ANZACs and war and stuff

[Laava]

And no-one's even brought up yet how bizarre it is that the passport of one of the hijackers that was in the plane that hit the North Tower was found on the street and handed in to police even before the towers collapsed.

How are you going to prove that that happened?
I would put money on you being unable to do so.
5 Drew points.

[Katman]

How are you going to prove that that happened?
I would put money on you being unable to do so.
5 Drew points.

How about like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satam_al-Suqami

[Kickaha]

And no-one's even brought up yet how bizarre it is that the passport of one of the hijackers that was in the plane that hit the North Tower was found on the street and handed in to police even before the towers collapsed.

bizarre but not impossible, other stuff supposedly survived the crash and was found
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

[Laava]

How about like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satam_al-Suqami

Oops...5 points to you then!
TBH I misread as before the plane had impacted the tower.
But I don't see anything unusual in that case. The passport becomes one of the many articles of detritus flying about post collision. Have I missed something?

[Katman]

bizarre but not impossible, other stuff supposedly survived the crash and was found
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

The only mention in that article of anything else from inside the plane (prior to the building collapse) was the photo of the (unverifiable) seat cushion found two blocks south of the South Tower.

We're being asked to believe that a passport from inside a plane which has completely entered a building (remember it was the first tower hit not the second which had a considerable explosion out to the side) has made it's way down to the ground.

And according to other sources, the only part of Flight 11 (that hit the north face of the North Tower) that was ejected from the building prior to collapse was a part of the nose landing gear. The rest of the plane was supposedly left embedded into the towers core structure.

One has to wonder how many "bizarre but not impossible" occurrences need to be pointed out before people start feeling a twinge of discomfort in believing every aspect of the official story.

[Ocean1]

One has to wonder how many "bizarre but not impossible" occurrences need to be pointed out before people start feeling a twinge of discomfort in believing every aspect of the official story.

Depends. Probably thousands.

How many occurances relevant to the incident fell on that day? Couple of million? Couple of hundred million?

What're the chances every single one of them is going to be routine/mundane?

Isn't that the basis on which conspiracy theories are built? A collection of facts that, standing alone sound like they support a coherent story, but against the uncountable number of related facts are hardly worth mentioning.

And as I suggested earlier, it's easy enough to cherry pick facts to support almost any argument until the story sounds believable, all it takes is to ignore any facts that don't fit the argument.

[Katman]

Depends. Probably thousands.

How many occurances relevant to the incident fell on that day? Couple of million? Couple of hundred million?

What're the chances every single one of them is going to be routine/mundane?

Well it depends on how large those "bizarre but not impossible" occurrences rank in importance.

Like the fact that the very day of the attack an air defense exercise was being conducted that included a scenario very similar to what occurred.

Strangely no fighters were scrambled to deal with wayward air liners though.

Not a very well run exercise by the sounds of it.

[Katman]

And as I suggested earlier, it's easy enough to cherry pick facts to support almost any argument until the story sounds believable, all it takes is to ignore any facts that don't fit the argument.

That could just as easily fit those who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any evidence that suggests anything contrary to the official story.

[MisterD]

It's quotes like that that suggest that even the 9/11 Commission was anything but impartial.

Yeah, but seriously, which is the more likely scenario. Trying to cover up biggest and most outlandish hoax ever or arse-cover for massive intelligence failings?

[Katman]

Yeah, but seriously, which is the more likely scenario. Trying to cover up biggest and most outlandish hoax ever or arse-cover for massive intelligence failings?

Yeah, "sorry, we forgot to scramble a fighter" is a fairly massive intelligence failing.

One could almost say 'outlandish'.

[MisterD]

Yeah, "sorry, we forgot to scramble a fighter" is a fairly massive intelligence failing.

Number of time prior to 911 that airliners had been used as missiles? Zero.

Plus, I do love the irony of you not understanding what "intelligence" means.

[Katman]

Plus, I do love the irony of you not understanding what "intelligence" means.

My guess is that it's the putting together of 2 plus 2 and getting 4 - instead of 1.5

Sort of like, conducting an exercise in which the potential for a plane to crash into a building was included, then adding the fact that two planes have already crashed into two buildings over half an hour ago and still managing to come up with 1.5

[Ocean1]

That could just as easily fit those who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any evidence that suggests anything contrary to the official story.

It not only could, it does.

But if you surveyed the people responsible for providing opinion for an official investigation you’d find a high degree of relevant experience and a reputation for reliability in supplying expert opinion. In a survey of those typically pursuing conspiracy theories you'd find a prevalence of people that are into conspiracy theories.

So that rate of importance you mentioned has anyone predisposed to pursue conspiracy theories ranking well down the list of credible opinion compared to even a random selection of opinion, let alone those of a group selected for experience and reliability.

[MisterD]

My guess is that it's the putting together of 2 plus 2 and getting 4 - instead of 1.5

Sort of like, conducting an exercise in which the potential for a plane to crash into a building was included, then adding the fact that two planes have already crashed into two buildings over half an hour ago and still managing to come up with 1.5

Which is a myth. The was an airdefence exercise scenario around hijacking in the planning before 911, but it was only in the planning and there's no evidence that the use of airliners as missiles had been considered. That year's scenario was based on cruise missiles and UAV's.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Wa...#Amalgam_Virgo

One of the most interesting things about 911 is that the successful use of airliners in that manner requires that the passengers believe there is some way that they will survive, as soon as they know that there's no chance to get out alive the whole equation changes and Flight 93 was the result.

[Katman]

But if you surveyed the people responsible for providing opinion for an official investigation you’d find a high degree of relevant experience and a reputation for reliability in supplying expert opinion. In a survey of those typically pursuing conspiracy theories you'd find a prevalence of people that are into conspiracy theories.

There are theories from some very highly qualified people that contradict the official story.

And I'd suggest that those people responsible for providing opinion for an official investigation probably wouldn't keep their positions long if their opinion deviated much from that required by TPTB.