Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Truth and Dare
Remember Justin Martell, the head of Student Scholars for 9/11
Truth whose impromptu interview
with Ron Paul led to Michelle Malkin calling Paul a "truther"?
I ran into him in Manchester where he was scoping out the
candidates and distancing his group from the "conspiracy theorists"
(like Alex Jones and Morgan Reynolds) who think the government
actually planned 9/11 or no planes ever
crashed into the WTC. I had to ask him what he thought of Malkin
running his Paul video on Fox News.
The article he's talking about is here.
Malkin's excellent 1999 reason feature is here.
|6.4.07 @ 12:32AM|#
You sure that 1999 Malkin is the same person and not just someone with the same name?
|6.4.07 @ 1:35AM|#
She's not an idiot - just someone with an agenda willing to lie or twist the truth to serve that agenda.
Dave W.|6.4.07 @ 9:13AM|#
Flight 93 was shot down. I like the part where Malkin
asks:
"Who's responsible for the anthrax attacks?"
She was Rosie before Rosie was Rosie.
They just had a nice thd
about this at the highclearing this weekend with new (?)
commentator BruceB.
|6.4.07 @ 9:22AM|#
Damn, Malkin actually seems normal in the 1999 article. It lends credence to the theory that she isn't insane; she just acts that way to attract media attention (and $).
Grotius|6.4.07 @ 9:36AM|#
So where the he-l is Osama bin Laden, anyway?
So who edited out the first "l?" If it was Malkin I have to ask why
she would use the word in the first place?
Dave W.|6.4.07 @ 9:40AM|#
What's your evidence?
Some people say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence (I seem to recall that PL is in this camp, but it might
have been quasibill). I don't think the idea that they shot down
the plane and decided to hide that fact after they realized that
there were no real witnesses is an extraordinary claim. So, I don't
think the extraordinary evidence thingee applies.
Other people say that someone making a claim has to prove it by a
preponderance of the evidence. That works for civil trials,
conducted after a year of discovery (eg, document requests,
depositions, interrogatories). However, we have never had the
opportunity to get meaningful discovery out of the US government.
Maybe there was a time when the media effectively did this, but
those days are gone.
To continue the legal "standard of proof" analysis, I think the
government asking us to believe its official story is something
akin to summary judgement. The government controls the evidence and
they bear the burden of production and persuasion. The official
story is best deemed untrue simply because there is a lack of
evidence to support it.
That said, my evidence such as it is:
1. Government hiding blackbox tape.
2. Rumors of witnesses to plane on fire and/or unmarked jet in
area.
3. Delay in announcing for sure whether plane was shot down.
4. Hiding of physical wreckage.
5. Discrepancy between government report of plane crash and
seismograph evidence.
6. MOST IMPORTANTLY: I refuse to believe that there would be no air
defense response for one hour and fifty minutes, which is what the
official story requires one to believe.
Timothy|6.4.07 @ 9:44AM|#
Everyone knows that the heliocentric model of the solar system is responsible for 9/11. OPEN YOUR EYES! DON'T DRINK THE CORN SYRUP!
I\'ve Had It With Wikipedia|6.4.07 @ 9:47AM|#
"A fundamental principle of all physics is the equivalence of inertial reference frames. In practical terms, this equivalence means that scientists living inside an enclosed box moving uniformly cannot detect their motion by any experiment done exclusively inside the box."
|6.4.07 @ 9:53AM|#
Dave W.
You are an idiot...
The sum total of the U.S. fighter protection (two aircraft) were
screaming back toward Washington DC on full afterburner having
flown out over the Atlantic when first launched.
Witnesses observed the aircraft, intact, pass overhead, invert and
crash.
The crash was observed by a commercial aircraft who reported it to
Cleveland Center.
Since the hijackers were mucking around with their transponders,
the FAA had concluded more aircraft had been hijacked than actually
had been.
In previous threads, this has been explained to you. Your evidence
has been shredded. You have been unable to refute the evidence that
contradicts your hypothesis.
Yet you soldier on. Why? I doubt a client is paying you to so
thoroughly destroy your own reputation.
I\'ve Had It With Wikipedia|6.4.07 @ 9:56AM|#
The sum total of the U.S. fighter protection (two aircraft)
. . .
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Jerry|6.4.07 @ 9:57AM|#
I find Malkin, like Coulter, coming off rather shallow. Of course people like seeing nice-looking people on tv, but is it too much to ask for a little bit of substance?
Harley|6.4.07 @ 10:43AM|#
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Yeah, because the USA was so expecting the 9/11 attacks and/or
Russian nuclear bombers coming over the Atlantic so there were
actually several hundred in the air, the government than killed
those pilots to admit that the United States government wasn't
woefully ill prepared to deal with a large scale attack of any
kind. I agree with you, jackass.
Grotius|6.4.07 @ 10:44AM|#
As far as conspiracies go, I think the efforts to attack the
U.S. on 9/11 by OBL & gang were effective. Not quite sure why
you have to go further than that.
Now, maybe there have been "conspiracies" to cover-up government
incompetence and the like, but that is a difference sort of
argument than the notion that the U.S. was behind 9/11, etc.
|6.4.07 @ 10:48AM|#
My favorite factoid from the United 93 episode was that supposedly there is a recording of a guy calling his mother from the plane and identifying himself using his first and last names.
Dave W.|6.4.07 @ 10:51AM|#
Now, maybe there have been "conspiracies" to cover-up
government incompetence and the like, but that is a difference sort
of argument than the notion that the U.S. was behind 9/11,
etc.
If you ever read any history, then you would know that there are
many shades of degree between complete ignorance and full
complicity.
