Where's the Plane?
- Thread starter stinkyboy
- Start date
I didn't see one.
Stupid firewall. 
I didn't see it either. I am still interested in the video angles from the roof of the building itself. Aren't there something like 7 on that side fo the building? I guess I need to put my tin foil hat on and rewatch...
Haven't we already been through this? We have an eyewitness right here on RM who worked in the closest building to the Pentagon right under the flightpath on 9/11 and SAW the plane. I'm sure he'll chime in as he has in the past.
Recall how he KNEW to be looking? Maybe just chance?
Highly unlikely things do just happen... like molten steel being produced by fires not hot enough to melt steel
I think it was the deafening sound of a plane coming in just above his office building, but I could be wrong. I guess it was only chance that all their windows faced that side of the pentagon as well. I'll let him chime in on this though.Recall how he KNEW to be looking? Maybe just chance?
Highly unlikely things do just happen... like molten steel being produced by fires not hot enough to melt steel
Yeah, I would like to hear more about this. Not sure a rumbling noise overhead (or behind me) would lead me to look out a window on the opposite side of the building.
I say this because the equation:
speed of flight/size of building in contrast with speed of sound and the distance to the Pentagon (right across the street you say?)
is not one that really works for me.
Just checking in. Yup, still plenty of morons about.
So who did do 9/11?
A bunch of pissed-off muslims. What are you, retarded?
Well they actually planned on hitting the capitol building.:biggrin:
What if it was Mosad?
Pussy.
Here's what I don't understand... Why is it that the government's supporters defend them by bringing up their incompetence?
I'm not trying to say the government is competent mind you... just trying to understand this line of reasoning. Certainly the government must get things right SOME of the time. Otherwise why support them?
Because the level of competence required to pull off consipiracies along the lines of 9/11, UFO coverups, assasination of JFK, etc. Is uncomprehensible. The sheer number of people that would have to be in on the deed, or the timelines and coverups is just absurd. And, being the sciencey type that I am, I thouroghly believe in Occams Razor.
As for the (in)competence of the government, yes, they do pull some things off, and do a reasonably good job for the most part. But being able to push a bill through the houses is a hell of a lot easier than covering up the planting of explosives in multiple buildings, the dissapearance of a couple hundred civiians, and then automating a couple of planes to fly into a few buildings.
I am a sciencey type too. I scored 99th percentile in science on the ACT. I too believe in Occam's Razor. I also believe that a lot of the 9-11 theories floating around are complete BS. I also know that if a part of something is untrue, it does not make everything untrue. Each claim must be evaluated upon the merit of its own evidence.
It is my opinion that 3 buildings were struck by planes on 9-11. So far there is no conclusive video evidence for 1 of the 3, but lack of evidence does not constitute evidence that no plane existed.
What I have trouble with is the lack of response to the Pentagon plane. This could be explained by incompetence, but Norman Mineta's "do the orders still stand?" testimony to the 9-11 commission seems to indicate that government indeed had knowledge of the plane headed towards the Pentagon.
This testimony was excluded from the Official 9-11 Report, and we all know you can't discard evidence simply because it fails to support your hypothesis. It just isn't sciencey.
It is my opinion that 3 buildings were struck by planes on 9-11. So far there is no conclusive video evidence for 1 of the 3, but lack of evidence does not constitute evidence that no plane existed.
What I have trouble with is the lack of response to the Pentagon plane. This could be explained by incompetence, but Norman Mineta's "do the orders still stand?" testimony to the 9-11 commission seems to indicate that government indeed had knowledge of the plane headed towards the Pentagon.
This testimony was excluded from the Official 9-11 Report, and we all know you can't discard evidence simply because it fails to support your hypothesis. It just isn't sciencey.
That's a long way from there not being a plane.
I am in agreement with Kihaji. Most of these conspiracy theories require the government to be both unparalleled in their competence while simultaneously requiring them to be totally morally bankrupt. I do not accept either of these assumptions.
And if you consider the motives for a government conspiracy, you additionally have to accept incredible government practical competence along with utter high level incompetence. Or, in other words, the supposed motives I have heard make little sense in relation to what actually occurred. Crime needs motive and the intentional destruction of many lives needs a compelling one.
