Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conspiracies abound
Self | 11/12/2001 | Lawdude

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.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: anotheruselessvanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-199 next last
Comment #121 Removed by Moderator

To: carenot
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.

122 posted on 11/12/2001 8:07:49 PM PST by katze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: mlo
"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.

123 posted on 11/12/2001 8:07:59 PM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: 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.

124 posted on 11/12/2001 8:09:46 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: lawdude
Who's mike moran?
125 posted on 11/12/2001 8:12:27 PM PST by let freedom sing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo
The government has led people to believe that this was an accidental crash, when in reality, they could not know that yet.
126 posted on 11/12/2001 8:12:44 PM PST by copycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: carenot
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.

127 posted on 11/12/2001 8:14:20 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: not-an-ostrich
A village if you will. And "It Takes A Village" to make up FR.

Is that you Hillary???...

128 posted on 11/12/2001 8:14:43 PM PST by cibco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: copycat
Did the government make any untrue statements?
129 posted on 11/12/2001 8:15:06 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: mlo
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.....

130 posted on 11/12/2001 8:23:14 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

Comment #131 Removed by Moderator

To: mlo
Not as far as I know.
132 posted on 11/12/2001 8:25:15 PM PST by copycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: dawn53
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.
133 posted on 11/12/2001 8:25:49 PM PST by 185JHP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: 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."

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.

134 posted on 11/12/2001 8:30:15 PM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP
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.

135 posted on 11/12/2001 8:30:25 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: walden
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.

136 posted on 11/12/2001 8:36:27 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: walden
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.

137 posted on 11/12/2001 8:37:14 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

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

Try post #97 in this thread for starters.

138 posted on 11/12/2001 8:42:01 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
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."
139 posted on 11/12/2001 8:42:19 PM PST by flea69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: flea69
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.
140 posted on 11/12/2001 8:46:05 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-199 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson