FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Flight 93 - the McClatchey Photo
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:51 am    Post subject: Re: Yes... Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Why would the government lie to anyone?

Straw man. You didn't answer any of my questions. Especially: "Why would who have gone to all that trouble?" Re-read my post for context.

I re-read your posts in an attempt to understand your point, but I ultimately didn't understand, so I posted questions, hoping you would explain what you meant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:58 am    Post subject: Re: Yes... Reply with quote

macauleym wrote:
Rumpl4skn wrote:
Why would the government lie to anyone?

Straw man. You didn't answer any of my questions. Especially: "Why would who have gone to all that trouble?" Re-read my post for context.

My question was the same style as your question - a vague, generalizing, psy-op: "Why would anyone go to such trouble?"

Why would anyone assassinate a President? Can't you get in trouble for that kind of thing? Laughing

Btw, Occam's Razor? I'd say faking 4 hijackings is infinitely simpler than hoping they all miraculously come off without a hitch.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:22 am    Post subject: Re: Yes... Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
macauleym wrote:
Rumpl4skn wrote:
Why would the government lie to anyone?

Straw man. You didn't answer any of my questions. Especially: "Why would who have gone to all that trouble?" Re-read my post for context.

My question was the same style as your question - a vague, generalizing, psy-op: "Why would anyone go to such trouble?"

Why would anyone assassinate a President? Can't you get in trouble for that kind of thing? Laughing


I didn't mean "why would anyone go to such trouble as carrying out 9/11", but rather "why would anyone go to the trouble of faking a plane crash when it would be easier to do the real thing?"

Kind of like, "If the CIA were going to perform a coup d'etat, why would they go to the trouble of faking an assassination and covering up the fact that it was faked, when it would be easier to actually assassinate the guy, since everyone's supposed to believe that he was assassinated?" That's what I'm asking with respect to Flight 93.


Rumpl4skn wrote:
Btw, Occam's Razor? I'd say faking 4 hijackings is infinitely simpler than hoping they all miraculously come off without a hitch.


If the planes were hijacked and piloted remotely, no miracle would be required. Plus you wouldn't have to worry about faking all the passengers, faking the hijackers, and deceiving (or shutting up) the eyewitnesses. You have a scenario as similar as possible to the "official story", and you make only those changes necessary (such as remote-control hijacking or something) to ensure, as you said, that it comes off "without a hitch" -- and, furthermore, to minimize your liabilities: stuff which needs to be covered up and which, if uncovered, could expose your plot.

I'm not sure if this addresses your comment, since I don't know quite what you have in mind by "faking 4 hijackings", or how that would be "infinitely simpler" than what.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:37 am    Post subject: Re: Yes... Reply with quote

macauleym wrote:
I didn't mean "why would anyone go to such trouble as carrying out 9/11", but rather "why would anyone go to the trouble of faking a plane crash when it would be easier to do the real thing?"

Kind of like, "If the CIA were going to perform a coup d'etat, why would they go to the trouble of faking an assassination and covering up the fact that it was faked, when it would be easier to actually assassinate the guy, since everyone's supposed to believe that he was assassinated?" That's what I'm asking with respect to Flight 93.

Faking an assassination wouldn't achieve your goal of assassinating the person. Faking the details, such as blaming a PATSY, would be essential. And often that patsy setup can be very complicated. But it protects both your assets and your operation.

Quote:
If the planes were hijacked and piloted remotely, no miracle would be required. Plus you wouldn't have to worry about faking all the passengers, faking the hijackers, and deceiving (or shutting up) the eyewitnesses. You have a scenario as similar as possible to the "official story", and you make only those changes necessary (such as remote-control hijacking or something) to ensure, as you said, that it comes off "without a hitch" -- and, furthermore, to minimize your liabilities: stuff which needs to be covered up and which, if uncovered, could expose your plot.

So you're suggesting that taking over a scheduled commercial flight is easier than simply switching planes in the air? I disagree, since you now have pilots who are not in on the scam, and might recognize anomalies in the plane itself. Plus you have to get your equipment installed into a constantly-used aircraft, and perform this op without benefit of any test-runs. That's a minor miracle in itself.

Not recommended in black ops, and incredibly more complicated, IMO. Plane swaps allow for the remote-controlled craft to be fine tuned and setup at your leisure - the only intricacy is the swap itself, and if your pilots and passengers are participants, there's no fuss and no "witnesses" to hush up.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:35 am    Post subject: Re: Yes... Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
macauleym wrote:
I didn't mean "why would anyone go to such trouble as carrying out 9/11", but rather "why would anyone go to the trouble of faking a plane crash when it would be easier to do the real thing?"

