Official Story for 9/11...lies?

[hardheadjarhead]

You also made the claim that since three journalists from national newspapers had similar reports this gives them credibility. Where did they get their information?

Good God, have you read a single thing I've posted?

The three journalists I mentioned from USA Today were FIRST HAND WITNESSES. Go back to my post. Read the goshdarned web site that I posted TWICE.

Also, remember when all of the major networks told us that our enemies were Al-Qaeda and Iraq 20 minutes after the second plane struck?

Anybody else remember this? I don't. I recall the Al Qaeda link being made that afternoon. Easy to confirm...write the major networks.

Also, consider all of the people who claim to have seen aliens or have been abducted by aliens. There are a lot of fine and upstanding citizens who have made such claims. Yet, are they to believed because they are many?

Argumentum ad populum doesn't apply here. The weight of evidence goes to the witnesses...they saw an airliner. Your suggestion that a cruise missle, or a small plane, or a truck as a question doesn't apply. People didn't see any of those. They saw an airliner.

There are "many" people claiming to have seen aliens? All at once? On one day...at one moment like what happened at the Pentagon? Your analogy fails. If we don't have video...it didn't happen? Is this what you're suggesting?

Your conspiracy theorists will create some witnesses, given time, that saw something other than the plane. The theorists will then "kill" them off. Of course they'll die under mysterious circumstances. They'll be people that never existed or liars vying for attention.

As far as the bodies of the victims go, I don't know what to say? Who counted the bodies? Was it average joe EMT rescue worker or was it military official? I seem to remember reading somewhere that strictly military officials were allowed to perform the rescue operations and clean up. I will see if I can find a source for that.

A source? Or someone's fiction? You not only have to account for the bodies in the Pentagon...or lack thereof...you also have to account for the disappearance of a plane, a crew, and the passengers of the plane. As far as "strictly military officials"....this is just silly. ITS THE PENTAGON. Army medics and Army engineers and FAA investigators did the clean up, don't you think? You'll have Majestic 12 troops and Illuminati special agents crawling over the site before too long, if you try hard enough. All contrived. If you think I'm going to go busting my butt to try and find a firefighter or EMT that was there, forget it. Nothing is going to change your mind.

Where are the videos? Don't you think the government owes it to us to convince us BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT?

No, they don't, because all evidence points to a plane crashing into the Pentagon. The notion that it didn't is a fiction, dreamed up by scapegoating anti-semites, and bought into by gullible people whose education has failed them. Why should they go out of their way "proving" something that doesn't need to be proven? What are you going to task them with next? Proving that it actually was a bomb that blew up the Arizona at Pearl Harbor...versus, say, some experimental death ray? Maybe it was a small plane or a truck laden with explosives. Why not? After all, we don't have video...and witnesses by the hundreds could all be wrong. I heard the clean up was done strictly by military people, you know. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

The "beyond reasonable doubt" standard is reserved for homicide trials. The government isn't on trial here, even though you clearly wish them to be so. "But they oughtta be" doesn't cut it. There is no evidence they did anything to engineer this event. They have no reason to defend themselves, and you have no reason to task them with it.

And where are the videos? One is on the web. Look it up. Looks like the feds didn't snatch them all up, did they? If they "seized" any at all.

Your fictional "example" interaction between an interviewer and a witness is simply absurd. You accuse ME of speculation? Have you EVER seen Washington/Virginia traffic? Ever driven in it? Do you have any idea how many people saw that plane go in? Hundreds. I listed but a few. What do I have to do...go find that Catholic priest and bring him to you? Would you then ask me to prove he is who he says he is? Would you require I.D.? Thumbprints? DNA identification? I mean, after all, we must be sure he isn't some government agent, musn't we?

Kyosa, let's be honest here. You're not seeking truth. You're seeking confirmation of this conspiracy theory. You've made up your mind. Occam's razor isn't something you'd dare shave with.

I'm done trying to get you to think cogently. I leave you to obsess about this absolutely ridiculous non-issue...I'm on to other things.



Steve

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Steve,
In regards to:

quote: Also, remember when all of the major networks told us that our enemies were Al-Qaeda and Iraq 20 minutes after the second plane struck?


Anybody else remember this? I don't. I recall the Al Qaeda link being made that afternoon. Easy to confirm...write the major networks.

I have to say I do, possibly CNN, though at the time, I admit to being quite stunned....spent most of the day hitting refresh on a webbrowser looking for more information. I can't say the same day though. I think the Afgahnistan link was the immediate one that was presented.

-IF- it was posted on a website, unless someone grabbed a snapshot at the right moment, it is easy to have changed it mid stream.


As to the rest of the stuff thats been bounced around here, I've got no comment at this time. Some of its possible, though highly improbable. Somes scary, and others just wacky.


Peace.

 

[Makalakumu]

Robert

I see your point about the anti-semitism. Information is information and that is not inherently evil. I have tried to make a connection for you numerous times. I have stated that our current administration has a plan (PNAC) and it has used 9/11 to implement that plan. Is that part of the zion conspiracy or have you actually looked at that stuff instead of just characterizing my words.

Steve

I don't have my mind made up and you have made some very convincing arguments. I went to DC this summer, drove through the traffic, walked to the Pentagon, saw a few things, does this make me an expert, no. I also talked to a few people. Why is there doubt about the plane? According to you, there shouldn't be. In the other cases there isn't? Steve, I'm going to be completely honest, if it is as cut and dry as you say, why are there so many people who say otherwise? Compare it to the other incidents. THOSE ARE CUT AND DRY. In my opinion, this one is not. In all probability, from Steve's arguments alone, I could say a plane hit the pentagon. Yet that statement doesn't carry the same weight as when I say two planes flew into the world trade center. There is doubt and I am not the only one to question. Thanks for participating. I enjoyed reading your comments.

Lets not get carried away. I'm not saying that there is a huge conspiracy by the illuminati NWO folks. These questions could have more answers then that and I'm surprised that you've narrowed down your fields until the point that you can only see those answers. Well, actually not too surprised. Perhaps that is the connection you are suppose to make Our government could have screwed up royally for instance. Perhaps the reluctance to release information to answer the above questions stems from that. Steve has addressed this point and I tend to agree with that. Anyone else think along these lines?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

If that's the case, Bob, then I'll bite on that one. I'm not willing to attribute it to a plot, however.

Here is the rub...and I'm addressing you and the other rational individuals on this thread who will actually read my posts prior to responding to them...if there is some level of culpability on the part of the government in 9-11, it will be obscured by the shrill, fist-waving rants of anti-semites who are looking for a scapegoat for the ills of America.

Was there incompetence in the intelligence community? Sure. We've seen it multiple times on other occasions. We do not need to distract ourselves from the truth of such incompetence. We need to address it and fix it.

Plot theories like these play on the credulity of a significant proportion of the population. They are presented with various levels of complexity and outlandishness so that they appeal to a fairly wide range of people. This range stretches from those who are paranoid schizophrenics (or borderline) to those who lack a B.S. detector from not having mastered the rudiments of logic.

I strongly suspect that a number of these people are trying to validate their lives with a veil of pseudo-intellectualism that gives them a sense of power. They feel they "know" something--and knowledge is power. It is a form of self-medication of the angst that afflicts all our lives. It is a way for them to white knuckle their way through life and blame other people for their troubles.

Note, as Robert did, the anti-semitic tones of these sites. For two millenia the Jews have been the scapegoats for people of Europe and the Middle East. 600 years ago when the plague afflicted Europe rumors circulated that the disease was caused by the Jews poisioning the wells...they were burned alive as a result. History repeats itself time and again with horror stories such as these...yet the Jews alledge no conspiracy on the part of their persecutors. They don't counter with half-whacked therories of their own. They recognize it, correctly, as simple stupidity and hatred.

The Holocaust (which these supposedly illumined observers say didn't really happen) showed us how deeply men and women can be enmeshed in these idiotic conspiracy theories. A generation of Germans was brainwashed into believing that Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and slavs were subhuman. A generation of Europeans were murdered as a result.

Yes, Bob...there IS something frightening about this whole 9-11 thing. I agree. I think its terrifying that our species is capable of abandoning reason in favor of hastily constructed myths and unfounded suspicions that are laced with undertones of vitriol and malice.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

If I say that there is negative evidence to the theory of Evolution, does that make me a Creationist? If I say that there is negative evidence to the official story of 9/11 does this make me an anti-semite? Does it mean that the negative evidence does not exist because wacky groups have chosen to use it for their disgusting theories?

Hardheadjarhead

I did not want to offend anyone by bringing this information. The more I think about your arguments, the more and more I see your point. I can change my tune about the pentagon and accept it. There are just too many people involved for any other explanation to be viable. Steve, I live far away from just about everything and when you are isolated, its difficult to be sure of things that happen far away because the information changes hands so many times. Also, I did read your posts. Nice job.

I think we agree, from your above post, that there is something to be said about what our intelligence did and did not know? I think we agree that there was obviously some huge mistakes?

 

[rmcrobertson]

In the first place, there is no, "negative evidence," that contradicts the theory of evolution in general. There's evidence that suggests Darwin's progressivist take on evolution is inadequate, but that's a very different proposition.

In the second, it isn't the contradiction of the official story that suggests--and in other cases, screams--anti-semitism. It's the fact that THE VERY WEBSITES USED AS "EVIDENCE," contain a number of patently anti-Semitic commentaries, as do the links on the site. It's the way that this set of conspiracy theorists, again and again, need to bring up the "facts," and these facts just happen to include mentioning, again and again, that so-and-so is Jewish (an identification that just makes my skin crawl), while funnily enough, noone is ever identified as, say, a WASP or an Episcopalian. It's the repeated code, no different in kind and intent from one of Pat Buchanan's speeches: {paraphrase} "bankers...elite...a few who keep themselves apart...international conspiracy....the IMF....the Israel lobby...," and on and nauseatingly on.

And, it's the way that--and this is perfectly in keeping with a long tradition of American paranoia--it's the way that these sites revolve around money, race, religion.

I see that you've accepted the account of how the Trade Towers went down. Why? Were you an eyewitness? Didja just see it on TV? They're doing wonderful things with digitization these days, you know. That kerfuffle about putting the CBS eye everywhere earlier that year? That was a test run.

Sorry, man, but this stuff is pseudo-critique and fake leftism. Our problems are right out freakin' front--nobody who actually listens to Condoleeza Rice and the President, or who notes the shameful dismissal of Colin Powell, or reads legislative claptrap like the recent, "drug benefit," bill, needs the flying saucer material. Nobody who knows a little about what capitalism is and how it works needs the clandestine conspiracy/Lost Arkism of these websites.

And nobody who's read a little Freud can fail to miss the narcissism and the self-inflation behind most of these theories. They're fun for the same reasons that I like TV shows like, "V," (an oldie) or "Battlestar Galactica:" there is a hidden conspiracy that explains everything, there is a secret cabal of enemies, but We are the Fighters. To continue in the oldies, I offer the wisdom of Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Sheesh, Pynchon's novel "V." is more fun than this. And better written.

 

[Makalakumu]

I will concede that the question raised about the pentagon has a preponderance of evidence against it. This is much like the theory of evolution. Yeah, there are some inconsistancies, yet under the increasing weight of facts, they don't really make much of a difference.

As to other questions about the official story...

I am a bit troubled by this characterization of information. If a group interprets a photo to support their ugly opinions, does that somehow change what is in the photo? This is much like social darwinism. This ugly theory used evolution to support a blatently racist agenda. Does this mean that evolution is racist? No.

In the same light, the fact that major new media sources reported that al-qaeda and Iraq were our likely culprits way before they could have investigated, is not suspect because some bigot used that nugget to support their theory.

I agree with Robert. There are problems that are right out in the open. The PNAC is right out in the open. The Administration using 9/11 to implement the PNAC is right out in the open. Conspiracy? Nope, its reality. It's also too convenient to not have a some suspicion in the matter.

 

[rmcrobertson]

"The media," also tied Arab terrorists to the Oklahoma City bombing immediately and without a shred of evidence, and if THAT doesn't suggest a racist strain in "the media," I'll be damned if I know what does.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
"The media," also tied Arab terrorists to the Oklahoma City bombing immediately and without a shred of evidence, and if THAT doesn't suggest a racist strain in "the media," I'll be damned if I know what does.

Yes the Media did. I was even reported as a suspect just for my looks and the vague description the media presented.



Oh well

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"The Media" uses stereotypes and 'shock' to get our attention.

When Oklahoma was bombed, they screamed 'terrorists'...but it was a 'white boy from NY' that did it.

When the NE lost power they screamed about those 'evil, nasty hackers', even though it was human error that did it.

They sensationalize every single casulty...why they don't flash the lasted KIA's picture (taken as they lie bleeding on the street) on the 6 oclock news I just don't know.... even though 50-100 missions each day happen without injury.

W (who I don't like) visits the troops and gives them a much needed morale boost, and all the media can do is ***** cuz they weren't informed ahead of time.

The media sucks. I can't say it any plainer than that.

Sensation and shock sells.....truth is boring. Its just that simple.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

"The Media" uses stereotypes and 'shock' to get our attention.

Agreed. "If it bleeds, it leads." When people critique the press as being liberal or conservative, I point out the bottom line with story selection is...the bottom line. Anymore it is a branch of the entertainment industry.

Granted, there are some journalists with integrity...but the pressure anymore, as I perceive it, is to report the sensational.

But I disagree with one point, Bob...McVeigh was a domestic terrorist. McVeigh was a dumb white boy....but he was indeed a terrorist. Domestic terrorism is quite popular overseas. We haven't had nearly as much as Europe...still, OKC wasn't the first domestic terrorism we've had, and it won't be the last.

I think we agree, from your above post, that there is something to be said about what our intelligence did and did not know? I think we agree that there was obviously some huge mistakes?

Kyosa, there have been critques of the intel community in this country from both the right and the left, each pointing the finger of blame at the other side for 9-11. History is rife with intelligence failures...Yom Kippur...the Battle of the Bulge...Pearl Harbor...the list goes on.

I have no problem with you, or anyone, raising questions about 9-11. We must make inquiry and challenge questionable events.

Yet I have a problem with referencing conspiracy sites. Because of their treatment of Jews? Sure...but also because of their blatantfabrication of "facts", their distortion of reality, their "spin". They have an agenda far more hateful than anything the press could generate, and potentially far more damaging. If there is any truth at all on those sites one would have to sift through a mountain of B.S to find a thimbleful of valid information. It isn't worth it.


Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

I am in complete agreement with your point. When I started this thread, I did a random search of information to see what came up. There is a lot of it our there and some of it is even more outrageous. Not everything is fabrication, though.

The pictures are an interesting case. Anti-semite is going to take a picture of the pentagon and interpret this huge zion conspiracy from the fact that they have a hole in the building and no plane. There is also the absence of wreckage in some photos - some could have been chosen for that particular view or they could be showing an absence of wreckage. If they chose a particular photo to show a misleading view, shame on them, yet it is still a photo of something. The point is that a photo is a photo and had no morality attached to it. People attach the morality when they tell their stories. It is still a photo and a photo is still evidence, isn't it?

Otherwise your argument could be used both ways. A detractor could say, those sites you posted were nothing but obvious obfuscation attempts by the government - they show burned people and babies and what not in attempt to play on your emotions and what not...better to let evidence be evidence and try to be objective.

Which brings me to Occum's Razor. Personally, I believe that if the pentagon was not hit with a plane and the damage was caused by something else, there are too many contingencies to explain. The first and formost is the sheer amount of people involved. Yes, they were all military personal and defense folks but there HAD to have been plenty of normal folks involved. I think jet liner explanation is the simplest and it fits most of the data. There are a few questions still, but, as in the case of evolution, the preponderance of data overwhelms them. I will list them anyway just as food for thought.

1. Flight 77 struck 45 minutes after the second plane hit the world trade center. The FAA knew it was hijacked and on its way to washington for over an hour? What happened to the fighters?

2. The White House has surface to air missiles installed on top of it to protect it from this sort of thing. Wouldn't the pentagon also have a defensive perimeter?

3. For a person who lives far away and needs to rely on secondary to quaternaray information, it would be nice if one clear video was released that shows the plane or something with a logo or something that DIRECTLY ties this up and ends this debate. Here are a few examples of this kind of evidence

1. A clear photo of the plane in the wreckage.
2. A clear photo of the wreckage with some kind of identifable logo.
3. A clear video that shows the approach and impact.
4. A picture of the plane flying low.

If any of this appeared it would be death to any and all conspiracy theories regarding this subject.

John

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Considering what we can do with photo manipulation today, who would believe any photo or video evidence?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

1. Flight 77 struck 45 minutes after the second plane hit the world trade center. The FAA knew it was hijacked and on its way to washington for over an hour? What happened to the fighters?

Well...let's see. Either they didn't have a contingency plan for such an event which had never happened in the history of the world, and the resultant confusion striking the chain of command in all levels of the Defense Department had a paralytic effect...or it was a Zionist conspiracy effected by the Illuminati and the secret organizations moving us toward the New World Order.

I opt for the first explanation...or one more towards that end of the spectrum of reason.

You know...I allready answered that. Are you going to ask the same question over and over again? Or would you like to respond to the answer?

The White House has surface to air missiles installed on top of it to protect it from this sort of thing. Wouldn't the pentagon also have a defensive perimeter?

No.

Why would it? Why should anyone think its going to be attacked?

The President doesn't live there. Nor does the Vice President, Speaker of the House, or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. As far as I know, none of the administrative buildings of those officers of the state have missles protecting them. The President has bodyguards. The Chief of Staff of the Joint Chiefs does not.

We just got done with the Cold War. The greatest threat to the Pentagon in the last sixty years has been Russian Nukes...not hijacked airplanes.

it would be nice if one clear video was released that shows the plane or something with a logo or something that DIRECTLY ties this up and ends this debate. Here are a few examples of this kind of evidence

1. A clear photo of the plane in the wreckage.
2. A clear photo of the wreckage with some kind of identifable logo.
3. A clear video that shows the approach and impact.
4. A picture of the plane flying low.

There was no clear photo of the plane in the wreckage because it had been torn to bits after hitting a two foot thick concrete wall at a speed of several hundred miles an hour. That plane was made of aluminum and plastic...not steel.

The photos and video exist in journalism morgues across the country, and probably in some FAA and criminal investigation archives. Likely none of the hundreds of journalists, cops, and FAA officials who have seen these photos...or examined the wreckage... feel it necessary to provide such "evidence" because they don't view it as proof as such. They KNOW a plane flew into the building. Why bother with trying to assuage the neurotic ruminations of a bunch of hand wringing conspiracy theorists?

Even then, there may not be any clear photos or video. The video of the first plane hitting the WTC was taken by a tourist. Of all the people in NYC who witnessed that event, he was the only person to get that shot. The ONLY one. The second plane hitting was one of the best covered news events in the history of journalism. Everybody had their cameras out.

Had a second plane hit the Pentagon, it would have been well documented. Would anyone have questioned the first? Probably not...regardless of how little discernable plane debris lay outside on the lawn of the Pentagon.

If any of this appeared it would be death to any and all conspiracy theories regarding this subject.

No, it wouldn't. Conspiracy theorists are fiction writers...story tellers. They could spin anything.

Look at your reluctance to accept facts here. The same questions keep popping up...and no answer seems to fully placate you. You come up with new questions (where were the missles on the Pentagon roof?) that also strain one's patience. This is how the conspiracy theory works...it feeds a meme...a mind virus, that infects the brain with a paradigm that simply won't go away even in the face of irrefutable evidence...that foremost being, WITNESSES. Personally...that's good enough for me and most people. Film at eleven not necessary, thanks.

I'll ask you to look at it another way. Even if it were some conspiracy...why use a truck bomb for one attack, and hijacked planes for two others? And if you, as a conspirator, DID use a truck bomb...why not simply pass it off as a terrorist truck bomb? They used them in Nigeria...why not the Pentagon? It makes no sense that they would try and fabricate a plane strike on the Pentagon.

Bob brought up a point: If they wanted to fake a plane strike...why not INSURE there was video and simply digitize a film of the plane hitting the Pentagon? If Hollywood could do it, surely the CIA/FBI could. Simple enough to do with a low quality security camera filming at 10 frames per second. Blur it a little...you could even edit out the truck loaded with explosives. Then you could create a fake passenger list, hire actors to be the hundreds of grieving families and friends, schoolteachers of victims, coworkers, etc....

Or you could just hijack a damned plane. Seems easy enough to do, considering.

I know I said I was going to walk away from this...but I've been enjoying it too much.

Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

Steve;

Have you ever tried to argue from a point in which you don't really agree, but are trying to understand as far as a person's thought processes?

Look, I could spin out different explanations of anything you brought up to support the truth of the matter. Perhaps this conspiracy will be self propagating and will never end. I agree with Bob. So what if a video surfaced. It was altered, THEY are obviously hiding the truth. What I like about your argument is that you bring up the fact that any conspiracy theory raised more questions about what happen and the answers to those questions become so complicated that they become impossible. There are just too many people. Occum's razor applies here.

Any of these questions I have posed have been posed before. They have answers in the form of theories. Even your answers are theories, because, I am assuming, you don't REALLY know if there is a battery of SAMs on the pentagon. You don't REALLY know if the fighters weren't scrambled because of a mistake or because of an order. And you don't REALLY know just how much our intelligence community knew about the whole thing. Your arguments are based off the paradigm that you think the government is telling the truth. (at least about the pentagon) This argument is a black hole. As soon as you cross the event horizon, not even the light of truth can escape.

