Loose Change - Part IV

[Dog Town]

Well you missed my point once again. When it comes to my life I will do the choosing and you haven't given me a reason to feel otherwise. I have asked on here if there was anyone who could actually do something to help me or have contacts etc and I get nothing.

Man I came to class late today, cut me some slack! What contacts are you in need of? I know alot of folk's. Good lawyers top of the pops, Swear!

[Sir Knight]

Sir Knight:

I agree, that IF they were told not to speak about what they saw to anyone, that there would be pressure not to speak, but (a) I have seen no proof that they were all told this, and (b) Whistleblowers under equal pressure come forward all the time, yet not one has come forward from that group of employees.

There are whistleblowers that never make it to the podium I am afraid to tell you.

And if they were told that, would they say that? And I am afraid you should review the movie again and tell me you have never heard any claims of such things, then show me where it is proven what was in the movie wasn't true, the taped part as well as copies of articles.

And what we just discussed was in the movie, which we are suppose to be discussing, and I would like something somewhere to refute it.

Wow......

[delphi_ote]

LOL, I am not stupid enough to show it to everyone. I have said that but you don't pay attention it seems. I will not share it with someone just because they DEMAND.
So, to summarize, your agrument goes something like this:
I CAN PROVE 9/11 WAS A CONSPIRACY!!!!!

But I won't.
We've had a hundreds just like you come on this forum claiming they could read people's minds or heal people or find water with a stick. Your behavior follows a formula that repeats over and over again. You act excactly like every other lunatic we deal with day in and day out. Doesn't that bother you?

[Sir Knight]

Man I came to class late today, cut me some slack! What contacts are you in need of? I know alot of folk's. Good lawyers top of the pops, Swear!


Well lawyers have done me in in more ways that I care to tell you. They do have a price, that I can tell you for sure.

I will send you a private note.

But before we continue do me a favor and try to go back and read my past posts, it will save me a lot of time if you are up to speed, seriously.

Sir Knight

[T.A.M.]

I believe the authors of the movie say that the employees were told not to speak on it, but I do not believe they quote a source, or even show it as a quote. I am not going to take the word of those who create a movie they admit is full of errors, on such an important fact.

But I will go back to the film, and look once again at that specific point. Perhaps the "recut" version is different than the 2nd edition.

[defaultdotxbe]

There are whistleblowers that never make it to the podium I am afraid to tell you.


names? shouldnt the truth movement be throwing out references to these martyrs like theirs no tomorrow?

[Dog Town]

And if they were told that, would they say that? And I am afraid you should review the movie again and tell me you have never heard any claims of such things, then show me where it is proven what was in the movie wasn't true, the taped part as well as copies of articles.

OK ...caught up! I know some major Heavy Hitt'en press. Wal St., Post, Times,both! Let's talk! If you got the goods, you will be more than safe! You could get a meeting if you got, what you seem to allude to.

[delphi_ote]

There are whistleblowers that never make it to the podium I am afraid to tell you.
Yet here you are, on the podium. You have everyone's ear. Anyone who actually wanted to find you and kill you already could.

It's obvious you're a liar who enjoys getting attention by making up fairy tales. Your real life must be very sad.

[delphi_ote]

But before we continue do me a favor and try to go back and read my past posts, it will save me a lot of time if you are up to speed, seriously.

Your previous posts, like this post, have been full of nothing but excuses. Stop claiming you have evidence you don't have of a nonexistent conspiracy.

ETA And talk to your family or loved ones. Please. This is sad.

[Brainster]

Well you missed my point once again. When it comes to my life I will do the choosing and you haven't given me a reason to feel otherwise. I have asked on here if there was anyone who could actually do something to help me or have contacts etc and I get nothing. So if what I say is true what good would me exposing myself to anyone of you do me but take a bigger risk that I already have? And I am not sure that YOU are qualified to tell me who to trust for it would be just your opinion at this point and I would have to take a poll to find out the person who would be the best one. Which would be a joke on here I can assure you of that.

Can I say the obvious? If you believe in the CT, and you believe you have information on the CT, why are you talking to us? Why aren't you talking to Dylan Avery, Alex Jones or Eric Hufschmid? They're much more inclined to believe you right off the bat than the folks who hang around here.

[gumboot]

In response to the Pentagon Crash...

The camera which captured the impact was a fish-eye lens. this means it is incredibly wide angle. As such lateral distance is significantly exaggerated.

Now, I did a very fast and loose calculation on the angle of view for the piece of footage with the orange cones in it. I used vector lines and a satellite pic from Google Earth to determine the edge of frame.

At the approach path of the aircraft only about 30m of space is visible in the frame in front of The Pentagon.

I also put the camera frame rate at roughly 1 frame per second.

Assuming an even approach speed of 500 MPH...

= 223 m/s

I put the OVERALL field of view of the camera, at the distance of the aircraft's approach trajectory, at about 250m.

In other words, in a single frame from this piece of video, AA77 would traverse the entire width of the frame.

So. Is anyone surprised that we can't see an aircraft in these images? I know I aren't.

However, I don't need the video, because I've seen the evidence that AA77 crashed into The Pentagon. I've seen and read eye witness reports that are consistant with AA77 hitting The Pentagon. I have seen photographs of the physical evidence of AA77 and its aftermath.

And I have yet to hear of a single alternative theory that fills all the criteria of the documented physical evidence (ignoring the eye witness testimony for a moment).

-Andrew

[Sir Knight]

Your previous posts, like this post, have been full of nothing but excuses. Stop claiming you have evidence you don't have of a nonexistent conspiracy.

ETA And talk to your family or loved ones. Please. This is sad.

Well you better put me in touch with one of those people you said come on here then because my family is all dead. And phoning just don't work I guess. And I just lost a very near and dear friend lately which knew of everything that has happened to me. They said he died of a heart attack from other complications.

So you want me to lie? Sorry not happening, I do have what I have and just because you don't know everything that doesn't change a thing. But you make me laugh cause you don't have a clue, not one.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Diagnostic criteria for Schizophrenia
(cautionary statement)

A. Characteristic symptoms: Two (or more) of the following, each present for a significant portion of time during a 1-month period (or less if successfully treated):

(1) delusions

(2) hallucinations

(3) disorganized speech (e.g., frequent derailment or incoherence)

(4) grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior

(5) negative symptoms, i.e., affective flattening, alogia, or avolition

Note: Only one Criterion A symptom is required if delusions are bizarre or hallucinations consist of a voice keeping up a running commentary on the person's behavior or thoughts, or two or more voices conversing with each other.

B. Social/occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset (or when the onset is in childhood or adolescence, failure to achieve expected level of interpersonal, academic, or occupational achievement).

C. Duration: Continuous signs of the disturbance persist for at least 6 months. This 6-month period must include at least 1 month of symptoms (or less if successfully treated) that meet Criterion A (i.e., active-phase symptoms) and may include periods of prodromal or residual symptoms. During these prodromal or residual periods, the signs of the disturbance may be manifested by only negative symptoms or two or more symptoms listed in Criterion A present in an attenuated form (e.g., odd beliefs, unusual perceptual experiences).

D. Schizoaffective and Mood Disorder exclusion: Schizoaffective Disorder and Mood Disorder With Psychotic Features have been ruled out because either (1) no Major Depressive, Manic, or Mixed Episodes have occurred concurrently with the active-phase symptoms; or (2) if mood episodes have occurred during active-phase symptoms, their total duration has been brief relative to the duration of the active and residual periods.

E. Substance/general medical condition exclusion: The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition.

F. Relationship to a Pervasive Developmental Disorder: If there is a history of Autistic Disorder or another Pervasive Developmental Disorder, the additional diagnosis of Schizophrenia is made only if prominent delusions or hallucinations are also present for at least a month (or less if successfully treated).

Classification of longitudinal course (can be applied only after at least 1 year has elapsed since the initial onset of active-phase symptoms):

Episodic With Interepisode Residual Symptoms (episodes are defined by the reemergence of prominent psychotic symptoms); also specify if: With Prominent Negative Symptoms

Episodic With No Interepisode Residual Symptoms

Continuous (prominent psychotic symptoms are present throughout the period of observation); also specify if: With Prominent Negative Symptoms

Single Episode In Partial Remission; also specify if: With Prominent Negative Symptoms

Single Episode In Full Remission

Other or Unspecified Pattern


DSM-IV: Paranoid Schizophrenia

Delusions and auditory hallucinations predominate in patients with this subtype of Schizophrenia while their affective and cognitive functioning remain relatively intact.
Diagnostic criteria for 295.30 (Schizophrenia) Paranoid Type
(cautionary statement)

A type of Schizophrenia in which the following criteria are met:

A. Preoccupation with one or more delusions or frequent auditory hallucinations.

B. None of the following is prominent: disorganized speech, disorganized or catatonic behavior, or flat or inappropriate affect.

Just trying to educate.

[defaultdotxbe]

I also put the camera frame rate at roughly 1 frame per second.


im pretty sure the framerate was higher than that, the plane does seem to be in 2 or 3 frames, the 2 frames for the fireball, based on that id put framerate at 15 at the most (still lower than "regular" cameras)

And I have yet to hear of a single alternative theory that fills all the criteria of the documented physical evidence (ignoring the eye witness testimony for a moment).

i have yet to hear a CTers offer ANY explanation at all for why dozens fo peopel saw a large airliner, they always point to the 1 or 2 who said it was a smaller plane and demand and explanation, but they can never explain the dozens who saw a larger plane (save for some vague accusations that they were "paid off" but i guess the other 2 peoples checks bounced)

[gumboot]

im pretty sure the framerate was higher than that, the plane does seem to be in 2 or 3 frames, the 2 frames for the fireball, based on that id put framerate at 15 at the most (still lower than "regular" cameras)


My 1fps is based on a car which came through the barrier arm - it only moved position once every second (roughly).

As far as I am aware the aircraft is only in one frame prior to impact.

I used this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRls2y4JCDU). The frame I used was the second one (it has both the cameras, one after the other).

-Andrew

ETA. 0.5fps is not uncommon for a surveillance camera.

[Dog Town]

My 1fps is based on a car which came through the barrier arm - it only moved position once every second (roughly).

This matters little. The cam is a static vid. The recording device, old tape it looks to be, decides the "frame rate" here. There were other frames just not recorded.You just set these things on a rec rate, like sp, lp ets. Tree in the woods etc...

[Eos of the Eons]

Here are the remains or flight 93 http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1033/shanksvillecrater3il.jpg

When you hit the target or the ground at those speeds, you don't get much left.

They got black boxes from the crash sites. The recordings, the flight paths (http://www.d-n-i.net/charts_data/sept_11_flight_paths.htm), and other bits of planes that were recovered at all 4 sites. To pretend none of this is evidence is just plain pig headed.

[Sir Knight]

[quote=gumboot;1864756]My 1fps is based on a car which came through the barrier arm - it only moved position once every second (roughly).

As far as I am aware the aircraft is only in one frame prior to impact.

I used this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRls2y4JCDU). The frame I used was the second one (it has both the cameras, one after the other).


Isn't that interesting the person that put the film up has plenty to say which you didn't even refer to.

Here it is below and I quote:

If you download this exact footage, then focus on frame 7152. Frame 7152 is when the "plane" comes into view, but is only half painted in. Frame 7153 then adds a white color to make the plane seem real. At the same frame 7153 a tree behind the plane also seems to grow, or something coming out of it where it was not in the previous frame before. Frame 7185 is when smoke magically appears before the plane seems to hit the building, and then the big fireball happens. Is this for real, or made up?

I am not suggesting either way, fake or real. I also want to make it clear I don't have a firm resolution on whether a plane hit the Pentagon, because there is evidence and witnesses, and testimony on both sides. I do want to suggest that photos released, and information released about these events is very manufactured.

WHY WOULD WE NEED TO MANUFACTURE EVIDENCE?

If there is so much un-deniable proof that things went the way the 9-11 commission report stated, why did it take a year for it to come out? Why are there still so many questions? We need a 3rd party investigation team. Please visit infowars.com and 911truth.org ...

[tsig]

I guess you must be the board psyco something.




Thank you very much. I have never been dubbed by a knight before.

Psyco Ninja. I like it.

[T.A.M.]

Sir Knight;

So I did as you said, just to be sure they didnt have anything new in the "latest" version of their factual documentary.

the section about the Hotel tape is the same. There are two written quotes placed on the screen, neither of which indicate the employees were told to keep quite, the quotes merely say that the FBI confiscated the tapes.

over this the narrator says the employees were warned by the FBI "not to discuss what they had seen". So like I said before, I am not going to take the word of the "Narrator" who is the director of the film, when the filmaker and his producer have admitted the film is full of "intentional" errors, and when he provides no proof that the employees were told any such thing. I see no quote from an employee of the hotel stating this, that someone could then verify...just the narrator's word...

[gumboot]

This matters little. The cam is a static vid. The recording device, old tape it looks to be, decides the "frame rate" here. There were other frames just not recorded.You just set these things on a rec rate, like sp, lp ets. Tree in the woods etc...


Er... I'm not sure what you mean by "static vid" but that's not entirely true.

Video cameras have a fixed frame rate - the only video camera in the world, currently, that has, or ever had, a variable frame rate is the Panasonic AJ-HDC27H VariCam (http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=94208&catGroupId=14569&modelNo=AJ-HDC27H&surfModel=AJ-HDC27H). Given that:
1) The Varicam had not been released by September 2001
2) The Varicam is an HD camera
3) The Varicam costs $65,900

I think it's safe to say the Pentagon footage was not shot with a Varicam. Which means it had a fixed frame rate.

Now you are quite right in that LOWER frame rates than the camera rate can be produced by the recording mechanism.

However, this is all irrelevant. The Pentagon footage is at a frame rate of rought 1fps. Whether that was the camera CCD's actual frame rate, or a drop-down to the recorder is actually irrelevant. The point is only one frame is going to capture the airliner moving at 500 MPH. (In fact they had only a 1/8 chance of capturing the airliner before impact AT ALL).

In addition, the camera appears to have a very low shutter speed (something I would expect of a surveillance camera - and this also would be fixed). This only further blurs the single frame of an airline travelling across the open space before the Pentagon in 0.1 seconds.

-Andrew

[Drysdale]

Mr Knight, this shcitk is getting old. All your posts are nothing but riddles. You keep saying look what I've said.
Well, you've wrote hundreds of sentences and not said a dang thing but it's a secret and I'll only tell those worthy.
What a bunch of crap. I think you take the cake bud.
There's been some real winners post here in the truth movement but you are the top. They at least would try and pin down certain things in the movie but you dont even do that. All you do is make vague references with a if only you knew what I did attitude.

It's shtick and bad shtick at that. Pretty sad.

[gumboot]

Isn't that interesting the person that put the film up has plenty to say which you didn't even refer to.


