Conspiracies? They Don't Matter
Immediately after an official story is created, there is usually an alternate or “underground” theory about the same events, purporting to be the “real story” that “somebody” doesn’t want us to know. This instinct to question the official story is very healthy, and should not be discouraged. Skepticism is the prime motivation behind critical thinking and analysis. Certainly, many of the “official stories” we’ve heard to explain major news events do little to dissuade those that immediately call them into question. The result is often what have come to be known as “conspiracy theories,” a moniker used with contempt by the establishment and mainstream media and even avoided by those alleging a conspiracy themselves. Conspiracy theorists are immediately branded as paranoid by the establishment, for whatever reasons, and some say that this is a media conspiracy in itself.
Conspiracy theories are usually compelling. Conspiracy theories give meaning to tragic events that would otherwise be more horrifying because there was no one to blame, no cause to invoke, or no reason for the death and destruction. For example, if lightning strikes an airplane and it crashes, killing all aboard, it is only worthy of our attention for a day or so. However, if a theory arises that it was not really lightning, but a bomb or sabotage that brought down that plane, that story has legs for years, especially if the theory accuses what we perceive as a villainous establishment of victimizing innocents. No one wants to face the fact that suffering occurs due to unfortunate accidents or random forces of nature. Everyone wants to hear that there was a sinister force behind the tragedy, because then we can solve the mystery, bring the perpetrators to justice, and prevent the dastardly event from every occurring again. While researching his role in the 1997 movie “Conspiracy Theory,” Mel Gibson interviewed many “conspiracy theorists,” acknowledging that the longer he spoke with them the more believable their theory seemed to become.
None of this is intended to suggest that conspiracies do not exist. Let us not forget the wise axiom, “just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean that they’re not out to get me.” However, it is important to recognize that there is a strong motivation for us to see conspiracies where they may not exist, and also to see conspiracies as much more vast than they may really be. Ockham’s razor is best not forgotten, that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is often the right one. The same critical thinking, analysis, and skepticism should be applied to the contrarian or conspiracy theory as to the official story, addressing evidence to the contrary of the theory as fairly as evidence in support of it. Too often, neither the official story nor the conspiracy theory attempts to do so.
Ultimately, I believe that conspiracy theories are often harmful to the cause of achieving political change or reform, because they distract the great majority of people from focusing on the problem itself and its solution, and instead focus all of the intention on ferreting out conspirators. That is not to say that understanding the cause of a problem cannot help with its solution. However, in many cases, the cause is irrelevant. In a representative republic with officials chosen by majority vote, the solution ultimately lies in winning over the majority of the citizens, not in finding the culprits behind dark plots or conspiracies.
The Council on Foreign Relations is a perfect example. The basic tenet of this conspiracy theory is that the CFR is a front for a conspiracy by international bankers to secretly corrupt the United States with a socialist agenda, undermine the sovereignty of the United States, and ultimately bring the American people under the rule of one world socialist government. Books have been written about this conspiracy, political organizations have been formed to fight it, infiltrators have attempted to expose it, and, at one time or another, most of the world’s problems have been attributed to it.(1) I don’t know if these allegations are true or not. Like Mel Gibson, I find that the more I listen to people arguing for this conspiracy theory, the more believable it sounds. In the end, it really doesn’t matter.
Doesn’t matter? An organization bent on corrupting the American people with socialism and bringing them under international rule doesn’t matter? No, their “conspiracy,” if that is what people want to call it, doesn’t matter. What matters is whether or not the American people will give it their consent. Ultimately, this is still a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. If you think that the American people do not want socialism, then try to get signatures on a petition to phase out Social Security and Medicare. Once it’s time to give up the promises of government benefits, the missionary zeal against socialism dissipates rather quickly, even amongst the so-called “Constitutionalists.” Conversely, if 70% of the American people DEMANDED that their representatives introduce legislation to phase these programs out or face unemployment by the next term, the legislation would be introduced and passed with all of the self-righteous blustering with which they presently give us more socialism.
