babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » 'Reasonable Doubt'

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: 'Reasonable Doubt'
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3912

posted 25 March 2003 08:51 AM      Profile for Zatamon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unanswered questions

Just as in the case of the JFK assassination, there are many unanswered questions left hanging about the 911 tragedy.

Let's start with a quote:

"The right wing benefited so much from September 11 that, if I were still a conspiratorialist, I would believe they'd done it." -- Norman Mailer

Out of the many unanswered questions (like what did President Bush know and when did he know it?) let's briefly touch on the first and perhaps the biggest. To understand this mystery, we have to look at the timetable of events on Sept 11.

7:45 AM First hijkacking
8:42 AM First tower was hit
9:00 AM Second tower was hit
9:24 AM President Bush declares terrorist attack
9:43 AM The Pentagon was hit
10:29 AM The fourth hijacked plane crashes

We are talking about a time span of 2 hours and 44 minutes.

According to existing and strictly enforced FAA regulation: "For large scheduled aircraft, tracked throughout on radar, to depart extravagantly from their flight paths, would trigger numerous calls to the military, especially after two have hit the World Trade Centre and now one is speeding toward Washington, D.C."

Question: Where was the US Air Force?

"Andrews Air Force Base is home base for two combat-ready squadrons of jet interceptors mandated to ensure the safety of the U.S. capital. Andrews is only 12 miles from the White House."

There are many other unanswered questions well described in two documents:

- "The Great Deception - The War on terrorism. An alternative view" a six part TV documentary (see transcript at http://www.visiontv.ca/Archive/Archive.html) hosted by Barrie Zwicker.

- "911 - The Truth Is Out There ...Right?" By Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun, February 23rd, 2002 (see at http://tinyurl.com/83bw )


What are the options?

a./ Gross negligence
b./ Incredible coincidences
c./ Suppressed information
d./ Conspiracy

Are the third and fourth alternatives proven? Of course, not. Are they theoretically possible? Of course, they are. Have all the options been thoroughly investigated? The answer is: No, they have not.

However, in view of the almost continuous lies, obfuscations, evasions, fabrications put forward by the US government, it is not surprising that many citizens feel they have a "reasonable doubt" and they want to keep an open mind.

PS.

Conspiracy theories

Deception engineered by rulers to influence public opinion is not unknown in History.

The interesting reaction of most people to speculation about deception and conspiracy is automatic dismissal: "Conspiracy Theories" are treated as symptoms of a disturbed mind, paranoia, sensationalism.

Even though the "unthinkable" happened many times in human history, usually well documented, it appears people don't want to think the unthinkable. Probably because it is too scary. However, coping with reality requires that we don't shut our minds to what has been proven possible so many times in the past. The least we should do is demand answers to unanswered questions.

Historical Recap

"Body of Secrets" by James Bamford is a shocking revelation of some unknown US history (Bamford until recently was Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News tonight with Peter Jennings).

Here's a story from the book (quoted from document #1 linked to below).

It's 1962. John F. Kennedy is U.S. president. Robert McNamara is Secretary of Defence. And Admiral Lyman Lemnitzer heads the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. The CIA has failed in its illegal Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

JFK decides, Bamford writes, to back away from military solutions to the Cuban problem. But Lemnitzer, the CIA and others at the top remain obsessed with Cuba. Writes Bamford: "As the Kennedy brothers appeared to suddenly 'go soft' on Cuba, Lemnitzer could see his opportunity to invade ... quickly slipping away. ...attempts to provoke the Cuban public to revolt seemed dead..."

Continues Bamford: "Lemnitzer and the other chiefs knew there was only one option left that would ensure their war. They would have to trick the American public and world opinion..."

Lemnitzer comes up with 'Operation Northwoods'.

"On February 20th, 1962 (John) Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral...on his historic journey. Lemnitzer "proposed ... that should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, 'the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that...the fault lies with (Cuba)..." "by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans."

Thus, Bamford notes, "as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn's possible death as a pretext to launch a war."

