In my defense

[Qutb]

Confirmation bias? Give me a fucking break. The theory that all the phone calls and the cockpit recording are fake is ridiculous, for plenty of reasons which I won't bother listing as you'll only pooh-pooh them anyway. I think you're driven by a pathological suspicion which goes way beyond healthy. I think nothing could ever convince you that the government didn't orchestrate 9/11, because that's what you want to believe and that's what you're going to believe. <br><br>"seem so utterly convinced of your theories"<br><br>Which theories? Have I ever even esposused any theories about 9/11? I've voiced some sucpicions and some suggestions about what may have happened. I've also called bullshit on some of the more half-baked nonsensical theories, which just so happens to be the ones <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>you</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> espouse.<br><br>"I have to wonder why you even bother"<br><br>I wonder myself.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

Dude, time and time again, I and others point out basic and fairly obvious flaws in your suggestions and arguments and most of the time, there's no response from you. Once or twice, okay, maybe you missed it. But when it happens over and over, I have to assume that means you don't have an answer.<br><br>And when you do, I cringe at the all the inferential steps that you pass over when you make arguments. I just hope you don't need any critical thinking for whatever you do for a living. <p></p><i></i>

[slimmouse]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>My point is, I don't understand why people jump to the most radical and far-out speculations based only on gaps in the publically available evidence. This type of syllogism is particular to post-modern conspiratological reasoning: it can't be proven, with the evidence available on the Internet, that it didn't happen this way, therefore it probably happened this way.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> Heres some home grown speculation ( in your own critical thinking lab no doubt)<br><br> Despite the feat of avianautics being little short of miraculous, there <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>was</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> in fact someone behind that joystick. He was a modern day Dan Dare if ever there was one. Obviously a dumbfuck to boot, but Im sure we can overlook that; because despite having Rummy and Co's offices in his sights on the way in, he decided to ignore them, and instead prove that you can do things that are practically impossible in a Passenger jet - Just to prove no doubt that Allah can make you the worlds best pilot.<br><br> Let me see. Yes. Eureka. That makes sense. That makes so much sense, I think I deserve the Nobel peace prize for critical thought in fact. I'll join the queue behind you. <p></p><i></i>

[slimmouse]

<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/015.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>As we've seen, one of the most curious elements to this event is where the aircraft struck the building. Presumably sophisticated attackers would have researched the layout of Washington D.C. and would be familiar with the Pentagon grounds. During the time they would have been casing the Pentagon this construction would have been obvious. In fact, it was public knowledge, "In the July/August, 2001, issue of Structure magazine, Mike Biscotte co-authored a paper on his role in “Retrofitting the Pentagon for Blast Resistance.” He ended the article somberly with the sentence, ”It is a design, however, that all involved earnestly hope never is tested.”<br>(Virginia Tech College of Engineering)<br><br>If you look at the left photo above you will see the first view of the Pentagon the alleged hijackers would have seen as they approached after flying directly over the unprotected White House. It is a virtual landing field without any obstructions at all. They could have hit directly into the main offices including the Secretary of Defense. For some reason they went 270 degrees out of the way at high speed, and performed a very sophisticated maneuver with no possible military advantage.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>http://www.pentagonresearch.com/attack.html<br> And of course the infamous flight path ;<br><br> <!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.pentagonresearch.com/017.html" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Sarutama]

slimmouse, robertdreed posted this in response to the "why would they hit that side of the pentagon if Rummsfeld et. al were on the other side?" arguement.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> As far as it hitting the "wrong side" of the Pentagon- following that flight path offers the dual advantages of having an easy straight-line tracking route on the ground to follow almost all the way in- Columbia Pike, Rte. 244; while at the same time evading all of the low-level air traffic control radar from National (all right, "Reagan"<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> International Airport that's trained on the (admittedly equally logical and nearly as easy to follow) course that would have hit the Pentagon from the north, by hewing close to the standard flight approach path into National Airport, which tracks N>S over the Potomac River (see map and click once over the Pentagon maps.yahoo.com/maps_resul...ame=&qty=)<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'm curious if you have a respone to this, because if the information regarding radar coverage is true (which I'm honestly completely unqualified to say) it would seem like a fairly logical and reasonable answer to that question. <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

Slim, if you were the govt and you had foreknowledge that this little plan was cooking, but you wanted to just let them go ahead and do it, what assurance would you have that they would hit the Pentagon in the right spot, even if they could? For that matter, what assurance would you have that they wouldn't hit the Indian Point nuclear plant or somewhere else equally disastrous? <p></p><i></i>

