My favorite quote from the “Mystery jet” section.
The “insignificant” details on this are that the private plane flying by was identified, and you can easily fit air to air missile system on a Lear jet, but you are making a mess of the frame and aerodynamics, it is better to just not pretend and the easiest thing to do would be to have a fighter closing in.
And for what reasons would the USA prepare a private plane with such a weapon system? This is sounding like if there is a “Q” from the James Bond movies in the USAF that is omniscient and capable of making a weapon that is peculiarly specific for the mission.
That is really laughable and even comedians have a trouble with specific inventions that are not used again that save the day.
(NSFW language, Eddie Izzard making fun of James Bond inventions, (now with Legos!))
I disagree; I think it’s reasonable to begin to open your mind once there is only enough evidence to suggest there is reasonable doubt. If there really is a government conspiracy (on any issue) the evidence is not likely to fall into someone’s lap. To prove theories - especially those that go against accepted facts - right you often need a point where some evidence arouses enough interest to lead to more evidence. If you shout everything down before there is enough evidence to suggest it is the most likely scenario then it will be hard to challenge anything.
Many of you have made excellent points regarding CT’s, and how they might begin to gain traction while at the same time lacking critical evidence to support it. And I think many of the CT’s out there fall into this pattern. The “faked” moon landings, for example.
I will answer some of the questions/thoughts posted in this thread in this post. I do want to make clear though that even though I brought up flight 93 as an example, we do not have to continue to discuss this one. We can, of course, but this thread was started to be a more general question about CT’s and the psychology behind them.
I don’t see how this is possible based on how the plane went into the ground. There is no plane left.
You make some excellent points. However, many of the points you make could be explained. This is where without actual proof, things quickly fall apart… But it doesn’t exactly negate the CT. It just makes it harder to get people to believe it, while giving a CT detractor more ammunition. For example, you make a great point about the plane and the logistics.
However, it can be explained. Let’s say that the govt would have a few of these planes set aside for emergencies. The activities surrounding the planes are classified, and those associated with the projects are sworn to secrecy. It could easily be plausible, but because people are unwilling to face the consequences of breaking the law by telling what they know, the truth remains unknown (I’m not saying this is the case, I’m just throwing it out there). The us govt. Supports untold numbers of classified projects, most of which will never be known by anyone but the participants. And that’s a good thing. Personally, I believe the security requirements of these things keeps the US safer by never showing our hand unless we have to. Unfortunately, this system of secrecy can also be abused, and things can get lost or covered up under the premise of National Security.
I agree with this point, and think it’s the main reason CTs can get so much traction. If Someone believes that the US faked the moon landings, no amnt. Of real proof will convince them otherwise,.
If this is true, then the “mystery plane” is no longer a mystery. However, why did it take so long to get this nugget of info? Why not just announce it as part of the story of the plane going down?
You are correct, and I never thought about it this way. I did and still do not know what their motives might be. Just because I camt see a motive doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
The reason (to me, at least) is very plausible. If the US govt. Could be dragged into court by the families of the passengers killed and be forced to pay millions in restitution. Besides, the hero story is a good one, and would make any attempt at hijacking in the future likely to be met with the same fate. Passengers would not stay seated like lambs going to the slaughter. They’d try to retake the plane. It’s their only chance for survival.
And you could put one on a bus, too, but what would that prove?
Let’s suppose a sidewinder was installed on a small plane. Sounds simple. But consider what that would entail:[ol][li]A small, trained crew who kept silent.[]A location that was invisible to anyone else for preparation.[]Foreknowledge of where a hijacked airliner would be on a certain day (a critical factor).[]A pilot who keeps his mouth shut or is killed afterwards.[]An airport record of takeoff and landing.[]Evidence of a missile hitting the plane.[]Reliable observers who saw the event (pix would be nice).[/ol]None of these, let alone all of them, have the slightest evidence to prove they happened. And #3 alone requires government knowledge of the entire attack plan, which requires evidence of thousands of others in on it, too. It never stops – the more you investigate, the sillier the proposal becomes.[/li]
One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that evidence, over time, does not strengthen. This is in contrast to postulates that originally attracted ridicule, such as the idea of continental drift, but became accepted over time. The evidence piled up from multiple sources – geology, paleontology, oceanography, climatology, etc. until the preponderance of evidence was overwhelmingly in favor. This does not happen with crackpot CTs, and that’s one way you can tell the difference.
Dude, even on the worst case of mass murder in California showed that no plane would be left and yet forensic science and technology allow us to find residue and bits of evidence that shows what was the most likely reason for the crash.
Incidentally I saw the documentary on “Airplane Crash Investigations” in the Wikipedia cite they report that the gun was found in that case, but that is not quite accurate, the gun was found, but in bits and pieces, but there was a bit of the murderer’s finger in the trigger mechanism so an id was possible with DNA.
In the case of the 9/11 plane one only needs to find trace evidence of rocket propellant or missile explosives, none were found and the remains left coincide with an intact plane crashing into the ground, if the plane was hit by a missile then plenty of bits of the plane would had fallen in different locations.