Grotius|6.4.07 @ 10:52AM|#
thoreau & Timothy,
Do you really think you are doing anything good by making
statements like this?
Besides Timothy, why do you even come here? I thought all the cool
people were at grylliade?
|6.4.07 @ 11:00AM|#
"Dave W. and Dan T.:
Trolls United!"
So, does that make them a trollish version of Voltron?
VM|6.4.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Gro - c'mon - we both used to spend time there, too. You were a
strong poster there!
Remember Lady Bracknell:
Do not speak ill of society, Algie. Only people who can't get
in do that.
But for doing anything good, they need to be funnier. Mr. Steven
Crane will stop on by later to deliver suitable punishment.
He said something about "wet celery, snorkel, and a photoshop
manual", so youze guyz are really in for it!
thoreau|6.4.07 @ 11:14AM|#
Come on, VM, mediageek liked my humor.
mediageek, I like the idea of replacing lions with trolls. But we
need a counterpart for the girl lion. Juanita?
Still need two more. If we go with past commenters then it's easy:
M1EK and Jersey McJones. But if we go more contemporary? The 4th
and 5th members of Trolltron become trickier.
Fluffy|6.4.07 @ 11:14AM|#
The real problem I see with the "they covered up a shoot down of
United 93" theory is that it would not have been covered up.
Why cover it up?
The public at large would not have batted an eyebrow if it was
announced that the flight had been shot down to save people on the
ground. The people on the plane would still have been tragic
casualties of 9/11. The pilot who shot the flight down would have
been portrayed as a hero touched by tragedy and moral complexity -
imagine the mileage the pro-WOT folks could get out of such an
object lesson of the relationship between morality and necessity -
"Sure, we don't like having to crush Iraq, but it's one of those
necessary things we do with a heavy heart - much like Lieutenant X,
who had to shoot down a civilian airliner and take that burden of
regret upon himself in order to save others."
Dave W.|6.4.07 @ 11:17AM|#
Do you really think you are doing anything good by making
statements like this?
It is probably good for them to blow off steam this way. Lots of
people, maybe most, get very upset when you let them know that
Flight 93 was shot down. I don't think they are upset about the
fact that the plane was shot down -- shooting down the plane was
undoubtedly the correct thing to do in context. I don't think they
are upset by the implication that the gov't must have therefore
knocked down the Twin Towers, too -- the shooting down of Flight 93
simply does not mean or even suggest the the government blew up the
Twin Towers. I don't think they are upset out of some sort of
concern for the people who believe that Flight 93 was shot down --
they have too much anger for that.
Rather, I think the upset we routinely observe comes from the fact
that people have a certain threshold level of trust in the
government, and that lying about Flight 93 would violate this
trust. People want the luxury of believing that there are certain
bounds of ethics, outside of which the government will not stray.
For some reason, the truth about Flight 93 would destroy the
illusion of these bounds in a way that even Richard Nixon's
burglary, Bill Clinton's serial workplace sexual harrassment and
Bush's wmd fraud did not.
There aren't many scenarios under which I see Ron Paul as the next
President. However, if somehow, some way, it became understood that
Flight 93 was shot down, I think that would be one of those
scenarios. People trust the government too darn much and they
expect to see that trust in others. Sadly, things could keep
limping along like this for decades.
thoreau|6.4.07 @ 11:24AM|#
The real question is whether a thread about "Truthers" can be
anything other than mocking.
Dave W., Dan T., Juanita, hmm, whom else to add to Trolltron?
As I recall, they lived in a castle, so there should be some sort
of classical element to this team...
|6.4.07 @ 11:25AM|#
The real problem I see with the "they covered up a shoot
down of United 93" theory is that it would not have been covered
up.
Why cover it up?
The public at large would not have batted an eyebrow if it was
announced that the flight had been shot down to save people on the
ground. The people on the plane would still have been tragic
casualties of 9/11. The pilot who shot the flight down would have
been portrayed as a hero touched by tragedy and moral complexity -
imagine the mileage the pro-WOT folks could get out of such an
object lesson of the relationship between morality and necessity -
"Sure, we don't like having to crush Iraq, but it's one of those
necessary things we do with a heavy heart - much like Lieutenant X,
who had to shoot down a civilian airliner and take that burden of
regret upon himself in order to save others."
Hold on - you really think that the government, if they did shoot
down the plane (and I'm not convinced that they did), is going to
freely admit to murdering 40 US citizens?
Grotius|6.4.07 @ 11:29AM|#
VM,
In other words, in this particular conversation who is the real
troll? Dave W., Dan T., thoreau or Timothy?
Grotius|6.4.07 @ 11:32AM|#
VM,
Ooops. I should have include "none of the above" in that particular
question.
Grotius|6.4.07 @ 11:40AM|#
thoreau,
I good Anselmian fashion I will note that Urkobold is not merely
the Prime Troller or the most important troller, he is The
Troller.
VM|6.4.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Doktor T
you do have a point - Mediageek is a good judge! And that's an
admirable plan!
Gro:
how much of that is banter between and among some regulars? DW
seems to play along. Dan T appears to try to get a rise out of
people and simply ignores T&T.
URKOBOLD shall remember both of you as he whithers your souls.
Remember: he struck Roger Clemens down with "Fatigued Groin
Syndrome"!
*strikes jaunty pose
Grotius|6.4.07 @ 11:48AM|#
thoreau,
Indeed, since we cannot think of anything superior than Urkobold,
and that which exists is more perfect than than that which can be
thought, Urkobold must exist.
Grotius|6.4.07 @ 11:53AM|#
VM,
That would be fine IMHO if thoreau and Timothy didn't complain so
much about Dave W., etc. at grylliade.
