Posted on 11/12/2001 3:50:09 PM PST by lawdude
After reading a few hundred posts on the FR forum today I can only say, FR has turned into a "Conspiracy Theory Haven". People have been posting the most OUTLANDISH comments with absolutely nothing to support them except that a "Government Spokesman" has denied them. I guess that denial is proof in the world of the cynic who is unable to look at information and sift fact from conjecture.
I don't know what caused the crash today. I know for certain I DON'T have enough factual information to even form a reasonable opinion. (Note: the key word is REASONABLE!)
I look at known, objective information which I believe most would accept as factual and add to that pile of info as it becomes available. So far, there is absolutely no, I say again, NO, evidence that the crash was anything but malfunction. Now, a person needs fact to whittle away at that supposition. What FACTS do we have to do so?
Darn little, if any. Let's look-
1) Crashed in Rockaway. Hmmm Normal takeoff route. But one of many.
2) Rockaway is home of Mike Moran. SO?
3) Some witnesses claim to have heard an explosion...Most do not!
4) This type of airplane is crashproof. BS. Not worthy of comment.
Add others and try to RATIONALLY draw conclusions based on FACT. Not some hypothetical desire to be the one that proves it was OBL beyond a reasonable doubt. You ain't gonna be a hero, chum.
Flame away tin hatters, I can take it. But until I see some viable arguments to prove a conspiracy/terrorist influence, I will believe that a mechanical malfunction was the cause for the loss of 255 + innocent lives.
Ever heard of the term "shill"? Name calling? Yep. I wear the term proudly, coming from Rivero.
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.
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.
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.
Is that you Hillary???...
Well, at least some of us.....
"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.
Actually, no. Saying one doesn't believe in coincidences is silly. They do happen, no matter what we want to think.
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.
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.
Try post #97 in this thread for starters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.