrambled for nearly 90 minutes after passenger planes were hijacked on 9-11.

It is a fact that it is standard procedure to scramble jets when there is an unexplained deviation in the plotted course of a commercial airline.

It is a fact the the US spends nearly 400 billion dollars a year in national defense. Which is roughly ten times the second biggest spender, the UK, and larger than the combined expenditures of the next 20 nations combined.

It is a fact (I hope, I have seen them with my own eyes) that there is a standing force of fighter planes at several bases in the DC area. It is a lesser known fact that the entire beltway is ringed with military installations which can cordon off the entire capitol inside of 20 minutes with no preplanning whatsoever.

It has been widely reported that jets were scrambled 67 times in the first 9 months of 2001.

It is implied that the expenditure of 400 billion dollars per year to the defense establishment is to provide for the safety of the American people.

I am thankful for your continued scepticism because, quite frankly, there are facts which you are not going to be able to explain away. If you had sufficient depth of understanding modern US history, the reality would become clear to you. That is also true of your counterparts on the conspiracy side of the fence.

Should you find the intellectual fortitude to continue your disection of the evidence available, you will begin to discover the glaring inadequacies in the chain of alleged events of 9/11 (as will many of the tinfoil hat brigade).

I would ask that, in an effort to improve the dialectic, to assert more diligence in sourcing your material. As a testament to the charlatanism preptrated by the Kean commission, I must point out the footnotes frequently source something along the lines of "interview with Bill X". Subsequent investigation (when a name is actually provided- see the SEC footnotes citing the mysterious "Ed G." with no further detail) shows that many of these 'interviews' were just that. People interviewed by Dateline NBC or CBS news. This is passed of as credible information to uphold a legitimate investigation.

It is not.

At 12 May, 2006 22:34, Blogger nes718 said...

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ...

First point and I'll be brief. There were no stand down order per se. The military along with FEMA and CIA and others were conducting "war games" and simulated "excesices" on 9/11 and our air defenses were spread thin, IMO, intentionally so. All you have to do is look on Google for these search terms:


In the confusion, NORAD leadership weren't sure if the calls from FAA were real or the "exercises" so no decisions were made when they should have been giving the culprits operational cover to carry out and excute OPERATION 9/11. Funny how Benny Chertoff of PM doesn't even touch the above in his spin control peice. I can't actually believe you guys actually fell for it.

At 12 May, 2006 22:35, Blogger nes718 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 12 May, 2006 22:40, Blogger nes718 said...

It's that kind of town, where a curious janitor bumps into a big package and says "what the fuck, who's the asshole that left this shit where I eat my bagel"

Nice try but nope. NYC is the kind of city that a dead man could be riding next to you on the subway and no one would give two $hit$.

The power downs of the towers weeks before 9/11 gave the culprits plenty of cover and opportunity to pull this off.

Also remember, the "pancake" theory has some truth to it. All these criminals really needed to do was take down the central spin of the building incrementally.

Various eyewitnesses heard secondary and tertiary explosions including firefighters.

At 12 May, 2006 22:55, Blogger nes718 said...

Yep. One of my favorite little bits in Loose Change is when they question why somebody would say "Mom, this is Mark Bingham". The federal government has this voice-morphing technology, according to Loose Change. So wouldn't the actors hired to do the voices have precise scripts that they were supposed to follow without deviation?

Oh boy! That's not what he's saying!! He's saying it may not even have been a person on the phone calls but an "automated" response kind of system and no, there could be no script only small segments and sentences that couldn't make coherent conversations as pointed out in the various transcripts of the people called.

Voice morphing is real and it's software that can be operated by anyone. Regardless, the phone calls were phony because you cannot make phone calls on airplanes from cell phones.

But a more realistic scenario in my mind is that someone could simply hold a gun to the 9/11 passenger's heads and tell them what to say. Not sure why loose change took the voice morphing route but "do and say exactly what I tell you or you'll get shot" is a more likely scenario.

At 12 May, 2006 23:32, Blogger Pat said...

Come on NES, don't try the cellphones don't work crap over here. Read the blog, that's the flimsiest piece of evidence in LC. Try Airfones. Try your cellphone at 8,000 feet instead of 32,000. Try redialing a few times; even a 40% success rate turns into success quickly with speed dialing. BG, will check those out eventually.

Rog, on the fighter planes scramble issue, I don't know the truth. That's one where either one has special knowledge or doesn't; I don't.

At 13 May, 2006 05:49, Blogger nes718 said...

Pat, the part of the blog about the cell phones is pure horse shit. An assumption is made that the phones weren't a cruising altitude but made a lot lower, fine. Where are the stats and numbers to back this up? It's simply and assumption and it could or could not be correct.

Physics911 actually took airplanes and made calls to judge connectivity from various altitudes and predict what this connectivity would be all the way up to cruising altitudes. That article can be read here in its entirety.

However, an interesting blog entry over at Physics911 outlines why these calls could in no way be authentic and outlines a very important fact:

photo below...
sorry i could not find a link on the web for it...

a cell phone call was received by state troopers in Illinois !!
Why would the call be routed 3 states away ?
HINT: IT wasnt !!!
the call had to be made in Illinois !
call 911 on your cell phone, the LOCAL COPPERS will pick up.
cell phone calls are routed to the LOCAL switch in emergencies...


Read the whole piece here.

At 13 May, 2006 05:55, Blogger nes718 said...

Sorry, missed the link-up's to the Physics911 site, here they are:

Project Achilles Report Parts One, Two and Three


At 13 May, 2006 06:05, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Your reasoning is just a priori; you assume you know that the perpetrators would make a better plan. What reason have you to assume they would be so minutely careful? Remember the Niger forgeries that purported to show Saddam Hussein sought to buy uranium?

They were "crude" forgeries, according to the IAEA. They were forgeries that could be disproven in short order by Googling the names of the signatories, who were long gone from the Niger government at the time they were supposed to have signed these documents.

But Bush and his people used them more than once and claim to have been fooled by them. Same thing with repeating over and over that Mohammed Atta met an Iraqi agent in Prague which turned out to be based on "the uncorroborated claim of a Czech informant."


Post a Comment

<< Home