Dave W.|6.4.07 @ 12:00PM|#
Why cover it up?
I think it was a timing issue, primarily. They did not announce
right away that it was shot down (or that it wasn't shot down for
that matter).
As they dithered, there developed a concern that if they came out a
day or two days after the fact and said it was shot down, then
people might not have responded well. In 20/20 hindsight, years
later, we can conjecture that people would have taken the belated
news okay after all. But this kind of thing was unprecedented. They
ran the clock out on themselves, and decided days after the fact
that the most palatable story was, "we did not shoot it down, but
we would have if it had gotten any further."
Here is how the official story trickled out:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=paul_weaver
VM|6.4.07 @ 12:09PM|#
ah.
Do you still hang out there even after you got a raw deal? You
buried the hatchet? Respect!
Might that just be banter?
BTW - that's a fantastic vid of Nesse you have at your site! You've
got a whole bunch of really interesting thoughts/articles
posted!
|6.4.07 @ 12:18PM|#
Trolltron.
Great name. I heartily approve.
Grotius-
Why the defense of Dave W. & Dan T.?
One's a loon and the other a straw man soaring on the wings of a
gadfly. They've both always been that way.
|6.4.07 @ 12:23PM|#
I see people calling the "trolls" names and dismissing facts out
of hand. I see the usual trolls actually making sense. What is
going on around here?
It seems much too easy in conversation and in comment to dismiss
people out of hand as "truthers." Much more difficult is listening
and responding to their questions. When did questioning the
official story go out of style? Especially when the official story
has so many blank spots? C'mon, guys.
|6.4.07 @ 12:27PM|#
Hold on - you really think that the government, if they did
shoot down the plane (and I'm not convinced that they did), is
going to freely admit to murdering 40 US citizens?
Justifiable homicide and murder are two different things. If they
had shot the plane down (and they didn't) they would have wanted to
take credit, for shooting down the plane would have been a choice
that would likely have saved many more lives (and the passengers
were going to die anyway). In the situation, shooting down the
plane is the right thing to do (another reason to believe that they
didn't do it).
VM|6.4.07 @ 12:35PM|#
Gro:
cool. BTW: is it you posting as "DJ of Raleigh"? I had always
thought that he was nom de blog for you. Am I mistaken?
RE: shooting down plane. Both Norwegian and Austrian teletext
services reported a plane being shot down on that terrible day.
Both reports were very matter-of-fact and sobering.
|6.4.07 @ 12:39PM|#
The evidence for the shooting down of Flight 93 consists
entirely of the total lack of evidence that Flight 93 was shot
down!
That proves it!
|6.4.07 @ 12:39PM|#
There is no troll but Urkobold, and the Urkobold is His
prophet.
Yes, that's correct--Urkobold doesn't outsource His
prophecies.
As for 9/11, I won't argue if someone suggests that some ineptitude
may have been covered up and/or improperly forgiven. I'd be
perfectly willing to believe any number of evildoings by this or
most other administrations, but the evidence and logic weigh
heavily against that. Honestly, most of the "Truther" stuff I've
read has smelled far too much like the Moon Landing Hoax "debate"
to impress me very much.
|6.4.07 @ 12:41PM|#
It's true, Grotius was one of the Young Lurks that radically changed the political framework of Vermontia in 2017.
stuartl|6.4.07 @ 12:43PM|#
Dave W wrote:
"A fundamental principle of all physics is the equivalence of
inertial reference frames. In practical terms, this equivalence
means that scientists living inside an enclosed box moving
uniformly cannot detect their motion by any experiment done
exclusively inside the box."
Last week Dave W wrote:
As far as what is moving relative to what, these cited
considerations are irrelevant from the point of view of a
physicist.
Don't feel bad. Even some low to mid level physicists fail to get
it.
Dave W, and yet again you show why a little bit of knowledge is a
dangerous thing. Given your vast and deep understanding of physics,
please explain why "inertial frames of reference" do not apply
either in the case of flight 93 or in the case of the solar system
rotating around Dave W.
Once you have these adequately explained, please write a 2000 word
essay on the appropriate use of Occam's razor.
My apologies for troll feeding, but the humor of Dave W lecturing
on physics was getting to be too much.
|6.4.07 @ 12:44PM|#
The evidence for the shooting down of Flight 93 consists
entirely of the total lack of evidence that Flight 93 was shot
down!
That proves it!
Almost got it. More like: we can't be sure what exactly happened to
Flight 93, because there hasn't been a public investigation. All
that would be necessary to silence the conspiracy theorists are a
few specific pieces of evidence, none of which should be
particularly hard to give. Could release the audio from the black
box, for example.
|6.4.07 @ 12:51PM|#
P.L. sed: As for 9/11, I won't argue if someone suggests
that some ineptitude may have been covered up and/or improperly
forgiven. I'd be perfectly willing to believe any number of
evildoings by this or most other administrations, but the evidence
and logic weigh heavily against that. Honestly, most of the
"Truther" stuff I've read has smelled far too much like the Moon
Landing Hoax "debate" to impress me very much.
Please tell me what evidence and what logic "weigh heavily" against
the suggestion of evildoing or coverup by this
administration.
Sounds like an association fallacy to me: some truthers are nuts,
these people are talking about one of the same topics truthers talk
about, therefore these people are nuts and I'm excused from
thinking about what they're actually saying.
|6.4.07 @ 12:56PM|#
I love how the truthers oscillate between "9/11 was a government conspiracy because that's the only way our air defense could have been so bad as to not intercept these planes" and "There's a government conspiracy to cover up our air defense intercepting and shooting down Flight 93".