Did I say that there was no plane?
Like I said, many of these theories are indeed BS. I cannot speak to the morality of anyone else. It is not for a man to know the true nature of another man's heart.
No, you did not say there was no plane, but your comments seemed to indicate that there may be some credence to this claim. The omission of one piece of evidence is a rather small part the whole equation. There are many reasons for such an omission.
We cannot truly know the motivations or morality of another, but that does not preclude us from using this as a reasoning tool. This is done in criminal cases all the time (knowledge of right and wrong, premeditation, motive, extenuating circumstances, etc.) Plus, this is just common sense- if someone thinks that the government had a decisive hand in 9/11, then you have to assume a complete and utter lack of conventional morality on the part of anyone who had a hand in the plot or the coverup at the time as well as anyone who continues to keep their silence today. Not that this is impossible, it's just hard to believe.
I have read/watched some explanations of the conspiracy theories and find none of them compelling (except on a few individual parts of the whole) in part because they lack a clear and reasonable explanation of motive. If someone is rich, powerful and unscrupulous, there are easier and less risky ways to make more money, influence the economy or change foreign policy. The motives never match the goals in these theories; they are working the wrong way through the puzzle- from end to beginning. In other words, if the government was smart enough to pull this off...then they were dumb enough to do it in the first place.
nope. don't think there is any credence to that claim at all.
I don't claim to know why it was omitted. I do know that the testimony is a matter of public record.
I accept that one can make assumptions about the morality of another based upon the available evidence. It appears that we agree however, that it is impossible to KNOW.
I disagree on this point. Perhaps those responsible saw a greater good coming from the sacrifice of a few civilians. Who is to say that one must be morally bankrupt to commit this act? Especially when one considers the bigger picture...
And just because something is difficult to believe does not make it untrue. At one point people thought the earth was flat you know.
I am uncertain that a motive must always be understood through rational thinking. Some people are just nuts and go out and kill. Maybe a motive is just that... something that we could never understand. I am obviously speaking hypothetically here, but say you witnessed someone kill someone else, and you could not determine the motive. Does that mean they did not do it?
Motive is a reason to do something, but not required for something to have been done.
Because there may be an easier route exists does not prove that a different route was not selected. Ever take the long way home? Ever ride your bike to the store instead of driving?
The 9-11 commission worked it the wrong way through. They started with the conclusion and worked backwards from there.
I'm not sure what you mean here. It just sounds like an assumption, not a presentation of evidence.
I believe that an thorough, impartial, independent investigation of the events of 9-11 has not occurred. I believe that many unanswered questions exist. I believe that it is our responsibility to find the truth in this important matter. I believe that the families of the victims deserve the truth. Nothing could be more honorable.
Why are we all so short-sighted to only think about the government?
The real benefactors are the owners of the corporations and security companies of the military-industrial complex. People who have reached the peak of their industries and who are obviously highly competent.
Also the thing about needing 100s of people in the know to pull off 9/11 as an 'inside job' is simply not true either. Only a small handful of people need to know the full details, and these are people who are very used to keeping big secrets. Other than that, smaller groups simply need to be assigned various tasks.
Only the really obvious tasks need to be kept secret, such as laying of explosives in the towers - and indeed there are several reports about 'security operations' in the towers in the weeks prior to 9/11.
The real benefactors are the owners of the corporations and security companies of the military-industrial complex. People who have reached the peak of their industries and who are obviously highly competent.
Also the thing about needing 100s of people in the know to pull off 9/11 as an 'inside job' is simply not true either. Only a small handful of people need to know the full details, and these are people who are very used to keeping big secrets. Other than that, smaller groups simply need to be assigned various tasks.
Only the really obvious tasks need to be kept secret, such as laying of explosives in the towers - and indeed there are several reports about 'security operations' in the towers in the weeks prior to 9/11.
For the umpteenth time. There was a plane. The day after I personally spoke to a friend that was in a parking lot 500m or so away when it hit. It was a commercial air-liner. She saw it coming, saw it hit, saw it explode. Geeez.