Ultimately, the American people get what they demand. Right now, most Americans are demanding some type of government “solution” to healthcare. Similarly, when the unemployment rate goes up, Americans typically DEMAND that their government does something about it, instead of demanding that government cease interfering with the free market. The unfortunate reality for conspiracy theorists is that the majority of people AGREE with the CFR agenda. Without that agreement, it would be powerless.
Another popular conspiracy theory concerns the past two presidential elections. It alleges that the Republican Party stole or fixed the vote in crucial states (Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004) to give George Bush a victory over his opponents. Again, I don’t purport to know whether this conspiracy theory is true or not. However, to me it is again irrelevant. While I agree that the candidate who gets the most votes should be the winner, no matter how narrow the margin of victory, the Bush presidency is still one that is basically the result of an equally divided nation. No one alleges that Al Gore or John Kerry won Florida or Ohio by a landslide. Everyone acknowledges that both elections were extremely close when it comes to overall votes. They were so close that in most statistical models they would have been considered an even draw. However, proponents of the conspiracy theory tend to characterize the Bush presidency as one that was obtained by a great fraud, against the will of the majority of Americans. The ugly truth is that about half of American voters WANTED George Bush in office – twice! Certainly if he had only obtained 25% of the vote, it wouldn’t have mattered much how hard those chads were to poke out. Today he would be where he belongs, shoveling out stable stalls in Crawford.
A final example is of the mythical conspiracy by “Big Oil.” This one is popular among the disgruntled from every political party, race, color, and creed. “Big Oil” is blamed for fixing the price of oil and gouging the American public, suppressing alternative energy innovations to maintain their monopoly, carrying out assassinations, coup d’états, and all manner of diabolical intrigue. “Big Oil” is behind most of our problems, until a few facts are examined. For one, government-owned oil companies account for about 70% of the world’s oil supply. The American oil companies play a very small part, with the largest, Exxon, accounting for only 2% of world supply. Oil prices are set on an exchange, just like the prices of stocks, so the buyers really have a lot more control than the sellers. Most importantly, the publicly traded “Big Oil” companies are not owned by a shadowy group of billionaires – we own them! Over 98% of Exxon is owned by average Americans, in their 401K retirement accounts. The ultimate irony – WE ARE “Big Oil.” In the end, this one doesn’t even stand up to critical analysis. Monetary inflation necessitated by government spending on those social programs we aren’t ready to give up is a much better place to lay the blame for high gasoline prices than on the mythical ogre, “Big Oil.”
I do not condemn the conspiracy theorists. I do not know whether the conspiracies are real or not. I suspect that many of them are partly true, that none of them are wholly true, and that a few of them are just plain nuts. However, the vast conspiracies that are accused of being at the root of our problems here in America all have one thing in common: they need our consent in order to succeed. If “the bankers” are conspiring against us, they can be completely defeated with legislation requiring a 100% reserve requirement. If there is a socialist conspiracy, it can be defeated by legislation to phase out the social programs and reinstitute property rights. If the American people want these things, the government can still be made to give them to us.
However, we must recognize that right now, the American people are not demanding these things. In fact, the American people are actually demanding more socialism, and as recently as the last presidential election, about half of them were still behind the war in Iraq. While the conspiracy theorist is searching for cryptic documents and incriminating photographs to prove his conspiracy, he is not convincing his neighbor next door not to go to the Barack Obama rally and cheer while Obama promises universal healthcare. Therein lies the problem. It was suggested by one Break the Matrix member that conspiracy theories themselves were a conspiracy – to distract us from taking the action necessary to solve our problems. That’s probably the most dangerous conspiracy of all.
(1) One objection I have to the idea of this being a “conspiracy” is that it doesn’t fit the definition. According to Webster, a conspiracy has to be a secret agreement, and I don’t believe anything about the CFR is a secret. You can go to their website (http://www.cfr.org) and read their very public positions on most of the issues, and their long term goals are hardly shrouded in mystery.
- Tom Mullen's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 4177 reads
****
www.ClubHHO.com
Take your power back in a very real way!
Almost half my miles are driven on WATER!
I teach you how for free.
Ron
aka
~GadgetMan~
Enlighten yourself Tom.
