IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
My Questions About Flight 11

justoneguy
post Mar 17 2009, 06:19 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 2
Joined: 17-March 09
Member No.: 4,203



Ok I am a first time poster and didn't question the official 9/11 story up until the last few days, but with a few days off work and with time on my hands and watching some of the 9/11 documentaries on youtube, I have become interested in the topic.

My questions about flight 11 are...

1. It wasn't scheduled to fly that day...did it fly in regular service at all, or was just not due to fly that particular day or week?

2. If it wasn't due to fly that day, well then where did all the passengers come from? I mean why would anyone book a flight that wasn't due to fly? It makes absolutely no sense.

3. So then, either the flight did indeed fly but for some strange reason wasn't resgistered with the FAA or else the flight was not scheduled, yet many passengers booked on a phantom flight. Why would passengers do such a thing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Mar 17 2009, 08:16 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Hello and welcome justoneguy. welcome.gif

You might want to try a couple of the older threads in this forum, such as:

Fake Passenger Lists Flt11
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4592

I will have to search for the "gate assignments" discrepancies, but there was a lot of "fishy" stuff going on in Boston that morning

This was discussed at this website with NTSB links:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa_flts/aa_flts.htm
----------------------
I'll quote this article below to try and clean up some of the links (which might be broken, and the Webfairy links are dubious IMHO):

http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/node/13779

Posted November 13th, 2003 by Anonymous

submitted by Gerard Homgren
contact: aa1177_3_AT_hotmail.com

The flights alleged to have hit the Nth WTC tower and the Pentagon did not exist. They were not scheduled to fly that day.

What really happened to American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 on Sept 11 2001
by Gerard Holmgren . Copyright. Nov 13, 2003

aa1177_3_AT_hotmail.com

This material may be freely reproduced without permission providing that it is not for commercial
purposes. Please include the author's name, the URL where you found it and the copyright notice.

On the basis of photographic and physical evidence, it has now been established for some time that on Sept
11, 2001 the damage to the Pentagon was caused by something other than the hijacked Boeing 757,
American Airlines Flight 77 claimed by the government to have crashed into the building.

Hunt the Boeing
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pen.../erreurs_en.htm

Physical and Mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash. Oct 2002
http://thewebfairy.com/911/holmgren/

Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined. June 2002
http://hamilton.indymedia.org:8081/front.p...p;group=webcast

The amazing Pentalawn.
http://www.cryptogon.com/docs/Introducing%...3;%20(9-11).htm

More recently, its become widely accepted on the basis of video evidence that the object which hit the
North Tower of the WTC at 8.46 that morning was not the hijacked Boeing 767, American Airlines Flight
11, as claimed in the official story.

http://home.earthlink.net/~whatzit
http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/index2.html

In response to these observations, both supporters of the truth and blind deniers of it agree on one thing. It
raises the question - "If these flights did not hit the buildings as alleged, then where did they go?'

We are now in a position to answer that question.

First lets recap on the official story of what happened to four planes that morning.

AA 11 left Boston for LA at about 8 am, was reported as hijacked about 8.25, and hit the Nth Tower at
about 8.46.
UA 175 left Boston for LA at about the same time, was reported hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Sth
Tower at about 9.03
AA 77 left Dulles for LA about the same time , was reported hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Pentagon at
about 9.45
UA 93 left Newark for SF at about the same time, was reported hijacked about 9.45 and crashed in PA at
about 10.10.

The Bureau of transportation website contains search pages, where one can pull up detailed statistics about
the history of which flights have been scheduled for which airports on any given day. Go to

http://www.bts.gov/ntda/oai/index.shtml

and click on "detailed statistics" where one can search records of scheduled and actual departure times,
arrival times, diversions and cancellations by departure airport, arrival airport, airline and flight number.
Searches for Sept 11 2001 reveal that the flights AA 11 and AA 77 did not exist. They were not scheduled
that day. Here are the search results which I encourage everyone to check for themselves.

A search for UA flights from Newark on Sept 11, 2001 shows 0093 to SF was scheduled at 8.00 and
actually departed at 8.01. It is listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination.

A search for UA from Boston on that day shows 0175 to LA was scheduled for 8.00 and actually departed
at 7.58. Also listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination.

