A Rational Discussion on the Pentagon

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

A Rational Discussion on the Pentagon
Topic Started: Sep 25 2008, 09:08 PM (581 Views)
jim76	Sep 25 2008, 09:08 PM Post #1
Posts: 85 Group: Members Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	I take the approach that every individual, when making a deliberate, thoughtful decision, employs a weighing heuristic in order to reach a course of action. This weighing procedure generally employs an attempt to weigh costs and benefits. When one course of action's potential costs outweigh the potential benefits, that course of action is not taken. Likewise, when one course of action's benefits outweigh it's costs, that course of action is taken. While one individual might have the means to more accurately weigh than another's, we all consciously or subconsciously employ this heuristic. I hope we agree thus far. I would like to analyze how the concept of rational choice relates to certain conspiracy theories involving the Pentagon attack. For the sake of this argument, I am going to assume that the government was involved in at least partly planning and executing the attack on the Pentagon. It seems that there are three different theories on the role that a plane played in the attacks. 1) There was no plane. Explosives caused the apparent damage. 2) A plane was in the vicinity, but only flew near the Pentagon (over/around/(under?)). Explosives caused the apparent damage. 3) A plane crashed into the building and caused at least some of the apparent damage. For the sake of my analysis, I'm going to exclude (1). It seems that a number of individuals in this forum support (2) and face their stiffest opposition from individuals that support (3). In light of this, I am going to look at the rationality of (2) compared to (3). When supporters of (2) are faced with the question of rational behind using explosives to cause damage to the Pentagon rather than simply crash the plane that is readily available into the Pentagon, as they did with planes in the attack on the WTC, I often hear the argument that explosives might be capable of causing precise damage for purposes of destroying certain documents or evidence or killing certain individuals. The damaged caused by a plane would be far too speculative. I will accept this argument. (Please correct me if this is not a view of the individuals that support (2).) To recap, I've accepted that the government planned and executed the attack on the Pentagon and explosives were used for their precision. Based on my assumptions, there seem to remain two possibilities: A) A plane flew near the Pentagon but did not crash into it. The scene was manipulated to appear that a plane did crash into it. Explosives caused the desired damages. B) A plane crashed into the Pentagon, but explosives caused the desired damages. Further, based on my assumptions, the planners of the attack rationally weighed the costs and the benefits of each of these courses of action. In both cases the benefits are essentially equal. Precise damage is achieved and the public is convinced that the attack was planned and executed by Islamic terrorists. The crucial factors to look at are the costs and we have a significant amount of costs to weigh: I. Piloting of the plane: If the plane was flown by remote, the costs are equal. In (A), a pilot could have been paid off or brainwashed to fly in the manner that he did. This would definitely require serious coercion. In (B), the plane could have been flown by patsies which may or may not have required serious coercion to achieve. The costs appear to be either equal or slightly higher in the case of (A). II. Passengers of Flight 77: In (A), passengers were either escorted elsewhere and imprisoned or killed or died when the plane crashed elsewhere. In (B), the passengers died when the plane crashed into the Pentagon. The costs are either equal or higher in the case of (A). III. Eyewitnesses: In (A), eyewitnesses could have been completely fooled or they could have witnessed the fly-over and uncovered the entire plot. In (B), eyewitnesses would confirm that the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Due to extreme risks, the costs in the case of (A) are much higher. IV. Damage to Pentagon: In (A), the damage to the Pentagon may or may not be consistent with damage that a plane would have caused. In (B), damage to the Pentagon would be consistent with a plane crash. Again, the high risks involved with putting faith in unreliable explosive damage, where a mistake would result in the plot being exposed, result in costs being much higher in the case of (A). V. Plane parts: In (A), numerous individuals would have to plant airplane parts in the building and surrounding area. There are significant possibilities that these individuals would come clean or citizens would witness the planting of the parts. In (B), plane parts would be found in the building and surrounding area. Costs in (A) being far higher than costs in (B) is irrefutable. VI. Body parts: See V. In this case, I feel the costs in (A) would be even higher. It is unlikely for any individual to agree to plant body parts and keep quiet about it for long. VII. Downed light poles: In (A), individuals would have to bring down light poles in advance and quickly move them into position during the fly-over. They would also have to put a light pole through the windshield of a car without any witnesses. In (B), the light poles would be knocked over by the plane (possibly at the risk of thwarting the attack), or the plane would simply fly above the poles. Though there exists some risk in (B), I believe they are negligible compared to the significant risk involved in (A). In all of these instances, the costs of (A) are either equivalent to or higher than the costs of (B). These costs would have clearly been foreseeable. The attacks of 9/11 were meticulously planned. There are no reasons to believe that costs and benefits were not weighed and used as a basis for the plan of action. Unless additional factors exist, (A) is extremely unlikely in light of the possibility of (B). Note: I do not wish to discuss the technicalities of the various arguments over the conclusions that some reach given the available evidence. I merely wish to discuss whether there exists any reason why a rational decision-maker would choose to execute (A) over (B). If no conceivable reason exists, those that ascribe to (A) must reconsider their positions.
Posts: 85 Group: Members Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Sep 26 2008, 01:30 AM Post #2
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	VII. Downed light poles: In (A), individuals would have to bring down light poles in advance and quickly move them into position during the fly-over. They would also have to put a light pole through the windshield of a car without any witnesses. In (B), the light poles would be knocked over by the plane (possibly at the risk of thwarting the attack), or the plane would simply fly above the poles. Though there exists some risk in (B), I believe they are negligible compared to the significant risk involved in (A). You definitely didn't think this one through. It appears that you are trying to make things seem more difficult than they had to be or even were. I sense a large strawman being built. I'll be back tomorrow to respond to this in detail, as I am sure others will also.
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


jim76	Sep 26 2008, 08:59 AM Post #3
Posts: 85 Group: Members Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Sep 26 2008, 01:30 AM You definitely didn't think this one through. It appears that you are trying to make things seem more difficult than they had to be or even were. This is quite possible. I suppose the poles could have been downed ahead of time or something of that nature. The fact remains that someone would have to oversee this. This fact alone increases the risks involved. On the other hand, if the plane had taken down the light poles, I'm sure the planners would have foreseen the possibility that this might take place. Since poles are light and designed to break away, the planners might have assumed negligible risk in this case. Overall, I believe it would be quite difficult to argue that there is a greater cost in implementing (B) as opposed to (A), and quite reasonable to assume that (A) entails the greater risk.
Posts: 85 Group: Members Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