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,conspiracy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiring
you'll see here that "conspiring" is a "secret agreement..."
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Ron says on three occasions in this video that the CFR, Trilateral Commission, and world government movemetn is not a conspiracy, for the same reasons I say it is not - it is not a secret. These organizations make no secret of their agenda, it is there for all to see. It is more the acceptance on a large scale of bad ideas than the secret will of a small group of "Dr. Evils."
Regarding the NAFTA superhighway, I believe that it was recently defeated by exactly what I suggest is our best weapon - tens of thousands of Texans showing up at referendums to voice their demands that this project be canned. It was.
This is certainly not the end of the fight against international government, but it proves that awakening the common people to the problem can defeat it. I rest my case.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Ron Paul said, "It's a quote 'conspiracy of ideas'".
End of discussion.
You are missing the point. Ron Paul stated that it was not a conspiracy theory but fact. Your article stated that we should ignore the CFR because it doesn't matter. You are clearly at odds with what Ron Paul stated.
Ron Paul did not say that. He did not say, "it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy fact."
He said (and now I'm quoting directly)
"it's a (quote gesture) quote, conspiracy of ideas, this is an ideological battle. Some people believe in globalism, others of us believe in national sovereignty."
"THese are real things, it's not that somebody made these up, it's not a conspiracy."
"It's not so much a secretive conspiracy, it's a contest between ideologies."
"But it's not so much it's a sinister conspiracy, it's just knowledge is out there, if you look for it, you'll realize our national sovereignty is under threat."
I agree completely with Ron Paul on this. I am against the present influence of national government, and certainly against any type of world government. I recognize, as Dr. Paul does, that many people in power do not agree with me. Like him, I do not see this as a sinister conspiracy, but a war of ideas. Ultimately it will be won by the side that gets the consent of the American people (and if there is apathy, they win).
You are demonstrating my point. You posted a video with direct evidence against your conspiracy theory, but refuse to acknowledge it even when it is in front of your own eyes. I have never said I supported the CFR or world government. I said it was not a conspiracy because it wasn't a secret and it wouldn't succeed if the American people didn't want to let it. I stand by my original post.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
It's too vague and through overuse and association with the crazy, unsubstantiated, conspiracy theories of aliens, illuminati and freemasons etc etc ... it has become so general as to become useless.
Who decides what is a "conspiracy theory" in our modern connotation? I'm not talking about the dictionary definition of "conspiracy theory" because that can encompass anything, for example, Enron was a conspiracy, the housing bubble was inflated by the "conspiracies" of executives at major mortgage lenders and investment banks that we're learning the details of now. The housing bubble bloggers, contrarian economists (and Ron Paul!) would have qualified as "conspiracy theorists" who are now being proven correct.
I'm talking about the dictionary definition, I'm talking about the connotation that associates an idea or area of research with wild-eyed, speculative lunacy.
The problem is that if we are not careful with how we use the expression "conspiracy theory" or if we simply dismiss anything that has been labeled a "conspiracy theory" without at least a cursory investigation into the validity of the theory then it becomes a very useful mind control tool.
Now a lot of people freak out when somebody uses the term "mind control" and will even associate that term with our modern connotation of "conspiracy theory"! But there is nothing strange or weird about mind control. In it's most basic form it is simply the control of information.
We're subject to mind control every day from the media whether it is deliberate war propaganda, fast food advertising or simply the group mind consensus.
So in summary, I would say that "conspiracy theories" really do matter in relation to Break the Matrix. All avenues of enquiry should be open to discussion whether they are labeled a "conspiracy theory" or not. Let the irrefutable laws of physics and cold hard logic dictate what is crazy or worthy of discussion not the opinions of individuals who believe that they have the sole ability to seperate truth from fiction.
If a "conspiracy theory" or any other theory is truly outlandish then it will be quickly and summarily refuted with facts and evidence. There are obvious theories that do not hold any water that we do not discuss, like the flat earth theory for example.
Did I quote Ron Paul as saying "it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy fact"? No. Stop putting words into my mouth.
Please Tom, tell me what my conspiracy theory is.