And, to refresh memories, here are two other examples (well documented and understood) from history:

1./ On February 22 1933 a deranged communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, 24, from Holland attempted to strike a blow against capitalism by burning down the German Reichstag. German Chancellor Adolph Hitler's SA agents knew about his plan but instead of preventing him they were concerned that the fire he set wouldn't be effective. So while Marinus was upstairs setting his fire SA Storm Troopers under Karl Ernst, entered the Reichstag basement through a tunnel connected to Herman Goering's residence and distributed enough gasoline and incendiaries around to ensure a good blaze.

2./ Very few people know how the attack on Poland, triggering WW2, actually started. It was a well-documented (by the Germans) operation code-named "canned goods". Concentration-camp inmates in Germany were drugged, carried to the Polish border, dressed in Polish uniforms, spread out on the ground around a German radio station and shot dead. After which an SS officer made an inflaming speech on the German radio station, pretending to be the officer of a polish unit that just attacked Germany. Hitler used it next day to justify his attack against Poland. See "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer.

Edited by bringing second half to the front of the essay, to focus on 'unanswered questions'

[ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]


From: "The right crowd" | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 25 March 2003 02:18 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Rather than confront an issue or allegations, challenges to the mighty "Conventional Wisdom" are greeted with a sniff and a sneer. But, just as being paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you, just because a conspiracy may seem outlandish doesn't make it necessarily false. How many people would've believed you if, prior to the Vietnam War, you said teh president would fabricate evidence to justify the start of the war. You'd have been laughed at. You'd also have been right. In these turbulent times, certain parties in society place a premium on unquestioning loyalty and adherence to the party line. The term "conspiracy theory" is now a term that is used to snuff out debate or uncomfortable questions.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 March 2003 02:53 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But have you ever noticed who/what conspiracy theories inevitably "prove"?

- It was the American "shadow Government"
- It was the Freemasons
- It was the Bilderbergs
- It was the CIA "BlackOps"
- It was the Mossad

Have you ever noticed that Conspiracy theories:

- only ever bring up "unanswered questions", but they never provide answers to them?

- ignore other "unanswered questions" that cast doubt on the theory?

- totally ignore Occam's razor?

- start with a conclusion, then work backwards for the "proof"?

- bring up past conspiracies as though that makes present conspiracies more likely (it doesn't; they're unrelated)?

If you or I saw hoofprints, we'd likely say "Oh, there's a horse around". A scientist may correct us by adding "there's a longshot chance that it could be a Zebra". Only a conspiracy kook would try to insist that it "must be" a Unicorn.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
angela N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2705

posted 25 March 2003 03:54 PM      Profile for angela N   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If you ever heard the story The Creature from Jekyll Island you would look at these conspiracy theories with less of a critical eye. 7 men that owned 25% of the worlds wealth conspired for 9 days in secret in order to provide a 'service' that would ultimately determine the fate of the world economy. The federal Reserve is nothing more than a a cartel developed by these men in 1910 to increase their own immense wealth and effectively create the fiat currency system that relies on nothing more than faith in that system. As a result, the money you have in the bank is imaginary, as is the interest you gain on that money, as is the money that the government loans out.

When such a caper is carried out successfully we must consider the possibility that many more such underhanded plays for power will be attempted .... and they have been.

Theories that undermine the government's credibility are pigeonholed into the "conspiracy theory" void. That is very convenient for the industrial/military complex that we call the government. The same way that environmentalists are discredited as insane zealots by the PR firms of Dow and Monsanto. By sitting back and imagining that the powers that be have our best interests at heart we allow these power hungry men to determine the fate of our future and the fate of our children.


From: The city of Townsville | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 25 March 2003 04:40 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for proving my point for me Mr. Magoo. Not all conspiracy theories are created equal. By tarring them all with the same kooky brush you invalidate the one's that may contain a grain or more of truth. Which, I guess, is the point.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 March 2003 05:08 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, if you want to set yours apart, answer some of the questions it asks, make sure that your theory fits and accounts for all of the available evidence, and maybe try picking a different "fall guy" (the usual suspects have all had their turn plenty of times), and respect Occam's Razor (when given a multitude of possible explanations, go with the simplest, not the most complex).