Why would I? I'm quite capable (and qualified, for that matter) to make my own conclusions about photographic interpretation. And quite frankly most people are appalling at interpreting photographs, and even worse at interpreting video or motion film.



If you download this exact footage, then focus on frame 7152. Frame 7152 is when the "plane" comes into view, but is only half painted in. Frame 7153 then adds a white color to make the plane seem real. At the same frame 7153 a tree behind the plane also seems to grow, or something coming out of it where it was not in the previous frame before. Frame 7185 is when smoke magically appears before the plane seems to hit the building, and then the big fireball happens. Is this for real, or made up?


And there you have why I don't bother paying attention to some internet moron's laughable attempt at video interpretation.

The "smoke magically appears" is almost certainly the aircraft - moving at such high speed in such a slow frame that it appears as a simple streak of white across the ground. As I would expect.

-Andrew

[Gravy]

Sir Knight, I'm glad to see that you're at least beginning to bring up some issues related to the topic of this thread. In the response to your first post, you were given the link to my analysis of the video "Loose Change."

Have you read it? If not, here it is again: http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html or if you want to download the document as a .doc file, go here: http://tinyurl.com/epp82

I'm very disappointed to hear that nothing can change your mind about 9/11 being an inside job. I assume then, that you are here to bring us around to your point of view. That will be an uphill battle, and you will need to have truly uncovered information that is not available elsewhere.

At least you brought up a couple of issues that can be addressed with facts. You do not believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Have you spoken to anyone who was there? If not, why? I direct your attention to Hal Bidlack's post on this forum, which is linked below. He was there.

I hope you will also give serious consideration to the question (asked below also) of what standards of proof you would want to be used at your trial, should you be wrongly accused of a serious crime.

The following is an excerpt from an email I sent this morning to the most prominent Pentagon no-planers in this country and abroad. It is in response to an email sent to these people by another no-planer, Craig Hill. Please rebut the evidence below with your facts. I also cover this issue extensively in my "Loose Change" guide, linked above. You will need to address each point. Take your time. I await your answer.

******

"Give me one good reason to think you're not the lying pseudo-science supporter of the terrorist traitors who attacked our country which the chief economist of the Labor Dept 2001-2002 says you are, and i won't nail you as such in the next edition of Wikipedia." ~ Craig Hill, 2006 Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate from Vermont

"Moseley, you're either an idiot or a traitor, and my guess is probably both." ~ Craig Hill, 2006 Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate from Vermont

Mr. Hill,

As I will show below, your "guesses" are not evidence. Further, it ill-becomes a candidate for the United States Senate to publicly hurl invective and threats at people who disagree with him, as I've seen you do in these exchanges. If elected, is that how you would respond to your constituents? Would the people who've donated to your campaign be pleased to hear that this is how immaturely you behave? This is my first email to this group. Please refrain from caliing me a shill, tool, idiot, or any of the other names I've seen you use. If you disagree with my evidence, present yours, with sources.

Mr. Hill, I don't know Jon Moseley, but as to the credibility of Morgan Reynolds, the former Labor Department economist you mentioned, do you also believe that no planes hit the Twin Towers?

Evidence, not opinion, should dominate these discussions. Suppose you were accused of a serious crime that you did not commit. Would you want your standards of evidence to be admissible at your trial? I thought not. As an American, please keep that in mind before making unfounded accusations about 9/11, or about the people who have honest disagreements with you.

And please, if you doubt that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, talk to the witnesses, first responders, and investigators who were there. I'm absolutely astonished that supposed "researchers" have the nerve to make outlandish claims and accusations without speaking to the people who were involved.

Craig Hill:
Barbara Honneggar [sic. It's Honnegger] interviewed dozens of Pentagon employees who told her that bombs went off in the Pentagon minutes before the Thing ("plane") hit it. The bombs took out the entirety of Naval Intelligence...

Mark Roberts reply:
I was unable to find these interviews on the internet. Please provide a source for them. If you don't have a source for "dozens," one person who was in the Pentagon and claims that a bomb went off five minutes before the plane struck will do for now. Thousands of people were there. Surely you can provide the account of one who makes this claim.

How about the Pentagon security staff? Do they confirm your story? Did alarms go off at 9:32? Were calls to 911 made at 9:32? What local emergency personnel were mobilized? I certainly haven't heard of any. Were people running in panic while emergency responders moved in? You know, the normal things that happen when bombs go off. As for the Naval Command Center being taken out by bombs, perhaps you should ask the survivors from those offices if bombs went off before the plane hit. I think they would have noticed that. Further, what would be the purpose of such bombs, the discovery of which would prove an "inside job?"

Craig Hill:
FYI, Li'l Jonny, the lawn in front of the tiny hole in the Pentagon betrays your superstitious belief/lie a 757 hit the building. For that to be possible, the hole just above the basement had to have been preceded by gouges in the earth from the 9-foot diameter engines, hanging beneath the wings, dragging on the ground, as the plane flew 4 feet above the lawn, as even the Pentagon claims. End of [expletive deleted by MR] story. Slam Dunk.

Mark Roberts reply:
False. Because of the wing position and dihedral, the underslung Rolls-Royce RB 211-535 engines on flight 77 did not project far below the fuselage. Further, flight 77 was not flying level over the Pentagon lawn, and it certainly did not skid into the building: it flew into it. It was descending after crossing about 15 feet above the highway, which is elevated on a berm. Its right engine just struck the top of the construction generator in front of the Pentagon, which was housed in a trailer. By the way, dihedral also explains why, although the plane hit in a slightly left wing down position, the left wing marks on the building were nearly horizontal. Please see the many eyewitness reports of the plane hitting the building (yes, "dozens," with sources) linked below. And for detailed information on damage to the Pentagon, please see the ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report, also linked below.

I hope any disbelievers of the flight 77 crash will review the evidence in the links below carefully. If you want to argue that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, you will need to refute all of these facts with your own verifiable evidence.

First, an important message from someone who was at the Pentagon on 9/11. Please take it to heart.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1849603&postcount=1

How about the dozens of eyewitnesses accounts of the crash? For your claim to be true, all of theirs must be false. Please provide your evidence that refutes these reports.
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoud.../witnesses.htm

Notice that many of those witnesses specifically mention seeing a huge American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon.

Just released was the flight 77 Flight path analysis, which contains detailed information. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf

And the Air Traffic Control transcripts were also released recently: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc06.pdf

Summary of Flight 77 depicting the identity of crew, seat assignments of passengers, and seats from which telephone calls were made:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html

More on the phone calls, from the 9/11 Commission Report: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Of course, for anyone interested in the damage to the Pentagon, the ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report is essential reading: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf From page 35: "The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20).

A single 16-foot hole? As mentioned above, that is laughably false. The hole extends along the wing line left, and especially, right, of the fuselage hole, all the way to column 18. It is not a cookie-cutter hole: that simply cannot happen with a reinforced concrete building. Note in the following picture the total destruction of masonry and the reinforced columns broken and bent in the direction of impact (the plane came in from the right of the picture): http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg

No debris on the lawn? That couldn't be less true. Why don't CTs show these photos?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e5acd97bcc7.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e5acd9b75a6.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e5acd9e4fea.jpg[
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e5ad1fb1eb4.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e5add2ebf1b.jpg

Need more photos of 757 debris? There are hundreds of photos and several videos showing a huge assortment of debris. Here is a montage with a small sampling: http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044ca98bc1035d.jpg

Many debris photos at 911myths.com http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

How about the account of the C-130 pilot who saw both the flight 77 attack and the aftermath of flight 93? Lying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVRkAkC8n4&search=Shanksville

Photos from witness Steve Riskus, seconds after the crash (he gives his contact info, but be nice: he gets a lot of email): http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror.html

Next, you need to remember that the remains of every flight 77 victim but one (a two-year-old) was recovered and positively identified by forensics experts. Personal effects of many survived the crash and fires and were returned to the victims' families. Articles on Pentagon disaster morgue operations and victim identification:
http://ndms.chepinc.org/data/files/3/266.pdf and http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6_48/national_news/12279-1.html

As for the question, "Where are all those Pentagon video cameras?" the answer is that the Pentagon uses live security – human beings – for its perimeter security. Here's a post on the BAUT forum from a Pentagon employee who was there on 9/11. http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=746514&postcount=173 An excerpt:"Why isn't there more video? Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be suprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment."

A brief look at the ridiculous "A missile hit the Pentagon" theory:
1) No missile was seen or heard by anyone. All eyewitnesses report a passenger jet crash.
2) No missile debris was found
3) Missiles do not carry thousands of gallons of jet fuel
4) Missiles do not carry the remains of flight 77 passengers
5) Missiles do not carry tons of 757 debris
6) In the photo below, the yellow dots indicate the broken light poles. The red line indicates the path a missile would have to take in order to knock them over. Or, the missile would have to have a wingspan of over 100 feet. http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044caa801aabf4.jpg

An examination of numerous Pentagon/flight 77 questions at 9/11myths.com http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html

A detailed examination of the Jet engine pieces found at the Pentagon http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

And how about the hundreds of first responders and investigators who were on the scene the first day? All lying? Your position is deeply disrespectful of their service. Have you attempted to contact any of the 8,000 people who were on the scene after the crash? If you still have doubts, please do so. Here are a few suggestions for contacts:

the Pentagon 3-person Crash Response Team
the Arlington County Fire Department
the Arlington County Sheriff's Department
Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
the Arlington, VA Police Department
Fairfax County Fire & Rescue
Montgomery County Fire & Rescue
Alexandria, VA Fire & Rescue
District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
the Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
the Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
the Fort Myer Fire Department
the Arlington County SWAT Team
the Virginia State Police,
the FBI's Evidence Recovery Teams
the National Transportation Safety Board Investigators
American Airlines representatives
the HHS National Medical Response Team
the Pentagon security staff,
the DOD Honor Guard
the Pentagon Medical Unit
the Pentagon Defense Protective Service,
Four U.S. Army Chaplains
One Catholic Priest (Stephen McGraw)
the FBI Hazmat Team
the EPA Hazmat Team
the FEMA Incident Support Team
the FEMA Emergency Response Team
the FEMA Disaster Field Office
the FEMA Virginia-1, Virginia-2, Maryland-1 and Tennessee-1 Task Forces
the US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach, Fairfax County and Montgomery County
the National Naval Medical Center CCRF
Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams
the Virginia Department of Emergency Management
the U.S. Army 54th Quartermaster Company Mortuary Staff
the U.S. Army 311th Quartermaster Company Mortuary Staff
the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
the American Red Cross,
the United States Secret Service,
the C-130H crew

***********

Sir Knight, I hope you will take seriously my appeal to, at minimum, speak to the people who were involved as witnesses to the crash itself, as rescuers, and as investigators. Anything less means that your claim is insincere.

Will you do that?

[Dog Town]

Your right GB, watchen f-ball and partaking here, I'm out!

[Gravy]

I am not suggesting either way, fake or real. I also want to make it clear I don't have a firm resolution on whether a plane hit the Pentagon, because there is evidence and witnesses, and testimony on both sides. I do want to suggest that photos released, and information released about these events is very manufactured.

WHY WOULD WE NEED TO MANUFACTURE EVIDENCE?

Suggestions aren't evidence. How many times do you have to be told? Please present your evidence of this fraud. Now.

[gumboot]

Suggestions aren't evidence. How many times do you have to be told? Please present your evidence of this fraud. Now.

Sir Knight didn't make it clear, but to be fair to him he was quoting the blurb that went with the youtube video of the pentagon hit, rather than expressing an opinion of his own.

He did not indicate if he agreed with their views or not, though he seems rather put out that I ignored them (is it normal requirement to recount the comments posted with a video when you link to it? :confused: )

-Andrew

[defaultdotxbe]

Er... I'm not sure what you mean by "static vid" but that's not entirely true.
-Andrew

i think he was saying the camera was shooting 30fps, and displaying 30fps on the monitor, but the DVR/VCR/whatever was only recording 1fps

makes sense

[Sir Knight]

OMG, go away for 14 hours, and there are 3.5 pagesof post....damn thats a lot of reading...

Sir Knight:

If you are asserting, which I think you are, that the US govt are the ones who put together and carried out 9/11, a complex and multilocationed event, and that they were powerful enough to keep anything significant about their role in it from leaking, than don't you find it, as we do, completely insane, that they could not then do something as simple as planting a few weapons of mass destruction in the large country of Iraq, to affirm in the eyes of the american people, the justification for the war?

Seriously. Since the war began, and no WMDs were found, Bush has fallen lower than any president in terms of approval. His entire admin is under the gun for it, and they may lose the next election as a result.

Yet, with all that, even now, NO WMD have turned up...compared to the skill, preparation, and deceit required for them to carry out 9/11, don't you think to plant a few of these things wouldn't be that hard????



Well one thing happened over here, where they have more control and access and the other happened over there. WMD is not something I guess your carry around in your suit case. LOL

And they probably didn't think they needed any real excuses and that everyone would take their word on it, and guess what, IT ALMOST WORKED. Next time they WILL PLANT SOMETHING I am sure of it.

They won't make the same mistake twice.

SK

P.S. Well for one thing I do THINK they messed up on a lot of things and some of it is geting out. But with so much disinformation also being leaked it hurts the real people from doing much with what they know.

[Pardalis]

Well one thing happened over here, where they have more control and access and the other happened over there. WMD is not something I guess your carry around in your suit case. LOL

And they probably didn't think they needed any real excuses and that everyone would take their word on it, and guess what, IT ALMOST WORKED. Next time they WILL PLANT SOMETHING I am sure of it.

They won't make the same mistake twice.

SK

Good thing we have you to notice all this. Geez, you have such insights into the White House, what would we do without you?!

[T.A.M.]

That is not good enough, in my opinion Sir Knight. they could plant something tomorrow, or yesterday, and almost all of america would buy it, but they haven't, and they have more than enough control over there now to at least do that.

And don't minimize things. If they have the almighty power you and others say they have, to carry out something as Huge as 9/11, I would say planting WMDs on the freakin moon would be within their power...