"Ron Paul was a guest on Coast To Coast AM with George Noory from 1 - 2 AM on March 25, 2008. During questions a disingenuous Neocon named Joe called in to ask Ron Paul about his supporters believing in "conspiracy theories". This was similar to what CNN did during the debates.
Ron Paul answered and said while he did not believe the Government did 9/11 he was not satisfied with the investigation and would like a new investigation into 9/11."
WeAreChange.org reporters confronted Ron Paul in the spin room during the New Hampshire primaries.
He discusses the draft, endless war, a new 9/11 investigation, the emerging North American Union and spreading the "Ron Paul Revolution"...
www.WeAreChange.org
www.RonPaulWarRoom.com
www.FealGoodFoundation.com
www.TruthNews.us
www.INFOWARS.com
www.PrisonPlanet.com
www.jonesreport.com
www.BlackBoxVoting.org
OK, I think I have the gist of the comments on this article.
I am certainly impressed with the passion with which every side of the argument that has broken out in this thread has been made. I thought it might be time to point out a few bits of reality, just to get some into the mix here.
This article makes no mention of 9/11, the 9/11 truth movement, or any theory alleging a different explanation from the "official story" we have been told by our government.
I would personally be more surprised if the official story were the whole story. I applaud anyone that has taken the time and suffered unjust ridicule simply for questioning the explanations we have received about this attack.
I have a family member that narrowly escaped building 7 on 9/11/01. For hours we did not know whether he was dead or alive. Others have suffered far more and really lost loved ones in this tragedy, but it certainly is a lot more than a news story to me. If there were other people involved in executing this heinous crime, including people within our government, I certainly want to see them brought to justice.
I admit that the title of the article was deliberately provocative. Like many people investigating possible conspiracies, I am used to dealing with short attention spans and apathy. A little provocation followed by (what I thought was) clear explanation and qualification of a statement like "it doesn't matter" doesn't seem to me to be all that bad. However, I certainly meant no offense to anyone that considers themselves a "conspiracy theorist."
I do not share the mainstream media's contempt for that label. To me, a conspiracy theorist is someone that has a theory about a possible conspiracy. We have found in the past that sometimes the conspiracy theorists are right, sometimes they are wrong, like most of us.
My suggestion that whether or not the conspiracy theories I alluded to are real or not was not as important as persuading our fellow Americans not to go along with the agenda has given life to a new conspiracy theory - that I am "one of them." I have to admit, I didn't laugh at this one as long as my wife and some of my close friends who came on to read the article and comments. "You, Mr. anti-Government, doesn't even think the government should be delivering the mail, ONE OF THEM?" I'm still taking shots from friends that have similar beliefs in small government as I but who maintain that I am wasting my time trying to get involved. They're currently laughing their hind ends off at the "Tom is a shill" comments. They're telling me I'm getting what I deserve for wasting my time trying to reason with my fellow citizens. Pretty cynical - are they right?
This is one conspiracy theory that I know is wrong and formed out of no evidence whatsoever. If you notice, in the article I said,
"The same critical thinking, analysis, and skepticism should be applied to the contrarian or conspiracy theory as to the official story, addressing evidence to the contrary of the theory as fairly as evidence in support of it. Too often, neither the official story nor the conspiracy theory attempts to do so."
Apart from the fact that I acknowledged that proponents of the official story are equally guilty of not addressing contrary evidence, most of the negative commenters focused on only one half of this sentence - kind of proves out the theory. Also, no one seems to have addressed my comments that George Bush should be shoveling out stable stalls or my criticism of Barack Obama. If not the Republicans or the Democrats, who am I a shill for, Nader?
Overall, I am not hurt or offended by these comments. A friendly voice suggested that, especially in the case of the 9/11 Truth researchers, all of the acrimony might be the result of years of frustration at being unjustly marginalized, ridiculed and ignored. I respectfully point out, though, that those of you that responded from the 9/11 Truth perspective automatically assumed the article was aimed at you when it in no way even implicitly suggested that. I am being 100% honest when I say that the 9/11 Truth movement was not at all on my mind when I wrote it. Hopefully, that won't come across the wrong way, either, but it is the truth. Also, I had been writing the article in bits and pieces for days, and in no way intended to time it with Ron Paul's e-mail endorsing BTM. I know, I know, but it's true. Accidents happen.