Dave W.|6.4.07 @ 12:57PM|#
Could release the audio from the black box, for
example.
I am not sure how far that would get you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_tapes
I would prefer that they interview the air traffic controllers and
eyewitnesses at an open and televised hearing.
Some accountability (eg, public trials, jailtime) for the people
who left America undefended would be good to see, too. And that
should be true whether there was a stand-down order, or simply a
total lack of ready fighter planes in Pennsylvania. When people are
worried about going to jail, they tend to start telling the
truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._McCord_Jr.
Those who have never read any history are doomed to repeat it.
|6.4.07 @ 1:01PM|#
Ah, but lurker, I've long since stopped arguing about this, so
I'm incapable of engaging in any such fallacies. I paid attention
to all of this nonsense when it started, thought about it, and
rejected it. Sorry. Could there be some government B.S. in all of
this? Certainly. But the main course of events probably occurred
pretty much the way most of us think it did.
I will say that I bet some stuff has been sat on due to national
security reasons (whether appropriately so or not), which is why
the government isn't publishing every single factoid on the
attacks.
Just to make things more interesting, I'm actually somewhat
suspicious about TWA 800. It probably wasn't shot down, but there's
reason to wonder. Unlike 9/11, the possibility of a terrorist
attack could've been completely buried by one set of lies. In order
to prevent a panic, I suppose.
Speaking of panics, I wonder how we'd handle another 9/11-type
attack? My wife and I were discussing this, and we suspect that the
economy, etc., would not enter a state of shock as it did in 2001.
At least, not to the same extent.
Dave W.|6.4.07 @ 1:04PM|#
I love how the truthers oscillate between "9/11 was a
government conspiracy because that's the only way our air defense
could have been so bad as to not intercept these planes" and
"There's a government conspiracy to cover up our air defense
intercepting and shooting down Flight 93".
I think you forgot a third possibility, to wit:
There was a stand-down order that lasted so long as Bush/Cheney
dared let it last.
I think people would have been much less credulous if the plane
crashed into the White House Lawn at 10:30 am est on 9/11.
|6.4.07 @ 1:09PM|#
P.L. - ok, so you've thought about it and come to your own
conclusions. sorry for the accusation of fallaciousness...
I've thought about it quite a bit too, it took me longer to ask the
questions in the first place, so admittedly there's some distance
and hindsight in play. I still think there is "reason to wonder"
about a few things. Flight 93 isn't as high on my list as the
little hole in the Pentagon and the "collapse" of Building 7.
Speaking of panics, I wonder how we'd handle another 9/11-type
attack? My wife and I were discussing this, and we suspect that the
economy, etc., would not enter a state of shock as it did in 2001.
At least, not to the same extent.
Probably not as bad, I think you're right. Would be interesting if
this happens again (could anything like this really happen again?
wouldn't be like this at all) to watch events being reported with a
more skeptical eye - on 9/11 I was overseas and missed the
unfolding.
|6.4.07 @ 1:32PM|#
Grotius,
Thanks! Proto Libertate and Mrs. Libertate are doing very well,
though sleep deprivation experiments are being conducted by the
newest member of our family.
If logical fallacies only apply to arguments, and one is not
arguing, then one can engage at such activities at will, right?
This may be useful. Achieve absolute certainty, then unleash ad
hominem attacks at will. I think that's how the Urkobold does it,
anyway.
|6.4.07 @ 1:47PM|#
"I don't think the idea that they shot down the plane and
decided to hide that fact after they realized that there were no
real witnesses is an extraordinary claim."
Wow! What an extraordinary claim!
|6.4.07 @ 2:19PM|#
"Speaking of panics, I wonder how we'd handle another 9/11-type
attack? My wife and I were discussing this, and we suspect that the
economy, etc., would not enter a state of shock as it did in 2001.
At least, not to the same extent."
What if it's 7 attacks on the same day in 7 different cities, using
nuclear devices? This is the information Paul Williams claims there
is intelligence on. See Paul Williams' new book, "The Day of
Islam".
|6.4.07 @ 2:29PM|#
"Just to make things more interesting, I'm actually somewhat
suspicious about TWA 800. It probably wasn't shot down, but there's
reason to wonder. Unlike 9/11, the possibility of a terrorist
attack could've been completely buried by one set of lies. In order
to prevent a panic, I suppose."
Some people think there's a government coverup because it was
accidentally shot down by friendly fire, i.e. an accidental shot by
the American military. There were witnesses who claimed to have
seen a firery object hit the plane.
|6.4.07 @ 2:34PM|#
"I don't think the idea that they shot down the plane and
decided to hide that fact after they realized that there were no
real witnesses is an extraordinary claim."
Wow! What an extraordinary claim!
The claim that the claim that the original claim is not
extraordinary is extraordinary is clearly extraordinary.
|6.4.07 @ 2:37PM|#
"Almost got it. More like: we can't be sure what exactly
happened to Flight 93, because there hasn't been a public
investigation. All that would be necessary to silence the
conspiracy theorists are a few specific pieces of evidence, none of
which should be particularly hard to give. Could release the audio
from the black box, for example."
What about the "Let's roll" cell phone call to one of the wife of
one of the passengers? Doesn't that lend credibility to the fact
that a fight brought down the plane?
Dave W.|6.4.07 @ 2:51PM|#
What about the "Let's roll" cell phone call to one of the
wife of one of the passengers? Doesn't that lend credibility to the
fact that a fight brought down the plane?
From wikipedia: "The 9/11 Commission found from the recordings
that, contrary to what many had believed, the passengers did not
succeed in entering the cockpit."
What about the guy locked in the bathroom who reported an explosion
and smoke?
