Post by Ian Pearse on Aug 13, 2007 16:03:28 GMT -4
I'm new to this area and have been wading through the postings so far, trying to weed out the blurb and pick out the actual arguments.
As far as I can see:
The US Govt COULD have decided to stage te 9/11 disasters for reasons of their own;
They COULD have arranged to have parts stowed secretly in the pentagon in advance;
they COULD have arranged to have a 757 fly over or near the Pentagon at the right time;
they COULD have arranged to have some other aircraft crash into the building;
they COULD have arranged for people to be on hand to plant the previoulsy-stowed bits under the cover of the fire and smoke;
they COULD have arranged to have the actual plane disappear without trace;
they COULD have arranged to horribly mangle the actua passengers and deposit the bits around the impact site;
they COULD have arranged to do this within a very short space of time after the impact...
they COULD have bribed/cajoled/threatened people into giving false witness statements;
they COULD have made sure any subsequent investigation didn't uncover anything to the contrary.
Does that just about sum up the argument for the conspiracy?
OK, the other side of the coin is this, then:
a group of terrorists COULD have paid for lessons in flying aircraft;
they COULD then have bought tickets, got on the plane and hijacked it;
they COULD then have steered the aircraft to Washington DC;
they COULD have turned off the transponder to make the plane harder to track;
they COULD have circled round Washington to get to the right place;
they COULD have clipped one or more lights as they came in very low;
they COULD have crashed the aircraft into the building;
the aircraft COULD have shed bits all over the interior and exterior of the Pentagon,
the passengers COULD have been horribly mangled and spread around the scenery too.
That's the explanation for the non-CT'ers.
And the evidence for any of this?
a) DNA of the passengers found at the site.
b) Parts of the plane found at the site.
c) Blurred CCTV which actually doesn't show much as the aircraft came in so fast the camera couldn't catch it, as it shot discrete images at intervals rather than being a continuous recording.
d) Records of the suspected terrorists having flying lessons.
There may be other bits of actual evidence I have missed, if so, feel free to add to the list.
My own view is that the evidence is not conclusive one way or the other - it could be made to fit either scenario (with the possible exception of d). So we have to fall back on which may be the more plausible scenario.
To my mind, the CT scenario is the less plausible - there are so many things that are unlikely, so many possible points where the whole game could have been given away, that it seems too cumbersome to stand up. Sorry if that seems an inexact way of saying that, but I couldn't think of any other way of putting it. The actual hijack and crash scenario is much more plausible, especially given the past history of hijackings and the lack of proper security in the US aviation industry at the time.
As someone has said before, the best sort of hoax is one that isn't a hoax at all, in other words go aout and do it. It TPTB really wanted to hoax the 9/11 disasters then the best way would have been to do it the way they said it had bene done - hijack some planes and crash them.
As far as I can see:
The US Govt COULD have decided to stage te 9/11 disasters for reasons of their own;
They COULD have arranged to have parts stowed secretly in the pentagon in advance;
they COULD have arranged to have a 757 fly over or near the Pentagon at the right time;
they COULD have arranged to have some other aircraft crash into the building;
they COULD have arranged for people to be on hand to plant the previoulsy-stowed bits under the cover of the fire and smoke;
they COULD have arranged to have the actual plane disappear without trace;
they COULD have arranged to horribly mangle the actua passengers and deposit the bits around the impact site;
they COULD have arranged to do this within a very short space of time after the impact...
they COULD have bribed/cajoled/threatened people into giving false witness statements;
they COULD have made sure any subsequent investigation didn't uncover anything to the contrary.
Does that just about sum up the argument for the conspiracy?
OK, the other side of the coin is this, then:
a group of terrorists COULD have paid for lessons in flying aircraft;
they COULD then have bought tickets, got on the plane and hijacked it;
they COULD then have steered the aircraft to Washington DC;
they COULD have turned off the transponder to make the plane harder to track;
they COULD have circled round Washington to get to the right place;
they COULD have clipped one or more lights as they came in very low;
they COULD have crashed the aircraft into the building;
the aircraft COULD have shed bits all over the interior and exterior of the Pentagon,
the passengers COULD have been horribly mangled and spread around the scenery too.
That's the explanation for the non-CT'ers.
And the evidence for any of this?
a) DNA of the passengers found at the site.
b) Parts of the plane found at the site.
c) Blurred CCTV which actually doesn't show much as the aircraft came in so fast the camera couldn't catch it, as it shot discrete images at intervals rather than being a continuous recording.
d) Records of the suspected terrorists having flying lessons.
There may be other bits of actual evidence I have missed, if so, feel free to add to the list.
My own view is that the evidence is not conclusive one way or the other - it could be made to fit either scenario (with the possible exception of d). So we have to fall back on which may be the more plausible scenario.
To my mind, the CT scenario is the less plausible - there are so many things that are unlikely, so many possible points where the whole game could have been given away, that it seems too cumbersome to stand up. Sorry if that seems an inexact way of saying that, but I couldn't think of any other way of putting it. The actual hijack and crash scenario is much more plausible, especially given the past history of hijackings and the lack of proper security in the US aviation industry at the time.
As someone has said before, the best sort of hoax is one that isn't a hoax at all, in other words go aout and do it. It TPTB really wanted to hoax the 9/11 disasters then the best way would have been to do it the way they said it had bene done - hijack some planes and crash them.