To come clean about everything, my official position regarding 9/11 is I don't know. I have the http://www.ae911truth.org/ website bookmarked and have perused it from time to time, but I don't have the engineering expertise to critically evaluate their claims and evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more people involved than a bunch of terrorists with boxcutters. It seems less likely that that is the whole story than that it is. I would like to get someone from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth onto my talk show, along with a qualified architect or engineer that disagrees and let them debate it. I know my show only goes out over the internet to those who are watching at the time, but eventually it's archived, put on You Tube, and has value. If anyone has contacts from this organization and can help me get someone on, please contact me.
Regarding the broader conspiracy, let me say this. I believe that the "socialist agenda" is real. However, I urge people not to automatically attribute this to a dark conspiracy by a small group of people against which average Americans have no chance to resist. Why? Because it takes all resonsibility away from average Americans. That was the real point of my article. There may be a conspiracy. HOwever, I respectfully suggest that it may be something less organized and more related to human nature. About 100 years ago, the entire world was swept by an intellectual ideology called socialism. Everyone bought into it to a certain degree. Russia went all of the way. Germany was already socialist. The US tried to "mix" socialism with capitalism and live in both worlds. To some extent, everyone seemed to acknowledge that at the very least, socialism was a more "moral" ideology than capitalism.
I don't agree with this. However, I talk to everyday people, well, everyday, and it is my opinion that the majority of Americans still do in some way. They feel guilty about capitalism and freedom because they have been taught that they owe a responsibility to those who "lose" in the capitalist system. Andrew Bernstein called this the Great Disconnect in his fabulous book, the Capitalist Manifesto. Despite the overwhelming proof that capitalism benefits everyone - the poor most of all - much more than socialism, people have trouble letting go of the socialist dream that government can give people things. This is our fight. We must reawaken the minds of our fellow Americans, and break through this powerful opiate that they are currently under the influence of. We also have to make them realize that they have an addiction to coercion and don't even realize it. Today, government - the collective use of force - is almost everyone's first resort to solve a problem, rather than their last resort. Even members of this movement do it without realizing it - they want to put an end to government unjustly using force against one party, but then go on to suggest we point the government gun somewhere else - with an equal lack of justification.
If all we do is to prosecute the perpetrators of conspiracies like 9/11, then the establishment will simply backfill the perpetrators and the socialist slumber will not be broken. I suggest that we concentrate our energy on changing the minds of the American people. We have a media outlet here (BTM) in its infancy. Let's continue to help build it into a contrarian power. Our message is ultimately more infectious than our opposition's. Call me what you will, but please let's stay together and focused on the prize.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
The author of this post stated that the CFR "conspiracy" may be partly true but it doesn't matter. You, sir, are a moron. I guess it doesn't matter to you if a North American Union is being created and it's on the Texas government website. I guess it doesn't matter to you that our government is using bio-weapons such as sodium fluoride, chlorine, GMO food, and chemtrails.
Hey folks, this guy says our sovereignty doesn't matter. I say his blog post shows that he is a shill!
different forms of secrecy. oh, sure the CFR is no secret to those who ask the right questions, but by discourageing the questions you help maintain secrecy. add that to the fact that it's hideing in plain sight you make the secrecy itself a secret. additionally, the proceedings at a given meeting of the CFR is always kept secret. so, i'd say the secrecy criteria is met.
I have to say myself, you are a big time Noam "it doesn't matter" Chomsky fan huh. What it comes down to is, you are calling Ron Paul a conspiracy theorist, maybe you should give him a call and tell him not to tell the public how things are really working, I guess I'm wrong when I even use the term "Neo" to explain the Neo-Conservatives, you know, I am an anti-PNAC-er
Here is a quote (a favorite) from Chomsky (not a favorite) of all people....
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
Are you using presuppositions?
