The Case for Planes/No Planes at the WTC on 9/11 Made Real Simple
1) the plane-shaped holes and lack of significant plane debris suggest no conventional aircraft struck either tower
2) the many witnesses who claim to have seen one of the two planes on 9/11 suggest some sort of aircraft were used for the attacks
3) the plane images that do not match any known aircraft* in the 1st and 2nd hit videos and that are often contradictory to each other in the 2nd hit videos suggest the planes are digital cartoons
===> since physical evidence trumps eye-witness evidence, and because eyewitnesses were severely manipulated by TV images, I conclude the most likely explanation is that the witnesses were mistaken, no aircraft hit either tower, all the videos were faked and the plane-shaped hole was made by some other means than a plane.
The only other possible explanation is that some non-conventional plane was used for the attacks, which is what the witnesses saw, and that many of the videos of the plane were altered to show a more proper 767.
However, since we cannot fathom a guess at what kind of plane this might be, whereas we can imagine some mechanism for producing plane-shaped building damage (beam weapon or explosives), the simplest explanation is still that the planes were digital cartoons.
*the planes are either too small for 767's, have improper wing and tail angles, have a distended or bent wing or contain huge bulges next to their wingroot.
2) the many witnesses who claim to have seen one of the two planes on 9/11 suggest some sort of aircraft were used for the attacks
3) the plane images that do not match any known aircraft* in the 1st and 2nd hit videos and that are often contradictory to each other in the 2nd hit videos suggest the planes are digital cartoons
===> since physical evidence trumps eye-witness evidence, and because eyewitnesses were severely manipulated by TV images, I conclude the most likely explanation is that the witnesses were mistaken, no aircraft hit either tower, all the videos were faked and the plane-shaped hole was made by some other means than a plane.
The only other possible explanation is that some non-conventional plane was used for the attacks, which is what the witnesses saw, and that many of the videos of the plane were altered to show a more proper 767.
However, since we cannot fathom a guess at what kind of plane this might be, whereas we can imagine some mechanism for producing plane-shaped building damage (beam weapon or explosives), the simplest explanation is still that the planes were digital cartoons.
*the planes are either too small for 767's, have improper wing and tail angles, have a distended or bent wing or contain huge bulges next to their wingroot.
posted by spooked at 10:08 PM
6 Comments:
So many possible comments, ... not that much time or energy (on my part).
Talking your commentary in reverse order.
Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You say:
"the simplest explanation is still that the planes were digital cartoons."
I may be simplifying you argument inappropriately. It seems like you are appealing to Occam's Razor. It seems like Occam's Razor is a favorite of many of want to lie or distort, and is especially useful when offering debunking claims about truly complicated singular events. I'm not saying you are lying or distorting. I know this is far afield, but as an aside, it is of minor interest that an MD in her commentary on NPR about a month ago review how applying Occam's Razor to her diagnosis and treatment of an emergency room patient may have cost the victim his life.
So, what's my bottom line: appealing to what is the more simple (fewest variables, less complicated interactions..) doesn't further the argument one way or the other in my eyes.
For any fair observer of your discussion, either alternative which you propose carries the same shocking, messy reality that the Jetliner impacts were faked. Of course for those of us who have tired to review the evidence of why happened in PA and at the Pentagon, the news that
"something is rotten in Denmark" with these "crashes" at the WTC opens the door pretty wide to believing that 9/11 was an audacious charade.
In terms of exposing in full the lies of 9/11, either alternative is equally powerful toward pointing toward "inside job" high tech fakery. Given that each scenario is equally powerful in "waving smelling sauce under the nose" of the duped public, it is with this (the potency of either argument) in mind that I cast suspicion on the "hard core" no-planers and the excoriations that they (in certain contexts) have hurled against the likes of David Ray Griffin.
I would submit that trying to settle this to an exact conclusion which is pushed upon everyone is not necessary. Furthermore, it is most likely an orchestrated "divide and make impotent", or an "attempt to make 9/11 Truth advocates look crazy" plan.
BG-- I understand your concerns. :)
I'm not trying to push anything on anyone, but I've always been interested in understanding exactly how they did 9/11. That is what my goal has been here. As far as people knowing that 9/11 was "an inside job", they certainly don't need my work to figure that out. But if someone is interesting in what exactly happened, I would hope they would check out my research.
Again, I am encouraged by the inability of your critics to argue or even invent something more than a generic insult.
Have you ever "found (yourself) so utterly"? Routine courtesies proved too much effort, but calling them bad people above all with sheerly evil positions is not too taxing on the psyche.
Throwaway phrases swept together into a proclamation that says nothing but, "Shut up. I hate you." This is the empty rhetoric of propagandists.
Aliens did it.
There, that has much justification as your theory, and it is much simpler.
conspiracy smasher seems like: either a hyper-patriotic lunatic who refuses to acknowledge his govt COULD have done S-11...or a paid operative/propagandist (private or govt)...what is Conspiracy Smasher's motivation in bashing your blogspot? is he getting PAID to do this?
Post a Comment
<< Home