From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 25 March 2003 10:49 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you ever heard the story The Creature from Jekyll Island you would look at these conspiracy theories with less of a critical eye. 7 men that owned 25% of the worlds wealth conspired for 9 days in secret in order to provide a 'service' that would ultimately determine the fate of the world economy. The federal Reserve is nothing more than a a cartel developed by these men in 1910 to increase their own immense wealth and effectively create the fiat currency system that relies on nothing more than faith in that system. As a result, the money you have in the bank is imaginary, as is the interest you gain on that money, as is the money that the government loans out.

Small problem.

North America didn't effectively go to a fiat currency until the 1950s, and by some definitions not until the 1970s.

A gold or gold exchange standard would have limited the effectiveness of the alleged Jekyll Island plot.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 25 March 2003 11:06 PM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On of the problems with conspiracy theories is that they employ the same kind of "reasoning" as Bush did in fomenting the current war.

Hussien is evil, let's get the evidence to back that up.

9/11 is another burning of the Riechstag, lets get the evidence to back that up.

It's ass backwards. You let the evidence lead you to your conclusion, not the other way around.

The lack of U.S.A.F. reaction to the events of 9/11 leave some very serious questions that need answering.

But the lack of such answers at the moment do not constitute proof of anything.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 26 March 2003 03:26 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
True, but the obvious unwillingness of the Bush administration to conduct any investigation at all (let alone an impartial one) is more than negligent. I don't see how it can be anything less than suspicious.

Not that I'm saying I know or could even guess what they're hiding, but it's a strong indicator that they're hiding something.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 26 March 2003 06:52 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree that it is suspicious.

But, they could be covering up incompetence. Or maybe they don't want the American taxpayers to question why they were so vulnerable after decades of huge military spending.

Reaching for the most sensational possible explanation from the start isn't likely to enhance one's credibility.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 13 April 2003 08:16 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here is something I’ve been wondering about.
Every time someone suggests that powerful leaders (e.g. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney) may have a reason for their actions at variance with the reasons they give for those actions, someone else calls it a ‘conspiracy theory’. Rarely does the phrase suffice on its own; usually, it’s ‘crackpot conspiracy theory’, ‘wild conspiracy theory’ or – my personal favourite – ‘an incoherent pastiche of conspiracy theories’. Usually, even this does not suffice: the accuser goes on to illustrate hir point by a reference to giant lizards from outer space or Freemasons.
Why is this?

Possible reasons:
1. There are not now, nor have there ever been, conspiracies.
In that case, where did the word come from?
2. There have been conspiracies in the past, but there can be none in our time.
In that case, it would, indeed, be unnecessary to theorize about them – and to refute such theorizing. However, the original poster did not use the word ‘conspiracy’; the respondent did. Now, that’s redundant!
3. There are conspiracies, but only by bad people. The good people (e.g. statesmen; leaders of the Free World) are either incapable of, or morally above, conspiring.
In that case, theorizing on conspiracies which might involve these good people would certainly be unproductive, absurd - even rude.
Keep in mind that the original poster did not use the word ‘conspiracy’; merely pointed out a gap between stated objectives and observed actions, and suggested that the leader in question may have an unstated objective. If such a suggestion is on the same level of absurdity as giant lizards from outer space, then:
4. It is not possible for Leaders of the Free World to have an agenda, a plan, a purpose other than the one they make public. And it is not possible for those leaders to discuss their agenda, to agree on a plan, or to act in concord.
In that case, the President of the United States makes decisions and gives orders, based on unpredimeditated reaction to events outside his control.
And this man commands the largest army the world has ever seen.
Your scary thought for today.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 13 April 2003 10:34 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Surviving the Reagan era provides innoculation against fearing the stupidity of US presidents.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 April 2003 11:33 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nonesuch: you forgot a possible reason or two. Actually, probably lots of them. But here are numbers 5, 6 and 7.

