Thread: Reporter Apparently Gets Amnesia About 9/11 Pentagon Attack

youarenotsosmart.com/2010/09/11/the-texas-sharpshooter-fallacy/

Just stumbledupon, seemed relevant.

Originally Posted by Xei

youarenotsosmart.com/2010/09/11/the-texas-sharpshooter-fallacy/

Just stumbledupon, seemed relevant.

About as relevant as saying that "a lot of spooky, seemingly-incredible coincidences are just that; coincidences" - which is pretty much common sense. And, without actually applying the declaration to the points listed above, individually, it proves to be pretty irrelevant, really.

They're not incredible. Which ones are incredible? They're disjointed random events which point to no overall picture about anything. Most of them don't even make any sense. You can find such events around anything and it implies nothing; there are a million other coincidental things which could have happened around 9/11 but didn't. You know what is a gigantic coincidence? That of all the hundreds of people involved in the conspiratorial activity, not a single one who was involved, or was approached, blew the whistle. Now that is incredible.

I - very purposefully - wrote "seemingly-incredible," which should tell you that I wasn't denoting anything as 'objectively incredidble.' Judging by the numerous chain mails and other spam that comes to us everyday, talking about many of the same "spooky coincidences" that your link talks about (as well as many 'OMG, [X]+[X]=911!!!' coincidences of the same kind), I really don't think 'seemingly-incredible' was a a stretch for me to say. Many people tend to think of such things as incredible.

Though I guess it makes for a good straw man, eh? Ignore the individual points, if you want. Didn't really expect for you to take any of them seriously enough to dig into them. But, instead, you imply that "even if they are true, they are just coincidences." To me, that's just lazy.

I don't really know what you're talking about or what the point of this is. I don't really care either, the war was bullshit in any case and hundreds of thousands of innocent people died regardless of whether a few thousand innocents also died in the US in a false flag operation, though that doesn't seem consistent or supported anyway.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't really know what you're talking about or what the point of this is. I don't really care either...

Peachy. Then I guess we're done, here. I'm sure you can see yourself out.

Hopefully, anyone else reading this thread will at least give the points listed in the last link I posted some thought, and not try to file them away with a dissenting response that doesn't show even the slightest hint of having looked at the material.

I looked at some and got bored, there are hundreds and the ones I saw were not indicative of anything. I asked you to highlight any that you thought were, but you didn't. Boo hoo.

Originally Posted by Xei

I looked at some and got bored, there are hundreds and the ones I saw were not indicative of anything. I asked you to highlight any that you thought were, but you didn't. Boo hoo.

Awesome (read as: typical). Thanks for the recap.

And, technically, you just said "like what?" I gave a list (which you didn't even touch. Instead, you're trying to insubstantially dispel the entire thing by saying "they are not indicative of anything"). Move the goalposts much? (Seemed relevant. ) Nah, of course you don't.

What is this thread even for. What point were you making? You still didn't find out if those two guys were the same person. Why not? You didn't answer how the comments would even contradict each other in the first place. Why did you think they did? This is just plain ol' confirmation bias; if you look at it objectively the 'weird coincidence' in question doesn't even exist. It's expectations influencing perceptions, faulty inference and seeing patterns in random data, well understood psychological phenomena which I imagine will deal with every other 'coincidence'. Planes smash into tiny pieces when they hit buildings. There's footage of a large object flying into the building followed by an explosion. There are eyewitnesses. There are pieces of the plane and photos of the debris of a plane which exactly corresponds to the plane that had been hijacked that day before it and all of its passengers suddenly ceased to exist. Not only is there nothing that contradicts a plane hitting the Pentagon; the idea that it didn't is 100% inconsistent with what is known. What is there to discuss here?

Originally Posted by Xei

What is this thread even for. What point were you making?

That I think it's kind of suspicious (with all of the surrounding conspiracy theories) that he would do what seems like a 180 on his recount of whether or not the evidence he helped pick up was indicative of a plane crash. Nothing more. Nothing less. I thought that much was obvious.

Originally Posted by Xei

You still didn't find out if those two guys were the same person. Why not?

Because that's not my burden of proof. I presented the videos as they are. As they are presented (and as it seems is legit), they are both the same person. To me, they sound alike. If you are trying to assert that they are not the same person, the burden of proof lies with you.

[Edit](And, just for shits and giggles, and found the CNN transcript. Turns out (surprise surprise) that it was the same reporter. What was left out was that the reporter stated a few other things that contradicted the allegation:

"A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane."

And then he said:

"You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse."

