Iconophili's Great Big Thread of Conspiracies!

[DavidHawthorne]

Does this thread, taken together with its parent debate "Big Thread of Conspiracies", win the Euphrosynos Cafe award of "most number of responses" in this Orthodox forum's history?

[AndyHolland]

Dear ICONOPHILLI,

Let us assume everything you say is correct.

What difference does it make? What are you or I or anyone else going to do about it? If THEY are so powerful that THEY can destroy the twin towers and use us as pawns, shouldn't we forgive our enemies, bless those who hate us and pray for those who spitefully use us?

How about we go to Church and pray to Jesus to heal us and save us.

andy holland
sinner

PS - there is no maybe this or that with regard to what I saw as the buildings fell down - all the observations are perfectly consistent with the physics as described in depth by real experts.

[Chrysostomos]

Saw this on an investment thread. Thought this would be of interest to this group.

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

Interesting....

Your fellow struggler in Christ,

Rd. Chrysostomos

[CGW]

Chrysostomos, a series of allegations and testimonies strung together under a soundtrack do not an explanation make. I'm inclined to discount all the "couldn't have" claims simply because the fact of things happening is a full refutation. But the bigger problem in their presentation is its own inconsistency.

Somewhere back in this mess I pointed out that on one page Iconophili linked to, the Pentagon "plane" turned into no less than six different airframes. This presentation has the same issue, if not to such an extreme. One person says they saw a commuter jet; another says they heard a missile; a third says that the plane maneuvered like a fighter. The presentation avoids citing them, but I expect that plenty of people said they saw an airliner. OK, so what should a person make of this? Obviously most of these identifications are in error. And having admitted that, who's to say that the ones who misidentified it are those who claimed to have seen something other than the airliner? While I'm at it, it's hardly beyond possibility that some of the people quoted in the presentation actually said that they saw the airliner too, and that the presentation misrepresents their testimony by editing out that part of their story.

The same thing happens in the "where did the airliner go?" section of the presentation. At the beginning, they claim that airplane crashes leave wreckage (though I'll bet a lot of the pictures they show are of low speed airport accidents that hardly apply to the Pentagon crash). So then they go on to the claim that crashes leave marks on the ground. But in a number of those pictures one can see cases where there is no substantial wreckage! And not incidentally, those tend to be cases of planes flown into the ground at speed.

All this is besides the garden variety idiocy of ignoring the distortions of looking through long telephoto lenses and the like. The point is that a list of contradictory accounts does not make a proof. To get a systematic picture, the accounts have to be assembled systematically. And the system that makes the most sense in this case is that (a) some of the witnesses made mistakes, and (b) the conspiracy theorists ignored the coherent report of witnesses who saw the airliner and saw it for what it was, and concentrated on inconsistencies without bothering to make any sense out of them.

[Chrysostomos]

CGW,

I said it was interesting, I didn't say I agreed with it, or against it.

I put it here, basically because I saw a link at an investment site and thought this group would appreciate it.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Your fellow struggler in Christ,

Rd. Chrysostomos

[AndyHolland]

Besides what CGW rightly pointed out there is some basic common sense missing if one accepted these weird scenarios for a second.

Why would anyone (THEY - the gnomes of Zurich whatever) who planned to shoot a missile at the Pentagon and make it look like an act of terror:

1. not just claim a second group of terrorists used a cruise missile against the Pentagon? Couldn't THEY get the Middle Eastern bodies?

2. if you must use an airliner for bizzare ill-defined asethics, why not do it at night?

3. if you must do it in the day, why not do it on a foggy day?

4. if you must do it in the day and on a sunshiny one at that, why would you do it in September when air quality is excellent and visibility is chrystal clear?

Come on people, the plane hit in a big city in broad daylight on a sunny day at a time of year when even DC has clear visibility.This conspiracy nonsense is a set of hoaxes gone terribly wrong.

College kids are laughing somewhere, and widows and orphans are crying.

andy holland
sinner

[jacqueline]

The pentagon/missile video proves only that we are distracted easily. There are even some people that say that missiles hit the World Trade center... It's a hoax - plain and simple. It's a tempting theory in some ways, but if you trace the story back, there's no reality to it. Claims by anonymous people on the web, a blatant disregard of all of the evidence, photoshopped images -- these and more mental gymnastics are necessary to believe "no plane" theories.

This hoax shows the limitations of doing research on the web about highly controversial topics with enormous stakes. While the internet, and search engines like google, are an incredible invention that allow us access to a vast collection of knowledge, they are also imperfect means of discovering the truth due to the ease that fake websites can be created and the reality that not all of human experience is archived in google.