Originally Posted by sammi jo
Yes. The false dichotomy is that because the Bush administration might be lying about SOMETHING implies that the airplane that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 or that the WTC was brought down by explosive charges.
That the administration is lying about SOMETHING is a given because every government will put spin after a huge disaster. That doesn't imply anything more than they're trying to cover up incompetence. Could there be more beyond that? Possible but unlikely.
That they replaced one airplane full of passangers with another airplane full of passangers + a missile (or whatever) that no one saw for some bizzaro reason is simply STUPID.
It is strange that you put so much faith in the "ability" (!) of 19 foreign losers (whose identities are in doubt anyway) regarding their abilities to pull of such an elaborate plot, as you put it, especially when their own "competence" regarding essential aspects of the alleged plot also remains dubious.
The elaborate plot consists of
1) purchasing airline tickets
2) taking over the airplanes with box cutters
3) crashing the airplanes into buildings.
Come on. They were very smart in identifing a weakness in policy (give hijackers what they want*) and exploiting it. There's no way in hell it would work today because neither the passangers or the authorities will comply.
The flying into the WTC is not all that hard. That hanjour flown poorly is evidenced by the idiotic manner in which he flew the 757. Had he been unlucky he'd have departed from controlled flight and dropped the airplane somewhere else. The hardest part is landing in one piece. He did not. He managed to plow into the side of a VERY large building.
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said."
Off your ATS site somewhere via google. Those guys flew 737 simulators to get FAA certs. They may not have been able to land cessnas but they did have simulated heavy multi-engine experience.
I also find it mildly racist to think that these middle eastern guys would be unable to carry out an attack like this. I, for one, do not underestimate their abilities and this attack is more or less in line with what a small determined group with good finances can manage. We're talking 4 airplanes not 400. That means only 4 semi-competent pilots are required.
Does that also mean that somehow the USG might have run the activity with the terrorists as dupes? Yes, I think it's highly improbable (not to mention a tad stupid to do so) but at least it's defensible as a conspiracy theory as opposed to outright insanity.
Then you claim that the Bush Administration, and by extension any elements within the US government/military wouldn't have the "competence" to pull off such a scheme.
Yes, because your "scheme" is a Rube Goldberg version of reality. The level of coordination and the number of folks required to wire up multiple high rise buildings in NYC (because "truthers" claim WTC 1, 2, and 7 were all wired to blow) for "controlled" demolition as well as replace Flight 77 with some alternate while inserting the bodies of the passangers of Flight 77 into the wreckage defies any rational assessment of the capabilities of ANY government.
All it would take, especially considering that in 2001, the greater part of the planned Bush agenda required such an event to get the ball rolling, would be for some high level party within the Bush Admin to issue an instruction to (party unknown) "we need to do this, that and the other, but it requires a trigger: make it happen"... then just wait. Only 19 people (experts or patsies) would need to take part, not thousands, to pull it off? Yes? No? Thats not farfetched considering that the motivation lay clearly with the neoconservative movement, whose most bellicose protagonists were stacked in the Bush cabinet.
If you want to argue that the 19 terrorists were patsies of the CIA that's a different argument. Look above. You support the assertion that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.
Thats a patently false analogy.
It's a perfectly good analogy because the only choices are
1) to believe EVERYTHING a government tells you
2) to believe EVERYTHING the "truthers" propose is "possible"
To accept either one brands you a complete moron.
A debate, or better yet a series of debates (since the subject is so multifaceted), on prime time TV, featuring say, 5 high level parties representing the official account, and 5 skeptics to counter them could be a way of settling this ongoing battle in the minds of the public. All of the questions would be unscreened, and nothing would be "out of bounds". I am sure the skeptics would jump on the chance. If the official story was as watertight, accurate and honest as the USG/media claim, it would be so easy to debunk the truthers' claims, and in a highly public forum, and finally put the matter to rest. One would imagine that the corporate media, being so on the side of the official account, would jump on such a potential ratings winner.....
Except that there were debates between truthers and skeptics and the skeptics won every time because truthers believe in idiotic scenarios with zero basis in reality. Like Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. It was no contest...the truthers looked like morons every time because they defended such stupid positions.
* so you can get them on the ground and take them out with tactical teams