[defaultdotxbe]

everytime i see a post form sir knight i think of this, so i have to say it:

Arthur: You fight with the strength of many men, Sir Knight.
BK: [silence]
Arthur: I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
BK: [silence]
Arthur: I seek the finest and the bravest knights in the land to join me in my court at Camelot.
BK: [silence]
Arthur: You have proved yourself worthy. Will you join me?
BK: [silence]
Arthur: You make me sad. So be it. Come, Patsy!
BK: None shall pass.
Arthur: What?
BK: None shall pass!
Arthur: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must cross this bridge!
BK: Then you shall die.
Arthur: I command you, as King of the Britons, to stand aside!
BK: I move for no man.
Arthur: So be it!
[They fight. Arthur chops off BK's arm]
Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BK: 'Tis but a scratch!
Arthur: A scratch?! Your arm's off!
BK: No, it isn't.
Arthur: Well what's that, then?
BK: ... I've had worse.
Arthur: You liar!
BK: Come on, you pansy!
[Fight continues, Arthur chops BK's other arm]
Arthur: Victory is mine! [kneels to pray] We thank thee, Lord, that in thy mercy--
[BK kicks Arthur's head]
BK: Come on then!
Arthur: What?!
BK: Have at you!
Arthur: You are indeed brave, good Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
BK: Oooh, had enough, eh?
Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!
BK: Yes, I have!
Arthur: LOOK!!
BK: It's just a flesh wound!
[BK continues kicking]
Arthur: Look, stop that!
BK: Chicken! Chicken!!
Arthur: Look, I'll have your leg...
[still kicking]
Arthur: RIGHT!!!
[Arthur chops one of BK's legs]
BK: RIGHT! I'll do you for that!
Arthur: You'll what?!
BK: Come here!!
Arthur: What are you gonna do, bleed on me!?
BK: I'm invincible!!
Arthur: You're a looney.
BK: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you!! Come on then!
[Arthur chops the other leg]
BK: All right....we'll call it a draw.
Arthur: Come, Patsy!
BK: Ooh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards!! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!!

[Sir Knight]

Sir Knight didn't make it clear, but to be fair to him he was quoting the blurb that went with the youtube video of the pentagon hit, rather than expressing an opinion of his own.

He did not indicate if he agreed with their views or not, though he seems rather put out that I ignored them (is it normal requirement to recount the comments posted with a video when you link to it? :confused: )

-Andrew

Well considering that you tried to get the video to answer my question I posted, you failed to mention that even the person that had examined the video extremely well didn't find it all that conclusive and pointed out facts in the film the would strongly suggest that it was or might be FAKE. No, you go on to suggest that it would SHOW me the plane which I was looking for and it doesn't. And I doubt seriously that it is the original untouched video, especially after what was posted along side of it.
And even he states there are witness on both sides, well I am sure the GOV put in a few of their own to make sure someone said what they wanted. They usually do, and I speak from personal experience.

It is far from what I asked for. So I still say SHOW ME THE PLANE.

SK

[Sir Knight]

That is not good enough, in my opinion Sir Knight. they could plant something tomorrow, or yesterday, and almost all of america would buy it, but they haven't, and they have more than enough control over there now to at least do that.

And don't minimize things. If they have the almighty power you and others say they have, to carry out something as Huge as 9/11, I would say planting WMDs on the freakin moon would be within their power...


First of all they DID PLANT WMD's, they did it to the PUBLIC in their minds to get us to go over there and fight without a big objection and it worked. We were already over there by the time they had to admit there weren't any. So, they planted WMD in our minds, not mine actually as I knew there wasn't any, so we would NOT object for them going over there. The horse was already out of the barn so did they actually need any WMD? No they got what they wanted, the backlash of finding out their data was faulty was more than they expected in the public eye, so they were surprised, most crooks get a surprise now and again.

They get what they want but not always exactly how they want it.

Now I never said they had ultimate power, I suggested maybe they are working to that end, but they haven't got it yet. They are well within the ability to pull of this 9/11 thing, you are fooling yourself to think they can't.

SK

[gumboot]

Well considering that you tried to get the video to answer my question I posted, you failed to mention that even the person that had examined the video extremely well didn't find it all that conclusive and pointed out facts in the film the would strongly suggest that it was or might be FAKE.


Do you have poor reading comprehension? I don't care what their opinion is of the video. I'll make up my own opinion.

I wasn't using it to "answer your question" I was using it to demonstrate that there is NO WAY that footage would capture AA77 in any form that would make it identifiable as an aircraft.

I did the calculations to demonstrate my findings.




No, you go on to suggest that it would SHOW me the plane which I was looking for and it doesn't.


At which point did I suggest that?




And I doubt seriously that it is the original untouched video, especially after what was posted along side of it.


I've seen many many versions of the same clip.



And even he states there are witness on both sides, well I am sure the GOV put in a few of their own to make sure someone said what they wanted.

Please cite the testimony of ONE SINGLE WITNESS who claims to have seen something other than a commercial passenger plane. JUST ONE.




It is far from what I asked for. So I still say SHOW ME THE PLANE.

Two can play at this. I still say THE SECURITY CAMERA IS NOT CAPABLE OF CAPTURING AN AIRLINER TRAVELLING AT 500MPH WITH ENOUGH CLARITY TO IDENTIFY IT.

Got it?

Gravy has posted you a mountain of evidence of AA77 in The Pentagon.

I can only add the personal account of a good friend of my father's, whose office was hit by AA77. He described the following things all consistant with AA77 hitting The Pentagon:
1) Airliner wreckage
2) The smell of kerosene
3) Flash burns (this are distinct, and you only get them from hydrocarbon fuel fireballs, not from high explosives)

-Andrew

[T.A.M.]

so you don't think that they could pull off planting a few simple chemical weapons over there, but you think they could pull off 9/11...that is illogical.

And as to what you seem to be indicating would be a lack of motive, for them, I disagree. Even though they, according to you, purposely lied to go there, you are then saying that they simply sucked it up and took it on the noggin with respect to public opinion, creating the worse numbers the administration has ever had, and putting their continuance of power in serious jeopardy, by way of likely losing to the Democrats in 2008 because of the war. They could have bolstered their approval, and avoided or at least minimized the affect on the polls and potential re-election, by simply planting a few chemical weapons here, a few there...It is simply illogical.

Seems to me that any group so obsessed with power over the people, and maintaining that power, would do everything they could to keep it, not jeopardize their future control by making themselves look horrible in the eyes of the public who elects or ejects them. A few little WMDs would have done it...and so easy to do...

[delphi_ote]

Well one thing happened over here, where they have more control and access and the other happened over there. WMD is not something I guess your carry around in your suit case. LOL

And they probably didn't think they needed any real excuses and that everyone would take their word on it, and guess what, IT ALMOST WORKED. Next time they WILL PLANT SOMETHING I am sure of it.

They won't make the same mistake twice.

SK

P.S. Well for one thing I do THINK they messed up on a lot of things and some of it is geting out. But with so much disinformation also being leaked it hurts the real people from doing much with what they know.
I'm curious. Is there some psychosomatic block that blinds and protects you from evidence that would shatter your world view or are you just too lazy to read and respond to Gravy's post?

ETA Your posts are becoming more incoherent and paranoid by the hour. Please talk to your family, get some support, and then seek professional help.

[defaultdotxbe]

so you don't think that they could pull off planting a few simple chemical weapons over there, but you think they could pull off 9/11...that is illogical.


he says you cant just bring WMDs over in a suitcase, but the thing is....you can

the smallest nuke is a mere 50 pounds, chemical and biological weapons come in even smaller packages, theres no reason they couldnt arrange to find a vial of anthrax or sarin on saddam when they captured him

[Sir Knight]

Sir Knight didn't make it clear, but to be fair to him he was quoting the blurb that went with the youtube video of the pentagon hit, rather than expressing an opinion of his own.

He did not indicate if he agreed with their views or not, though he seems rather put out that I ignored them (is it normal requirement to recount the comments posted with a video when you link to it? :confused: )

-Andrew

What really ticks me off is that people on here ARE NOT READING WHAT I TYPE, this is a prime example of what I am talking about. The guy you are having to spell something out to didn't read what I said, for I did say what I was going to post and why. If he had read carefully instead of jumping the gun he would have known that, but it is more fun to jump me and beat on me than READ what I actually said and WHY I said it.

you guys go off half cocked and take short excerpts, ignor important facts or other peoples statements, even including those that carefully examined and give you what you are using to try to prove your point, and the people you are LEAVING OUT of the equation are more qualified and more informed than you are. But what they have to say about what you are attemtping to twist is not important?

You are doing exactly what you are accusing the LC people of doing but doing it much worse than you accuse them of doing and doing a terrible job of it at best.

And you wonder why I just don't drop my tousers and show you mine?

LOL, you wouldn't take the time to even read it before twisting it into something else. I will find the right people to share with, those that THINK BEFORE RIPPING APART, those that consider FACTS BEFORE BS.

I possibly will share it with someone on here, maybe I met some real people we shall see.

But tomorrow I am meeting with someone in real life and I mean eye to eye and will show them what I have. I met with them to day and he is willing to review things and I trust him. He just isn't anyone either, he isn't surprised by what I have on the contrary, he was more informed than I was about many things for very specific reasons.

Anyway, good night people

Have fun but I wonder what you must dream about when you are asleep because from what I see from what you mostly post you must be dreaming now if you think you can change my mind from what you say. Your shouting and accusations just don't bother me, not for the reasons you think, I was just frustrated for the most part but I have found some people here are not quite like you mouthy ones. you sound like Politicians for the most part not real people that would welcome anyone with the truth.

I have not lied about anything and one day you will know that to be a fact, one way or another you will know, maybe not the way you want, and maybe you won't like it when you see/hear it, and maybe you will just wish it away once again. no one can make you accept anything, not even the truth, that is sometihng I learned a long time ago. People who like lies like living in lies. Say that 10 times fast. LOL

[SRW]

everytime i see a post form sir knight i think of this, so i have to say it:

I have asked him already how much he pays Patsy to bang the coconuts together, and he refuses to answer. I do not think he is a real Sir Knight at all.

[Sir Knight]

he says you cant just bring WMDs over in a suitcase, but the thing is....you can

the smallest nuke is a mere 50 pounds, chemical and biological weapons come in even smaller packages, theres no reason they couldnt arrange to find a vial of anthrax or sarin on saddam when they captured him

First of all you need to go back to the CLAIM. they claimed they were manufacturing stuff WMD. The factory and such would NOT fit into a suit case. And you are ablsolutely correct, it would be easy just to put someting over there but that wasn't the CLAIM was it? They would have had to show a factory of some kind which if I recall correctly they did attempt to claim certain things were proof of that but recanted later.
And to put one or two items around without any proof of it being made there would have been very suspicious considering we had CIA and other reports that claimed other things.

Anyway, this is just another example of talking before thinking. And I was talking like the GOV was talking WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION, and you are talking WEAPON of MASS DESTRUCTION. You are talking about ONE, and the GOV was talking about MANY. Check the old news clips and reports etc. I thought you guys would of done that already a long time ago. That is the problem with ABREVIATIONS, can't tell singular from plural somethings.

[Sir Knight]

I have asked him already how much he pays Patsy to bang the coconuts together, and he refuses to answer. I do not think he is a real Sir Knight at all.

Ok someone answer me this: How come this post isn't being bashed by someone because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOVIE?

Get my point here?

[T.A.M.]

Sir Knight:

Don't forget it was you who came here. Noone asked you to. You came into a skeptics forum where the topic is Debunking the "Loose Change" video. You presented some arguments, and some people brought forward some evidence contrary to your views. Tempers flared a little, you took it personally.

If what you wanted was help, or someone you could trust, seems to me we gave you the forum addresses a long time ago of forums where they hold your views in high regard, and would embrace you and your views/opinions/evidence with open arms.

Yet you chose to stay here and argue, mostly about topics not related, at least in anyway you were willing to show, to 9/11.

But, noone here asked admin to kick you out. Like I said to you when I welcomed you, your views will be allowed, if not accepted.

Over at the LC boards, your views will be accepted, and embraced, unless they are contrary to theirs, in which case you will be Banned from their board.

I hope you get the answers and help that you seek.

T.A.M.

[gumboot]

and the people you are LEAVING OUT of the equation are more qualified and more informed than you are.

:confused:

Are you saying the random person who posted a video on youtube and made some vague comments about it is more qualified than me to interpret video?

How do you know what my qualifications are? Do you even know what field I work in?

I certainly haven't told you.

What are the youtube guy's qualifications? Do you know him?

-Andrew

[T.A.M.]

an occasional light hearted joke is tolerated. And his comment is not trying to invoke argument or anger, least not that I can tell.

And he is not leading people by the chain, claiming to have extraordinary evidence, then not telling people here. And I think you were given alot of rope, in terms of what you said, before people started to ask you to come back to the topic of the forum.

[SRW]

Ok someone answer me this: How come this post isn't being bashed by someone because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOVIE?

Get my point here?

Oh are you going to make a point? I have been killing time reading your BS waiting for you to make a point. At the very least explain why you will not answer Gravy. Stop wasting everyones time put up or shut up.

So How much do you pay Patsy?

[Sir Knight]

so you don't think that they could pull off planting a few simple chemical weapons over there, but you think they could pull off 9/11...that is illogical.

And as to what you seem to be indicating would be a lack of motive, for them, I disagree. Even though they, according to you, purposely lied to go there, you are then saying that they simply sucked it up and took it on the noggin with respect to public opinion, creating the worse numbers the administration has ever had, and putting their continuance of power in serious jeopardy, by way of likely losing to the Democrats in 2008 because of the war. They could have bolstered their approval, and avoided or at least minimized the affect on the polls and potential re-election, by simply planting a few chemical weapons here, a few there...It is simply illogical.

Seems to me that any group so obsessed with power over the people, and maintaining that power, would do everything they could to keep it, not jeopardize their future control by making themselves look horrible in the eyes of the public who elects or ejects them. A few little WMDs would have done it...and so easy to do...

Excuse me but read my other posts where I discuss the WDM's.

But to answer you on this point. even the best conspiracy, and they have been real ones that you know of, has problems here and there, there is a thing called DAMAGE CONTROL. And when things don't go perfect they have people that go in and clean things up with misinformation etc. Conspiracies are a risk but when you have plenty of money and quite a bit of power it appears they take the risks.

Somethings blow up in their faces and advisors aren't always right.

I am not saying these are GODS doing all this, just very misguided WANT TO BES.

You assume that everything always will go or has to go perfect before anyone would be involved in a conspiracy. That is funny and almost humorous, for I have plenty of evidence that shows they SCREW UP and tommorrow I will be sharing some of it with someone who knows REAL STUFF not your WISHFUL THINKING KIND OF STUFF.

The best laid plans oft go awry.

And this could have been much worse. Considering how many screw ups they did, I am amazed that we aren't having riots in the Capital. So all in all they did a pretty good job, not excellent, but pretty good. But time will tell if it is enough.

[T.A.M.]

Sir Knight:

For the govt to pull off 9/11, they would have had to have the power to have explosives planted in three buildings which were open to workers 24/7, over a period of weeks to months. They would have had the power to have a missile shot into the Pentagon, and not have it leak out. They would have had the power to set up remote controlled Drone Jet airliners, and also to collect over 200 passengers, and put them into witness protection, or worse murdered, and no word get out. They would have had the power to do all of this, and control any and all whistleblowers...yet you don't think this same NWO adminstration had the power to take a couple of big cargo planes over to Iraq, have a couple of dozen army personnel land somewhere in remote Iraq, set up a mock Chemical Weapons factory, and then leave...please man, be reasonable.

[gumboot]

They would have had to show a factory of some kind which if I recall correctly they did attempt to claim certain things were proof of that but recanted later.
And to put one or two items around without any proof of it being made there would have been very suspicious considering we had CIA and other reports that claimed other things.


They actually have found WMD in Iraq, just nothing that was new or recent - it has all been old stuff - 1990 era or earlier.

You do remember that Iraq DID have WMD right? This is not disputed. In fact the fact that they had them is written into International Law in the form of numerous UNSC Resolutions.

They also USED them against a number of people - including Iraqi Kurds, Iran, and Coalition Troops in Saudi Arabia.

The issue was never if there WERE WMD in Iraq. The issue was if Iraq was still making them!

It has become clear that they weren't, but that all the infrastructure for making them was still in place, and the intention was to continue once sanctions were lifted. It is also almost certain that the Iraqi scientists PRETENDED they were actually producing WMD to keep Saddam happy.

-Andrew

[Sir Knight]

an occasional light hearted joke is tolerated. And his comment is not trying to invoke argument or anger, least not that I can tell.

And he is not leading people by the chain, claiming to have extraordinary evidence, then not telling people here. And I think you were given alot of rope, in terms of what you said, before people started to ask you to come back to the topic of the forum.

I have NEVER claimed to have EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE, not once have I used that term. I have said FACTS, referred to things I have in my personal possession that proves a conspiracy involving the GOV, CIA etc.
I shall even include the COURT SYSTEM.

These are facts, which I have shown to many lawyers, none of which said I was crazy but many were too scared to do anything with it.

Not the first time this has happened. I have known about many conspiracies, and things just appear to get worse not better. They get bigger with time. I guess I am just that kind of magnet, I am lucky. LOL NOT!

And it isn't one piece of paper I have but boxes of stuff. One thing could be maufactured but all the tapes, papers, court documents and other things including pictures reports etc could not be done, well not by me anyway. There are people on here that hear some ring of truth in what I say and those people might get a shot at learning some things.

Being on here does not give me away nor does it change the facts.

I know what I have and in time maybe others will also but these are not things I could really put on the board that is why I am looking for people who might know how to help me and know what to do with what I do have. And in case you haven't noticed, which is more the case than not, I am trying to discuss the video and aspects of the video. You guys keep coming back and misquoting me and I have tried to move beyond that now.

[Sir Knight]

They actually have found WMD in Iraq, just nothing that was new or recent - it has all been old stuff - 1990 era or earlier.

You do remember that Iraq DID have WMD right? This is not disputed. In fact the fact that they had them is written into International Law in the form of numerous UNSC Resolutions.

They also USED them against a number of people - including Iraqi Kurds, Iran, and Coalition Troops in Saudi Arabia.

The issue was never if there WERE WMD in Iraq. The issue was if Iraq was still making them!

It has become clear that they weren't, but that all the infrastructure for making them was still in place, and the intention was to continue once sanctions were lifted. It is also almost certain that the Iraqi scientists PRETENDED they were actually producing WMD to keep Saddam happy.

-Andrew

Thanks for that logical and polite statement, and I agree, but that was not what was CLAIMED by the GOV and that is why they ended up taking it on the chin.

If the factories and infrastructure was still in place and they had the CAPABILITY to make stuff quickly then WHY would the GOV be looking so bad? Why did they need to make apologies? Because what they claimed to get us to allow them to go over there WAS NOT TRUE. It was a manufactured LIE for a sole purpose. And that is why they took it on the chin, once the cat was out of the bag.

[delphi_ote]

It is also almost certain that the Iraqi scientists PRETENDED they were actually producing WMD to keep Saddam happy.
Or that Saddam was trying to look tough to Iran after he disarmed. Who knows what was really going on inside that regime all those years? Hopefully, history will have some answers, because I think this will be an interesting story if the facts ever come in.

There's plenty to be upset about regarding the WMD problem. The international intelligence community was dead wrong about so many things. I don't understand why anyone would want to invent imaginary evils to pounce on when the reality is bad enough. America alone spends billions of dollars on an intelligence community. When we really needed good intelligence, they got it all wrong.

Instead of all that, Knight would prefer to live in his fantasy world where he's the target of death squads and CIA agents. I used to think these guys read too much Tom Clancey, but this spy story is too hack even for that guy.

[delphi_ote]

Thanks for that logical and polite statement, and I agree, but that was not what was CLAIMED by the GOV and that is why they ended up taking it on the chin.

If the factories and infrastructure was still in place and they had the CAPABILITY to make stuff quickly then WHY would the GOV be looking so bad? Why did they need to make apologies? Because what they claimed to get us to allow them to go over there WAS NOT TRUE. It was a manufactured LIE for a sole purpose. And that is why they took it on the chin, once the cat was out of the bag.
So rather than this elaborate scheme you've concocted, why didn't they just quickly build some fake WMD sites in the middle of the desert somewhere?

[JamesB]

Heh, in an amusing case of irony I got e-mail from Steven Jones informing me that I was violating academic ethics for submitting my rebuttal to Frank Legge's paper to his journal, because it was already published in our (somewhat satirical) Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.jod911.com/The_PNAC_and_Other_Myths.pdf).

Once again proving conclusively that by the "Scholars" standards the only prerequisite to be considered an "academic journal" is the ability to create a website.

Of course the other irony is that we actually have higher standards.

[gumboot]

If the factories and infrastructure was still in place and they had the CAPABILITY to make stuff quickly then WHY would the GOV be looking so bad?


Because the media has made them look bad because it sells more newspapers?

-Andrew

[Sir Knight]

Sir Knight:

For the govt to pull off 9/11, they would have had to have the power to have explosives planted in three buildings which were open to workers 24/7, over a period of weeks to months. They would have had the power to have a missile shot into the Pentagon, and not have it leak out. They would have had the power to set up remote controlled Drone Jet airliners, and also to collect over 200 passengers, and put them into witness protection, or worse murdered, and no word get out. They would have had the power to do all of this, and control any and all whistleblowers...yet you don't think this same NWO adminstration had the power to take a couple of big cargo planes over to Iraq, have a couple of dozen army personnel land somewhere in remote Iraq, set up a mock Chemical Weapons factory, and then leave...please man, be reasonable.

I am not sure why we are continuing this line of thought, there are FACTS, they made CLAIMS which were NOT true, we went over there UNDER THE DISGUISE of lies, the TRUTH came out, they somewhat apologized or made excuses. It didn't turn out the way they thought it was going to. And you are right, THEY COULD HAVE BUT DIDN'T, if you think our CIA buddies could NOT have done that you are dead wrong, THEY COULD AND HAVE DONE things just like that. They just didn't do it this time. Look, like I said they DO MESS UP, I never said it was the perfect conspiracy, far from it. But the are still in power anyway, so what is the point, did he get himself kicked out of office for it? NO.

And listen, find someone that REALLY worked in the CIA or WITH the CIA, they will tell you many things most of which you will not like, well that is if they tell you anything at all. I was once told by a CIA guy, and he was for real, that he couldn't tell me specifics for if he did he would have to kill me. He was not joking, didn't crack a smile or anything. He also told me about his first kill. I don't deal in BS, I have a lot of BS come my way, and not the kind you guys imply.

I am meeting with someone that used to work with the CIA tomorrow.

I like talking to real people, people who know what real stuff is and how things really work. You should really check out the CIA find out what they are capable of.

Good night

[Pardalis]

Because the media has made them look bad because it sells more newspapers?

-Andrew

Ah! So that's how they thought they'd get to cash in despite the high cost of the war: Bad press about themselves!

How cunningly evil!

[gumboot]

Or that Saddam was trying to look tough to Iran after he disarmed. Who knows what was really going on inside that regime all those years? Hopefully, history will have some answers, because I think this will be an interesting story if the facts ever come in.


I think it might be a bit of both. From the interviews I have read/seen with former/escaped Iraqi scientists who worked on the program, I think it's probably likely that Saddam genuinely thought he did have a viable WMD program still, and was using it to keep Iran down. The scientists, meanwhile, had experienced some thorough education in what disappointing Saddam led to, so they kept up the bluff.

Of course this is only a few testimonies of what was going on, and they are speculating on what Saddam knew.




There's plenty to be upset about regarding the WMD problem. The international intelligence community was dead wrong about so many things.

To be honest I think the greatest damage done by the whole affair is the United Nations. I think in the 10 years of sanctions and games with weapons inspectors that totally failed in their primary duties, and a unilateral invasion by the USA was simply the final nail in the UN coffin. The current hilarity with assembling a UN force for Lebanon may very well be the grave to toss the coffin into.

You're right though, of course. This is one thing that always astounds me. There's lots of justified and reasonable reasons for a given stance on a topic. I might not agree with them all personally, but at least I can go "Well, that's a justified and reasonable stance". But instead CTers have to come up with the most insane justifications under the sun.

It's like saying "I'm opposed to abortion because I think unborn children should be protected from having their life extinguished" or saying "if you have an abortion you're a murdering devil and you're gonna burn in hell because God hates you"

-Andrew

[Sir Knight]

So rather than this elaborate scheme you've concocted, why didn't they just quickly build some fake WMD sites in the middle of the desert somewhere?

I don't know never said I knew all the answers, I just have some facts which even when you put it all together still leaves some questions. There are probably only a few people that have all the answers and I am not one of them. For me to know more than what I do I would have to have been one of them, on the inside making the decisions stupid or otherwise.

And you must realize that the scheme you are talking about has to do with more than Iraq, the lies about the WDM had to do with IRAQ, never said that 9/11 had to do with that. Iraq should have been taken care of when we were over there the first time, when we were at the door. I can't explain why we didn't take care of it then, a lot less people would have died. That is almost a different chapter of a long story. And like I keep saying they do mess up for pete's sake. They are NOT GODS.

[Pardalis]

I just have some facts

Oh, great! Do you want to share them with us?

[gumboot]

Iraq should have been taken care of when we were over there the first time, when we were at the door. I can't explain why we didn't take care of it then, a lot less people would have died.


The UNSC mandate didn't extend to invading Iraq and forcing a regime change. IMHO this was the UN's fatal mistake.

-Andrew

[Regnad Kcin]

...So many topics but so little minds.Y'know, your belligerence...

...I have the answers and facts, problem is you guys don't know what to do with them or even like them....egomania...

...It was an inside job.and delusional traits combined all mean one thing...

Congrats, you've hit the trifecta!

[Gravy]

I have not lied about anything
Yes you have. You said you received the first patent on software, and you said you were leaving this board for good.

[gumboot]

Yes you have. You said you received the first patent on software, and you said you were leaving this board for good.


Can you get double jeopardy on a lie? Because I think he has said he was leaving numerous times...

-Andrew

[Gravy]

You should really check out the CIA find out what they are capable of.
Since they are not capable of silencing the intrepid Sir Knight who possesses so much knowledge that is dangerous to them, I'm not at all impressed by their ablities.

[T.A.M.]

Well in a way, a strange way, I feel officially initiated now. Apparently someone over at libertyforum.org was annoyed enough at my blogpost debunking Uncle Fetzers 15 points, that they decided to not only post it there, and try to tear it to shreads, but they then posted on my blog, demeaning my debating skills, while still presenting very little evidence.

If you wanna debate with these guys, they seem to be more knoweldgable than the LC bunch.

the guy who posted ot the blog was named "Baiken", and he quotes himself and Rajter alot.

take a look:

my article posted on libertyforum.org (http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=294877844&page=&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&vc=1&t=0#Post294877844)

Check out my original BRIEF Debunking of the 15 points (http://911yj.blogspot.com/)

[Sir Knight]

Since they are not capable of silencing the intrepid Sir Knight who possesses so much knowledge that is dangerous to them, I'm not at all impressed by their ablities.

Well if I was anyone else I would be dead several times, but then again I refer you to my previous posts where I have clearly stated, THEY MAKE MISTAKES and ARE NOT GOD.

I just don't go down easily not that they haven't tried. I have plenty of documentation on that. And for the RECORD, I have said/stated that I have evidence of attempts on my life, I NEVER said they the CIA was directly responsible for that, what I did say was the CIA help set me up.
Maybe if it was the CIA that tried to kill me maybe I might not be posting, but then again I am not absolutely sure WHO tried to kill me every time but I know that my life has had several attempts on it, and I do know who tried to kill me on one occsion. The problems here is that you guys ADD to what I have said, and mix it around and then accuse me of things I didn't say but what you have said or made up/misconstrued etc.

And I have never said I was impressed by them either, just they are capable of more than you give them credit for.

[T.A.M.]

It is funny, as I read all those who posted at the libertforum site to debunk my debunking, the only one to make any headway was randfreedom, who mainly attacted by debating skills (not my strong point), but did little to attack my debunking. All and all, given what a neophyte I am at this, I didnt fair too badly over there...randfreedom is the same guy who posted at my blog, with the same post you can find on the libertyforum.org site.

[Gravy]

Anyway, good night people
Good night
Well if I was anyone else I would be dead several times
Please apply for James Randi's $1 million paranormal challenge.

[Gravy]

Maybe if it was the CIA that tried to kill me maybe I might not be posting, but then again I am not absolutely sure WHO tried to kill me every time but I know that my life has had several attempts on it, and I do know who tried to kill me on one occsion.
Here's something you can answer without revealing any state secrets. How many attempts on your life have there been, and what did they consist of?

This is just out of curiosity. I'd prefer that you stuck to issues directly related to 9/11. Are you going to read my long post and the information in the links I provided?

[Sir Knight]

Can you get double jeopardy on a lie? Because I think he has said he was leaving numerous times...

-Andrew

Opps, I did leave but didn't you read the post where I said I was asked to come back NICELY? And I can change my mind, but maybe you do not believe in either free thinking, free speech or right to change my mind? I did not lie, I did leave, and it was almost for good. But my decision was based on a bad reaction to BS from people like you, but it turned out there were others that compensated for the likes of you. Otherwise I wouldn't have come back.

Like they say, you have to kiss a lot of toads before you get a prince. Well you are NOT the Prince. LOL

[Class]

Well if I was anyone else I would be dead several times, but then again I refer you to my previous posts where I have clearly stated, THEY MAKE MISTAKES and ARE NOT GOD.

I just don't go down easily not that they haven't tried. I have plenty of documentation on that. And for the RECORD, I have said/stated that I have evidence of attempts on my life, I NEVER said they the CIA was directly responsible for that, what I did say was the CIA help set me up.
Maybe if it was the CIA that tried to kill me maybe I might not be posting, but then again I am not absolutely sure WHO tried to kill me every time but I know that my life has had several attempts on it, and I do know who tried to kill me on one occsion. The problems here is that you guys ADD to what I have said, and mix it around and then accuse me of things I didn't say but what you have said or made up/misconstrued etc.

And I have never said I was impressed by them either, just they are capable of more than you give them credit for.

Sir Knight, why won't you decimate us and post the evidence? If "they" haven't killed you yet, I doubt they would if "they" ever saw your post.

"They" seem to be stupid assassins if they can get your doctor and your mechanic, but not you.

Scare quotes are fun. :)

[Pardalis]

Like they say, you have to kiss a lot of toads before you get a prince. Well you are NOT the Prince. LOL

Yeah, but that would make you the princess.

[gumboot]

Like they say, you have to kiss a lot of toads before you get a prince. Well you are NOT the Prince. LOL


Are you capable of anything other than extraordinary unsupported claims and personal attacks?

-Andrew

[Sir Knight]

Here's something you can answer without revealing any state secrets. How many attempts on your life have there been, and what did they consist of?

This is just out of curiosity. I'd prefer that you stuck to issues directly related to 9/11. Are you going to read my long post and the information in the links I provided?

Fair enough, ok, 1. poisoning 2. Car set to blow up (this one was quite interesting and it was setup to look like an accident and it had worked it wouldn't have left any evidence. Depending on your point of view, mine is that I was fortunate the plan didn't work 3. Different Car tampered with to disable the air bag and there was a micro switch set underneath the dash that had disabled the rear brake lights so it wouldn't show on the dash they were not working. The last was involving two attempts on me, one was to maybe kill me with a rear end collision with no airbag, and if that didn't do the job, I was going to be charged with causing the accident in an attempt to do insurance fraud. Neither of them worked due to I found the problem due to constant checking of the cars on a weekly basis and when it did happen someone was nice enough to inform me the tail lights were not working without plowing into the car. Upon checking things out everything appeared to be ok but not working, it took an electrical expert to find what they had done. To break into the wiring in a manner to not show something on the dash was not a simple job. the little micro switch was put there to pick the right timing.

Those three I can state clearly because I have full docmentation on. there were others that appeared to be just accidental things but if you put all details together they were not accidental things. So since I don't have clear convincing evidence in my possession of those attempts I will not really go into details about them, but another 3 times would be accurate anyway.

As for your lengthy post, I was considering it, just not got to it yet.

Are you asking nicely? Or do you care? Just wondering.

[SRW]

I think it might be a bit of both. From the interviews I have read/seen with former/escaped Iraqi scientists who worked on the program, I think it's probably likely that Saddam genuinely thought he did have a viable WMD program still, and was using it to keep Iran down. The scientists, meanwhile, had experienced some thorough education in what disappointing Saddam led to, so they kept up the bluff.

Of course this is only a few testimonies of what was going on, and they are speculating on what Saddam knew.



To be honest I think the greatest damage done by the whole affair is the United Nations. I think in the 10 years of sanctions and games with weapons inspectors that totally failed in their primary duties, and a unilateral invasion by the USA was simply the final nail in the UN coffin. The current hilarity with assembling a UN force for Lebanon may very well be the grave to toss the coffin into.



-Andrew

I could not agree more, The UN may do some good, but when it comes to stooping bad things from happening their track record seems pretty abysmal. Where were UN troops in Lebanon before the current crisis, and they did nothing, so now they are send more over to do less then nothing. The UN should have an effective military stance or just admit that they are just a place for hot air to escape.

[Sir Knight]

Yeah, but that would make you the princess.


No that would make me someone who knows what a figure of speech is and makes you someone who doesn't know what a figure of speech is.

And to save time and effort I will reply to the other guy, oh yes I can do many different things, please refer to my other posts, you claim now that all I do is insult people. I was just mearly stating a FIGURE OF SPEECH FACT.

But you can call me Betty........ LOL

[Pardalis]

OK, maybe it wasn't a princess, but wasn't the person kissing all these frogs a female?

[Sir Knight]

OK, maybe it wasn't a princess, but wasn't the person kissing all these frogs a female?


As I said before it WAS A FIGURE OF SPEECH.

No more to be said about it.

[Gravy]

Sir Knight, I've started a new thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1865201#post1865201) for further discussion of your claims. Thanks for filling me on the murder attempts.

[brumsen]

To be honest I think the greatest damage done by the whole affair is the United Nations. I think in the 10 years of sanctions and games with weapons inspectors that totally failed in their primary duties, and a unilateral invasion by the USA was simply the final nail in the UN coffin. The current hilarity with assembling a UN force for Lebanon may very well be the grave to toss the coffin into.

The UNSC mandate didn't extend to invading Iraq and forcing a regime change. IMHO this was the UN's fatal mistake.

I could not agree more, The UN may do some good, but when it comes to stooping bad things from happening their track record seems pretty abysmal. Where were UN troops in Lebanon before the current crisis, and they did nothing, so now they are send more over to do less then nothing. The UN should have an effective military stance or just admit that they are just a place for hot air to escape.

I suppose this is not the place to discuss politics, but I can't resist reacting to these statements...
Has it, at any time, occurred to any of you across the big pond that the ineffectiveness of the UN may have everything to do with US foreign policy?

Suggesting that the unilateral US invasion was the final solution to ineffective UN games is simply breathtaking. A brilliant situation over there now, we all agree.
And then criticising the UN in its dealing with Lebanon... where the US, as Israel's main ally, could have been very effective in preventing that crisis, but didn't do much... and still isn't doing much... yes, breathtaking again.

[hellaeon]

Man. Do these wingnuts ever give up to the mighty land of reality?

[hellaeon]

hahaha man....I just read a few post by SKnight.....

Its a bit late, but I been away for a week, welcome mate...

[hellaeon]

I just don't go down easily not that they haven't tried. I have plenty of documentation on that. And for the RECORD, I have said/stated that I have evidence of attempts on my life, I NEVER said they the CIA was directly responsible for that, what I did say was the CIA help set me up.
Maybe if it was the CIA that tried to kill me maybe I might not be posting, but then again I am not absolutely sure WHO tried to kill me every time but I know that my life has had several attempts on it, and I do know who tried to kill me on one occsion. The problems here is that you guys ADD to what I have said, and mix it around and then accuse me of things I didn't say but what you have said or made up/misconstrued etc.

As much as I am replying and spamming a bit here in the last minute...why on earth are you posting on the net if your under such threatening circumstance. Im pretty sure anyone who wanted you 'dead' especially with a lot of resources such as the CIA would have no problem in making you invisible. Look how many unsolved murders there are. And your telling me/us that they are going to poison you or blow up your car etc and make it obvious your murdered.

* slaps head *

If you want a serious discussion, please go on, however save the James Bond crusader crap for somewhere else.

My two cents.

Cheers

[gumboot]

Has it, at any time, occurred to any of you across the big pond that the ineffectiveness of the UN may have everything to do with US foreign policy?

I think it has had some impact at times, simply because the foreign policy of ALL permanent security council members has an influence. But I don't think US foreign policy, in particular, has been a significant influence in the UN's overall failures.



Suggesting that the unilateral US invasion was the final solution to ineffective UN games is simply breathtaking. A brilliant situation over there now, we all agree.

I didn't say that. I said it was the final nail in the UN coffin. Do you understand what this means? What I am saying is the primary member of the UN acted outside the UN, in direct conflict to the UN, because the UN would not act. And the UN did NOTHING about the US's actions.

Thus the last shreds of UN credibility were destroyed.



And then criticising the UN in its dealing with Lebanon... where the US, as Israel's main ally, could have been very effective in preventing that crisis, but didn't do much... and still isn't doing much... yes, breathtaking again.

You may recall that Lebanon told the US to F*off. It is hard to come to a diplomatic solution when one side refuse to talk to you. And it may just be the US felt Israel was justified in its actions, as, quite frankly, I do. They invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter. It is their right.

By "not doing much" I assume you mean "giving over $200 million in aid"

The US aren't providing troops to the UN force, but neither is anyone else, in the latest UN disaster. The US will not provide soldiers to a UN force. Having almost lost one of our own soldiers in this latest conflict thanks to the UN, I don't blame them.

But yet... we are getting political... :o

-Andrew

[Sir Knight]

[quote=Class;1865160]Sir Knight, why won't you decimate us and post the evidence? If "they" haven't killed you yet, I doubt they would if "they" ever saw your post.

"They" seem to be stupid assassins if they can get your doctor and your mechanic, but not you.


Well I would like to take some credit here if I may, if you could allow me some lattitude here. I should be dead several times over but I am pretty good at playing chess here. I tend to side step some things that maybe others wouldn't have. So some of my suviveability has to do with ME and not just them being stupid. I wouldn't call them stupid at all. Also since I have compiled a lot of evidence I have given it to certain people I can trust and have put some of it out to lawyers and others. so if anything should happen to me now they really have to make it look good, really good, but again I don't make myself an easy target and I am more careful than you can realize VERY.

And all I said was they just up and were gone, I never said I believed they were killed. I think they were transplanted somewhere, not necessarily in the ground. They must have some relocation program for witnesses they don't want around without killing them or so I sure hope. I never said I know everything, I just have certain proof of a conspiracy.

Decimate you? I dont think that would be possible over this medium, I really don't because you can't even get what I have stated here which is far from complicated and the evidence and such I have is lengthy, detailed and takes a while to put all the pieces together but they lock together quite nicely in a nice tight little package. It is easier for me since I have lived it and bear the marks of it but for someone coming in from the outside once I show some of it, it can make them a believer to an extent but to REALLY be blown away it would take a while for it all to soak in. It isn't one document or a recording to makes it all make sense. Well to be honest even after you put it all together you see what it is, but I don't think insanity will ever make complete total sense. It is like finally finding and tracking down a mass murderer and proving he is the man. That doesn't mean you will ever understand why he did what he did. Only he might truly know and then he might not even undestand why he did what he did. Liars and crooks I really cannot understand, my mind don't quite work that way, but that doesn't mean I can't prove they are liars or crooks does it? Besides no matter what I put up on here certain people would just say "THEY WOULDN'T DO THAT, THAT CAN'T HAPPEN, WE LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES". You see I have heard that all before and it was before I even got on here. Even when people see all I have and admits to it, they just DO NOT want to believe it as it totally unbelieveable. But see that is the way I see it myself, I didn't believe it could happen to me here in the land of the free and the brave. I had civil rights or so I thought, well I found out you have what they want you to have, when they want you to have them. And yes I was accused of being some sort of a Terrorist and there was no evidence of such, NONE WHAT SO EVER.

That has cost me more than words could ever express.

And posting on line here or not doesn't have anything to do with my life, it would have to do with showing all of my hand. They don't know all I have not really. They know of some of what I have that I know but they don't know all I have and who has copies of it. So that helps me somewhat in many respects, as I said befoe I am not stupid. And broadcasting everything online would be showing my hand and would give them time to prepare or falsify things. When I catch people I like catching them with their pants down (a figure of speech please......) Don't make enuendos about that and I am asking please........

One thing I do know for sure, absolutely without question and that is that SOME of the people involved do not want me alive, for as along as I am alive there are possiblities of police, government people, and supposedly civilians going to prison but then again maybe not, if their connections hold up, but they should go to prision is my point. I am not sure it is up for a vote here on whether I live or die, but I do not feel safe.

So take it for what it is worth. If you can read all my posts and can't see or sense any truth in them, I would say you have no intuition what so ever. There are a few on here that sensed it right away. I am sincere.

SK

[Sir Knight]

[quote=Class;1865160]Sir Knight, why won't you decimate us and post the evidence? If "they" haven't killed you yet, I doubt they would if "they" ever saw your post.

"They" seem to be stupid assassins if they can get your doctor and your mechanic, but not you.


Well I would like to take some credit here if I may, if you could allow me some lattitude here. I should be dead several times over but I am pretty good at playing chess here. I tend to side step some things that maybe others wouldn't have. So some of my suviveability has to do with ME and not just them being stupid. I wouldn't call them stupid at all. Also since I have compiled a lot of evidence I have given it to certain people I can trust and have put some of it out to lawyers and others. so if anything should happen to me now they really have to make it look good, really good, but again I don't make myself an easy target and I am more careful than you can realize VERY.

And all I said was they just up and were gone, I never said I believed they were killed. I think they were transplanted somewhere, not necessarily in the ground. They must have some relocation program for witnesses they don't want around without killing them or so I sure hope. I never said I know everything, I just have certain proof of a conspiracy.

Decimate you? I dont think that would be possible over this medium, I really don't because you can't even get what I have stated here which is far from complicated and the evidence and such I have is lengthy, detailed and takes a while to put all the pieces together but they lock together quite nicely in a nice tight little package. It is easier for me since I have lived it and bear the marks of it but for someone coming in from the outside once I show some of it, it can make them a believer to an extent but to REALLY be blown away it would take a while for it all to soak in. It isn't one document or a recording to makes it all make sense. Well to be honest even after you put it all together you see what it is, but I don't think insanity will ever make complete total sense. It is like finally finding and tracking down a mass murderer and proving he is the man. That doesn't mean you will ever understand why he did what he did. Only he might truly know and then he might not even undestand why he did what he did. Liars and crooks I really cannot understand, my mind don't quite work that way, but that doesn't mean I can't prove they are liars or crooks does it? Besides no matter what I put up on here certain people would just say "THEY WOULDN'T DO THAT, THAT CAN'T HAPPEN, WE LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES". You see I have heard that all before and it was before I even got on here. Even when people see all I have and admits to it, they just DO NOT want to believe it as it totally unbelieveable. But see that is the way I see it myself, I didn't believe it could happen to me here in the land of the free and the brave. I had civil rights or so I thought, well I found out you have what they want you to have, when they want you to have them. And yes I was accused of being some sort of a Terrorist and there was no evidence of such, NONE WHAT SO EVER.

That has cost me more than words could ever express.

And posting on line here or not doesn't have anything to do with my life, it would have to do with showing all of my hand. They don't know all I have not really. They know of some of what I have that I know but they don't know all I have and who has copies of it. So that helps me somewhat in many respects, as I said befoe I am not stupid. And broadcasting everything online would be showing my hand and would give them time to prepare or falsify things. When I catch people I like catching them with their pants down (a figure of speech please......) Don't make enuendos about that and I am asking please........

One thing I do know for sure, absolutely without question and that is that SOME of the people involved do not want me alive, for as along as I am alive there are possiblities of police, government people, and supposedly civilians going to prison but then again maybe not, if their connections hold up, but they should go to prision is my point. I am not sure it is up for a vote here on whether I live or die, but I do not feel safe.

So take it for what it is worth. If you can read all my posts and can't see or sense any truth in them, I would say you have no intuition what so ever. There are a few on here that sensed it right away. I am sincere.

SK

[brumsen]

Heh, in an amusing case of irony I got e-mail from Steven Jones informing me that I was violating academic ethics for submitting my rebuttal to Frank Legge's paper to his journal, because it was already published in our (somewhat satirical) Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.jod911.com/The_PNAC_and_Other_Myths.pdf).

Once again proving conclusively that by the "Scholars" standards the only prerequisite to be considered an "academic journal" is the ability to create a website.

Of course the other irony is that we actually have higher standards.
But,
1) at least it is a consistent stance;
2) how exactly is it supposed to be violating academic ethics? Depending on what principle you go by, one might be in violation for submitting something to a peer-reviewed academic journal when it is already published anywhere else; and/or, there needn't be a violation as long as the editor of the older publication agrees that the author may submit his article elsewhere.

Anyway... how does it follow that "we" "actually have higher standards"?

[Sir Knight]

As much as I am replying and spamming a bit here in the last minute...why on earth are you posting on the net if your under such threatening circumstance. Im pretty sure anyone who wanted you 'dead' especially with a lot of resources such as the CIA would have no problem in making you invisible. Look how many unsolved murders there are. And your telling me/us that they are going to poison you or blow up your car etc and make it obvious your murdered.

* slaps head *

Cheers

Hello? Please READ MY POSTS, they weren't stupid, just unlucky with me. I say that were pretty smart and none of the things they tried so far would have LOOKED obvious to anyone that I was poisoned, that was designed to make it look like a heart attack and it almost worked, I was at the door, just didn't go in. And the other things would have just looked like unfortunate accidents, but not later it would be harder to make it look like an accident, much harder but that happened a while back now.

and you are correct, there are many unsolved murders and a ton of deaths that look like natural caused deaths for years and maybe forever. there have been perfect murders. Fortunately I am not one of them.

And why I am chatting on here is I am hoping to find someone anyone that might help me. I have some on here that have offered some help. We shall see if anything comes of that. I have my reasons, stated clearly in some of my posts for doing this. And trust me it isn't to get anyone's attention, I am not starving for attention. LOL For help, for assistance maybe, attention isn't my problem.

I am not the usual person and I am not in the most usual circumstances, and my NOT dying when I should have surely has pissed off some people. Their plans just didn't go well. You sound so dissapointed, I bet you wish I was one of those unsolved murders. LOL

SK

[brumsen]

What I am saying is the primary member of the UN acted outside the UN, in direct conflict to the UN, because the UN would not act. And the UN did NOTHING about the US's actions.

Thus the last shreds of UN credibility were destroyed.
I believe that, as a permanent member of the security council, the US have a right of veto. So... what country's foreign policy is likely to have been instrumental in destroying UN credibility?

You may recall that Lebanon told the US to F*off. It is hard to come to a diplomatic solution when one side refuse to talk to you. And it may just be the US felt Israel was justified in its actions, as, quite frankly, I do. They invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter. It is their right.
What I recall is that Lebanon told the US to F* off when the resolution it had crafted with France did not call for an immediate cessation of hostilities.

Further, I'd like to point out that there are quite a few UN resolutions that Israel has simply ignored (http://www.google.be/search?hl=fr&q=Israel+%22UN+resolutions%22&meta=) over the years. Guess who made it possible for them to get away with that.

ETA: I guess my question simply is, why pin blame for the Lebanon crisis on the UN rather than the US?

[MortFurd]

3. Different Car tampered with to disable the air bag and there was a micro switch set underneath the dash that had disabled the rear brake lights so it wouldn't show on the dash they were not working. The last was involving two attempts on me, one was to maybe kill me with a rear end collision with no airbag, and if that didn't do the job, I was going to be charged with causing the accident in an attempt to do insurance fraud. Neither of them worked due to I found the problem due to constant checking of the cars on a weekly basis and when it did happen someone was nice enough to inform me the tail lights were not working without plowing into the car. Upon checking things out everything appeared to be ok but not working, it took an electrical expert to find what they had done. To break into the wiring in a manner to not show something on the dash was not a simple job. the little micro switch was put there to pick the right timing.


What kind of car were you driving that has a brake light monitor? You are also aware that it would take very damned little to fool any lightbulb monitor? They don't check whether the silly things actually light up. They only check to see that they are drawing current. You don't need a "microswitch and the right timing" to do it. All you do is disconnect the wire to the brake light and connect a resistor to chassis ground.

Cheap and easy and harder to find after the crash.

[gumboot]

I believe that, as a permanent member of the security council, the US have a right of veto. So... what country's foreign policy is likely to have been instrumental in destroying UN credibility?

The UN never tried to pass any resolution against the US. Had the UN any balls, they would have drafted a General Assembly Resolution. The US can't Veto that.



What I recall is that Lebanon told the US to F* off when the resolution it had crafted with France did not call for an immediate cessation of hostilities.

Lebanon told the US to F*off after Qana, well before any UN resolution was drafted. And it was the Arab League that rejected the first resolution.




Further, I'd like to point out that there are quite a few UN resolutions that Israel has simply ignored (http://www.google.be/search?hl=fr&q=Israel+%22UN+resolutions%22&meta=) over the years. Guess who made it possible for them to get away with that.

If they were passed as resolutions the US clearly didn't veto them, did they?



ETA: I guess my question simply is, why pin blame for the Lebanon crisis on the UN rather than the US?

:confused:

When did I blame the Lebanon crisis on the UN? Personally I blame it on Lebanon. And I quite frankly think it has very little do to with the US at all.

The UN's disaster in Lebanon is it's failure to provide a measly 15,000 troops to enforce its resolution.

The armed forces of the current members of the UNSC (they being the countries that voted to deploy 15,000 troops) are:

France: 359,000
Russia: 1,037,000
UK: 190,000
USA: 1,421,950
China: 2,250,000
Argentina: unknown
Congo: unknown
Denmark: 26800
Ghana: 7000
Greece: 109,266
Japan: 239,430
Peru: 135,000
Qatar: 11,800
Slovakia: 27,000
Tanzania: 27,000

Giving a Total of about: 5.8 million

15,000 troops is about 0.2% of this total.

So assuming Argentina and the Republic of Congo do not contribute any troops, each Security Council member only has to contribute 0.2% of their armed forces to enfore a resolution THEY VOTED ON.


All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

Clause 1
Chapter VII, Article 43
Charter of the United Nations

Hence why the UN has failed.

I don't blame the UN for the conflict. I blame them for failing to do their duty effectively in stopping it.

-Andrew

[Gravy]

Sir Knight, for the nth time, please discuss your personal issues about assassinations or issues with board members in another thread. Again, I started one for you. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62293

[brumsen]

The UN never tried to pass any resolution against the US. Had the UN any balls, they would have drafted a General Assembly Resolution. The US can't Veto that.
US has a big influence both within the UN and outside.

If they were passed as resolutions the US clearly didn't veto them, did they?
Guess they didn't need to, because they knew they would be able to let Israel get away with it.

When did I blame the Lebanon crisis on the UN? Personally I blame it on Lebanon. And I quite frankly think it has very little do to with the US at all.....
I don't blame the UN for the conflict. I blame them for failing to do their duty effectively in stopping it.
Point taken; I agree that the discussion should be about who should stop / have stopped it. But to think that the US has very little to do with the conflicts that Israel engages in is rather naive. So is the thought that the US have no role to play in stopping it.

The UN's disaster in Lebanon is it's failure to provide a measly 15,000 troops to enforce its resolution.
The main problem being that a clear mandate is lacking. Of course we all want hostilities to stop. But how to go about more definitive solutions to the complex conflicts and problems in the middle east? It is that which needs to be addressed, and in which the US would be well-positioned to play a major diplomatic role as Israel's main support. But it just is not happening. Why let Israel get away with ignoring all these UN resolutions, yet vigorously defend its right to self-defence? I don't find that very consistent.
Moreover, the US have everything to do with the current conflict, given that Hezbollah is backed by Iran, and given the fine relations of late between Iran and the US. Are US attitudes towards the Iran nuclear program, and towards Hezbollah's role in the region, really unrelated?

ETA: if we are to continue this conversation, should it be moved to another section?

[T.A.M.]

Guys;

I am far from a debating expert, so I was hoping you could help me with respect my posting of "Debunking Fetzers 15 Points", and whether or not this guy "Baiken" (Blog name) aka "Randfreedom" (Libertyforum.org name) has any valid points against what I said, and what should be rebutted.

This post is long, but please take time to read it for me.

Here is my blog post on "Debunking Uncle Fetzer's 15 Points":


Here is a brief debunking of each of Uncle Fetzer's 15 Critical Points:

Point:
1. The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed); the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

Debunk:
1. Noone in the last four years, who is serious about getting the truth out there, has claimed that "The planes by themselves" brought down the towers. Most experts, and non-experts now agree it was a combination of the plane crashes, the spread of jet fuel through out the building, and subsequent fires, that eventually brought down the towers. As for his comments on the WTC being "Designed" to "withstand" a plane impact, (a) The WTC was not "Designed" for such an impact, but rather, after the designs were finalized, the plans were analysed to see if such an impact would be withstood by the existing design, and this was found to be true. (b) Most experts say that this was infact true, as the buildings did stand for an hour or longer after impact...no one debates (seriously) that the impact by itself brought the towers down, as they obviously didn't.


Point:
2. The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.

Debunk:
One of the few points Fetzer is right on, yes Steel "Melts" at 2800F. Fire as a result of JET FUEL ALONE only reaches about 1800F. The fires of WTC involved much more than Jet Fuel, including Plastics, Paper, Wood, Rubber, carpetting, etc... Most experts have estimated that the fires, in some areas, likely reached in excess of 2000F, well past the point where Steel weakens significantly. On his final point, Noone who is seriously debunking these issues claims that "melted Steel" brought down the buildings. Weakened steel, due to heat and strucutural damage from crashes, caused collapse in areas. These collapses then caused subsequent collapses, resulting in a "progressive collapse" with "pancaking" of the floors underneath as a result of the increase in kinetic energy released.


Point:
3. UL had certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees for at least six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly – about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North – to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.

Debunk:
For starters, The ASTM tests did not conduct testing for 6 hours, but rather a maximum of 3.5 hours. If someone has this "Proof" from a definitive source that states that the ASTM E119 Performance testing on the WTC Steel showed that the Steel should have not lost any of its strength or integrity for SIX HOURS, please point me to this DEFINITIVE SOURCE. Secondly, The ASTM TESTING is done in a specific, controlled environment, with no outside factors such as PLANE CRASHES. As well, it tests Building "Systems", not individual components such as steel. 3rd, the tests done in the ASTM E119 Testing, were on much smaller "Building Systems" in physical size, than those in question with the WTC.


Point:
4. If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed.

Debunk:
This is speculation, without reference I might add. "Pancaking" is a known and well described Phenomenon is building collapse. The incredible weight of the building above the initial point of collapse, would likely have forced an instant collapse of the entire floor, once the collapse started. For more detailed anaylsis, by professional engineers of the Civil and Structural type, I refer you to the links on the right hand side of this site...


Point:
5. There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which means that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, that could not have caused lower floors to fall.

Debunk:
Once again without reference. I, however, do know his references, and they are from unqualified "Scholars" and nothing more. Once again, since I am not a Civil or Structural Engineer, I will refer you to the links at the right of this page, and you can read the studies done by panels of such experts, relating to the Kinetic energy required, and if it was present...go ahead...


Point:
6. There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that the government has considered.

Debunk:
Ok, for most of this, once again, links at the right. A comment, though. Who said anything about having to pulverize the concret on each floor to make the next floor collapse. This is proposterous. You don't have to make the concrete completely dust for the next floor to go...silly man.


Point:
7. Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse," which can only occur with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pagelow has pointed out to me.

Debunk:
For starters, who is Charles Pagalow. Fetzer's source cannot be found on a Google search, unless he is the MEDICAL DOCTOR, Charles Pagalow...Not really qualified.
Since that is his only reference, in my opinion without credentials it is NO REFERENCE, and hence the whole statement is Speculation/opinion. Once again, for people with real credentials, I point you to the links at the right of this page.


Point:
8. The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds – which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.

Debunk:
Judy Woods - Dental Engineer, Also believes the buildings should have toppled over like trees that are cut down, which as most REAL engineers point out, is impossible. Beyond that, There is numerous footage that times the collapse of one of the towers at between 20-30 seconds (9/11 eyewitness). Once again, Go to the right and read the papers...they make all of these matters quite clear, and they are written by TEAMS of MIT Structural and Civil Engineers.


Point:
9. The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.

Debunk:
Ummmm....last I checked, a steel structure, with massive redundancy, and essentially as hollow as a paper roll, was not equal to a dense, non-hollow, wooden structure, like a TREE!!!! The comparison of the towers to trees is limited to their external dimensions only...ie, they were tall and narrow. that is where the LEGITIMATE comparison ends...For reference to REAL studies, go to the right and click on the links...


Point:
10. Pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause.

Debunk:
1. Molten METAL, could be of many types. The outside of the towers was coated in alluminum siding. The planes were largely alluminum.
2. Fire embers can continue to be super hot for days and weeks if buried under earth. Coal is the same. Fires found under 110 storeys of Building debris likely created the same...
3. Fetzer's point is catagorically wrong.


Point:
11. WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 p.m. after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it," displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Debunk:
1. Classic Demolition involves weeks of planting explosives in structurally key areas, and requires teams of demolition workers to do so. If this could possibly have been done, than,
2. "Classic" Demolition involves the setting off of multiple charges on every floor, to weaken the structure into collapse. These Detonations are visible, and quite loud, yet not one, ONE, witness has reported such an occurance.
3.The "Pull it" comment was in reference to the Fire Rescue/Recovery Effort there, and was said because the Fire captain had informed SIlverstein of the massive loss of life. As a 3rd party, Silverstein would have had no real power to order the Demolition of WTC7 anyway, even if this was his meaning, which it was not.
4. It fell well outside its own footprint.
5. The 9/11 Report didn't mention the destruction to many other buildings in the complex. There was no reason to include WTC 7 over any of the other buildings not mentioned. NIST has addressed it, and on their site, they have an interim report for your reading pleasure.


Point:
12. The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

Debunk:
1. A "point" can be hit by anything, regardless of size or shape. If he is referring to the "Hole Size", than it was 80-90 Feet wide on the first floor, and was some 16-20 feet wide above that. This is more than enough to accomodate a Boeing Airliner that virtually disintigrated upon impact.
2. The Pentagon wall was structurally reinforced concrete and steel, and could withstand an incredible amount of damage, and impact, and as a result, being nearly "immovable", any object ramming into it at such a high speed, would have nowhere to go, and hence crumbled into millions of tiny pieces. The exceptions would have been the titanium parts of the engines, and the steel landing gear, both of which, in part, survived, and were found at the site (Do some REAL Research and you will find this to be true).
3. Bodies were found, and all were accounted for through DNA testing. Evidence from the MOUSSAOUI Trial shows several charred bodies. Likely, most of the victims in the plane were disingtigrated, and likely IDed from the tiniest of blood or body samples.
4. The debris was that of a Boeing 757, this point is wrong.