Kind of like, "If the CIA were going to perform a coup d'etat, why would they go to the trouble of faking an assassination and covering up the fact that it was faked, when it would be easier to actually assassinate the guy, since everyone's supposed to believe that he was assassinated?" That's what I'm asking with respect to Flight 93.

Faking an assassination wouldn't achieve your goal of assassinating the person. Faking the details, such as blaming a PATSY, would be essential. And often that patsy setup can be very complicated. But it protects both your assets and your operation.


Sure, but with 9/11, the goal isn't so much to crash Flight 93 as to make people believe it crashed. That's why I said "faking an assassination". Because the easiest way to make people believe you assassinated somebody is to actually do it, and likewise with Flight 93, I was suggesting. It's not a perfect analogy.

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Quote:
If the planes were hijacked and piloted remotely, no miracle would be required. Plus you wouldn't have to worry about faking all the passengers, faking the hijackers, and deceiving (or shutting up) the eyewitnesses. You have a scenario as similar as possible to the "official story", and you make only those changes necessary (such as remote-control hijacking or something) to ensure, as you said, that it comes off "without a hitch" -- and, furthermore, to minimize your liabilities: stuff which needs to be covered up and which, if uncovered, could expose your plot.

So you're suggesting that taking over a scheduled commercial flight is easier than simply switching planes in the air? I disagree, since you now have pilots who are not in on the scam, and might recognize anomalies in the plane itself. Plus you have to get your equipment installed into a constantly-used aircraft, and perform this op without benefit of any test-runs. That's a minor miracle in itself.

Not recommended in black ops, and incredibly more complicated, IMO. Plane swaps allow for the remote-controlled craft to be fine tuned and setup at your leisure - the only intricacy is the swap itself, and if your pilots and passengers are participants, there's no fuss and no "witnesses" to hush up.


Granted, the problem of setting up commercial aircraft with remote-control equipment is somewhat of an unknown. It might indeed be challenging. It might not be. Without knowing what technology would be required to remotely hijack an aircraft, I can't be sure. I'm assuming it's possible, and not super-risky, but I might be wrong.

But I think you're underestimating the problem of faking passengers, and I haven't read a plausible plane-swapping scenario that fits with what's known about what happened on 9/11. (If one has been written up somewhere, please post a link. Or post your own scenario, if you have one.)

About the passengers: Everyone who allegedly boarded AA 11, AA 77, UAL 93, and UAL 175, is believed by their friends and families to be dead now, right? In your scenario, are they alive? Do their friends and families know they're alive? (If so, the number of people who must keep silent has just multiplied.) Do they have new names/identities? Do the planners trust that none of them as long as they live will ever run into anyone they once knew, or at least anyone they once knew who heard they "died" on 9/11? Do the planners trust that none of them will come forward and "spill the beans" about 9/11, providing irrefutable proof to the world that 9/11 was a cynical inside job? Do the planners kill all the participating passengers after the fact to prevent these possibilities? Are the passengers naive enough to cooperate anyway, never suspecting that their lives will be sacrificed?

I don't see a way around these seemingly-insurmountable problems. Maybe I'm just obtuse; please help me out if you can.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:14 am    Post subject: Exactly... Reply with quote

mcauleym said:

Quote:
Sure, but with 9/11, the goal isn't so much to crash Flight 93 as to make people believe it crashed.


Exactly - hence it's handy to have a trollop with a 'photo that happens to show just that. Qui bono?

Quote:
Granted, the problem of setting up commercial aircraft with remote-control equipment is somewhat of an unknown.


It's not much of an unknown - the military have been doing it for *years*. One of the Kennedeys died as a test pilot in the 40's testing this shit out. They use it all the time in big, converted planes all the way down to drones which they've had for years. No problem with this tech, believe me.

Quote:
I haven't read a plausible plane-swapping scenario that fits with what's known about what happened on 9/11.


The filghts all went near narrow corridors of blank in the RADAR coverage, this also happens to be standard procedure to do hand-offs while fooling RADARs.

Quote:
About the passengers....


Dead dead dead. Deader'n'disco, baby. And, not I don't think they're all working for the government. Wink

Regards,
C.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Exactly... Reply with quote

Continuity wrote:
One of the Kennedeys died as a test pilot in the 40's testing this shit out.

He must not have been remote enough from the plane. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Exactly... Reply with quote

Continuity wrote:
mcauleym said:

Quote:
Sure, but with 9/11, the goal isn't so much to crash Flight 93 as to make people believe it crashed.


Exactly - hence it's handy to have a trollop with a 'photo that happens to show just that. Qui bono?

The public when they find this evidence sitting in plain sight?

I still don't get the big operational advantage of doing the plane swap. If they're going to crash commercial aircraft with remote-control anyway, why bother to swap the planes?

Rumpl suggested one reason -- that the empty aircraft can be more easily/carefully set up for remote control than the ones that are carrying passengers every day. However, this advantage would seem to be offset by the complications of secretly landing the swapped-out planes and then...doing what with them?

Not saying it's impossible, but it has to be explained somehow, and I doubt it would wind up being simpler than just using the real planes and the real passengers, so nothing has to be faked or switched -- only whatever's necessary to enable remote control.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:46 pm    Post subject: IIRC... Reply with quote

Quote:
He must not have been remote enough from the plane.


IIRC, it was an early system, and I think he was in a normal 'plane that was flying alongside it. Prolly short-range radio shit, in thems days, or something.

Quote:
Not saying it's impossible, but it has to be explained somehow, and I doubt it would wind up being simpler than just using the real planes and the real passengers, so nothing has to be faked or switched -- only whatever's necessary to enable remote control.


Something else that mitigates against passangers in another flight, the Pentagon flight, was that immediately and for days thereafter civilian firefighters poured water onto what was supposed to be a jet-fuel fire with possibly trapped victims in the rubble. Some have reckoned that the firefighters, knowing this, saw no bodies at all.

Occam's razor is a handy tool, it cannot be denied - but I think that it's usefulness is blinding sometimes, coz is it so good a lot of the time.

I don't think that Ocamm's razor should be used too deeply when considering the details of potential PsyOp and black operations. These guys are good at what they do - who knows why they do things as they do? Only they do. With malice aforethought.

Like when it is said, "Wouldn't it just be easier to..." - well no, not with these guys if they have reason to make it so. Wheels within wheels...

Regards,
C.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:44 pm    Post subject: Re: IIRC... Reply with quote

Continuity wrote:
Something else that mitigates against passangers in another flight, the Pentagon flight, was that immediately and for days thereafter civilian firefighters poured water onto what was supposed to be a jet-fuel fire with possibly trapped victims in the rubble. Some have reckoned that the firefighters, knowing this, saw no bodies at all.


Do you have sources for this? You mentioned it on the "Pentagon - Overview" thread, too. I've never heard it, and would be curious to learn more, if you can back it up.

Continuity wrote:
Occam's razor is a handy tool, it cannot be denied - but I think that it's usefulness is blinding sometimes, coz is it so good a lot of the time.

I don't think that Ocamm's razor should be used too deeply when considering the details of potential PsyOp and black operations. These guys are good at what they do - who knows why they do things as they do? Only they do. With malice aforethought.

Like when it is said, "Wouldn't it just be easier to..." - well no, not with these guys if they have reason to make it so. Wheels within wheels...


Occam's razor may have its limits, but I'll take it over circular reasoning any day. You can imagine "them" doing just about anything, but that doesn't make it true. Nor helpful, if there's an easier way "they" could have done it, and no evidence (or compelling reason) to suggest otherwise.

If there's contradictory or anomalous evidence, sure, follow it, and imagine other scenarios (besides the "simplest" one) to accomodate it. But by doing this, you're actually still using Occam's razor, you're just trying to accomodate more evidence.

The danger of Occam's razor is perhaps when it is used to ignore or discredit evidence. "Americans wouldn't kill 'their own' people, right? And besides, how could a conspiracy be kept secret? It would have to be so complicated and so unlikely; Occam's razor would prevent it; therefore the war-games scheduling was a fluke, the fighter jets would have intercepted the planes if they could have, Bush wouldn't have stayed in the elementary school if there was any chance the terrorists would know his location", et cetera. Obviously this is flawed reasoning, though it pretends to use Occam's razor, and it yields demonstrably false conclusions. But I think in the hands of humble, intelligent, open-minded individuals, Occam's razor is more likely to prevent self-deception than enable it.

$0.02.

(I wonder if all this doesn't belong in the "discussion" forum. Oh well.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
Something else that mitigates against passangers in another flight, the Pentagon flight, was that immediately and for days thereafter civilian firefighters poured water onto what was supposed to be a jet-fuel fire with possibly trapped victims in the rubble. Some have reckoned that the firefighters, knowing this, saw no bodies at all.



Do you have sources for this? You mentioned it on the "Pentagon - Overview" thread, too. I've never heard it, and would be curious to learn more, if you can back it up.


Yes, I have a source for this and can back it up so you can learn more.

http://www.public-action.com/rescue.html

Regards,
C.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Continuity wrote:
Yes, I have a source for this and can back it up so you can learn more.

http://www.public-action.com/rescue.html


Thanks. Why don't you repost that in the Pentagon thread? You might consider also quoting or summarizing the important points (I see it's very long Surprised).

You were probably planning to do this anyway; forgive me for suggesting the obvious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 2 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.