Grotius|6.4.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Dave W.,
Yes, it was the effort to break down the door which forced the
terrorists to crash the plane.
Dave W.|6.4.07 @ 2:56PM|#
The claim that the claim that the original claim is not
extraordinary is extraordinary is clearly extraordinary.
How many presidents do you have to have lie to your face before you
come to believe that it is not unusual for the president to
lie?
Dave W.|6.4.07 @ 2:59PM|#
Yes, it was the effort to break down the door which forced
the terrorists to crash the plane.
Suuuuuure.
|6.4.07 @ 3:17PM|#
How many presidents do you have to have lie to your face
before you come to believe that it is not unusual for the president
to lie?
Do I really have to trust the president in order to reject your
story? Because frankly, I don't think of either one of you as a
particularly trustworthy source.
Dave W.|6.4.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Do I really have to trust the president in order to reject
your story? Because frankly, I don't think of either one of you as
a particularly trustworthy source.
I said the fact that presidents lie means that the claim that the
president lied is not "extraordinary."
I did not say the fact that presidents lie means that you should
believe my claim that Flight 93 was shot down. Rather, I gave my
reasons why I think flt 93 was shot down upthd at my 9.40 am post
in response to a gentle query from Tarran, IIRC.
It is possible that the claim that there was a coverup is both: (i)
not extraordinary; and (ii) not true. I think you are conflating
these two things, which are really separate issues.
Anyway, post-9-11, the important thing to remember is that if you
get hijacked, then don't worry too much about trying to retake the
plane after hijacker gets control because your flight will be shot
down, or brought down by electromagnetic interference, anyway.
stuartl|6.4.07 @ 3:36PM|#
...or brought down by electromagnetic
interference
This explains why Dave W wears a tinfoil hat.
|6.4.07 @ 5:12PM|#
I forget at the moment which unlikely theory Justin Martell is partial to, but I'm kind of impressed at his honest response. While the Reds are trying to paint Ron Paul as part of his movement, he's not trying to glom on to Paul and pull the "look at all the prominent people I say believe me!" shtick conspiricists are known for.
|6.4.07 @ 5:14PM|#
And lets be honest - this guy may be *cough* misguided, but he just burned Malkin to a crisp.
Paul|6.4.07 @ 7:48PM|#
I don't think the idea that they shot down the plane and
decided to hide that fact after they realized that there were no
real witnesses is an extraordinary claim. So, I don't think the
extraordinary evidence thingee applies.
Dave W.,
I may not think that you being a child pornographer is a
particularly extraordinary claim, but that doesn't mean it isn't.
Conspiracy theories involving multiple government agencies and
tens, let alone hundreds of people are extraordinary claims on
their face. Give us your evidence, or be relegated to the
conspiracy theorist trash heap.
Paul|6.4.07 @ 7:52PM|#
I refuse to believe that there would be no air defense
response for one hour and fifty minutes,
Dave W.,
You and I must be living under different governments. My government
is the government of the United States of America. Responses to any
emergency do not occur in under one hour and fifty minutes.
|6.5.07 @ 12:59AM|#
What about the guy locked in the bathroom who reported an
explosion and smoke?
...which of course means the airliner definitely took a missile up
the ass.
Had an AIM-9 (more likely two - redundancy is key), hit the
airframe of a big, sitting duck airliner, the guy in the bathroom
wouldn't have had the wherewithal to report anything other than
involuntarily expelled excrement all over the place, shortly before
the whole thing would have broken apart.
If a military aircraft is going to take down an airliner, it's
going to do it right and proper, which is to say pretty much nearly
obliterate it.
This all assumes that any aircraft capable of launching AIM-9s or
AIM-7s (AIM-120s would be right out, as they're used BVR and an
intercepting craft has to at least attempt contact) was within
about 5 miles or so after attempting contact (which would have
required flying on the wing of the hijacked plane for some
non-trivial and very observable time wing rocking and such - then
backing off to a safe firing distance). This is something that is
not very likely, even in the timeframe referenced.
Dave W.|6.5.07 @ 9:53AM|#
shortly before the whole thing would have broken
apart.
That Korean one the Russians downed came down in one piece, or so
say the Japanese fishermen who saw it, IIRC.
I mean, the guy's account does not square that well with a missile,
primarily because the call happened quite a bit in advance of the
plane coming down.
Nevertheless his (Edward Felt?) account does not square very well
with the official story and is some evidence that the official
story is untrue.
Dave W.|6.5.07 @ 10:26AM|#
My government is the government of the United States of
America. Responses to any emergency do not occur in under one hour
and fifty minutes.
US military vessels arrived at the crash scene of TWA flight 800
"within minutes" of the impact, according to the official
report.
Cheney's staff took CIPRO on 9/11, a week before the first anthrax
letter.
How fast the US gov't responds depends primarily upon how fast it
wants to respond.
|6.5.07 @ 10:37AM|#
That Korean one the Russians downed came down in one piece,
or so say the Japanese fishermen who saw it, IIRC.
Did the Russkies take it down with the full intention of making
fucking sure it was down? US pilots, if their loadout permits and
their mission is as critical as this would have been, WILL fire
twice, at least. A 767 structurally isn't going to stand up to 2
Sidewinders in the engines.
But again, that's assuming all the other stuff I mentioned, like
actually making contact, which necessitates flying on the guy's
wing for some time. That takes time.
I doubt they even got within a few miles, let alone made visual
contact with the cockpit.
|6.5.07 @ 10:41AM|#
Just checked it out. The KAL flight was a 747, much more sturdy
than Flight 93. Further, the Russians used cannon and two missiles
- two Soviet-era missiles (AA-3s or -8s); not the deadliest weapons
on earth.
Sidewinders fired from F-16s or F-15s are much more effective.
Dave W.|6.5.07 @ 10:51AM|#
Just checked it out. The KAL flight was a 747, much more
sturdy than Flight 93. Further, the Russians used cannon and two
missiles - two Soviet-era missiles (AA-3s or -8s); not the
deadliest weapons on earth.
I imagine that if they did bring the jet down with an unmarked and
unpublicized plane, then that means they wanted the flexibility to
deny the shoot down if no one saw it. One way to do this is to use
a small, targeted missile. Another way potentially would be with
electromagnetic interference, but it is difficult to know the true
status of that highly classified technology. Secret designers and
secret designs and all that.
|6.5.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Dave, you're reaching and shifting (big fuckin' surprise).
The smallest missile available on your typical ANG F-16 of F-15
(most likely aircraft to intercept in that part of the country) is
an AIM-9. It's gonna do some big-time hurtin' on a thin-skinned
airliner.
Anything else, including an EMP-type missile (something that hasn't
entered service by a long shot) is NOT going to be on your typical
ANG, weekend-warrior fighter plane. No way. That is unless you
believe that some super-secret, super-fast experimental plane was
scrambled with super-secret, super-awesome, experimental missiles
(or testicle-simmering EM jammers).
Such a scenario is, shall we say, highly unlikely.
(By the way, the EM theory would require, at this point, a plane
much, much bigger and slower than a fighter to generate enough to
bring down an airliner the way it came down. The crew would
probably all be sterile, as a result. The portability of massive EM
weapons hasn't reached that level of miniaturization yet.)
Dave W.|6.5.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Dave, you're reaching and shifting (big fuckin'
surprise).
Look, if this were a civil dispute between me and the government,
then I would have conducted discovery for a year and obtained their
documents and witness testimony related to what really happened to
Flight 93. then I would sit you in the jury box, Timon19, and
present what I had found to you and exactly what I thought had
happened. The government would, of course, get a fair crack to
prove otherwise, including the pointing out of any biases that I
might have. In that case, you would be convinced by my story
because it would be supported by documents and witnesses testimony.
Witnesses who tried to lie would be demolished, by me, on cross
examination.
However, this isn't that kind of dispute. I have had no discovery,
zero. We are expected to take the government at their word and they
have custody of the evidence and a free hand to hide all the
evidence they can.
Under this kind of dispute you have to use different standards of
proof to form your tentative beliefs, and a much lower expectation
of certainty and detail.
And, of course, you understand, that I point this out now so that
when you wake up on that fine morning, as a grey old woman or man,
and see the headline in your GOOGLE news, then you will know I was
right, not so much about the specifics of th crash of flt 93, but
more importantly about wise limits on trust and how to apply
burdens of proof and certainty in a situation with assymetrical
access to info.
|6.5.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Dave, your condescension is astounding. Well done.
What the technical aspects of your suppositions have to do with the
general trust of the government in light of "asymmetrical access to
info", I don't quite know.
I'm telling you that every scenario you've presented is highly
unlikely, based on the technical possibilities at the time. So
unlikely, in several cases, as to be laughable.
Dave W.|6.5.07 @ 12:08PM|#
based on the technical possibilities at the time
and I am telling you that the technical possibilities are secret.
When the news does break that Flt 93 was downed and WTC7 was
demolished, you will have the comfort that I, condescending
"genius" that I am, guessed wrong about some detail or another.
However, you will probably also see that whatever happened is
something that could not have been specifically envisioned without
a better security clearance than what either of us have got.
|6.5.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Well, Dave, in the specific case of Flt. 93, the technical
possibilities, even if they were secret, would have been nearly
impossible to deploy by any imaginable system without PLENTY of
foreknowledge (this, I suppose, is where you can hang your hat).
Given the flight path of Flt. 93, however, that seems
unlikely.
Of course, I suppose the very fact that I placed the caveat of "any
imaginable system" in there will cause you to declare yourself a
misunderstood soul, well ahead of his time, since that is so vague
you can retroactively apply just about anything to it.
In the case of WTC7, another desperate thread, you have to
completely discount the debris damage and subsequent fires, as well
as probably continue to push the oft-mentioned and oft-debunked
"pull it" contextless quote. (Not to mention structural dynamics
and materials science.)
Dave W.|6.5.07 @ 12:40PM|#
any imaginable system without PLENTY of foreknowledge (this,
I suppose, is where you can hang your hat).
well, that is the 64 trillion dollar question, but really there are
all kinds of reasons for developing non-conventional weapons. For
example, if it were possible to drop a plane with electromagnetic
interference, than this would seem preferable in many situations,
and not just a highjacking.
Why would one possible develop a small missile? Chance are that a
small missile is more maneuverable and accurate than a big one.
Those are nice features when you are shooting them over the
continental US.
I am not saying that they developed small missiles just for the day
that Cheney decided it was time to use the Air Force, but if the
Air Force had small accurate missiles in place, you can see why
they might prefer a small, accurate missile or over a bigger less
accurate one -- even if they knew for a fact that they would not be
trying to conceal the shoot down later.
believe me, I would love to be going over all this stuff in great
detail at an open hearing with Paul Wolfowitz, but the US had not
yet had that opportunity as a nation. the best people like you and
I can do right now Timon19 is to be aware of the range of
possibilities that exist in the zone hidden from our direct gaze.
Oh, yeah, and vote for Ron Paul in your local republican primary.
Or Kucinich if you are a Dem.
|6.5.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Dave, the point is, there is no way anything like that is widely
deployed, especially to the ANG fighter squadrons that almost
certainly were closest to any given situation.