Grit1645	Sep 26 2008, 09:37 AM Post #4
Posts: 248 Group: Members Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	jim76 Sep 25 2008, 09:08 PM It seems that there are three different theories on the role that a plane played in the attacks. 1) There was no plane. Explosives caused the apparent damage. 2) A plane was in the vicinity, but only flew near the Pentagon (over/around/(under?)). Explosives caused the apparent damage. 3) A plane crashed into the building and caused at least some of the apparent damage. For the sake of my analysis, I'm going to exclude (1). It seems that a number of individuals in this forum support (2) and face their stiffest opposition from individuals that support (3). In light of this, I am going to look at the rationality of (2) compared to (3). ... Based on my assumptions, there seem to remain two possibilities: A) A plane flew near the Pentagon but did not crash into it. The scene was manipulated to appear that a plane did crash into it. Explosives caused the desired damages. B) A plane crashed into the Pentagon, but explosives caused the desired damages. Further, based on my assumptions, the planners of the attack rationally weighed the costs and the benefits of each of these courses of action. In both cases the benefits are essentially equal. Precise damage is achieved and the public is convinced that the attack was planned and executed by Islamic terrorists. The crucial factors to look at are the costs and we have a significant amount of costs to weigh: I. Piloting of the plane: If the plane was flown by remote, the costs are equal. In (A), a pilot could have been paid off or brainwashed to fly in the manner that he did. This would definitely require serious coercion. In (B), the plane could have been flown by patsies which may or may not have required serious coercion to achieve. The costs appear to be either equal or slightly higher in the case of (A). II. Passengers of Flight 77: In (A), passengers were either escorted elsewhere and imprisoned or killed or died when the plane crashed elsewhere. In (B), the passengers died when the plane crashed into the Pentagon. The costs are either equal or higher in the case of (A). III. Eyewitnesses: In (A), eyewitnesses could have been completely fooled or they could have witnessed the fly-over and uncovered the entire plot. In (B), eyewitnesses would confirm that the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Due to extreme risks, the costs in the case of (A) are much higher. IV. Damage to Pentagon: In (A), the damage to the Pentagon may or may not be consistent with damage that a plane would have caused. In (B), damage to the Pentagon would be consistent with a plane crash. Again, the high risks involved with putting faith in unreliable explosive damage, where a mistake would result in the plot being exposed, result in costs being much higher in the case of (A). V. Plane parts: In (A), numerous individuals would have to plant airplane parts in the building and surrounding area. There are significant possibilities that these individuals would come clean or citizens would witness the planting of the parts. In (B), plane parts would be found in the building and surrounding area. Costs in (A) being far higher than costs in (B) is irrefutable. VI. Body parts: See V. In this case, I feel the costs in (A) would be even higher. It is unlikely for any individual to agree to plant body parts and keep quiet about it for long. VII. Downed light poles: In (A), individuals would have to bring down light poles in advance and quickly move them into position during the fly-over. They would also have to put a light pole through the windshield of a car without any witnesses. In (B), the light poles would be knocked over by the plane (possibly at the risk of thwarting the attack), or the plane would simply fly above the poles. Though there exists some risk in (B), I believe they are negligible compared to the significant risk involved in (A). In all of these instances, the costs of (A) are either equivalent to or higher than the costs of (B). These costs would have clearly been foreseeable. The attacks of 9/11 were meticulously planned. There are no reasons to believe that costs and benefits were not weighed and used as a basis for the plan of action. Unless additional factors exist, (A) is extremely unlikely in light of the possibility of (B). Note: I do not wish to discuss the technicalities of the various arguments over the conclusions that some reach given the available evidence. I merely wish to discuss whether there exists any reason why a rational decision-maker would choose to execute (A) over (B). If no conceivable reason exists, those that ascribe to (A) must reconsider their positions. Very interesting. I've never seen anyone take this approach before, but you have a lot of good points. I have always been stuck on the idea that, in a place like DC, where there are lots of tourists and news types, someone could easily have caught the whole thing on camera and had it out to the media or the internets before anyone had time to "put a stop to it". There was no way to absolutely prevent that, and the risk seems quite high.
Posts: 248 Group: Members Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Bitterman	Sep 26 2008, 11:07 AM Post #5
Posts: 283 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	Grit1645 Sep 26 2008, 09:37 AM I have always been stuck on the idea that, in a place like DC, where there are lots of tourists and news types, someone could easily have caught the whole thing on camera and had it out to the media or the internets before anyone had time to "put a stop to it". There was no way to absolutely prevent that, and the risk seems quite high. How about the 85 videos confiscated by the FBI from the Pentagon and major buildings around it? Strikes you as odd? Maybe there is something in that footage? Plus, on that day, with an hour gone by since the attacks on the WTC, everyone would be glued to the TV. Even then, I'm sure someone saw it. How about all the 911 calls that day in Arlington that were recorded but are also still un-released? See, you can ask these questions, and it still comes down to the Gov't with-holding information from you that keeps you from forming an entire solid picture. CIT has shown a lot of what happened that day through their work. Thank god. One things is for sure, that plane did not hit that building. Guess all you like about passengers and their fate, but 3000+ people at the WTC being blown up, I wouldn't put anything else past those mother fuckers. They'd go to any lengths. Also Jim, are you trying to argue that this whole thing is NOT likely because the "risk" was too great? Who defines this risk? How do you know their limit? How can you know that they would do X but not Y because the risk is again "too great"? You don't think it's risky of them to take those 85 video and to hold them indefinitely is not risky? Let's say if you as a society had any sort of control or hadn't been stripped of your backbones you might actually get those tapes and see what is on them? Those tapes actually exist, and would settle this whole argument, but people act and talk and argue like they don't exist. Like the answer is so far away and so elusive that one would have to go on a spiritual journey........ It's simple as shit. There are only a few critical points. #1 The plane flew over the building as confirmed by witnesses. #2 No one is in jail or hanged yet. (again 3000, including 24 of my fellow Canadians died that day so someone else could make a buck) Lets make it happen people.
Posts: 283 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Sep 26 2008, 12:08 PM Post #6