[thoughtographer]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>because despite having Rummy and Co's offices in his sights on the way in, he decided to ignore them, and instead prove that you can do things that are practically impossible in a Passenger jet - Just to prove no doubt that Allah can make you the worlds best pilot.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>You haven't proved the impossibility of such a maneuver based on anything but hearsay and exaggerated claims made by pilots, as far as I can tell. Is it so hard for you to imagine that the intentions of the pilot and the people who put him there were to drag "Rummy and Co" into the war? Just because something didn't happen doesn't automatically make it mean that it was intentionally avoided.<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Let me see. Yes. Eureka. That makes sense. That makes so much sense, I think I deserve the Nobel peace prize for critical thought in fact. I'll join the queue behind you.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>It makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than a lot of the magical thinking that I often see you desperately clinging to. In your world, it seems that luck, magic and the great occult forces wielded by the grand conspiracy that you see only seem to work for them, and never anyone else. <p><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You haven't proved the impossibility of such a maneuver based on anything but hearsay<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Just about every witness statement or assertion made in favor of the official story that we're all treating as evidence constitutes hearsay. Something to keep in mind. <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

"Dude, time and time again, I and others point out basic and fairly obvious flaws in your suggestions and arguments "<br><br>Yeah, like "the hijackers couldn't have done it", "they could've easily faked the phone calls" etc. You wonder why I don't bother to respond? "Dude", your arguments are ridiculous. <br><br>"I just hope you don't need any critical thinking for whatever you do for a living."<br><br>The irony of you saying that is precious. <p></p><i></i>

[thoughtographer]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Just about every witness statement or assertion made in favor of the official story that we're all treating as evidence constitutes hearsay. Something to keep in mind.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Of course it does, which is why I don't treat any of it as "evidence" to fuel wild speculations. I consider the "official story" to be just as nuts as any of the other shit. <p><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></p><i></i>

[Sarutama]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Just about every witness statement or assertion made in favor of the official story that we're all treating as evidence constitutes hearsay. Something to keep in mind.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Actually, I don't think eyewitness testimony counts as heresay in any court in the land. <br><br>There is a difference between eye witness testimony and people who were no where near the events speaking hypothetically about what they believe to be possible or not (People who say a plane hit the pentagon vs pilots saying that a plane couldn't have flown the way it would have.)<br><br>Not that there isn't a need for expert examination of the evidence (what little is actually available to the general public), just saying theres a difference. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sarutama@rigorousintuition>Sarutama</A> at: 4/13/06 11:49 am<br></i>

[thoughtographer]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Actually, I don't think eyewitness testimony counts as heresay in any court in the land.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>That's a <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>strictly</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> semantic distinction, in my book. I don't live in a courtroom, and I trust the eyes of a stranger even less than I trust my own. <p><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 4/13/06 11:56 am<br></i>

[NewKid]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Actually, I don't think eyewitness testimony counts as heresay in any court in the land. <br><br>There is a difference between eye witness testimony and people who were no where near the events speaking hypothetically about what they believe to be possible or not (People who say a plane hit the pentagon vs pilots saying that a plane couldn't have flown the way it would have.)<br><br>Not that there isn't a need for expert examination of the evidence (what little is actually available to the general public), just saying theres a difference. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Well, I'm not sure what "heresay" is, but hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.<br><br>And no, there is no difference between eyewitness "testimony," which isn't really testimony at all in a legal sense, and the word of people who were nowhere near the incidents. That's not to say that people who were near the incident could not theoretically have their statements admissible, even though they constitute hearsay. But they'd have to fit into an exception or exemption that aren't present here for the most part. That means their statements that we have right now wouldn't be admissible evidence. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 4/13/06 12:03 pm<br></i>

[slimmouse]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than a lot of the magical thinking that I often see you desperately clinging to. In your world, it seems that luck, magic and the great occult forces wielded by the grand conspiracy that you see only seem to work for them, and never anyone else.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> Hmm. Oh well, at least you have an opinion about something ! Theres hope for a reasonable argument yet.<br><br> Gotta Dash. Fox news is starting. Id hate to miss my daily reality check. <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Yeah, like "the hijackers couldn't have done it", "they could've easily faked the phone calls" etc. You wonder why I don't bother to respond? "Dude", your arguments are ridiculous. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br> <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The irony of you saying that is precious. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'm not interested in trading insults with you, Qutb. If you have anything beyond conclusory statements to offer, I'm happy to hear it. Otherwise, we're just wasting time. <p></p><i></i>