AIM-9s are reliable, and very, very effective. They are also
freakin' everywhere.
You don't need to tell me the reasons we would come up with
non-lethal or more tactical weapons. I'm in the fucking industry.
This industry has been working on that type of shit for a very long
time.
Dave W.|6.5.07 @ 2:07PM|#
Dave, the point is, there is no way anything like that is
widely deployed, especially to the ANG fighter squadrons that
almost certainly were closest to any given situation.
Even assuming that you have any true idea about what the air
defenses truly are:
What was closest to the situation didn't matter. Cheney was sitting
there deciding whether to let the Flt 93 go thru to DC or
not.
The pro side of "pondering whether it was okay to shoot down a
commercial airplane" was that if the jihadis plowed into the White
House, and the public did not blame bad US air defenses, then
Cheney would have probably gotten wars against Syria and Iran, as
well as Afghanistan and Iraq. he would have gotten not just
Congress's blessing and appropriations, but also plenty of
volunteers. This is because because the White House is a great
symbol of America's greatness.
The con side of "pondering whether it was okay to shoot down a
commercial airplane" was that at some point on 9/11, people would
have started blaming the air defenses for being absent.
You seem to think there was some kind of race to get to Flt 93.
There wasn't. there was plenty of time. The only variable was
whether Cheney wanted to shoot it down or not.
|6.5.07 @ 2:20PM|#
Dave,
That presupposes so much, that it's no longer worth continuing
this.
You're convinced and you're arguing like a true conspiracy
theorist: start with an allegation that is somewhat specific;
gradually shift the focus as several points get shot down or called
into great question; keep getting more and more general so that you
can never really be "wrong"; and finally finish with a completely
unfalsifiable theory that is specific, audacious and would involve
such a level of secrecy that no one can truly know; declare
victory.
|6.5.07 @ 2:25PM|#
You seem to think there was some kind of race to get to Flt
93. There wasn't. there was plenty of time.
What aircraft made it and how long were they there? Or is this just
another assumption?
Dave W.|6.5.07 @ 2:49PM|#
and finally finish with a completely unfalsifiable theory
that is specific, audacious and would involve such a level of
secrecy that no one can truly know; declare victory.
We know that Cheney was in a room deciding whether or not to shoot
Flight 93 down. He admitted that. It is no secret. We further know
that he gave the order to shoot Flight 93 down. He admitted that.
The only real question is whether he gave the order at 10 am or
10.10 am. I do not think it would require any secrecy, beyond the
level of secrecy routinely associated with military combat
operations, to keep that info as a secret.
Whether they could keep the shootdown a secret or not is a slightly
different matter. At 10.15 am on 9/11, they could not have known if
anyone had seen the shootdown, or (worse yet) photographed it. They
could not have known what airfone or cell phone contact was made as
the plane was going down. they could not have known whether some
farmer would photograph the wreckage that somehow betrayed a
missile strike. It would have been completely audacious, as you
say, to deny on 9/11/01 or 9/12/01 that the shot down plane was
shot down.
So they didn't deal with the issue until about 9/14/01. On that
day, Wolfowitz went on the teevee and said it looked like the
passengers brought the plane down. The thing is, on
9/14 this was not an audacious statement to make
because they had pretty good control of the evidence, including the
blackbox audio, by then. they knew about "let's roll."
They knew that they had a story of heroism that would bring some
comfort to a grieving nation and they probably felt it would be
borderline immoral to present the story any other way. America
needed to feel good, and hearing about the terrible decision to
shoot down the flight did not seem to be the thing to make the
nation feel good at the time. "Let's roll" was a more empowering
story and they rolled with it. The last thing they wanted the
flying public thinking was that if their plane was reported
hijacked, then the instant result would be a US missile up the
butt. In other words, the lie was considered not just harmless, but
affirmatively helpful for honorable reasons.
The only people who had to keep their mouths shut were a few air
controllers and pilots -- and they are already required to keep
their mouths shut by law and on pain of stiff penalties. The level
of secrecy required here was not extraordinary -- it was, rather,
routine and expected, at least so far as anybody who has anything
interesting to say.
What aircraft made it and how long were they there? Or is this
just another assumption?
It is probably the white, small, low-flying, unmarked aircraft that
witnesses reported. Unlike the air controllers and the pilots, the
witnesses were not sworn to secrecy and it appears that some may
have seen some relevant stuff. Besides I am not sure that civilian
radar picks up low flying planes. It may not pick up military
planes at all. As you may know, there is a whole secret industry
devoted to hiding planes from radar.
|6.5.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Several scattered points in no specific order (this is getting
to be too much time for what it's worth):
White is a very bad idea if you want to conceal something.
I wonder what standards of credulity you apply toward witnesses in
a field seeing something they likely cannot process immediately nor
likely have ever seen before. Witness testimony in cases of
aircraft is remarkably spotty. There are numerous factors involved
that make anything an untrained or unprepared observer says HIGHLY
questionable.
"Small", without the modifier "fighter" implies that it was not
capable of firing anything, missile or EM radiation sufficient for
disabling the target and NOTHING ELSE.
All airplanes have a radar signature, even the B-2. This is not to
say civil radar could pick up a B-2 and know what it was, but, for
instance, the B-2's visual signature is also very small, but
nonzero. Most low-observables with small RCR also are hard to pick
up visually, especially from the ground, especially to someone not
expecting it. A white plane - say a Lear or Gulfstream type (I love
this bit of non-specificness, too. It keeps the dream alive!) - is
pretty highly observable on both radar and visually.
Civilian radar will definitely pick up any standard military
aircraft, ESPECIALLY F-16s or F-15s, the most likely to have been
in pursuit.