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: I take the approach that every individual, when making a deliberate, thoughtful decision, employs a weighing heuristic in order to reach a course of action. This weighing procedure generally employs an attempt to weigh costs and benefits. When one course of action's potential costs outweigh the potential benefits, that course of action is not taken. Likewise, when one course of action's benefits outweigh it's costs, that course of action is taken. While one individual might have the means to more accurately weigh than another's, we all consciously or subconsciously employ this heuristic. I hope we agree thus far. I would like to analyze how the concept of rational choice relates to certain conspiracy theories involving the Pentagon attack. That is your first mistake. Calling it a "conspiracy theory". It's as if people have turned dumb, deaf, and blind to the witnesses who unanimously place the plane on the north side of the Citgo. Quote: When supporters of (2) are faced with the question of rational behind using explosives to cause damage to the Pentagon rather than simply crash the plane that is readily available into the Pentagon, as they did with planes in the attack on the WTC, I often hear the argument that explosives might be capable of causing precise damage for purposes of destroying certain documents or evidence or killing certain individuals. The damaged caused by a plane would be far too speculative. I will accept this argument. (Please correct me if this is not a view of the individuals that support (2).) This is the view I subscribe to. Quote: I. Piloting of the plane: If the plane was flown by remote, the costs are equal. In (A), a pilot could have been paid off or brainwashed to fly in the manner that he did. This would definitely require serious coercion. In (B), the plane could have been flown by patsies which may or may not have required serious coercion to achieve. The costs appear to be either equal or slightly higher in the case of (A). Or it could have been remote guided by being programmed to handle the terrain/topography and hit all it's lat/longs. Or yes, it could have been piloted by a man, but this would risk human error. So I think remoted guided by computer makes more sense. Quote: II. Passengers of Flight 77: In (A), passengers were either escorted elsewhere and imprisoned or killed or died when the plane crashed elsewhere. In (B), the passengers died when the plane crashed into the Pentagon. The costs are either equal or higher in the case of (A). Well it had to be A right? Since the plane was on the north side and did not hit the building, they had to "A'd", right? You can weigh the costs but when you have no idea how much psychological control they have over us your answer will not be valid. Quote: III. Eyewitnesses: In (A), eyewitnesses could have been completely fooled or they could have witnessed the fly-over and uncovered the entire plot. In (B), eyewitnesses would confirm that the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Due to extreme risks, the costs in the case of (A) are much higher. How do you figure? If two planes already hit the tower, a well thought out second plane cover story was hatched, there is a major airport in the immediate vicinity providing planes flying over all day, and the topography and obstacles prevented people from putting two and two together, how do you KNOW it was an "extreme risk"? The plane was on the north side of the Citgo, was seen pulling up into an ascent, and was then seen banking around South parking lot, it is 7 yrs later and people are still denying the evidence and the witnesses. The risk was minimal, my friend. The psychological control is maximum. Quote: IV. Damage to Pentagon: In (A), the damage to the Pentagon may or may not be consistent with damage that a plane would have caused. In (B), damage to the Pentagon would be consistent with a plane crash. Again, the high risks involved with putting faith in unreliable explosive damage, where a mistake would result in the plot being exposed, result in costs being much higher in the case of (A). Please. A plane is much more random and much more inclined produce unpredictable results either resulting in a failed impact or an overshot one that damages the wrong area. The risk is greater in B. Quote: V. Plane parts: In (A), numerous individuals would have to plant airplane parts in the building and surrounding area. There are significant possibilities that these individuals would come clean or citizens would witness the planting of the parts. In (B), plane parts would be found in the building and surrounding area. Costs in (A) being far higher than costs in (B) is irrefutable. Numerous? You know this how? There "are significant possibilities that these individuals would come clean or citizens would witness the planting of the parts"? Really? You have evidence for this? Or just your own personal incredulity? There is no risk involved in planting debris in their own backyard in an area that was "UNDER RENOVATION" with many areas UNOCCUPIED. That reduces the "risk" to nothing. Quote: VI. Body parts: See V. In this case, I feel the costs in (A) would be even higher. It is unlikely for any individual to agree to plant body parts and keep quiet about it for long. Why plant body parts? There were people inside the Pentagon when the violent event took place. If there were any planted they could have been moved in using wooden crates and the movers would be none the wiser. Swapping could be done AFTER parts are collected. Quote: VII. Downed light poles: In (A), individuals would have to bring down light poles in advance and quickly move them into position during the fly-over. They would also have to put a light pole through the windshield of a car without any witnesses. In (B), the light poles would be knocked over by the plane (possibly at the risk of thwarting the attack), or the plane would simply fly above the poles. Though there exists some risk in (B), I believe they are negligible compared to the significant risk involved in (A). Poles were seen standing in a photo from May 2000. They could have been removed any time after that. They were NOT "quickly moved into position during the fly-over". This is an absurd strawman designed to sound absurd and fail. Bush left 9/10 from the heliport. He was scheduled back on 9/11 at the same heliport at noon. This means security detail, vans/trucks were on the lawn and the highway area AT THE NIGHT TIME HOURS. People would not, and in some of the pole's locations, could not notice light poles on the grass. The only pole that would have to moved real time AFTER the event would be pole 1 and there was enough chaos that it could be done very easily, with the shirt and tie men looking like federal agents securing the scene keeping/moving the debris together. After all the pole WAS moved at one point, you can see a scratch in the ground. if you did see a pole or poles on the ground pre-event, when do you put the two together, then what? You go and tell who? What do you tell them? Please. Quote: In all of these instances, the costs of (A) are either equivalent to or higher than the costs of (B). These costs would have clearly been foreseeable. The attacks of 9/11 were meticulously planned. There are no reasons to believe that costs and benefits were not weighed and used as a basis for the plan of action. Unless additional factors exist, (A) is extremely unlikely in light of the possibility of (B). Nice collection of strawmen. But you have no idea of the different variables and the amount of media and psychological control they have so your risk calculation is irrelevant when speaking about about military/gov't psychological operation. Also, there is the 'Big Lie' technique or aspect of this which also eliminates risk. They know the lie is so big that no one would believe it was a lie and the risk would not matter regardless. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Sep 26 2008, 12:10 PM.
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Sep 26 2008, 12:10 PM Post #7
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Jim76, Do you accept that the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo? Yes or no?
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