I don't really have the time to go through and respond to each point. Your points are valid and well considered, but I think you are abstracting the issue too far. If somebody thinks it is acceptable to end a few thousand lives, they better have a good reason. I have not heard any theories that claim anything that I could possibly construe as misguided altruism. If a few thousand lives do not weigh heavily on one's conscience for anything except an act of absolute necessity (which this was not, as far as I can tell) then that person is what I would call morally bankrupt. What bigger picture is there?
You may be speaking in hypotheticals, but this event was not hypothetical. It wasn't bike ride or a maniacal postal worker. We could go on forever with metaphysics and hypotheticals. At some point it just goes in circles.
My final point in the last post was that if you accept a conspiracy (which apparently worked pretty well) then you ascribe competency. I haven't heard a compelling motive- a good reason to have undertaken this crime in this manner. Terrorist extremists? I'll buy that. The motive makes some sense. The means and ends line up. Corporations and/or government? Doesn't quite align. Based on the goals I've heard, the methods were poorly chosen in a risk-benefit method of thinking. And for these players, I don't buy this action without discernable motive. That makes absolutely no sense.
have you notice that your conspiracy theory is getting close to the point of popperian infalsibility?
i mean, we can come up with many false proofs, but then they would only serve to refine your theory and so on...
Except that was the theory from the beginning.. Remember the dancing Jews?
How does she know what she really saw was a plane? Is she some kind of expert in identifying aircraft and all things that fly? Plus, she was probably drugged off her ass when she "witnessed" the event. Even if it was a plane, you know it was a staged hoax like the moon landing.
lthumbsdown:
IAB:
Your ad hominems and moon hoaxes only serve to muddy the matter further.
The plane that struck the Pentagon was not traveling at a slow landing speed. It was traveling at a much greater rate of speed. If the plane was traveling at 500mph and an observer was 500m away they would have had just over 2 seconds to identify the plane. Depending upon the trajectory (believed to be a low shallow angle of approach), the plane would have just screamed overhead in a blur.
Not that I am trying to say there was no plane. I think there was, and I think it may have been piloted by Arab hijackers.
I am a whole lot more interested in the lack of military response in light of much evidence of knowledge of this plane being hijacked.
Your ad hominems and moon hoaxes only serve to muddy the matter further.
The plane that struck the Pentagon was not traveling at a slow landing speed. It was traveling at a much greater rate of speed. If the plane was traveling at 500mph and an observer was 500m away they would have had just over 2 seconds to identify the plane. Depending upon the trajectory (believed to be a low shallow angle of approach), the plane would have just screamed overhead in a blur.
Not that I am trying to say there was no plane. I think there was, and I think it may have been piloted by Arab hijackers.
I am a whole lot more interested in the lack of military response in light of much evidence of knowledge of this plane being hijacked.
1: While it may have been known that it was hijacked, it was unknown what the intentions of the hijackers were.
2: As cruel and moronic as it sounds, letting the hijackers do what they are going to do was the best decision, PR wise(and as my next point will show, containment wise). Hijackers flying a plane into a building is a lot easier to deal with than the administration shooting the plane down and having the hijackers organization change stories and say they never intended to hit a building, or that there were even hijackers aboard and that this is just the imperialist pigs blaming them.
3: Shooting a plane that size down over population will cause more damage than just letting the plane go it's course. Falling debris, fuel, fire, all over a populated are are much more difficult to contain and deal with from an emergency standpoint.
So, with those above being said, what exactly was the administration to do? Ask them to pretty please with sugar on top not do anything bad and land the plane safely? Evacuate every possible target in the DC area? Potentially causing un-needed panic and a logistical nightmare when something does go wrong?
Can you say this honestly? After 2 buildings had already been struck by planes? (see timeline at: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm)
Are you saying the government made a competent decision? I thought your argument was that they were incompetent.
Maybe, maybe not. It is difficult to eSpeculate on this point. Perhaps with quick action something could have been done over the sparsely populated mountainous region of Virginia.
Of course that would have required competent action.
I am unsure what the right solution would have been, but the lack of action speaks loudly.
Encyclopedia Brown solves another one.
AHAHAHAAHAaaaa.....I used to read those...
The Ad Hominems are unproductive. If it makes you feel better though, more power to ya.