The term "diverted" does not specify any differentiation between legally diverted, hijacked or crashed, so
the data gives no indication one way or the other as to truth of the official story about what happened to
them, but it does confirm that they departed as per the official story and did not arrive at their destinations.

A search for AA flights from Boston that day does not list 0011. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA
that day was 0181 at 11.00

A search for AA flights from Dulles that day does not list 0077. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA was
0135 at 11.15.

Here's a different search method. By returning to the search page URL listed earlier, and clicking on
"summary statistics ", one can find the historical reliability and punctuality of specific flights over a period
of time, by specifying the airline and flight number and defining the time period. The search then returns
figures on average delays in departure and arrival times and percentages of cancelled or diverted flights.
If one searches specifically for UA 175 or UA 93 narrowed down to sept 11 only, the search returns the
result of "diverted" for each flight. A similar search for either AA 11 or AA 77 on that date returns "no data
found".

If you search for AA 11 or AA 77 on different days, you will find that they were regularly scheduled flights
right up to Sept 10. AA 11 was scheduled daily from Logan to LA at 8.00, and AA 77 from Dulles to LA at
7.45. On Sept 11, they were not scheduled. Not cancelled. Just not scheduled.
On Sept 12, they re-appear in the schedule (obviously as cancelled for the next few days) up until Sept 20
when both flights change their numbers.

Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77
flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing. Because the flights did
not exist. This is consistent with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for
the Pentagon and Nth WTC tower incidents.

This still leaves unanswered the question of what happened to the passengers alleged to be aboard the non
existent flights. In the case of AA 77, while one can always speculate about the most plausible scenarios, I
prefer to wait until some real evidence emerges. However in the case of AA 11, I think it is worth noting
that UA 175 left from the same airport, at the same time for the same destination as that normally applicable
to AA 11. Therefore, although there is no direct evidence to support the claim, it would seem reasonable to
speculate at this stage that any passengers who were regular fliers on AA 11, and asked to booked on it that
day, went to the airport, expecting to get on AA 11, as per the normal routine. They were then told that
there was a last minute problem with the flight which could not be fixed within a reasonable period of time,
and were offered a flight on UA 175 as compensation.

The data in this search indicates that we have been systematically lied to about the alleged flight paths and
hijacking sequence of AA 11 and AA 77, as well as the alleged phone calls made from the planes.

It also indicates probable complicity by American Airlines in the events of Sept 11 , 2001.

For the benefit of any NWO operatives reading this, just in case you're thinking of trying to pressure the
Bureau into playing hanky panky with the records, the search results pages have already been backed up
and widely distributed. Nevertheless, I do encourage all readers to do the searches themselves and back up
the results pages, just in case this happens.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Mar 18 2009, 12:07 AM
Post #3





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



always a pleasure to read the truth told.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Mar 18 2009, 03:29 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Nice reply, dMole, and welcome to the forum, justoneguy welcome.gif

Here's another interesting anomoly that was discussed here - none of the passengers on any of the flights, apparently, can be found on the SSDI (Social Security Death Index).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9018
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Mar 18 2009, 03:52 AM
Post #5


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



welcome.gif Welcome to Pilots, justoneguy!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Mar 18 2009, 06:57 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



It looks like some of the BTS links above were broken.

Here is the index page:
http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/index.xml

The search page is here (I checked "All statistics" for 10, 11, and 12 Sep 2001):
http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatis...paturesData.xml

Check American (AA) coming out of both Dulles IAD (AA77) and Boston BOS (AA11), as well as United coming out of BOS (UA175) and Newark EWR (for UA93). You should be able to download a .CSV file for each search too, but I needed to manually rename them after download.

Here is the BTS page with the airport codes:
http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_inform...irportInfo.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
justoneguy
post Mar 19 2009, 02:38 PM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 2
Joined: 17-March 09
Member No.: 4,203



Hey thanks for the welcome guys.

OK some interesting and informative info there and some good posts and investigative work...I think collaboration is the key in uncovering the truth....and letting people piece together the evidence...

Keep up the good work!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GringoBR
post Jul 19 2009, 08:51 AM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 1
Joined: 11-November 08
Member No.: 3,986



I am a humble PPL with 200 hours
I have just watched a 1 1/2 training video on how to fly a 747
I am convinced that it would be impossible for the so called hijackers to fly those planes
How could they disconnect the auto pilots etc, accurately descend from 25000 feet, turn etc without getting themselves into trouble
I know I felt uncomfortable doing my low level flying training, had an irrestible urge to climb..
to accurately fly at only 800 feet after being at 25000 seems impossible, let alone the Pentagon , low level flying at only a few metres

Any professional pilot like to comment on the possibility / probablity of amateurs being able to fly those planes as they did?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Jul 19 2009, 01:57 PM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



Read,learn,think,communicate. Most of all question everything.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Aug 20 2009, 05:13 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Since the Ashley article links directly to this thread as alleged "proof" of "no planes", "numerous links to disruptors and hoax advocates like Serendipty , Gerard Holmgren (real planes never hit the WTC), and even the Webfairy (planes were holograms)," or something vague, I should point out the "with NTSB links" part that apparently some missed a couple of times. If the NTSB and FAA aren't "official" enough sources for some, well then some are just being ridiculous IMHO. That Sydney Indymedia was the article that came up in a search for NTSB & "gate assignments," I didn't have time right then to "reinvent the wheel," and I really hadn't investigated the AA11 issue all that extensively at the time (with the exception of the USAF 84 RADES data and the B767-200 aspects that are in common with UA175). I also don't recall it being my job to "police" the entire content of the internet and keep up with all the drama between various factions of the "truth movement-" I will leave that for others who seem to have appointed themselves to such a position of "leadership" and appear to feel "internet policing" as a matter of great import.

I did notice that Ashley never quoted me as supporting any particular theory(ies), but very much like the "debunkers" rather used vague allusions, associations, implications, and insinuations. The lack of a direct quote is probably due to the fact that I haven't endorsed any particular theory(ies) personally. I also noticed that Ashley didn't seem to have a problem with the QUOTED Sydney Indymedia article and link or David Ray Griffin using Holmgren's work, but rather focused her very selective venom on Citizens Investigation Team and P4T. Why might that be exactly?

Aside from missing the "the Webfairy links are dubious IMHO" portion of my post, Ashley appears to have fallaciously "broad brush" painted everything on this thread (and neglected the NTSB and "gate assignments" context altogether). While many sources are questionable (and all internet sources should be considered as such initially IMHO), there is a saying about a baby and bathwater. For example, John Dean was a known criminal perpetrator in the Watergate scandal. He also happens to have written an excellent book (that incidentally was instrumental in my eventual path to investigating 9/11), Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush. Does this mean that we should listen to NOTHING Dean ever says because of his ties to R.M. Nixon and Watergate, or does this make him uniquely qualified to speak about criminal Republican Presidential administrations?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dean

http://www.amazon.com/Worse-Than-Watergate...y/dp/031600023X

QUOTE (dMole @ Mar 17 2009, 07:16 PM) *
Hello and welcome justoneguy. welcome.gif

You might want to try a couple of the older threads in this forum, such as:

Fake Passenger Lists Flt11
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4592

I will have to search for the "gate assignments" discrepancies, but there was a lot of "fishy" stuff going on in Boston that morning.

This was discussed at this website with NTSB links:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa_flts/aa_flts.htm
----------------------
I'll quote this article below to try and clean up some of the links (which might be broken, and the Webfairy links are dubious IMHO):

http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/node/13779
[... article ...]



QUOTE (dMole @ Mar 18 2009, 05:57 AM) *
It looks like some of the BTS links above were broken.

Here is the index page:

http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/index.xml

The search page is here (I checked "All statistics" for 10, 11, and 12 Sep 2001):
http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatis...paturesData.xml

Check American (AA) coming out of both Dulles IAD (AA77) and Boston BOS (AA11), as well as United coming out of BOS (UA175) and Newark EWR (for UA93). You should be able to download a .CSV file for each search too, but I needed to manually rename them after download.

Here is the BTS page with the airport codes:
http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_inform...irportInfo.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Aug 20 2009, 05:17 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Count the "Magic Show" fallacies. HINT: There is more than one correct answer...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry-picking
"Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries. The picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest fruits. An observer who only sees the selected fruit may thus wrongly conclude that most, or even all, of the fruit is in such good condition.

Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_qu..._out_of_context
"The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1]

Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.[2]"

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/p...nal-attack.html
"Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.
Description of Personal Attack

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.

In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.
Examples of Personal Attack

1. In a school debate, Bill claims that the President's economic plan is unrealistic. His opponent, a professor, retorts by saying "the freshman has his facts wrong."

2. "This theory about a potential cure for cancer has been introduced by a doctor who is a known lesbian feminist. I don't see why we should extend an invitation for her to speak at the World Conference on Cancer."

3. "Bill says that we should give tax breaks to companies. But he is untrustworthy, so it must be wrong to do that."

4. "That claim cannot be true. Dave believes it, and we know how morally repulsive he is."

5. "Bill claims that Jane would be a good treasurer. However I find Bill's behavior offensive, so I'm not going to vote for Jill."

6. "Jane says that drug use is morally wrong, but she is just a goody-two shoes Christian, so we don't have to listen to her."

7. Bill: "I don't think it is a good idea to cut social programs."
Jill: "Why not?"
Bill: "Well, many people do not get a fair start in life and hence need some help. After all, some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly easy. Others are born into poverty and..."
Jill: "You just say that stuff because you have a soft heart and an equally soft head." "
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package-deal_fallacy
"The logical fallacy of the package deal consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way.

It is particularly common in political arguments: "My opponent is a conservative who voted against higher taxes and welfare, therefore he will also oppose gun control and abortion." While those four positions are often grouped together as "conservative" in American politics, there is no reason that one cannot believe in one "conservative" idea while not believing in another."
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua.[1]

The term originated in the Middle Ages in Europe when Christians suffering from the Bubonic Plague accused Jews of poisoning their wells in order to infect them.[2] In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information that may produce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her friend, "I think I might buy this beautiful dress", then asks how it looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect her friend's response.

An even simpler example of poisoning the well is by tautology and definition, or circular reasoning. This is similar to equivocation, where the use of words can, or was intended to communicate a confusing meaning (often called a subtle lie). For example, if one starts an argument with "Everything I say is correct, no matter what you say", the well is poisoned and nothing a person says (be it true or false) will matter by the initiator's definition."
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

"An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges, "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious and anti-religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger"."
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association

"An association fallacy is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion."
----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
"Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. It commonly involves basing a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population.[1] Its opposite fallacy is called slothful induction, or denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument (i.e. "it was just a coincidence")."
------
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...to-emotion.html

"Description of Appeal to Emotion

An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:

1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
2. Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.

This sort of "reasoning" is very common in politics and it serves as the basis for a large portion of modern advertising. Most political speeches are aimed at generating feelings in people so that these feelings will get them to vote or act a certain way. in the case of advertising, the commercials are aimed at evoking emotions that will influence people to buy certain products. In most cases, such speeches and commercials are notoriously free of real evidence.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for a claim. For example, if a person were able to inspire in a person an incredible hatred of the claim that 1+1 = 2 and then inspired the person to love the claim that 1+1 = 3, it would hardly follow that the claim that 1+1 = 3 would be adequately supported.

It should be noted that in many cases it is not particularly obvious that the person committing the fallacy is attempting to support a claim. In many cases, the user of the fallacy will appear to be attempting to move people to take an action, such as buying a product or fighting in a war. However, it is possible to determine what sort of claim the person is actually attempting to support. In such cases one needs to ask "what sort of claim is this person attempting to get people to accept and act on?" Determining this claim (or claims) might take some work. However, in many cases it will be quite evident. For example, if a political leader is attempting to convince her followers to participate in certain acts of violence by the use of a hate speech, then her claim would be "you should participate in these acts of violence." In this case, the "evidence" would be the hatred evoked in the followers. This hatred would serve to make them favorable inclined towards the claim that they should engage in the acts of violence. As another example, a beer commercial might show happy, scantily clad men and women prancing about a beach, guzzling beer. In this case the claim would be "you should buy this beer." The "evidence" would be the excitement evoked by seeing the beautiful people guzzling the beer.

This fallacy is actually an extremely effective persuasive device. As many people have argued, peoples' emotions often carry much more force than their reason. Logical argumentation is often difficult and time consuming and it rarely has the power to spurn people to action. It is the power of this fallacy that explains its great popularity and wide usage. However, it is still a fallacy.

In all fairness it must be noted that the use of tactics to inspire emotions is an important skill. Without an appeal to peoples' emotions, it is often difficult to get them to take action or to perform at their best. For example, no good coach presents her team with syllogisms before the big game. Instead she inspires them with emotional terms and attempts to "fire" them up. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, it is not any acceptable form of argumentation. As long as one is able to clearly distinguish between what inspires emotions and what justifies a claim, one is unlikely to fall prey to this fallacy.