jim76	Sep 26 2008, 01:15 PM Post #8
Posts: 85 Group: Members Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Bitterman Sep 26 2008, 11:07 AM Also Jim, are you trying to argue that this whole thing is NOT likely because the "risk" was too great? Who defines this risk? How do you know their limit? How can you know that they would do X but not Y because the risk is again "too great"? This is not at all what I'm arguing. Please reread my post. I've made it quite clear. Given two choices that will result in the same benefits, the rational decision maker will choose the one they believe has the lowest cost. I am making the point that it is extremely difficult to believe that the decision makers foresaw (A) as having a lower cost than (B).
Posts: 85 Group: Members Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


pguillory	Sep 26 2008, 01:28 PM Post #9
Posts: 37 Group: Members Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08	Good points made Jim, but you can't have a rational discussion with irrational individuals. They beat their chests over and over again about how they are the .0001% of the world who actually know the truth. Not only do they know the truth they have irrefutable evidence of it. Why they continue to debate on a messg board, is beyond me. The truth is that there is no rational explanation of how stationary explosives could cause the projectile like damage at the pentagon. A projectile, like a plane, moving consistent with the official flight path caused the damage. That is not in question. The light poles were damaged beforehand? The cab never got hit, it was damaged beforehand? They flew a decoy jet noc, but set all of the damage up as if it flew soc? Why not fly the decoy according to the damage they were faking? All eyewitnesses who say the plane impacted the building are lying or mistaken? Lagasse just thought he saw the plane 'yaw' into the building? Boeing 757 and AA airplane debris was placed onto the lawn a nanosecond after the explosion? If the plane debris was blown from some location by the explosives, the pristine AA fusalage parts would show signs of an exsplosion. They didn't because they were peeled away from the plane, before the explosion, IMO. No magic trick known to man can make a plane appear to impact a building at the 1st floor level, while flying over the roof of that same building. There is no way to make a flyover look real. The plane would have no where to go if it truly wanted to look as if it cause that explosion. I am done with this board. I started out almost wanting to believe there was a govt. deception. As I learned more and more, I realized that there was no way the Loose Change theories or the Truth Movement theories could be true. It has been 7yrs and there is no proof that the govt. carried out the attacks. No one has come forward to tell how they aided in planting evidence, etc. Maybe some are holding on to this just to keep this argument going. Maybe some are making a buck off of this. Maybe some get some kind of sick entertainment from accusing innocent people of murder or being an accomplice to murder. Loved ones of the victims have been accused of lying. Firemen who lost many loved ones are accused of lying so they won't get fired? Ridiculous!
Posts: 37 Group: Members Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Sep 26 2008, 01:30 PM Post #10
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	pguillory Sep 26 2008, 01:28 PM Good points made Jim, but you can't have a rational discussion with irrational individuals. They beat their chests over and over again about how they are the .0001% of the world who actually know the truth. Not only do they know the truth they have irrefutable evidence of it. Why they continue to debate on a messg board, is beyond me. The truth is that there is no rational explanation of how stationary explosives could cause the projectile like damage at the pentagon. A projectile, like a plane, moving consistent with the official flight path caused the damage. That is not in question. The light poles were damaged beforehand? The cab never got hit, it was damaged beforehand? They flew a decoy jet noc, but set all of the damage up as if it flew soc? Why not fly the decoy according to the damage they were faking? All eyewitnesses who say the plane impacted the building are lying or mistaken? Lagasse just thought he saw the plane 'yaw' into the building? Boeing 757 and AA airplane debris was placed onto the lawn a nanosecond after the explosion? If the plane debris was blown from some location by the explosives, the pristine AA fusalage parts would show signs of an exsplosion. They didn't because they were peeled away from the plane, before the explosion, IMO. No magic trick known to man can make a plane appear to impact a building at the 1st floor level, while flying over the roof of that same building. There is no way to make a flyover look real. The plane would have no where to go if it truly wanted to look as if it cause that explosion. I am done with this board. I started out almost wanting to believe there was a govt. deception. As I learned more and more, I realized that there was no way the Loose Change theories or the Truth Movement theories could be true. It has been 7yrs and there is no proof that the govt. carried out the attacks. No one has come forward to tell how they aided in planting evidence, etc. Maybe some are holding on to this just to keep this argument going. Maybe some are making a buck off of this. Maybe some get some kind of sick entertainment from accusing innocent people of murder or being an accomplice to murder. Loved ones of the victims have been accused of lying. Firemen who lost many loved ones are accused of lying so they won't get fired? Ridiculous! Yawn* And meanwhile the plane still approached on the north side of the Citgo and you deny it and do nothing about it. Who is irrational again?
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


