Sandy Hook "Hoax"

**crappler** · Posted On: 1/22/2013 4:54pm

Conspiracism assigns tiny cabals of evildoers a superhuman power to control events, frames social conflict as part of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil, and makes leaps of logic, such as guilt by association, in analyzing evidence. Conspiracists often employ common fallacies of logic in analyzing factual evidence to assert connections, causality, and intent that are frequently unlikely or nonexistent. As a distinct narrative form of scapegoating, conspiracism uses demonization to justify constructing the scapegoats as wholly evil while reconstructing the scapegoater as a hero.

I got that all from Chip Berlett of Public Eye. He has a great website that discusses this stuff.

**RWaggs** · Posted On: 1/23/2013 5:40pm

Originally Posted by mike321

The US has a robust flight training industry. Foreign pilots often come here to receive training for their career. Knowing how to fly a plane in general and then simulator training on 757/767 is plenty of training if you keep it simple which they did. Flying only, no special maneuvers, landing, or take off. The Boeing 757 and 767 are designed to be interchangeable for pilots. These are the planes used by hijackers. Also the terrorist made multiple attempts to make a successful dramatic attack on the US. First thy tried to blow up the World Trade Center with ground based explosives, then they attempted to down multiple flights traveling across the Pacific, finally they completed 911. So it is not a matter of getting lucky; it is a matter of persistence. Also people are people. My point is that you do not need a conspiracy to explain this. People in foreign countries are not lesser people incapable of complicated operations. You underestimate the capabilities of people to challenge to United States.

I don't really have that big of a dog in this fight. I did, however, try to find some sort of detailed reference as to the training received by the hijacker pilots, and didn't really find any definitive evidence that they'd been trained properly on 757s or 767s. I can find plenty of sites which cite "experts" as saying that there is no way they had the expertise to pull off these attacks, but who knows if those are BS as well.

My natural inclination is that it seems unlikely that the hijackers, unless they had pretty substantial training and logged hours in an actual 757 or 767, would go 3/4 on direct hits into low elevation targets (seriously low in the case of the pentagon), but maybe I'm wrong about that.

The point I was originally trying to make is that the 911 truthers always seem so focused on the idea that the planes strikes and resulting fires couldn't have brought those buildings down, and it draws attention away from plenty of other suspicious elements to the official account.

**mike321** · Posted On: 1/23/2013 6:18pm

RWaggs,

I understand your point but don't want to get drawn into Conspiracism (thanks Crappler!) Do you acknowledge the burden of proof is on you for any claims you make and that evidence must be falsifiable? Also what exactly is the claim you are trying to make?

**mike321** · Posted On: 1/23/2013 6:23pm

Also vague speculating and repeating various claims is problematic for me because I believe it is disrespectful to the victims.

**Savage Randy** · Posted On: 1/24/2013 3:36am

Originally Posted by mike321

Also vague speculating and repeating various claims is problematic for me because I believe it is disrespectful to the victims.

Absolutely. The whole charade is disgraceful and you can include the religious right wing nuts pushing their agenda out of the slaughter of the children as well.

**Vieux Normand** · Posted On: 1/24/2013 10:07am

Originally Posted by crappler

Conspiracism assigns tiny cabals of evildoers a superhuman power to control events...

You mean...foursomes of trench-coat-clad old men gather in tiny dark rooms, scribble plans--and don't affect the course of world affairs?!

**mike321** · Posted On: 1/24/2013 11:02am

Originally Posted by Savage Randy

Absolutely. The whole charade is disgraceful and you can include the religious right wing nuts pushing their agenda out of the slaughter of the children as well.

Elaborate please. I agree that exploiting a tragedy is obnoxious; and hinting about conspiracy along the lines of "I'm just saying..." is a cowardly way to promote conspiracy without saying what you mean. On the other hand, following the tragedy I think it was completely appropriate for all sides to give their opinion on public policy related to the tragedy.

**crappler** · Posted On: 1/24/2013 12:04pm

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

You mean...foursomes of trench-coat-clad old men gather in tiny dark rooms, scribble plans--and don't affect the course of world affairs?!

The fog is thick in London this time of year.

**Savage Randy** · Posted On: 1/25/2013 6:15am

Originally Posted by mike321

Elaborate please. I agree that exploiting a tragedy is obnoxious; and hinting about conspiracy along the lines of "I'm just saying..." is a cowardly way to promote conspiracy without saying what you mean. On the other hand, following the tragedy I think it was completely appropriate for all sides to give their opinion on public policy related to the tragedy.

It all depends on what you subject comes up for discussion. At the risk of contradicting myself I agree the blame game that comes immediately after a massacre is highly inappropriate, whether it's religious scumbags saying it's because it's god's will or these sandy hook "truthers" I read about now coming out with these absurd false flag conspiracy theories. The whole gun control issue is rather cut and dry for me. Private ownership should be heavily restricted to only but a necessary few. Saying that, I am Australian and live in a country where we have tight gun regulation. We also don't have mass school/campus shootings either. Now I understand there is a long existing gun culture within the US and the constitutional enshrinement of gun ownership in your nation, but you have to ask yourself what was relevant over 200 years ago is still relevant in the US today.

**mike321** · Posted On: 1/25/2013 11:03am

Without debating gun control (different outlook there) I think you are correct about appropriateness of responses. Waiting some amount of time before expressing your opinion on why it happens shows class in a very difficult time. Anyone who disputes facts of the event is scummy if they don't have evidence. (Or sadly deluded if they have logical fallacies they call evidence.) Opinions and discussions on tough issues are completely different and are a key part of democracy. I would be interested in talking about Australian gun control if you were to start another thread and give some background on the issue. It would be interesting to talk about it outside the context of the United States.