5. Conspiracies do occur, but people prefer to wait until actual evidence suggests this. Starting from paranoia or cynicism and then attempting to "prove" this paranoia or cynicism to be the truth is not scientific.

6. Like the boy who cried wolf, so-called conspiracy theories seem to crawl out of the woodwork with each newsworthy event. While conspiracies have taken place throughout history, their numbers are dwarved by the number of conspiracy theories. While the theorists themselves love to point to the same few conspiracies throughout history as some "gambler's fallacy" style proof of their theories, these few events, scattered across history, cannot simultaneously be held as proof for the hundreds of unproven conspiracy theories of the present.

7. Conspiracy theorists seem to have a limited supply of actors with which to script their fantasies, with the result that the overuse of the same few "evildoers", who almost never vary from conspiracy to conspiracy begins to drain the credibility of these theories. Conspiracy theorists often emplore us to "stretch our minds" and "think the unthinkable"... it would be refreshing if they could take their own advice. How about a conspiracy theory starring the late Mr. Rogers, for example? Or Ralph Nader?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 14 April 2003 12:11 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yabbut, how can you even begin to argue against the Web of Intrigue?

Seriously, this is one quite comprehensive conspiracy theory. I demand a convincing alternative explanation to each and every point made or alluded to at the above linked site. Demand, mind you, not ask politely. Demand!!!!


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 14 April 2003 04:15 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Those Knights Of Malta sound cool. Maybe if you join, they tell you where the Maltese Falcon is now! It would be cool, if just for the lifetime supply of Maltesers.
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 14 April 2003 04:34 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Get your Maltesers while you can.

David Frum has identified Malta as the leading member of the "axis of sponge toffee."

[ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: TommyPaineatWork ]


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3912

posted 14 April 2003 09:30 AM      Profile for Zatamon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Reminder: "Reasonable Doubt"
From: "The right crowd" | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 April 2003 10:01 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Reminder: "This isn't a Courtroom".

What's yer point??


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3912

posted 14 April 2003 11:24 AM      Profile for Zatamon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Point: don't waste your time.
From: "The right crowd" | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 14 April 2003 11:41 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Nonesuch: you forgot a possible reason or two. Actually, probably lots of them. But here are numbers 5, 6 and 7.

The reasons you suggest are reasons for discounting conspiracy theories.
My question was: why do people call every doubt regarding the sincerity of world leaders 'a conspiracy theory'.
I can think of one more reason to answer the question as asked: Calling the original poster's
doubt by a debased name moves the discussion into a different category and immediately derails it, so that the substantive points don't ever need to be addressed.

*sigh* I wish words had their own individual meanings!

[ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 14 April 2003 12:13 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ultimately, I feel conspiracy theories are simple escapism. It is nice to imagine that all the bad things in the world were caused by a small group of evil people.

The truth is you don't need intrigue to create this flawed world.

Accept that people actually believe in what Bush or Saddam are doing. Accept that most Israelis are in favour of the Occupation: even though they are a democratic state.

Reality is far more complex and interesting (frightening) than conspiracy theories.

How does it go?: "For evil to triumph, good men must only do nothing."

[ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: wei-chi ]


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 14 April 2003 12:16 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I never ascribe to conspiracy what can be ascribed to ideology, intelligence, and open malice.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3912

posted 14 April 2003 12:19 PM      Profile for Zatamon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Eppur si muove" muttered Galileo, leaving the courtroom.
From: "The right crowd" | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 April 2003 12:23 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
My question was: why do people call every doubt regarding the sincerity of world leaders 'a conspiracy theory'.

Perhaps because the word "doubt" suggests someone on the fence, an agnostic of a sort, who genuinely doesn't know, and could go either way depending on the evidence.