jim76	Sep 26 2008, 02:29 PM Post #11
Posts: 85 Group: Members Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Aldo Marquis CIT That is your first mistake. Calling it a "conspiracy theory". It's as if people have turned dumb, deaf, and blind to the witnesses who unanimously place the plane on the north side of the Citgo. This has nothing to do with my argument. Feel free to assume that I meant "theory," not "conspiracy theory." Quote: Or it could have been remote guided by being programmed to handle the terrain/topography and hit all it's lat/longs. Or yes, it could have been piloted by a man, but this would risk human error. So I think remoted guided by computer makes more sense. I accept this. Then the risks are the same for both (A) and (B). Quote: Well it had to be A right? Since the plane was on the north side and did not hit the building, they had to "A'd", right? Please, this is an a priori argument. Your conclusions have no weight here. Quote: You can weigh the costs but when you have no idea how much psychological control they have over us your answer will not be valid. Wrong. Regardless of the level of psychological control that the government thinks they have, there are most definitely certain costs and risks involved in employing this control that could have been entirely avoided if (B) were implemented over (A). And actually, your objection to this would better fit refuting my argument in other places. With regards to the passengers, the control over the general population really has no bearing. I was arguing that there would be added costs if the passengers had to be imprisoned or executed. Quote: How do you figure? If two planes already hit the tower, a well thought out second plane cover story was hatched, there is a major airport in the immediate vicinity providing planes flying over all day, and the topography and obstacles prevented people from putting two and two together, how do you KNOW it was an "extreme risk"? I'll concede that my use of "extreme" might be a bit unfounded, but only if the planners had completely unfounded confidence in their ability to deceive. This is possible, but seems quite unlikely. You must concede that the risks of eyewitnesses is clearly greater in the case of (A) compared to (B). You must concede this because the risk in (B) is zero and you cannot argue that the risk in (A) is zero. Quote: The plane was on the north side of the Citgo, was seen pulling up into an ascent, and was then seen banking around South parking lot, it is 7 yrs later and people are still denying the evidence and the witnesses. Again, you cannot refute an a priori argument with this a posteriori evidence. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Quote: Please. A plane is much more random and much more inclined produce unpredictable results either resulting in a failed impact or an overshot one that damages the wrong area. The risk is greater in B. This, I believe, is your strongest defense to my argument. Unfortunately, I believe it fails. In (A), the explosives must emulate damage from a plane collision as well as cause the ultimately desired damage. In (B), only the latter is necessary. Therefore, there is inherently a greater risk in (A) in these regards. Next, we can look at the errors involved in the flight of the plane. (This is where you are contesting that the risks are greater in (B).) I agree that there is a certain level of risk in relying on the plane to impact the portion of the building where the explosives are set. I don't believe that this is much of a risk. Plane collisions cause a large enough explosion that exact maneuverings would not be necessary. It seems that there exists nearly equivalent room for error in both a fly-over and an actual collision. Given the current level of aero-technology and the clear conditions on 9/11, these risks seem quite minimal. So given the fact that risks in explosives placement and execution are clearly greater in (A) than (B) and that flight error risks are minutely greater (if greater at all) in (B), we must conclude that costs involved in Pentagon damage are overall greater in (A). Quote: Numerous? You know this how? There "are significant possibilities that these individuals would come clean or citizens would witness the planting of the parts"? Really? You have evidence for this? Or just your own personal incredulity? This has nothing to do with personal incredulity. You must believe that the planners considered the possibility that individuals involved might expose the plot. To not consider this is absolutely ludicrous. Quote: There is no risk involved in planting debris in their own backyard in an area that was "UNDER RENOVATION" with many areas UNOCCUPIED. That reduces the "risk" to nothing. Even if Cheney and Bush went out and planted the debris on their own, they still run the risk of being exposed. Even if the risk is reduced to nothing (which if feel most certainly is not), efforts still must be taken that would not at all be required in (B). The costs in (B) are nothing, while there are definitely costs in (A). I stand by my conclusion. Quote: Why plant body parts? There were people inside the Pentagon when the violent event took place. If there were any planted they could have been moved in using wooden crates and the movers would be none the wiser. Swapping could be done AFTER parts are collected. You've reaffirmed my point. Clearly the costs are higher. Quote: Poles were seen standing in a photo from May 2000. They could have been removed any time after that. They were NOT "quickly moved into position during the fly-over". This is an absurd strawman designed to sound absurd and fail. Bush left 9/10 from the heliport. He was scheduled back on 9/11 at the same heliport at noon. This means security detail, vans/trucks were on the lawn and the highway area AT THE NIGHT TIME HOURS. People would not, and in some of the pole's locations, could not notice light poles on the grass. The only pole that would have to moved real time AFTER the event would be pole 1 and there was enough chaos that it could be done very easily, with the shirt and tie men looking like federal agents securing the scene keeping/moving the debris together. After all the pole WAS moved at one point, you can see a scratch in the ground. if you did see a pole or poles on the ground pre-event, when do you put the two together, then what? You go and tell who? What do you tell them? Please. I can accept this. I can even accept that the risks were negligible in (A), though I do see moving a pole into the middle of a street, smashing a windshield, and convincing a cab driver to go along with the story to entail some significant level cost. Regardless, I don't think you can argue that the risks are greater in the case of (B) in regard to the light poles. Quote: Nice collection of strawmen. But you have no idea of the different variables and the amount of media and psychological control they have so your risk calculation is irrelevant when speaking about about military/gov't psychological operation. Also, there is the 'Big Lie' technique or aspect of this which also eliminates risk. They know the lie is so big that no one would believe it was a lie and the risk would not matter regardless. You are either ignoring my argument, or you don't understand what I'm saying. Even if we were to know that the government was completely confident in their ability to fool us (which of course, we don't), (A) still entails a greater level of cost than (B). Do you understand this? I'm going to help you out. If you want to refute my argument, you need to show that it could be reasonable to assume that the costs of implementing (B) might outweigh the costs of implementing (A). You have failed to do so. You were on the right track with your argument regarding the damage to the Pentagon, but it wasn't good enough. Keep trying!
Posts: 85 Group: Members Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


JackD	Sep 26 2008, 02:57 PM Post #12
Posts: 170 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08	I think Jim76 raises some good arguments about rational choices. But operative at the center of 9/11 attacks was a powerful "shock and awe" effect -- which CLEARLY caused a breakdown in the way our brains process information. 9/11 human logic tilts towards "the small lie is hard to get away with, the big lie perhaps easier -- as long as we control information flow to the public during a critical window of an infantilized brain" so the basic cost/benefit analysis that you might run are suddenly working in a whole different milieu, where you dont need PERFECT operations, just PLAUSIBLE operations with PLAUSIBLE explanations, foisted on a public crucially lacking the analytical "hmm, that seems odd" apparatus you would need to deny the truth of what we were told and shown, to wit, to realize that true cost of the option A vs B Look at the World Trade Center explosion/disintegration: despite all the visual evidence, auditory evidence, eyewitness evidence, squibs, flashes, booms, explosions, fireballs, etc -- it was all there in plain sight -- the Official Story went out via TV & MSM -- "fire caused collapse" -- so our lyin' eyes were trumped by a media message that said "anything i repeat three times is true" Imagine the WTC demolition planners considering their own dilemma - bring a building down in plain sight in a highly unconventional demolition-- and yet they accomplished it. Sure, there were plenty of contrary reports, lots of Barry Jennings on TV, but they were quickly overruled. could that irrational, non-cold-logic process been operative at the Pentagon incident (moreover, we do not even know if what we OBSERVED at pentagon was the 'plan' or representated a fall-back contingency!!) thus: postulated: "THE 9/11 hi perps GOT AWAY WITH SOMETHING PAINFULLY OBVIOUS AT WTC -- in large part due to shocked, awed, infantilized, traumatized observing public -- 98% of which received info SOLELY from TV with NO WAY of independently corroborating what we were told" Was that thinking influencing the cost/benefit analysis at Pentagon plan? I say YES. back to the Pentagon -- yes, the damage caused by a plane into pentagon would be hard to predict, a plane is a clumsy instrument for surgical destruction of parts of a building. Which is why the modelling is so important -- if 1000s of plane crashes at various angles of incidence & velocities were modeled on computer BEFORE the event, the explosives can be properly calibrated to 'create' that appearance. Then, neatly, you run one more Purdue simulation that in fact gives a neat reconstruction of your observed damage pattern (which was painstakingly pre-modeled) The KEY to Pentagon operations, no matter how potentially bungled, or obvious, was INFORMATION control. if you make certain that ONLY information that supports the OCT line of AA77-into-building is disseminated, that MEDIA BULLHORN drowns out any number of odd little witnesses such as what CIT turned up. literally NO ONE WOULD LISTEN to those accounts -- did we hear April Gallop on the news? no: we heard from Rumsfeld, we heard from CNN's embedded pentagon personnel, we ONLY heard accounts that cemented the official story. My argument is that the careful weighting of potential cost was done, but not on your scales. it was done using a different expectation of costs based on our collective irrational, traumatized, infantilized brains glued to TV screen -- all they had to say was "we believe hijacked AA77 crashed into Pentagon" and you and I sucked that story down, with nothing more than a smoking backdrop of Pentagon and maybe a shattered cab window to back it up, in terms of evidence. ---- Edited by JackD, Sep 26 2008, 03:05 PM.
Posts: 170 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Sep 26 2008, 03:49 PM Post #13
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Oh lord. I am not going to engage in a fucking internet debate match with you, Jim. This is real life with real consequences. The plane was on the north side of the Citgo. Do something about it or you are just as guilty as the perpetrators.
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Sep 26 2008, 03:51 PM Post #14
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Do we need a "A Rational Discussion on the North of the Citgo Approach" thread? Let's apply Jim's logic to the north side of the Citgo approach. Shall we Jim?
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