A missile causes an explosion, which scatters debris. Debris scattered at high altitudes disburses even more before landing. Explosions leave traces of chemical residue.
A plane nose-diving into the ground scatters very little and buries itself in a small hole.
No residue, small hole, check. All of the evidence suggests the latter.
Ever hear of the Fog of War?
As has been stated, actual conspiracies (i.e. criminal conspiracies, spy plots etc.) are not uncommon. Long-running conspiracies uncovered by Brave Private Citizens Doggedly Researching And Exposing Horrific Conspiracies While Overcoming Ridicule are vanishingly rare (the Dreyfus Affair is the only one I can point to).
I loathe Conspiracy Theories and their proponents for a few reasons. They are typically amazingly stupid and illogical, waste our time, promote suspicion and hatred of our leaders and valuable institutions and programs, and the motive force behind many of them is bigotry (often against Jews, but also commonly involving other religious and ethnic groups. The more conspiracy theories you believe, the more likely you are to be a flaming bigot).
Since this post would not be complete without the latest dingbat conspiracy theory, here it is - the face-eating episode in Miami is the forerunner of a Zombie Apocalypse brought on by such things as aspartame, fluoride and vaccines:
By the way, the first poster who brings up the Tuskeegee Experiment as an example of a true conspiracy (which it most certainly was not - it was conducted openly) deserves a metaphorical whack on the butt.
A plane that is hit by a missile always, ALWAYS, sheds parts. Additionally, there is a notable explosion. No parts were ever found and no explosion was witnessed by anybody.
So wait, let me see if I have this right.
The passengers on the plane were on the phone to their loved ones, and they made the decision to rush the cockpit.
At exactly the same time a mysterious white airplane, a private plane that had been modified to carry a sidewinder missile shows up and shoots the plane down.
Riiiiiiiiiight.
The problems are:
How did they arrange the timing?
How did the modify the white plane, with no one noticing
How did the white plane take off with no one pointing and saying “Holy Shit! there is a missile on that white plane!” (think people hanging around the airport and tower people.
How did the white plane find flight 93? Its not like the hijackers had filed a flight plan.
How did the missile explode and NOT leave any residue
How is it possible that the missile explosion did not cause any parts to be shed from the aircraft.
I could go on, but answer these and we at least have a start.
Conspiracy buffs blame conspiracies on people they do not like. Liberal conspiracy buffs blame the assassination of John Kennedy on the CIA, the Pentagon, or an organization like that. They do not blame the American Communist Party, even though Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist sympathizer.
Actual conspiracies usually involve small numbers of people and do not last very long. I have difficulty believing in a conspiracy involving large numbers of people and lasting for a long time. Someone will talk.
The Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb involved a lot of people, but it only lasted a few years.
The Tuskegee syphilis experiment lasted forty years, but it only involved a fairly small number of people. Eventually it was exposed by someone who was part of it.
The Manhattan Project and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment are the only examples I can think of of conspiracies involving large numbers of people, or lasting for a long time.
I have two conspiracy theories about the death of Kennedy, but they involve small numbers of conspirators. I am not claiming that either happened, only that they may have happened.
In the early 1960s the CIA made a number of attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. Several KGB officers assigned to the protection of Castro may have decided to hit back. This would not have been a conspiracy by the entire KGB, only by rouge officers acting on their own.
During the election of 1960, Joseph P. Kennedy paid Mafia gangsters to stuff ballot boxes in tight election districts. John Kennedy did not learn about this until after the election. He asked Richard Nixon if he intended to order an investigation. Nixon said that would be bad for the country.
As president John Kennedy appointed his brother Robert to be Attorney General. Robert Kennedy began to go after the Mafia. Gangsters hired by Joseph P. may have felt betrayed, and hit back by orchestrating the death of Kennedy.
If either of these conspiracies happened, Oswald was part of them. The evidence against him was overwhelming.
I don’t think either happened. I think Oswald operated on his own. From what I know of the assassination of Kennedy I do not know of anything Oswald could not have done on his own.
I think James Earl Ray may have had help killing Martin Luther King. Ray was a petty criminal who lived a hand to mouth existence, and did not seem to be very smart. Immediately after killing King he managed to get a false passport, travel to Canada, and from there fly to Great Britain where he was arrested. Doing this required more money and expertise than he seems to have had.
In the case of Ray it is easy to think of right wing fat cats who would have financed him.
Regarding United Flight 93 being shot down by an unmarked plane:
This still gets to the matter of the government acting on knowledge it couldn’t have had, or of random events unfolding in the perfect way to make the conspiracy work.
Preparing unmarked planes to shoot down an airliner would take a great deal of work. The planes are purchased. The pilots are trained. I’ve seen footage on youtube of weapons trials on different aircraft, so you know the missile will release cleanly in the airflow from that particular mounting. There’s a lot that needs to be done in advance.
But, the justification for all that work only materializes after the fact. The passengers on flight 93 only tried to take over the plane after learning of the other flights that had been deliberately crashed. All this about the government wanting to preserve the story of the heroic passengers doesn’t hold up because the preparations started before anyone knew there would be a story to preserve.