Point:
13. The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

Debunk:
1. his jump from evidence to definitve proof, is a huge stretch.
2. The only footage released is a LOW REZ, Security Cam, that only takes an image about once per second. Now in one second, how far can an airline travelling 600mph go...600mph = 10 miles per minute. that is 52000 ft per minute = 866 feet per second. That is 1/6th of a mile in a second. Seems to me it might be real easy for that camera, taking one pic per second, to miss the plane entirely...


Point:
14. The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory – flying at high speed barely above ground level – physically impossible; and if it had come in at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

Debunk:
Well, If I can get beyond all of the opinion in the statement, and address the heart of the point...
1. Where is your source, from qualified pilots, who state that the damage to the Pentagon could not have been done by such a jet.
2. There is a crator, it is within the first floor of the crash site at the Pentagon. The Plane did gouge itself into the earth, under the first floor of the Pentagon where it hit. It isn't much of a crator, because most of the plane was destroyed hitting the reinforced concrete.


Point:
15. If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government's official scenario. "

Debunk:
1. Where is your source.
2. The debris you speak of, covering 8 miles, refers to almost exclusively paper, and other materials that could have easily blown that far.
3. Any parts of the plane found that far, would have likely been the titanium engine parts, or steel landing gear, which could have bounced off the earth, and moved much further away.

If this is the best that the head and co-founder of the "SCHOLARS" can do, than lets just rest easy, as it aint nothin to get upset about....

AND HERE IS THE GUY (BAIKEN, AKA RANDFREEDOM) REPLY:


http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=294877844&page=&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&vc=1&t=0#Post294877844


First of all, the official body of standing in the 9/11 debate is not defending against any of these arguments supporting the demolitions theory. NIST DECLINES DEBATE What this means is all such "debunking" by blogger "The Artistic Macrophage" 911 - You Judge is merely for propaganda purposes, and it is to beat back the endless stream of such propaganda that I even bother to respond.

1. Fallacy: Post Hoc. The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." The argument is commonly made by those who don't care to think 9/11 was an inside job. They will say, "I know what I saw. The planes hit the buildings, the buildings fell."

2. Fallacy: Burden of Proof. The burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. None of the four samples of core column steel from both WTC 1 and 2 in the fire-affected zones show temperature excursions exceeding 250 degrees. Here's a page I did on the core column steel in the fire zones Digest: NIST WTC Project 3 Report. I'm calling this a "Burden of Proof" fallacy because even though the forensic evidence shows insufficient temperature excursions to weaken the steel or cause it to buckle, the government supporters keep pushing this in our face as if we can't prove it didn't get hot enough to weaken the steel, when in fact the burden is really on them to prove it did.

3. Fallacy: Straw Man. The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a misrepresented version of that position. Fetzer's "point" was originally a refutation by Kevin Ryan (Underwriter's Laboratories) of a statement by Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew. Dr. Hyman Brown claimed "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Kevin Ryan refutes, "We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all."

4. Fallacy: Appeal to Authority. Here the blogger simply does a hand-wave to his "links on the side," when in fact none of those who have tried to prove the case of progressive and complete collapse (without demolitions) have succeeded. This also is another case of "Burden of Proof." Nevertheless, here's my personal refutation of Bazant and Zhou. Here is a table of how poorly the other pro-government arguments fare, by Rick Rajter (original source nomoregames.net)


Note that as of 2006-08-18 Ratjer is in the process of updating this analysis and so there may be some changes once he gets it published.

5. Fallacy: Burden of Proof. Fetzer is correct that the kinetic energy of the collapse of a floor would be insufficient to sustain collapse. When no steel high-rise in history has collapsed due to fire, it is incumbent on the official investigators to prove a building can collapse as we saw on TV from gravitational energy alone. If they can't do that, then they MUST entertain alternate hypotheses. Gordon Ross provides an excellent discussion of the energy/momentum problem in his papers here: journalof911studies.com.

6. Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule. Ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence. "This is proposterous. You don't have to make the concrete completely dust for the next floor to go...silly man." Well, the dust cloud shows the concrete being pulverized. The energy required to disintegrate the concrete and create that dust cloud is on the order of an order of magnitude (10x) times the gravitational potential energy of the building.



7. Fallacy: Red Herring. An irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. Obviously this blogger was searching for the referenced "Charles Pagelow" in order to mount some kind of personal attack, instead of addressing the very real point that steel-frame buildings simply cannot "pancake" due to the strength of the steel columns and the multiple lateral weldments.

8. This not even a fallacy, it is a lie. "...times the collapse of one of the towers at between 20-30 seconds (9/11 eyewitness)." Reviewing 9/11 eyewitness, the collapse time of the south tower is definitely under 10 seconds, whereas the north tower falls in under 14 seconds, with the "spire" hanging in space for another 10-15 seconds before slipping down into the dust cloud.

9. This is another lie. The WTC towers were not like a tube. They had a core of graduated strength (like a tree). This core was over-built, even considering age at the time of collapse, by a factor of 6.

10. Blogger "The Artistic Macrophage" latches onto the word "metal" and tries to confuse the issue with the subject of aluminum. However, the temperature of the metal and its color when excavated from the WTC basement show it quite clearly to be molten steel. This is the conclusion of Professor Jones and others, and was clearly Fetzer's reference. The point being that the WTC fires were not sufficiently extensive nor hot enough to last five weeks, but multiple fires created from thermate reactions throughout the structure ARE.

11. In refutation, I think I must rest the case on the evidence. Larry Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." WTC fell rapidly, in under 6.5 seconds, straight down, produced large clouds of dust, collapsed into a tidy pile, with the wall facia flopped on top rather than out to the sides.

12. In every airline crash I've seen, there are the usual seats, luggage, trash, bodies, and recognizable airplane parts including wing tips and tail fin. With the exception of select pieces of fuselage skin that bore the recognizable paint job of the airline, none of these things were in evidence. The burnt bodies shown in the Moussoui trial were of occupants of the Pentagon.

13. Not only is there no clear camera evidence of flight 77 approaching or impacting the Pentagon, the tailfin that we do see is different than the fin of a 757:




14. Fetzer has an excellent argument here, which the blogger fails to discount. The only way to force a plane so close to the ground is at lower speeds, braking heavily. There is a compression wave of air that lifts the plane, vacuum above and compression below, and in approaching the ground it would have been forced up unless its downward angle of approach was greater. Interesting!

15. "The debris you speak of, covering 8 miles, refers to almost exclusively paper, and other materials that could have easily blown that far." Ha ha ha, that's amusing in itself except that in addition to the fact the debris was scattered along the flight path, there were human body parts: "discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine." source Clearly, the plane was fragmenting in the sky as it fell. Eyewitness accounts are consistent with a missile strike and not with a plane being flown into the ground.

Like I said, long, but any comments or critique on my approach or his would be appreciated.

T.A.M.

[chipmunk stew]

Heh, in an amusing case of irony I got e-mail from Steven Jones informing me that I was violating academic ethics for submitting my rebuttal to Frank Legge's paper to his journal, because it was already published in our (somewhat satirical) Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.jod911.com/The_PNAC_and_Other_Myths.pdf).

Once again proving conclusively that by the "Scholars" standards the only prerequisite to be considered an "academic journal" is the ability to create a website.

Of course the other irony is that we actually have higher standards.
That's hilarious. Would it violate 'net ethics to publish his email somewhere?

[Belz...]

And I NEVER said I wasn't prepared to share people the FACTS, just that I will be careful with whom I share them.

So far, that has been no one.

Unfortunately those in the military do what they say for the reasons they are told. And a lot of people won't tell the truth because of FEAR. It works on the majority of people. I have received private notes that have to do with that on here, and I understand how fear controls the masses.

Really ? Pray tell, why would people be so afraid of their government in the US ?

Well why show 5 frames of a film when it was running BEFORE those 5 frames? That doesn't make sense, and what is the mystery, according to you guys the film would show the PLANE, well SHOW ME THE PLANE! LOL

When did we say that ? The camera was just taking pictures. Before the 5 there was nothing.

[Belz...]

My 1fps is based on a car which came through the barrier arm - it only moved position once every second (roughly).

As far as I am aware the aircraft is only in one frame prior to impact.

I used this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRls2y4JCDU). The frame I used was the second one (it has both the cameras, one after the other).

-Andrew

ETA. 0.5fps is not uncommon for a surveillance camera.

Nice video, I hadn't seen one so complete before. Funny how twoofers use this as "evidence", as you can somewhat clearly make out the plane on at least one frame before it crashes, in both videos.

[twinstead]

Sir Knight, Gravy in post 2524 has presented you with a huge amount of evidence that a passenger plane hit the Pentagon.

You somehow neglected to even acknowledge it. Interesting. Do you think that is all fake?

[Belz...]

If you download this exact footage, then focus on frame 7152. Frame 7152 is when the "plane" comes into view, but is only half painted in. Frame 7153 then adds a white color to make the plane seem real.

[...]

I am not suggesting either way, fake or real.

Interesting contradiction.

Have fun but I wonder what you must dream about when you are asleep because from what I see from what you mostly post you must be dreaming now if you think you can change my mind from what you say.

No, you really aren't that important.

[Belz...]

Well if I was anyone else I would be dead several times, but then again I refer you to my previous posts where I have clearly stated, THEY MAKE MISTAKES and ARE NOT GOD.

Oooh... You're GOooooooood, aren't you ?

[WildCat]

Sir Knight is obviously a paranoid schizophrenic, really why are you all arguing with him? I see people like this at work occasionally. They claim the gov't is breaking into their homes when they're not there, and painting the walls or re-arranging the furniture and such. They do this all w/o causing any damage to the doors whatsoever...

Really, it's a waste of time.

Sir Knight, you are seriously mentally ill and need to get help. I hope you get it before you hurt yourself or someone else.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Good grief. Okay (s)he doesn't know squat:

RE 1) Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B. A favorite example: "Most rapists read pornography when they were teenagers; obviously, pornography causes violence toward women." The conclusion is invalid, because there can be a correlation between two phenomena without one causing the other. Often, this is because both phenomena may be linked to the same cause. In the example given, it is possible that some psychological factor -- say, a frustrated sex drive -- might cause both a tendency toward sexual violence and a desire for pornographic material, in which case the pornography would not be the true cause of the violence. He create a strawman of your debunk in order to use a, poorly argued, counter-point of post hoc.

RE 2) (s)he is the one trying to shift the burden of proof. You have presented evidence supporting the status quo. Your opponent (the opposition) has the burden to show that the status quo is wrong.

RE 3) Not a strawman. You addressed the fire resistence of the steel, which was part of the point Fetzer was arguing. Even though you did not address the fire duration/temp it does not mean it was a strawman. Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.

RE 4) Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes. Civil Engineers are relevant to the topic, therefore not an appeal to authority. Same burden of proof bs as in pt 2

RE 5) Same as #2. Your opponent is defending Fetzer, who is attacking the status quo. Burden of proof is on your opponent.

RE 6) Strawman. (s)he only addresses your personal attack, while ignoring your links that show Fetzer's calcs to be wrong

RE 7) Not a red herring. A red herring is Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There is also an element of ad misericordiam in this example.)

It is not fallacious, however, to argue that benefits of one kind may justify incurring costs of another kind. In the example given, concern about providing shelter for the poor would not refute concerns about crime, but one could plausibly argue that a somewhat higher level of crime is a justifiable price given the need to alleviate poverty. This is a debatable point of view, but it is no longer a fallacious one.

The term red herring is sometimes used loosely to refer to any kind of diversionary tactic, such as presenting relatively unimportant arguments that will use up the other debaters' speaking time and distract them from more important issues. This kind of a red herring is a wonderful strategic maneuver with which every debater should be familiar. You were addressing Fetzer's argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority).

RE 8) & 9) If you are lying (which I don't think you are) than your opponent should be able to provide evidence, not just say "You're lying"

RE 10) Large quanitities of aluminum in the structure. Satellite temp pics show sufficient heat for a long enough period afterwards. Thermite reactions are very fast, it does not linger"

RE 11) He ignores all of your counter-arguments; which already address what he is "resting" his case on

RE 12) Argument from personal incredulity. Also, he provides no evidence to support his assertion that the bodies in the photos were Pentagon employees only.

Re 13) What tailfin?

Re 14) You address the fact Fetzer provides no evidence supporting his claim. You opponent dismisses this as not refuting the point. Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.

In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.

RE 15) Unsource claims.

Sorry I wasn't more thorough, but I haven't had any coffee yet. All quotes are from here http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Introduction

[negativ]

Well if I was anyone else I would be dead several times, but then again I refer you to my previous posts where I have clearly stated, THEY MAKE MISTAKES and ARE NOT GOD.

I just don't go down easily not that they haven't tried. I have plenty of documentation on that. And for the RECORD, I have said/stated that I have evidence of attempts on my life, I NEVER said they the CIA was directly responsible for that, what I did say was the CIA help set me up.
Maybe if it was the CIA that tried to kill me maybe I might not be posting, but then again I am not absolutely sure WHO tried to kill me every time but I know that my life has had several attempts on it, and I do know who tried to kill me on one occsion.

I would be very interested to know about these attempts on your life (details... methods, circumstances, etc) and how you were able to thwart them. Please be specific; none of this "I can't tell you" vaguery.

Most people go through life without having others attempt to kill them, let alone several times. CIA or not, I'm curious.

[Gravy]

I would be very interested to know about these attempts on your life (details... methods, circumstances, etc) and how you were able to thwart them. Please be specific; none of this "I can't tell you" vaguery.

Most people go through life without having others attempt to kill them, let alone several times. CIA or not, I'm curious.
I share your curiosity about Sir Knight, but I object to this thread being filled with his personal issues, so I started a new thread for him: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62293

[negativ]

Yeah, I saw that after I posted. That'll teach me to read the rest of the thread before spouting off (maybe!) :o

[Sir Knight]

Sir Knight is obviously a paranoid schizophrenic, really why are you all arguing with him? I see people like this at work occasionally. They claim the gov't is breaking into their homes when they're not there, and painting the walls or re-arranging the furniture and such. They do this all w/o causing any damage to the doors whatsoever...

Really, it's a waste of time.

Sir Knight, you are seriously mentally ill and need to get help. I hope you get it before you hurt yourself or someone else.


Wow, such a strong statement with so little proof but an opinion and the sad thing is I wish you were correct but you are not anywhere close.

[brumsen]

Sir Knight is obviously a paranoid schizophrenic, really why are you all arguing with him? I see people like this at work occasionally. They claim the gov't is breaking into their homes when they're not there, and painting the walls or re-arranging the furniture and such. They do this all w/o causing any damage to the doors whatsoever...

Really, it's a waste of time.

Sir Knight, you are seriously mentally ill and need to get help. I hope you get it before you hurt yourself or someone else.
The observation that the debate with Sir Knight is not going anywhere and is thus a waste of time is obviously correct.
The conclusion about his mental health possibly is correct as well, but we can't really tell can we? Anyway, I take some remarks of people here advising SK to seek help as well-intended, and I hope he is intelligent enough to take it as such.
Further, I hope that there is no suggestion that anyone coming here with CT ideas is mentally ill.