So it seems much less like he was implying that there was no airplane, than he was just saying that there didn't seem to much evidence outside of the immediate viscinity that a plane hit the building. Which one he was actually saying is still not quite clear, and even in context, they seem a bit contradictory.

You see, if I were trying to refute a point, this would be something I would present - not a blanket, generic sentiment that 'well, you're obviously just delusional'. But if that's your standard of a 'substantial argument,' then that's your prerogative. I have no qualms whatsoever, about conceding to a well-substantiated point, when I'm wrong. Problem is that you spend more time trying to turn your nose up at people you disagree with, than actually presenting a solid case for why you disagree. You should really work on that...

Though I don't see much green on any American Airlines planes. Just sayin.
[/Edit]

Originally Posted by Xei

You didn't answer how the comments would even contradict each other in the first place. Why did you think they did?

I've already answered this, on the first page.

Originally Posted by Xei

This is just plain ol' confirmation bias; if you look at it objectively the 'weird coincidence' in question doesn't even exist. It's expectations influencing perceptions, faulty inference and seeing patterns in random data, well understood psychological phenomena which I imagine will deal with every other 'coincidence'.

Just like how, if you look at any whole list of coincidences 'objectively,' they are really just coincidences, since a completely unrelated list of 'coincidences' are said to be so, as well. Right?

Completely insubstantial. Sounds good, though.

By the way, the 'well-understood psychological phenomena' you are talking about works both ways. Just as there is 'well-understood psychological phenomena' that will get people to believe conspiracy theories, there is 'well-understood psychological phenomena' that will get people to ignore 800lb gorillas in a room. You really aren't making any point, here.

Originally Posted by Xei

Planes smash into tiny pieces when they hit buildings.

The twin towers were built to withstand multiple plane crashes.

See how easy it is to make a declarative statement which apparently isn't all that infallible?

Originally Posted by Xei

There's footage of a large object flying into the building followed by an explosion.

There's a one-frame still of an object (size undeterminable) moving into the building (so low that even to say it's 'flying' is questionable), followed by an explosion. I'm not declaring that the object is NOT an airplane, but let's try to show a little objectivity here.

Originally Posted by Xei

There are eyewitnesses.

Yeah, I keep hearing that. Funny how, when eyewitness testimony corraborates an official story, it's admissible, but when it doesn't, it's 'anecdotal,' deemed without credit, and usually explained away as 'people being caught up in the moment, and not knowing what they are seeing.'

Originally Posted by Xei

There are pieces of the plane and photos of the debris of a plane which exactly corresponds to the plane that had been hijacked that day before it and all of its passengers suddenly ceased to exist.

On the fence about this. It took years for any sign (that I know of) of photos that showed even the slightest hint of being from an airplane to surface. We also have to take into account that The Pentagon, as highly secure as it was, has only two grainy tapes (only one of which shows a single frame of an unidentifiable object) that surface, showing anything that happened that day. Using the same guise of 'logic,' though; most people will denounce a UFO video simply because it was only taken from 2-3 different camera angles, instead of the 1 million different cellphone angles that they assume would surface if a UFO was actually spotted by the public.

I have not heard anything specifically-plausible theory that accounts for any missing passengers that might have been on the plane that's alleged to have hit the Pentagon, if that plane didn't actually hit it.

On that note, though, let's be glad that the alleged highjackers completely passed the Pentagon, made a Han Solo grade mid-flight U-turn and came back to hit the 1, virtually unmanned area of the Pentagon. They sure are considerate of our military brass.

Originally Posted by Xei

What is there to discuss here?

200+ points that you asked for, but are continuously dancing around actually acknowledging.

Seriously, though, Xei. I'm not expecting you to give anything said in a thread like this any serious, unbiased thought, so you can pretty much go where you want, from here. Your constantly petty, douchey posting style has really robbed me of any lingering desire to have a respectful discussion with you which might involve differing opinions. I'm very aware of your opinion on such topics (you feel adamant to stamp your feet and yell 'this is bullshit and you're stupid for even entertaining the idea' - even if you can't back up the notion with anything solid), so, really, I think we're done here.

Originally Posted by Xei

What is there to discuss here?

The plane. Where the hell is it? :0

ITT: the burden of proof is on you to disprove my assertions, otherwise they are true.

It was obvious. Didn't think it required 'proving.' (Not only were they the same voice, but his title of CNN Pentagon correspondant has not changed.) The idea that he was a completely different person was the 'extraordinary claim' that required 'extraordinary evidence.'

But whatever, I did the grunt work for you anyway.