Most people who publicly express a "doubt" about the sincerity of world leaders have long ago made up their minds. That's not "doubt" anymore, and those who use the word "doubt" to mask over their cynicism are being disingenuous to say the least. If they won't lay their cards on the table to prove their sincerity, then why should we give them the time of day?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 14 April 2003 12:31 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It might seem obvious what should have been done now, but at the time, there was just no reason to scramble fighters when the hijacked jets began to go off-course. Going off-course could be due to any number of things and air traffic controllers had to try to sort out which it was before calling for help. Also, hijackings before had generally resulted in passengers getting a trip to somewhere unexpected and some tense negotiations but ultimately little harm done. It was no doubt a highly confusing morning for everyone involved. While I have no doubt that the Bush administration has taken great advantage of the 9/11 tragedy, I don't think it was something they intentionally allowed to happen.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 14 April 2003 12:47 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are the third and fourth alternatives proven? Of course, not. Are they theoretically possible? Of course, they are. Have all the options been thoroughly investigated? The answer is: No, they have not.

In fact, plenty of cards - and references - were laid out.
Don't bother with what was actually said; just stick a label on someone: 'anti-semite', 'conspiracy theorist', 'flat-earther', 'sexist' or whatever. Then you can discuss the label, instead of the content.

quote:
It might seem obvious what should have been done now, but at the time, there was just no reason to scramble fighters when the hijacked jets began to go off-course.

It's been standard operating procedure for a decade to scramble figher planes if any scheduled flight is off course and/or out of communication for 15 minutes.

As for doubting the veracity of world leaders, there is some precedent. Some of them have lied, and been proven to have lied. I, on the other hand, have not been proven to have lied. But you can always choose whom to believe, with or without evidence.
In the present case, two unprovoked wars on two oil-related countries in two years does begin to form a pattern.

[ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3912

posted 14 April 2003 12:50 PM      Profile for Zatamon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Quote from first document:

"Well, let me deal with the “incompetence theory” by first taking you back to October 26th, 1999. That is the day the chartered Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart crashes, killing all on board. This from the official National Transportation Safety Board crash report:

9:19 a.m.: the flight departs

9:24: The Learjet’s pilot responds to an instruction from air traffic control

9:33: The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot. For 4 minutes the controller tries to establish contact.

9:38: Having failed, the controller calls in the military. Note that he did not seek, nor did he require, the approval of the President of the United States, or indeed anyone. It’s standard procedure, followed routinely, to call in the Air Force when radio contact with a commercial passenger jet is lost, or the plane departs from its flight path, or anything along those lines occurs.

9:54 – 16 minutes later -- the F-16 reaches the Learjet at 46,000 feet and conducts a visual inspection.

Total elapsed time: 21 minutes.

So what does this prove? Well, it proves that standing routines exist for dealing with all such emergencies, for instance loss of radio contact. All personnel in the air and on the ground are trained to follow the routines, which have been fine-tuned over decades, as the Learjet incident illustrates."


From: "The right crowd" | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 April 2003 01:02 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So what does this prove?

That procedure wasn't followed. it's what the kooks think that "proves" that forms the bone of contention.

So Bush didn't immediately put the book down? Interesting, but it doesn't prove anything.

So the passenger jets weren't immediately shot down? Fascinating, but it doesn't prove anything.

Lots of little curiousities like this suggesting a "pattern" to you? Great. But again it's not proof of anything.

Never try to explain by malice that which can be explained by incompetence.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3912

posted 14 April 2003 01:05 PM      Profile for Zatamon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
... or plain stupidity.

Repeat from first post:

7:45 AM First hijkacking
8:42 AM First tower was hit
9:00 AM Second tower was hit
9:24 AM President Bush declares terrorist attack
9:43 AM The Pentagon was hit
10:29 AM The fourth hijacked plane crashes

We are talking about a time span of 2 hours and 44 minutes.

According to existing and strictly enforced FAA regulation: "For large scheduled aircraft, tracked throughout on radar, to depart extravagantly from their flight paths, would trigger numerous calls to the military, especially AFTER two have hit the World Trade Centre and now one is speeding toward Washington, D.C."

Question: Where was the US Air Force?

Another quote from the same document:

"Whatever the explanation for the huge failure, there have been no reports, to my knowledge, of reprimands. This further weakens the “Incompetence Theory.” Incompetence usually earns reprimands."

So where are the heads that rolled?

[ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]


From: "The right crowd" | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca