Conspiracies abound

Self | 11/12/2001 | Lawdude

[katze]

Well, I don't agree with you. Documents everything, huh? You must be new here. Garbage? Nah, much too nice a term for what he puts out.

Ever heard of the term "shill"? Name calling? Yep. I wear the term proudly, coming from Rivero.

[walden]

"Be patient, be rational, defer judgement."

I'll defer judgment if the government will defer judgment. When they're willing to say "I don't know", I'll be willing to wait until they figure it out. In the meantime, the more they spin me, the more I dis-believe it. I don't actually believe they're lying-- I just think the truth is that they don't freaking know and aren't willing to say so.

[mlo]

I'll defer judgment if the government will defer judgment. When they're willing to say "I don't know", I'll be willing to wait until they figure it out.

What are you basing that on? The government has not come out and declared a cause. They have said they don't know the cause, they have also discussed those things they do know. Seperate the two things.

[let freedom sing]

Who's mike moran?

[copycat]

The government has led people to believe that this was an accidental crash, when in reality, they could not know that yet.

[mlo]

Michael does not document everything. He posts lots of documents yes. But he claims they prove things they don't prove. He claims they even say things they don't say. He has been caught telling outright lies in his "documents". Anybody can post a lot of material. It doesn't mean the material is any good and it doesn't mean the material proves anything.

Michael dabbles in his various plots. He is only interested in bashing America. Take his garbage on the Kennedy case. Even those knowledgeable people who believe there was conspiracy laugh at the nonsense he trots out as proof. It's garbage, and so is the rest of his stuff.

[cibco]

A village if you will. And "It Takes A Village" to make up FR.

Is that you Hillary???...

[mlo]

Did the government make any untrue statements?

[anniegetyourgun]

Actually, the government treated it like it was a terrorist threat - sending fighters, closing down bridges, etc. They assumed the worst, which is exactly what we would want them to do. Given the events of the rest of the day, it appears that they have a plan to determine the cause and then reveal what they know. All that is exactly what we would want them to do.

Well, at least some of us.....

[copycat]

Not as far as I know.

[185JHP]

An excellent way of stating a reasonable position. There's a difference between observing, gathering facts, processing available information, and taking a position - subject to the subsequent investigation - and taking precipitate, loony, or intemperate ACTIONS based on those positions. There are just as many, if not more, dim bulbs trying to appear thoughtful and/or smart by defaming/mocking those trying to arrive at the real skinny, as there are theorists. After you've been here awhile they're not hard to spot.

[walden]

"I'll defer judgment if the government will defer judgment. When they're willing to say "I don't know", I'll be willing to wait until they figure it out."

"What are you basing that on? The government has not come out and declared a cause. They have said they don't know the cause, they have also discussed those things they do know. Seperate the two things."

Basically, the government has said "we have no evidence to suggest that this was terrorism." Just as logically, since none was presented, I would suggest that at the same time they had no evidence to suggest that it was mechanical failure. Right? The first statement has an implied basis-- namely that all aircraft crashes are assumed to be the result of mechanical failure (unless obviously an accident of some other sort) until proven otherwise. While that might have been a useful paradigm before we were engaged in the first fourth generation war in our history, it might not be quite so useful an assumption now. Since 9/11, now seven planes have gone down-- the 4 on 9/11 (terrorism), 1 in Italy (accident), 1 (the Israeli plane) somewhere in the old Soviet Union (accidentally SHOT down), and now this one. Before that, even if one accepts the verdict on TWA flight 800, it's pretty clear that the Egyptian plane taken down by the pilot was, shall we say, politically motivated? (I don't know anything about the Swissair crash.) So, in the new world, the assumption of mechanical failure until proven otherwise is looking ragged.

Like I said, if they're willing to say "I don't know" and leave it at that, I'll be perfectly willing to wait for the engineers to figure it out. Until then, the more they try to spin me, the more suspicious I get.

[mlo]

An excellent way of stating a reasonable position.

Actually, no. Saying one doesn't believe in coincidences is silly. They do happen, no matter what we want to think.

[mlo]

Basically, the government has said "we have no evidence to suggest that this was terrorism."

This is a purely factual statement and implies nothing about reaching a conclusion as to cause. It does not say, "it was not terrorism" and it seems too many people are reading it that way.

Just as logically, since none was presented, I would suggest that at the same time they had no evidence to suggest that it was mechanical failure. Right?

Possibly, but not necessarily so. Maybe they do have evidence that suggests mechanical failure.

The first statement has an implied basis-- namely that all aircraft crashes are assumed to be the result of mechanical failure (unless obviously an accident of some other sort) until proven otherwise.

No, I think you are making a mistake here. It isn't necessary, and I don't think it is SOP, to assume a cause or have a default cause. They investigate and find the cause. Until then, they don't know. Again, that seems to be the part people get hung up on.

[Texasforever]

Like I said, if they're willing to say "I don't know" and leave it at that, I'll be perfectly willing to wait for the engineers to figure it out. Until then, the more they try to spin me, the more suspicious I get.

I don't see any "spin" going on at all. I also see nothing of value to the Government in a cover up. However; I have seen some on this forum stating that the Government would blame future incidents on terrorism to expand even further their "police state". When you have a conspiracy theory for all occasions the credibility problem is NOT with the government it is with the conspiracy industry.

[Rokke]

"Please point to any poster that stated that they KNEW it was not an accident."

Try post #97 in this thread for starters.

[flea69]

Monday Nov. 12, 2001; 11:34 p.m. EST Former NTSB Official Doubts Accident Caused Flt. 587 Crash Aviation expert and former National Transportation & Safety Board official Vernon Grose said late Monday that he's increasingly skeptical that the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 was purely accidental. "I am backing away from the ready idea that this is simply an accident," Grose told Fox News Channel's John Scott. The veteran air crash prober said that he questions the sequence in which the plane broke up over Jamaica Bay before slamming into a residential area in Rockaway, Queens. "Photographs you've already shown tonight (indicate) the vertical stabilizer of the aircraft with the American Airlines insignia right on it (fell into) Jamaica Bay long before the engine falls off in Queens," he told Scott. Grose said that if the vertical stabilizer detached from Flt. 587 over Jamaica Bay, which the plane traversed before plummeting to the ground in Rockaway, it suggested that catastrophic engine failure alone may not have caused the crash. "No, I don't think that's the situation at all," he told FNC. "The engine that came free, which apparently was the number 1 left engine, and crashed on land. That was well after the vertical stabilizer was detached from the aircraft and that tells me that somehow..... the airplane was progressively disintegrating, not just losing an engine and then diving into the ground." "Earlier today I thought it was simply the loss of an engine that caused this," Grose said. "But I'm not convinced now.... I am becoming more skeptical."

[Texasforever]

Then we have an expert, though not on the scene, that is forming an opinion. However; that is not proof of anything. Once again, I don't know how many times the authorities have to state they are ruling nothing in OR out before it sinks in that no one knows for sure at this point.