jim76	Sep 28 2008, 11:53 AM Post #15
Posts: 85 Group: Members Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Aldo, don't feel compelled to engage in any sort of debate with me. I merely felt that it was important for me to present this argument. A controversial a posteriori argument (which is exactly what you are presenting) will fall on its face if it cannot refute a strong a priori argument. I believe that a lot of individuals that reject your theory do so based on the argument that I've laid out. If you want to convince these individuals, you need to refute this argument, or at least provide a reasonable alternative. If you don't, I feel that most will continue to ignore your evidence and those that don't will not be convinced by it. I'm not really sure what you're getting at with "a rational discussion on the north of the citgo approach," but feel free to start whatever thread you want. If it's interesting, I might post in it.
Posts: 85 Group: Members Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Sep 28 2008, 04:33 PM Post #16
Posts: 1,231 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	well i guess the wtc towers weren't blown up because whoever planted the explosives would have came forward by now. can you imagine the risk involved in getting people to put explosives in 3 towers and keeping their mouths shut? wow jim thanks. i can retire now. your logic has helped me to realize the us government didn't lie about 9/11 even if zelikow outlined the conclusions before the commission even got together and that the commissioners themselves admit "they didn't get everything right" and that they only "wrote a first draft of history" and blah blah blah........ whatever little trivial things they might have missed it couldn't be anything serious obviously because there's just too many risks involved in carrying out an operation on the scale of 9/11 for the us government to have been involved. something like 9/11 is better suited in a much more organized and better resourced outfit like al qaeda. thanks jim. i can finally log out and go back to sleep.
Posts: 1,231 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


jim76	Sep 28 2008, 05:04 PM Post #17
Posts: 85 Group: Members Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Domenick - I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your straw man was not intentional. If you wish to further discuss this, then please go back and read my argument, as you clearly do not understand it. It will also help to read my response to Aldo. I reinforced and modified some of my initial points. ETA: comma Edited by jim76, Sep 28 2008, 05:05 PM.
Posts: 85 Group: Members Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


streetcar304	Sep 29 2008, 07:50 AM Post #18
Posts: 18 Group: Members Member #788 Joined: 08/06/08	Bitterman Sep 26 2008, 11:07 AM #1 The plane flew over the building as confirmed by witnesses. And who might there "witnesses" (plural) be? Seems to me you have nobody else other than Roosevelt Roberts, who's testimony has the "flyover" happening a good 30 minutes before the impact of the aircraft (i.e. at 0911 or 0912). Who are the others that allow you to form the plural "witnesses"? Not just the couple of people who claim the aircraft "pulled up", but legitimate witnesses who saw, as you put it, "the plane flew over the building". We won't get into how Roberts saw an aircraft that you folks claim was 200 yards farther west (lane 1 of south parking where "395 turns into 27" vs north of the service station) or how he said it was headed back across 27 or how he said it went over around to the mall side or how a "commercial jet" with a 125 foot wingspan could make a banking turn to do all those things at "50 or less than 100 feet" or how Roberts claims there were two jets while you folks claim there was only 1. But, he your hoss and he's your only "flyover" witness (even though he won't talk to you any more) so you have to find some way to make all that work!
Posts: 18 Group: Members Member #788 Joined: 08/06/08


Reddawn	Sep 29 2008, 01:46 PM Post #19
Posts: 55 Group: Members Member #39 Joined: 01/15/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Sep 26 2008, 12:10 PM Do you accept that the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo? Yes or no? Someone else put it this way and I agree. "Arguing vehemently about which side of a gas station the plane flew past, is like arguing the colour of shoes Jeffrey Dahmer wore when grotesquely murdering innocent civilians. It's just so far beyond the point of focus."
Posts: 55 Group: Members Member #39 Joined: 01/15/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Sep 29 2008, 11:34 PM Post #20
Posts: 1,231 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Reddawn Sep 29 2008, 01:46 PM Aldo Marquis CIT Sep 26 2008, 12:10 PM Do you accept that the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo? Yes or no? Someone else put it this way and I agree. "Arguing vehemently about which side of a gas station the plane flew past, is like arguing the colour of shoes Jeffrey Dahmer wore when grotesquely murdering innocent civilians. It's just so far beyond the point of focus." someone else? someone else is an anonymous troll on the jref forums. odd that an anonymous troll would quote an anonymous troll from the sewer on the internet.
Posts: 1,231 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