And if the government was so concerned about the possibility of hijackings as to put all these things in place to shoot a plane down secretly, why not just put that much time, effort, and money into preventing hijackings in the first place?
Damn those red bastards!
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
By the way, the first poster who brings up the Tuskeegee Experiment as an example of a true conspiracy (which it most certainly was not - it was conducted openly) deserves a metaphorical whack on the butt.
[/QUOTE]
Never blame on malice what can be explained by stupidity, even the Canadians report on how inept their authorities were when handling their passports.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/04/28/f-ray-passports-intrigue.html
Turns out Ray got **valid **signatures thanks to the ineptitude of the ones handling passports.
The government could have dispatched an unmarked commercial airliner with a hidden missile launcher onboard to shoot down Flight 93.
Or they could have used one of those supersonic fighter jets specifically designed to intercept and shoot down planes that they have lying around and spend lots of money on.
Why would they do the former and not the latter? If you can’t explain that, then your hypothesis makes no sense. And that’s the problem with a lot of conspiracy theories - they require the conspirators to act in a way that’s convoluted and nonsensical for no apparent reason other than to provide fodder for amateur detectives to unravel.
Why plant bombs inside the World Trade Center and then fly a plane into it, when you could do just one or the other?
Why shoot the Pentagon with a missile and claim it was a plane when you have the capability to just crash a plane into it?
Why does a broke 18-year-old college student with no passport travel 10,000 miles to a Third World country while eight months pregnant (in 1961) and then smuggle her illegal immigrant baby back into the country, while having American birth documents forged and birth announcements placed in the paper, when she could just stay in Honolulu and give birth at the world-class hospital there? Why does that baby grow up to tell the New York Times in 1990 that he was born in America, then the following year tell a book agent he was born in Kenya in order to promote a book where he talks about being born in America?
And so on.
The problem is most conspiracy theories are forced to rely on unreasonable doubt. They dismiss the overwhelming amount of evidence that actually exists as false because it conflicts with the theory they want to believe. And then they take the void of evidence that they declared exists and try to fill it up with the handful of facts that favor their theory.
And this ignorance is what keeps conspiracy theories afloat - the people spreading them do not or will not look for evidence. Similarly, conspiracies about the Twin Tower collapses are often spread by people who seem utterly indifferent to basic physics, i.e. if you heat up metal, it gets soft.
My personal opinion is that Ray got help from his family. The Ray family were essentially all a bunch of small-time criminals. When Ray shot King, they helped cover for him like they would have done if he had shot a convenience store clerk. Of course, this was a much more publicized crime and the investigation tracked Ray down. At that point, Ray began trying to cover up for his family by inventing outsiders who he claimed gave him the help he had received.
Musicat, I’m not sure what you were trying to do, but you’ve completely hosed that quotation.
Did you read any part of the site I linked to? If so, you’d know that what you’ve quoted isn’t accurate from that page. I wrote that in a response to something else.
Please get the quote tags correct, as you’ve snagged nothing from the “mystery Jet” section of the linked website. Instead, you’ve given the impression that something I wrote down today is from that website.
Folks, just to be clear, my statement is true. But I realize that it doesn’t prove the existence of an aircraft equipped as I’ve described, nor does it “prove” that flight 93 was shot down by this plane. If this is what you are reading from my posts, no wonder you have no time for CT’s. You simply can’t ignore the possibility of something because you don’t like the suppositions. And that’s all we were discussing… The scenario by which flight 93 was taken out of the sky.
Just as I cannot ignore your statements because they conflict with a possible CT that I view as possible. Let’s face it… The idea that it was not shot down but rather spun into the ground because of people trying to retake the cockpit is not only plausible, it’s the currently accepted explanation.
All I said was that I think its possible that the plane was brought down by a government plane. I am basing this on the other plane sightings, the debris found by residents of that area, etc. You need to dig though that site. It is local newspapers and reporters gathering eyewitness accounts right after the event.
Folks, as a general comment, I’m happy to discuss flight 93. However, please understand that the website I linked to isn’t mine. Also, if you want to argue or point out something incredibly “wrong” in your opinion, please have the courtesy of reading the linked site before cranking out a bunch of rebuttal. I am paying you the courtesy of reading your thoughts and opinions. Please do the same for me and anyone else posting to the thread.
If you don’t like flight 93, then let’s discuss flight 800’ which broke up over the ocean heading from new York to Paris. Isn’t it possible that it was shot from the sky, and not an electrical failure? Why did so many people initially report seeing a surface to air vapor trail that looked like it started from the ground and went directly to the plane? Let’s say for the sake of argument that a s2a missile brought down flight 800. Does it not make some sense that the govt. Would want to keep the real story out of the news if the plane was shot down accidentally? I believe there were navy exercises in the area. Would that bad publicity motivate a cover up? If so, what would have to happen to make the cover-up possible?
Asking questions does not make one a CT nut. Clinging to a position that only works if you ignore all the facts that support the official story does.
Like if that was not also discussed before, we call them 800oids.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=511878&page=11
Main discussion about the lack of the missile here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=511878&page=8