As a final point, in many cases it will be difficult to distinguish an Appeal to Emotion from some other fallacies and in many cases multiple fallacies may be committed. For example, many Ad Hominems will be very similar to Appeals to Emotion and, in some cases, both fallacies will be committed. As an example, a leader might attempt to invoke hatred of a person to inspire his followers to accept that they should reject her claims. The same attack could function as an Appeal to Emotion and a Personal Attack. In the first case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers feel very favorable about rejecting her claims. In the second case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers reject the person's claims because of some perceived (or imagined) defect in her character.

This fallacy is related to the Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Despite the differences between these two fallacies, they are both united by the fact that they involve appeals to emotions. In both cases the fallacies aim at getting people to accept claims based on how they or others feel about the claims and not based on evidence for the claims.

Another way to look at these two fallacies is as follows

Appeal to Popularity

1. Most people approve of X.
2. So, I should approve of X, too.
3. Since I approve of X, X must be true.

Appeal to Emotion

1. I approve of X.
2. Therefore, X is true.

On this view, in an Appeal to Popularity the claim is accepted because most people approve of the claim. In the case of an Appeal to Emotion the claim is accepted because the individual approves of the claim because of the emotion of approval he feels in regards to the claim.
Examples of Appeal to Emotion

1. The new PowerTangerine computer gives you the power you need. If you buy one, people will envy your power. They will look up to you and wish they were just like you. You will know the true joy of power. TangerinePower.

2. The new UltraSkinny diet will make you feel great. No longer be troubled by your weight. Enjoy the admiring stares of the opposite sex. Revel in your new freedom from fat. You will know true happiness if you try our diet!

3. Bill goes to hear a politician speak. The politician tells the crowd about the evils of the government and the need to throw out the peoople who are currently in office. After hearing the speach, Bill is full of hatred for the current politicians. Because of this, he feels good about getting rid of the old politicians and accepts that it is the right thing to do because of how he feels. "
----
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 30 2009, 08:22 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



More about the AA11/"Atta" curiosities here:

CNN Interview with Ticket Agent Michael Touhey, Touhey reportedly checked in Atta
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Oct 13 2009, 08:30 PM
Post #13





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



American Airlines AA11 was reported as leaving from gate B26 as well as gate B32

You can find the American airlines staff holding memorials at both gates. Clearly some confusion... but apparently a plane (or two!) took off calling itself AA11.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Oct 11 2013, 09:35 PM
Post #14





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



QUOTE (JackD @ Oct 14 2009, 01:30 AM) *
American Airlines AA11 was reported as leaving from gate B26 as well as gate B32

You can find the American airlines staff holding memorials at both gates. Clearly some confusion... but apparently a plane (or two!) took off calling itself AA11.


'[American Airlines passenger service agent Evelyn] Nunez will later tell the FBI that [flight attendant Amy] Sweeney says that Flight 12 at Gate 32 had two flight attendants stabbed. [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 9/11/2001, pp. 57-58]' ~ History Commons.

Maybe as empty drone Flight 11 went from Gate B26 to the World Trade Center's North tower, Flight 12 (which had taken off shortly before) was on its way from gate B32 to the evacuated Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport (which is virtually on the flight path to Los Angeles International Airport):



'A KC-135 had to come back to the [Cleveland-Hopkins] hangar," says [director of safety and mission assurance at NASA Glenn: Vernon "Bill"], Wesselas if realizing for the first time that this aircraft may have caused some undue confusion. A team of scientists from the Johnson Space Center in Houston had flown to Cleveland on this KC-135 to conduct micro-gravity experiments. (Also known as "the vomit comet," KC-135's are used to simulate weightlessness. The plane soars to high altitudes, then falls back toward the ground, giving passengers a few seconds of zero-G experience. Scenes for the Tom Hanks movie Apollo 13 were filmed in one.)
The visiting scientists could not return to Houston as scheduled on 9/11 once the FAA ordered all planes to land. "After the facility closed, we had to take those scientists to a hotel." The scientists, dressed as civilians were boarded onto shuttle buses.' ~ 911Myths.com

ohmy.gif

KC-135:

Boeing 767-223(ER):
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd November 2014 - 04:04 PM