Anyone

I'm interested in whether or not people think our government has been completely forthcoming in the manner.

I'm interested in whether or not people think that the Bush administration is using 9/11 implicitly for its own benifit.

I'm wondering if anyone thinks that it may have been "allowed" to happen. (Personally, I think Occum's razor applies to this one again. Too much to explain with convoluted theories. Too many people) Yet, do people think this?

John

 

[Makalakumu]

It just struck me that these conspiracy theories are like a religion. The argumentative style is the same. Interesting...

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Even your answers are theories, because, I am assuming, you don't REALLY know if there is a battery of SAMs on the pentagon. You don't REALLY know if the fighters weren't scrambled because of a mistake or because of an order. And you don't REALLY know just how much our intelligence community knew about the whole thing. Your arguments are based off the paradigm that you think the government is telling the truth. (at least about the pentagon) This argument is a black hole. As soon as you cross the event horizon, not even the light of truth can escape.

Nope. You're quite correct. I DON'T really know any of those things. Why should I care?

It really isn't that big of an issue unless one makes it so.

My arguments concerning the Pentagon are based on witness testimony. WITNESS TESTIMONY. Once again, are you reading the posts? I listed three witnesses from USA Today that SAW the plane strike the Pentagon. You apparently didn't read that carefully.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Even your answers are theories, because, I am assuming, you don't REALLY know if there is a battery of SAMs on the pentagon. You don't REALLY know if the fighters weren't scrambled because of a mistake or because of an order. And you don't REALLY know just how much our intelligence community knew about the whole thing. Your arguments are based off the paradigm that you think the government is telling the truth. (at least about the pentagon) This argument is a black hole. As soon as you cross the event horizon, not even the light of truth can escape.

Nope. You're quite correct. I DON'T really know any of those things. I'm basing my answers concerning the fighters are based on experience and my understanding of human nature and the frailty of systems we design.

But why should I care? It really isn't that big of an issue unless one makes it so.

My arguments concerning the Pentagon aren't based on the government's official version. They're based on witness testimony. WITNESS TESTIMONY. Once again, are you reading the posts? I listed three witnesses from USA Today that SAW the plane strike the Pentagon. You apparently didn't read that carefully. You still want "evidence". Witness testimony isn't good enough?

Apply Occam's razor to my speculations, then to the conspiracy theorists speculations. Whose survive? Theirs?

I'm interested in whether or not people think that the Bush administration is using 9/11 implicitly for its own benifit.

Probably ninety five percent of the Democrats in this country believe that.



Steve Scott

 

[Makalakumu]

Correction, I have read your posts. Haven't we discussed witness fallibility? Carl Sagan, in "Demon Haunted World" discusses witness accounts of various phenomenon and that testimony is described as least desirable. Why? The testimony is easily influenced by what the person wants to see, what the person thought they saw, and the environment that the testimonial was witnessed. Lets not even get into the subject of mass hallucination or psychological leading...bottom line. Witness testimony is only credible in the absence evidence in other forms...

I'm just arguing this point for fun right now, because I do agree with the pentagon account. I am finding the use of this conspiracy logic very interesting. It never ends. The theory never really ends. A few weeks ago I was questioning the validity of Occum's Razor and I was wondering why science relied so heavily on this principle. This discussion has demonstrated its usage.

We have three major universities near my home. I took a philosophy of science class with a very intelligent professor on the campus. He is very popular and very renown and out of all the universities in the area, he has published the most. Most of these sites I've presented, have come off of this site and I will admit, these are not solely my arguments. I haven't plagiarized anything, but I should give credit where credit is due eventually. Check this stuff out and let me know what you think.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/

My senior student is a Phd candidate in philosophy under the man and we argue about conspiracy theories all of the time. He's a believe and I tend to be more skeptical. It was very interesting to step into the other shoes for a while...

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yep, it's the sun-is-a-great-fiery-dragon-theory.

I looked on the website you just posted. Among other things, the site has an article claiming that Seymour Hersh--Seymour Hersh, for crying out loud!--is one of these conspirators.

By the way, reason and science are not matters of belief.

Again: the fact that something MIGHT be true does not MAKE it true.