Here is Ron Paul talking that silly conspiracy stuff. Listen to him say......and it's important for those of us who love Liberty and resent BIG-BROTHER-GOVERNMENT identify the Philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going ........
If you don't know what's really going on, then you don't know how to solve the real problems, "they" are the ones that a lot of the problems come from.... and "they" are, of course, the ones that have the "solution" too..... isn't thaaaat conveeeeniant.
Now, should I delve into this stuff and get lost? No, because then I'm not taking care of real freedom, I'm not, keeping up, I understand what you're saying, but I think you pushed it too far. We shouldn't just, forget about it, that's for sure.
it does matter. it threatens the Life and Liberty of every man, woman, and child on this planet.
happened to be useful to the conspirators? why do conspiracy theorists not like to be called theorists? its true they - i mean WE - have lots of theories. well, there is the noted fact that in the mainstream the term tends to be taken as synonymous with CRAZY. but there is also the FACT that the main part of what we who point out the New World Order Conspiracy, that is, the New World Order is not just some theory. it is a fact, confessed to time and time again by the conspirators themselves. now here's a conspiracy THEORY that connects to the FACTUAL conspiracy of the NWO. The JFK assassination; there is no proof that the NWO killed JFK, i say they most likely did, and that is a theory. There are reasons to form that theory besides just not believeing the official story. It is a fact that JFK started as a tool of the NWO and later turned against them - and was murdered within months. But there is a real conspiracy that is solid fact. Is every event that conspiracy theorists attribute to this theory the work of the conspirators? maybe not. to say the NWO was behind 911, or JFK is theory (based on haveing been events that served the interests of the conspirators with MAJOR holes in the official story) is everything that might be called "conspiracy theory" a solid fact? no, much really is just theory. but many "theorists" don't like to be called that because its really NOT ALL just theory, and we know it.
"Oh, it doesn't seem strange to you that there is no Boeing 757 seen in any of the security video released?"
Yes. That does seem strange. My assumption is that much of the tin can was hidden by debris and building floors lying on top of it. Apparently they found the flight recorder, as per your claim that they did. Physics tells me that there would be no plane parts "in the lawn". Mass in motion... etc...
My guess is that "government"is up to its silly "government" tricks again, assuming a habit of secrecy both unnecessary and conducive to fueling speculative rumors. This kind of thinking is rampant in the third world. Who knew we would see so much of it "in America".
If I lived anywhere near the Pentagon, I would go house to house and find me some regular folks that saw the plane do its spiral and come in to land...
If I were unable to find anyone, then I would consider your hypothesis...
Until an attempt is made by truthers to debunk their own claims, I will dismiss them as I would dismiss any other irrational group who make dubious claims.
I read your Manuever page. Not impressed. The guy actually had much more flying experience than I had thought.
He was a crappy pilot. OK.
He pulled off one manuever that had the look of being difficult. OK.
The thing that cracks me up is that you are using the "manuever" of the plane as evidence for your claim that "their was no plane"...
I'm not sure if you see the humor in this, but I do.
The trouble I am having with your argument up to this point is that it is no argument at all.
Just wild assertions of a conspiratorial nature.
The pilot couldn't have performed the manuever of the plane, because he wasn't experienced enough to fly the plane as it flew, but there was no plane, because I couldn't see one in the picture, therefore it was "the government"...
Why should any rational person listen to you?
which doesn't prove a Hani Hanjour was in the cockpit or a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. Also, according to the official flight path, the plane flew only meters above the ground for hundreds of feet. Close enough to the ground to knock over several light poles.
Oh, it doesn't seem strange to you that there is no Boeing 757 seen in any of the security video released? You say that it's a "wild assertion of a conspiratorial nature" to wonder why the big ass plane is not visible in the video footage? Those planes that hit the WTC towers were pretty evident in the video we've seen. Why is there no plane in the Pentagon footage? Doesn't that look like a white smoke trail in the video to you?
"putting the conspiracy theory aside. you're being really ridiculous with the 'flying a passenger jet is really easy'. please stop."
Ummm, doing it well is not easy. Pointing it while in the air is not hard.