JackD	Sep 30 2008, 11:35 AM Post #21
Posts: 170 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08	Quote: V. Plane parts: In (A), numerous individuals would have to plant airplane parts in the building and surrounding area. There are significant possibilities that these individuals would come clean or citizens would witness the planting of the parts. In (B), plane parts would be found in the building and surrounding area. Costs in (A) being far higher than costs in (B) is irrefutable.). the evidence (a few photos) doesnt help us much. it is unclear how the unriveted fuselage sections (nearly all of which carried the distinctive red lettering of American Airlines -- what are the odds?) made their way to the PentaLawn. we see people carrying them - but only in two instances see the pieces on the ground. possible explanations 1) blown there during real crash of real airplane 2) blown there from explosives, previous location unk. 3) carried by hand -- persons unknown 4) either of 1,2,3 plus moved from original locations. -- plane parts in building -- either 1) arrived there via real crash of real plane 2) were dropped there post-incident 3) were stored inside pentagon prior to incident. 4) either of 1,2,3 plus moved from original locations Quote: VI. Body parts: See V. In this case, I feel the costs in (A) would be even higher. It is unlikely for any individual to agree to plant body parts and keep quiet about it for long. - how is it 'unlikely'? - there is zero chain of evidence custody for tissue samples identified as being from Pentagon - analysis done at Dover AFB -- from FBI collected evidence. tissue samples need not ever have been planted. rather, small tissue samples brought directly to lab, as if from disaster site. Quote: VII. Downed light poles: In (A), individuals would have to bring down light poles in advance and quickly move them into position during the fly-over. They would also have to put a light pole through the windshield of a car without any witnesses. In (B), the light poles would be knocked over by the plane (possibly at the risk of thwarting the attack), or the plane would simply fly above the poles. Though there exists some risk in (B), I believe they are negligible compared to the significant risk involved in (A -- other than Lloyd's highly suspicious and uncorroborated pole-thru-windshield testimony -- there is zero evidence of poles being knocked down by a plane. many witnesses inferred that poles must have been struck by plane; no one captured it on video (or at least any of 84 tapes sequestered) -- the base of light poles indicates a non-traumatic force severed them -- such as plasma torch. given that the entire site was controlled (wash blvd traffic deviation) -- the speculation that 'someone would have seen planting of poles' kinda goes out the window. I have previously suggested a scenario which reduces the "cost" of evidence plant/preparation to nearly zero -- which is that the W side of Pentagon was prepped as a disaster-mascal drill site -- replete with high-fidelity bits such as downed poles, damaged cars, smudge pot smoke fire, plane debris, etc -- and somehow, unbeknownst to drill players, the drill went 'live' -- i would be surprised if military personnel involved in any aspect of pentagon drill, (if there were any) - rescue - etc - would speak out. much less anyone directly INVOLVED in a scheme -- who would expose themselves as an accessory to murder ? even more so, what media outlet would be listening? other than internet forum types and david ray griffin, no one but no one appears to give a sh--t about the truth/untruth of pentagon events. why in god's name would any rational whistleblower "come clean"? Returning to jim76's concerns about 'cost of one choice vs another' -- i think that the value of jim's cost-currency is different than perhaps jim76 sees it -- either to engineer a simulacrum of plane-into-building, or to trumpet it to media, or to cover up.
Posts: 170 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08


Reddawn	Sep 30 2008, 03:42 PM Post #22
Posts: 55 Group: Members Member #39 Joined: 01/15/08	Domenick DiMaggio Sep 29 2008, 11:34 PM Reddawn Sep 29 2008, 01:46 PM Aldo Marquis CIT Sep 26 2008, 12:10 PM Do you accept that the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo? Yes or no? Someone else put it this way and I agree. "Arguing vehemently about which side of a gas station the plane flew past, is like arguing the colour of shoes Jeffrey Dahmer wore when grotesquely murdering innocent civilians. It's just so far beyond the point of focus." someone else? someone else is an anonymous troll on the jref forums. odd that an anonymous troll would quote an anonymous troll from the sewer on the internet. You know Dom, the fact that MOST people don't use their real names on internet boards seems to be lost on you. In fact, you didn't use yours for quite some time. Balsamo also posted as JDX for years and refused to give his name. So what? Nobody cares. When you bring up that tired and lame excuse as a response to a post it says more about you than the poster. I mentioned that "someone else" said that simply as a means of making sure I wasn't taking credit for the quotation. Now, would you like to address the quote itself or are you going to simply go down your juvenile "anonymous troll" bit? Here it is again. "Arguing vehemently about which side of a gas station the plane flew past, is like arguing the colour of shoes Jeffrey Dahmer wore when grotesquely murdering innocent civilians. It's just so far beyond the point of focus." Edited by Reddawn, Sep 30 2008, 03:44 PM.
Posts: 55 Group: Members Member #39 Joined: 01/15/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Sep 30 2008, 04:19 PM Post #23
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Reddawn Sep 30 2008, 03:42 PM "Arguing vehemently about which side of a gas station the plane flew past, is like arguing the colour of shoes Jeffrey Dahmer wore when grotesquely murdering innocent civilians. It's just so far beyond the point of focus." Tell that to Lloyd England.
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Oct 1 2008, 02:29 AM Post #24
Posts: 1,231 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Reddawn Sep 30 2008, 03:42 PM You know Dom, the fact that MOST people don't use their real names on internet boards seems to be lost on you. no it isn't, ____________ . but when someone repeatedly attacks someone like you do to cit while hiding behind an anonymous persona they should be called out on it. i'm sure you would support val mcclatchey knowing killtowns real identity, wouldn't you __________ ? Quote: In fact, you didn't use yours for quite some time. Balsamo also posted as JDX for years and refused to give his name. So what? Nobody cares. you're right me and rob did not use our real names when we first became a part of this. neither did aldo or craig as i recall. i have a feeling if you go back further than that you will find other public figures who did the same thing. but as time went on that definitely changed. we all are saying some very very serious stuff and collecting very real evidence. we do [or at least i do] make some specific charges against real human beings. and we don't hide behind a mask while we do it. you hide being a hide and insult real human beings. look what you did to this thread. you posted once completely off topic and solely to disrupt and achieve this current result you so desire. but you're attacks still need to be addressed even though most likely you're just an ignorant teenager there are still passerbys who may take what you say with more weight that an utter word of it deserves. you've been doing this for years and you deserve whatever you get in return for doing it so stop acting like a victim. Rob Balsamo I joined the "movement" on May 17, 2006 at the first LCF forum... (for reference, note join date) http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11377 and had P4T up and running with my REAL NAME by Aug 2006. http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=43e11cadfb322187d93102547d0d0f5e&showuser=1 Thats 3 months! Not "years" Quote: When you bring up that tired and lame excuse as a response to a post it says more about you than the poster. exactly so please explain the relevance of your "jeffrey dahmer" analogy. Quote: I mentioned that "someone else" said that simply as a means of making sure I wasn't taking credit for the quotation. well considering it wasn't noteworthy in the first place its safe to say you are most likely just a sock of the original author who thinks their bulb shines a lot brighter than the rest of the pack. it don't. Quote: Now, would you like to address the quote itself or are you going to simply go down your juvenile "anonymous troll" bit? Here it is again. "Arguing vehemently about which side of a gas station the plane flew past, is like arguing the colour of shoes Jeffrey Dahmer wore when grotesquely murdering innocent civilians. It's just so far beyond the point of focus." ok i'll show how stupid this little quote is...... to compare the north of citgo pentagon 9/11 flight path attack to jeffrey dahmer would be like convicting and executing jeffrey dahmer only to find out after his death he actually lived in the apartment on the otherside of the complex directly across from the apartment the bodies were found in. whoa that changes everything, doesn't it? Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, Oct 1 2008, 02:32 AM.
Posts: 1,231 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


JackD	Oct 4 2008, 06:25 PM Post #25
Posts: 170 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08	jim76 Sep 25 2008, 09:08 PM I take the approach that every individual, when making a deliberate, thoughtful decision, employs a weighing heuristic in order to reach a course of action. This weighing procedure generally employs an attempt to weigh costs and benefits. When one course of action's potential costs outweigh the potential benefits, that course of action is not taken. Likewise, when one course of action's benefits outweigh it's costs, that course of action is taken. While one individual might have the means to more accurately weigh than another's, we all consciously or subconsciously employ this heuristic. I hope we agree thus far. I would like to analyze how the concept of rational choice relates to certain conspiracy theories involving the Pentagon attack. For the sake of this argument, I am going to assume that the government was involved in at least partly planning and executing the attack on the Pentagon. It seems that there are three different theories on the role that a plane played in the attacks. 1) There was no plane. Explosives caused the apparent damage. 2) A plane was in the vicinity, but only flew near the Pentagon (over/around/(under?)). Explosives caused the apparent damage. 3) A plane crashed into the building and caused at least some of the apparent damage. For the sake of my analysis, I'm going to exclude (1). It seems that a number of individuals in this forum support (2) and face their stiffest opposition from individuals that support (3). In light of this, I am going to look at the rationality of (2) compared to (3). When supporters of (2) are faced with the question of rational behind using explosives to cause damage to the Pentagon rather than simply crash the plane that is readily available into the Pentagon, as they did with planes in the attack on the WTC, I often hear the argument that explosives might be capable of causing precise damage for purposes of destroying certain documents or evidence or killing certain individuals. The damaged caused by a plane would be far too speculative. I will accept this argument. (Please correct me if this is not a view of the individuals that support (2).) To recap, I've accepted that the government planned and executed the attack on the Pentagon and explosives were used for their precision. Based on my assumptions, there seem to remain two possibilities: A) A plane flew near the Pentagon but did not crash into it. The scene was manipulated to appear that a plane did crash into it. Explosives caused the desired damages. B) A plane crashed into the Pentagon, but explosives caused the desired damages. Further, based on my assumptions, the planners of the attack rationally weighed the costs and the benefits of each of these courses of action. In both cases the benefits are essentially equal. Precise damage is achieved and the public is convinced that the attack was planned and executed by Islamic terrorists. The crucial factors to look at are the costs and we have a significant amount of costs to weigh: I. Piloting of the plane: If the plane was flown by remote, the costs are equal. In (A), a pilot could have been paid off or brainwashed to fly in the manner that he did. This would definitely require serious coercion. In (B), the plane could have been flown by patsies which may or may not have required serious coercion to achieve. The costs appear to be either equal or slightly higher in the case of (A). II. Passengers of Flight 77: In (A), passengers were either escorted elsewhere and imprisoned or killed or died when the plane crashed elsewhere. In (B), the passengers died when the plane crashed into the Pentagon. The costs are either equal or higher in the case of (A). III. Eyewitnesses: In (A), eyewitnesses could have been completely fooled or they could have witnessed the fly-over and uncovered the entire plot. In (B), eyewitnesses would confirm that the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Due to extreme risks, the costs in the case of (A) are much higher. IV. Damage to Pentagon: In (A), the damage to the Pentagon may or may not be consistent with damage that a plane would have caused. In (B), damage to the Pentagon would be consistent with a plane crash. Again, the high risks involved with putting faith in unreliable explosive damage, where a mistake would result in the plot being exposed, result in costs being much higher in the case of (A). V. Plane parts: In (A), numerous individuals would have to plant airplane parts in the building and surrounding area. There are significant possibilities that these individuals would come clean or citizens would witness the planting of the parts. In (B), plane parts would be found in the building and surrounding area. Costs in (A) being far higher than costs in (B) is irrefutable. VI. Body parts: See V. In this case, I feel the costs in (A) would be even higher. It is unlikely for any individual to agree to plant body parts and keep quiet about it for long. VII. Downed light poles: In (A), individuals would have to bring down light poles in advance and quickly move them into position during the fly-over. They would also have to put a light pole through the windshield of a car without any witnesses. In (B), the light poles would be knocked over by the plane (possibly at the risk of thwarting the attack), or the plane would simply fly above the poles. Though there exists some risk in (B), I believe they are negligible compared to the significant risk involved in (A). In all of these instances, the costs of (A) are either equivalent to or higher than the costs of (B). These costs would have clearly been foreseeable. The attacks of 9/11 were meticulously planned. There are no reasons to believe that costs and benefits were not weighed and used as a basis for the plan of action. Unless additional factors exist, (A) is extremely unlikely in light of the possibility of (B). Note: I do not wish to discuss the technicalities of the various arguments over the conclusions that some reach given the available evidence. I merely wish to discuss whether there exists any reason why a rational decision-maker would choose to execute (A) over (B). If no conceivable reason exists, those that ascribe to (A) must reconsider their positions. Jim76's basic assumption is that gov't (let's call it 'inside jobbers') were at least partly involved in planning attaclk (at the least i would say they were HEAVILY involved in covering it up...) Jim, how have your views changed? i entered the Pentagon area 2 yrs ago, fairly ardent adherent to the official story, quite taken with idea that Pentagon deception was a 'honey pot' to be used to discredit the whole truth movement. i have had a lot of difficulty trying to confirm the AA77 -hit - Pentagon story. it's kind of like every single small detail that SHOULD be easily locked down is quirky, and you have to go into a long discourse to explain the oddities with each littel issue -- from aircraft flight pattern, witnesses, damage pattern, the timing, the debris field, the nature of damage & fire, the photos, the cleanup, etc. Others have completely rejected the AA77 hit pentagon idea and sought alternative explanations -- which is kinda cool - -but in no way is the truth movement required to completely write a 'provable' alternate scenario book --- it would be cool, yes -- but i think the true value of the CIT etc work is to simply put on display how utterly UNPROVABLE the official story is.
Posts: 170 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2