Dave W.|6.5.07 @ 4:25PM|#
White is a very bad idea if you want to conceal
something.
But it is an excellent idea if you want to convince a confused
witness that what they really saw was a small commercial jet that
had been called in to investigate the wreckage.
I wonder what standards of credulity you apply toward witnesses
in a field seeing something they likely cannot process immediately
nor likely have ever seen before. Witness testimony in cases of
aircraft is remarkably spotty. There are numerous factors involved
that make anything an untrained or unprepared observer says HIGHLY
questionable.
Preferably you look at other evidence, like transcripts of radio
communications and phone calls, and records of radar and cell phone
recordings and blackbox recordings. Unless the government has taken
away these things and makes the ludicrous claim that their
disclosure could somehow compromise national security. Then you
have to fall back on eye witnesses
"Small", without the modifier "fighter" implies that it was not
capable of firing anything, missile or EM radiation sufficient for
disabling the target and NOTHING ELSE.
Small fighter. Undercover. One take. if he misses, then that thing
gets taken down over Harrisburg by the F-16s and their sidewinders
and people on the ground could get hurt. Then again, who knows how
many planes took at shot at it and missed prior to 10 am. It is not
like we would have any way of knowing that.
All airplanes have a radar signature, even the B-2. This is not
to say civil radar could pick up a B-2 and know what it was, but,
for instance, the B-2's visual signature is also very small, but
nonzero. Most low-observables with small RCR also are hard to pick
up visually, especially from the ground, especially to someone not
expecting it. A white plane - say a Lear or Gulfstream type (I love
this bit of non-specificness, too. It keeps the dream alive!) - is
pretty highly observable on both radar and visually.
Well, there are ways to hide from radar besides paint color. Also,
you can paint any plane any color you want. If you want to confuse
witnesses about what kind of plane it was, then it is best to paint
the plane in a color associated with a completely different kind of
plane.
Civilian radar will definitely pick up any standard military
aircraft, ESPECIALLY F-16s or F-15s, the most likely to have been
in pursuit.
But nobody has seen those radar records, or talked to anyone who
has seen them. Besides the fact that I don't think a standard
aircraft did the shootdown. I think it may have had fancy equipment
to help it hide from radar.
|6.5.07 @ 7:33PM|#
Small fighter. Undercover. One take. if he misses, then that
thing gets taken down over Harrisburg by the F-16s and their
sidewinders and people on the ground could get hurt. Then again,
who knows how many planes took at shot at it and missed prior to 10
am. It is not like we would have any way of knowing
that.
Jesus Christ, Dave...
Who knows how many planes took a shot?? Do you know what
Sidewinders do? They seek heat sources. There are few bigger heat
sources in the sky than a big fucking airliner. Sidewinders are
designed to bring down small fighters and bombers. It ain't gonna
miss a fucking 757. Not even the older variants in the ANG.
So a small fighter under cover shot an heretofore barely detectable
missile capable of bringing down an airliner. A small fighter
painted white that was both recognizable in shape to witnesses AND
invisible to radar.
What you're saying is that this very special plane had to
practically be ready and waiting for the airliner and not really
intercepting it. Where did it come from? Akron?
Well, there are ways to hide from radar besides paint
color.
No shit, Dave. Paint color isn't even remotely a consideration for
RCS. For VISUAL it is. Shape and reflectivity is the primary driver
for RCS minimization. This is where paint CAN get into it. Most
paints that are reflective of radar energy are also reflective of
light energy. I suppose there may be some that can give our
hypothetical super-plane brilliant white appearance and still
absorb radar energy, but that's just a wee bit unlikely. If it did
have this wonderful mystery paint, it would have to be virtually
unrecognizable as an aircraft to an untrained observer on the
ground due to shape considerations. Yet if it was recognizable as a
plane to an untrained observer, all the radar absorbing paint in
the world isn't going to make it invisible to radar.
Keep reaching, Dave.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 9:48AM|#
. . . Sidewinders . . . small fighter . . . barely
detectable missile . . . recognizable in shape . . . invisible to
radar . . .
I don't know about any of these details, and at this stage of the
game they don't matter. Maybe it was a Sidewinder. Maybe it was a
learjet rather than a fighter. Recognizable in shape? Witnesses
said "samll white plane" which is a broad category. Basically it
rules out jumbo jets, bombers and helicopters. Maybe nobody saw the
plane that did the take down. Maybe the seek'n'destroy was all over
the civilian radar (nobody has said it wasn't).
It is difficult to see why these details are important to you at
this stage, Timon19. I think what you are trying to get across is
that it was impossible to take down Flight 93 without detection by
somebody outside the military / air traffic controller community.
However, I don't think any of your queries about the details
establish that this is impossible. It might be impossible to know
ahead of time that you would be able to do the deed without
detection, but once you do the deed, collect the wreckage and slap
a gag order on the air traffic controllers, you have a pretty good
idea of whether or not the secret can be kept. in this case, it
could (at least in the near term).
Akron?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/afb.htm
Probably one of the ones in NYS, PA or OH. Maybe NJ.
Well, there are ways to hide from radar besides paint
color.
Why are you so curious about paint color? If the attack squadron
was at a high enough altitude, it could have been painted with the
queer rainbow and nobody would have been able to tell.
Are you trying to say that you know the government isn't lying
because there would be a better witness account? I don't agree. It
seems quite possible that nobody was looking at the plane when it
was hit. More importantly, it seem quite possible that nobody was
looking at the plane that fired the missile when it fired the
missile.
Of course, civilian and military radar was watching in a sense. If
I were investigating, those radar records would be the starting
point. If those radar records have been destroyed already, then
that would be the next line of inquiry.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245