Remember, my pops was a Pan Am pilot for twenty years. He taught me to fly a Piper Cub when I was twelve. We talk. I know the man's mind and capabilities. Trust me, flying any plane from air space to air space is not that hard, when you don't have to do it smoothly and you aren't concerned with "the quality of your landing".
There is a reason pilots do "touch and gos"... The take-off and landing take some skill. But cranking a hard rudder and turning a steering wheel to get a spiral dive going can be learned from a book and performed (with luck) on the first try.
Making possible things seem impossible by exaggerating them, doesn't lend any signficant credence to your "truth" movement.
You need the truth for that.
"Then you compare spiral descents performed by experienced air force pilots in high performance air force jets to those inexperienced and inept Cessna trained arabs flying large passenger aircraft."
Ummmm, no. These are your daily passenger flights in and out of Baghdad airport. I am not sure if they are still doing them, but the tight spirals were to keep from being rocketed. Every commercial pilot who flew into Baghdad airport for the first time, had to pull one of these off in his first attempt, and actually land the plane safely while being mindful of the comfort of passengers. So far, none of these pilots (many of them "third world Arabs" ) have crashed in this manuever.
So much for your whole notion of "extreme" difficulty.
"Yeah, great reply Scott...
That's like saying, hairpin turn at top speed in a Formula One race car : ease on the break, turn the damn steering wheel, ease on the gas! There's your Michael Schumacher!"
Ummm, no, it isn't.
Those spiral descents are done over Baghdad every hour of every day...
There aren't too hard if you aren't concerned with how they look or feel to passengers and you aren't interested in a smooth progression to a nice landing.
Suicide flying is actually very easy.
Then you compare spiral descents performed by experienced air force pilots in high performance air force jets to those inexperienced and inept Cessna trained arabs flying large passenger aircraft.
Come on, man! Why do you bother with these illogical comparisons?
I give up on you Scott. Don't give me any more of your BS arguments. Sheesh!
Here's a good thread that covers a lot of what is known about Hani Hanjour's flying skills and describes the manouver he allegedly pulled off:
http://letsrollforums.com/hani-hanjour-reloaded-t16581.html?s=2ed9bcdeb1...
Read it if you want, or don't - I don't care. And don't bother replying because I'm done with this tedious back and forth...
putting the conspiracy theory aside. you're being really ridiculous with the 'flying a passenger jet is really easy'. please stop.
Commander Muga: The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...
Ummmm, hard rudder, turn the damn steering wheel. Keep the nose from dipping too fast. There's your "spiral".
As for the overcoming pilots thing, pilot were instructed to give up the plane, it was company policy and taught at school back then.
A box cutter to the throat of two pretty stewardesses and you now have the plane.
Simple.
That's like saying, hairpin turn at top speed in a Formula One race car : ease on the break, turn the damn steering wheel, ease on the gas! There's your Michael Schumacher!
Simple!
"between a gang of 19 young thugs from a third world country trained on Cessnas ..."
Ummm, have you ever been to Saudi Arabia? You keep making the "third world" claim, as if you have some experience there.
I'm not a certified pilot, but Pops is, and I've spent enough time flying planes in the air to not be too duly impressed by those who do. Rudder pedals, a steering wheel... Dude. It ain't that hard...
Sorry man.
A better conspiracy for you to spread around would be that the CIA infiltrated this group and gave them the idea, as well as some motivational talks, and then set in motion some of the hampering we tend to think of as "negligence" so that the planes were not stopped before they hit their targets...
If you want to raise the false flag question, I would make the assumption that the hijackers believed in their mission (and subsequent suicide) and that it was a "government plot" all along, just aided by zealots who thought they were doing good Islamic deeds...
That scenario at least fits the facts.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html
Commander Muga: The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...
When a commercial airplane gets that high, it gets very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.
And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an airplane to hijackers. ...
I mean, hell, a guy doesn't give up a TV remote control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots would allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys with a one-inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous.
And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ...
Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they're designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you're going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it's bordering on impossible." Appears half way through the second hour segment at http://www.realradioarchives.com
You'll find many more opinions here:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/