[Belz...]

Fair enough, ok, 1. poisoning 2. Car set to blow up (this one was quite interesting and it was setup to look like an accident and it had worked it wouldn't have left any evidence. Depending on your point of view, mine is that I was fortunate the plan didn't work 3. Different Car tampered with to disable the air bag and there was a micro switch set underneath the dash that had disabled the rear brake lights so it wouldn't show on the dash they were not working.

Well I would like to take some credit here if I may, if you could allow me some lattitude here. I should be dead several times over but I am pretty good at playing chess here. I tend to side step some things that maybe others wouldn't have. So some of my suviveability has to do with ME and not just them being stupid.

Okay. I believe this is the time where I have to tell you to seek professional help.

[JamesB]

But,
1) at least it is a consistent stance;
2) how exactly is it supposed to be violating academic ethics? Depending on what principle you go by, one might be in violation for submitting something to a peer-reviewed academic journal when it is already published anywhere else; and/or, there needn't be a violation as long as the editor of the older publication agrees that the author may submit his article elsewhere.

Anyway... how does it follow that "we" "actually have higher standards"?

As long as the editor agrees? We are the editors. I explained that to him. The papers we write are serious, but calling it a journal is satirical. We decide what papers we want to write and post up. We were making the point that anyone can post something on the Internet and call it a journal. Jones has now proven this point for us.

As for higher standards, we don't include such items as Internet rumors about non-existent anti-aircraft guns at the Pentagon for starters. We don't use the neo-Nazi American Free Press as a primary source. We don't use pictures of steel beams cut by steelworkers during the cleanup and claim it was done by thermite. Among other things.

[delphi_ote]

There are probably only a few people that have all the answers and I am not one of them.
You don't seem to have any answers, Sir Knight.

[gumboot]

Guys;

I am far from a debating expert, so I was hoping you could help me with respect my posting of "Debunking Fetzers 15 Points"


I'll offer my tidbits, for what they are worth. I'm not in a position to research details at the moment, so where details need to be filled in I'll indicate. :) This is all from memory.


1. Noone in the last four years, who is serious about getting the truth out there, has claimed that "The planes by themselves" brought down the towers. Most experts, and non-experts now agree it was a combination of the plane crashes, the spread of jet fuel through out the building, and subsequent fires, that eventually brought down the towers.

I would make mention that in the calculations for a 707 impact, the affect of the fuel was not included because there was no way to do so. This is important for a number of reasons:
1) The weight of fuel adds kinetic energy
2) The fuel acted like a water-blaster, stripping steel of fire proofing at 500 MPH
3) The fuel itself, at these speeds, is capable of cutting through steel beams
As a result of not computing fuel, the impact survival assessment also did not take into account the fires that resulted from the fuel.

They were correct - the towers could withstand initial impact, and did - as demonstrated in the most powerful images of the 21st Century. It was additional factors that were NOT calculated that over-tipped the scale and led to collapse.



One of the few points Fetzer is right on, yes Steel "Melts" at 2800F. Fire as a result of JET FUEL ALONE only reaches about 1800F.

I would only add the actual figure at which steel loses 50% of its strength - it's something like 1100 degrees.




For starters, The ASTM tests did not conduct testing for 6 hours, but rather a maximum of 3.5 hours. If someone has this "Proof" from a definitive source that states that the ASTM E119 Performance testing on the WTC Steel showed that the Steel should have not lost any of its strength or integrity for SIX HOURS, please point me to this DEFINITIVE SOURCE.


I would quote the guy explaining why Ryan was fired from UL - his claims were false. to begin with, UL did not certify any steel used in the construction of the WTC.



Point:
4. If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed.


I would replace your reponse with a much simplier one. He is completely right. And that is EXACTLY what did happen. There are numerous sources for reports from both NYPD aviation units and FDNY inside the lobbies that collapse was imminent. Good examples would be found in the following site:

Fatal Confusion - New York Times article on the WTC rescue operation (http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/7/7_P911.html)

and

Fatal Confusion: The Emergency Response - A New York Times Interactive (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20020707_wtc_FIRE/index_FIRE.html)

A sag in the impact face was witnessed, which gradually became larger. Floor trusses can also be seen sagging in photos of the impact area. - All of this is in the NIST reports.

The collapse WAS gradual, but once it reached a critical point, the load exceeded what the columns around the impact zone could bear, and they failed. At that point it was all over. Note the initial global collapse was asymetrical in both towers, favouring the impact side.




5. There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which means that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, that could not have caused lower floors to fall.

This is a strawman. One floor did not collapse onto another. The entire impact zone failed, dropping the entire mass of the buildings above the impact zone through the collapsed floors and onto the first intact floor.

In the example of the North Tower, you're talking about the total mass of 12 floors collapsing through the 5 floors of the impact zone. At a height of 411m to the top floor, that gives us 3.7m per floor. So 12 floors accelerated through 18.5m before slamming into one floor. (One could further work out the pounds per square foot based on gravitational acceleration etc, if one had the mass of the buildings - I have heard it often estimated at 500,000 tonnes per tower which some consider a little high.)

In the South Tower the first intact floor had to deal with 28 floors crashing through 5 floors or 18.5m before slamming into it.

So as you can see, the claim "not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor" is a strawman.

They must prove there is not enough kinetic energy for 12 and 28 floors respectively to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, after 18.5m of fall. (after this brief fall ( 1.9s) the mass will hit the first intact floor with an instantaneous speed of 68 km/h)




Point:
6. There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that the government has considered.

This appears to just be the same as point 5.



Point:
7. Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse,"


This is just a stupid comment. I don't even think it's worth responding to. "heavy steel"? As opposed to "light steel"? Fez is appealing to emotion by presenting an imagine of these massively strong structures that could withstand anything. This is nonsense. The higher the building, the less stable. A LOT of work goes into just making sure tall buildings can remains standing.

The weight of steel is also a strawman. I could build a skyscraper as high as the moon out of 10 million tonnes of "heavy steel". Impressive huh? I doubt it would stand up.




Judy Woods - Dental Engineer, Also believes the buildings should have toppled over like trees that are cut down, which as most REAL engineers point out, is impossible. Beyond that, There is numerous footage that times the collapse of one of the towers at between 20-30 seconds (9/11 eyewitness). Once again, Go to the right and read the papers...they make all of these matters quite clear, and they are written by TEAMS of MIT Structural and Civil Engineers.


Good sound response to me.




Point:
9. The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.

I wouldn't bother with a reply here. He is playing word games. "explode from top" and "collapse to ground" mean the same thing. Let me illustrate:

"fall from top"
"fall to ground"

He is using the "top" "ground" comparison to imply the buildings fell the OPPOSITE way to which they should have. This is nothing more than linguistic dishonesty, and of a very crude form. Of course the buildings fell from the top to the ground, the collapse point was near the tops. They appeared to "explode" because of the enormous energies involved.




10. Pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause.

I wouldn't bother debating the type of metal. The stuff I saw wasn't molten, but it was steel, and it was FRIKKEN hot. Turn his argument around on him. Intense subterranean fires burning for weeks after a building collapse can ONLY have occured if the buildings contained MASSIVE fires at the time of collapse - all that burning material would be buried.



Debunk:
11. Classic Demolition involves weeks of planting explosives in structurally key areas, and requires teams of demolition workers to do so. If this could possibly have been done, than...etc

Well covered.



12. The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!


Your rebuttal is well covered for this one. You might want to add (not necessary) that the vast majority of an airliner is lightweight hollow aluminium (i.e. the wings, tail, etc). The vast bulk of an airliner's weight is contained in the bottom 1/3 of the fuselage and the engines. Thus expecting a hole stretching from wingtip to wingtip is laughable.



1. his jump from evidence to definitve proof, is a huge stretch.
2. The only footage released is a LOW REZ, Security Cam, that only takes an image about once per second. Now in one second, how far can an airline travelling 600mph go...600mph = 10 miles per minute. that is 52000 ft per minute = 866 feet per second. That is 1/6th of a mile in a second. Seems to me it might be real easy for that camera, taking one pic per second, to miss the plane entirely...


Based on my calculations the width across the frame at the distance of the airliner's trajectory in the video with the orange cones is about 250m. An airliner going 500MPH will almost cover this entire distance in 1 second (225 m/s). Given the frame rate of about 1fps you'd be lucky getting the airliner in more than one frame if it was crossing the ENTIRE width of the frame. AA77 wasn't - the wall of the pentagon is located 30m in from the right hand edge of frame.

The statistically probability of the camera capturing the airliner in a frame BEFORE it hit the building is roughly 1:8 (250m divided by 30m). Further more, high resolution or not, a high speed object appears in a slow-shutter frame as a blur.

Conclusion? If the Pentagon footage showed anything clearly recognisable as an airliner I would be screaming FAKE!



14. The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory – flying at high speed barely above ground level – physically impossible; and if it had come in at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out


He is talking about Ground Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect). Some CTer essentially made a claim that Ground Effect meant flying an airliner close to the ground is impossible. This is actually nonsense, and I have read a debunk by a pilot somewhere, but am not sure where it is.

His "crater" argument is based on the logic that if an aircraft cannot approach at a flat trajectory due to ground effect, it must have come in at a steep angle, thus creating a large crater.

The crater is, of course, irrelevant, because an aircraft CAN approach at a flat trajectory.




15. If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government's official scenario. "

In addition to your own points:

PSA Flight 182 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_182) hit the ground intact, like UA93, and spread main debris over 4 city blocks. A 727 is slightly smaller than a 757.

For comparison, PA Flight 103 DID break up in midair over Lockerbie - the main debris field was 2,189 sq km. Other mid air break ups of airliners routinely distribute light debris over 100km from the crash site. 8km for a ground impact is a tiny area.

For clarity the only significant aircraft part found away from the impact site was a 1000lb section of turbine fan which was found about 300m downrange of the crater. All other debris found away from the crash was lightweight.



AND HERE IS THE GUY (BAIKEN, AKA RANDFREEDOM) REPLY:

1. Fallacy: Post Hoc... ...They will say, "I know what I saw. The planes hit the buildings, the buildings fell."

This is ironic. Fetz's Claim 1 was a strawman - because no one claims impact caused the collapse. This rebuttal to your rebuttal is ALSO a strawman because you didn't make the claim he says you did.



2. Fallacy: Burden of Proof. The burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. None of the four samples of core column steel from both WTC 1 and 2 in the fire-affected zones show temperature excursions exceeding 250 degrees.

This is legitimate. I would provide a source for maximum estimated temperature. I would also rebut this by pointing to where NIST indicate that they believe the fires were MUCH HOTTER in areas where they did not retrieve steel.




3. Fallacy: Straw Man. Fetzer's "point" was originally a refutation by Kevin Ryan (Underwriter's Laboratories) of a statement by Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew.

My suggested ammendment will address this - demonstrating that Kevin Ryan was A) wrong and B) not in a position to make such statements immediately demolishes Fetzer's claim.



4. Fallacy: Appeal to Authority. Here the blogger simply does a hand-wave to his "links on the side," when in fact none of those who have tried to prove the case of progressive and complete collapse (without demolitions) have succeeded.

Again, my suggestions should address this. I would agree that saying "go read the reports" is a weak argument. It would be better to quote specific articles/reports that address the claim (for example the NYPD and FDNY reports of gradual building failure prior to global collapse). It means more work, but it makes your argument more airtight. Anyone can say "well some people said it happened like this".




5. Fallacy: Burden of Proof. Fetzer is correct that the kinetic energy of the collapse of a floor would be insufficient to sustain collapse.


My amendments address this.




When no steel high-rise in history has collapsed due to fire

This is false. I would direct you to the Kader Toy Factory Fire (http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0&ssect=0) as probably the most striking example of 3 4 storey steel-structured buildings that suffered complete global collapse due to fires alone - the second building collapsed in 15 minutes. Other examples such as the total collapse of the steel portion in other fires also serves as an example. It is also worth pointing out the fallacy of their logic:
1) No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire before, so this steel building did not collapse due to fire

Same logic:

2) An airliner has never been flown into a skyscraper before, therefore an airliner did not fly into the skyscraper.

Or:

3) Before Apollo II landed on the moon man had never landed on the moon, therefore Apollo II did not land on the moon.

It is also worth point out that the buildings didn't collapse from fire. They collapsed from a combination of fires AND being hit with a fuel laden airliner travelling at 500 MPH.

No building had ever collapsed from this before because no building had ever experienced this event before.



6. Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule.

Point 5 and 6 are the same. The "pulverization" is a strawman argument.



7. Fallacy: Red Herring. An irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. Obviously this blogger was searching for the referenced "Charles Pagelow" in order to mount some kind of personal attack, instead of addressing the very real point that steel-frame buildings simply cannot "pancake" due to the strength of the steel columns and the multiple lateral weldments.

Blah blah blah.



8. This not even a fallacy, it is a lie. "...times the collapse of one of the towers at between 20-30 seconds (9/11 eyewitness)." Reviewing 9/11 eyewitness, the collapse time of the south tower is definitely under 10 seconds

I like how they think a CD collapse can defy physics, but a fire collapse can't. Odd. This sort of garbage is nonsense. We have seen the videos, we have timed the collapses. The "free fall" claim is a strawman.



, whereas the north tower falls in under 14 seconds, with the "spire" hanging in space for another 10-15 seconds before slipping down into the dust cloud.

His "spire" is actually the core. The doco "Why the Towers Fell" (or "How the Towers Fell") addresses this.



9. This is another lie. The WTC towers were not like a tube. They had a core of graduated strength (like a tree). This core was over-built, even considering age at the time of collapse, by a factor of 6.


Well, stupid is as stupid does.



10. Blogger "The Artistic Macrophage" latches onto the word "metal" and tries to confuse the issue with the subject of aluminum. However, the temperature of the metal and its color when excavated from the WTC basement show it quite clearly to be molten steel.

It was steel. My amendments address this. He's incorrect in claiming it is molten - it's still a solid piece... but never mind. It is very very very hot.



The point being that the WTC fires were not sufficiently extensive nor hot enough to last five weeks, but multiple fires created from thermate reactions throughout the structure ARE.

This is typical disinfo. ONLY extensive fires can produce long lasting heat underground. A thermate reaction is rapid and quickly over. It is also very localised. The existence of underground fires is EVIDENCE of the intensity of the fires in the towers pre collapse.



11. In refutation, I think I must rest the case on the evidence. Larry Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

1) "pull it" is not demolition jargon
2) Silverstein does not work in the demolitions industry, so does not use demolition jargon anyway
3) He was speaking to a fireman. Fireman also do not work in the demolitions industry, and do not use demolition jargon.

That would be akin to this scenario:

A golfer is talking to a ballroom dancer about doing the tango
Conclusion:
"doing" is military slang for killing, and "tango" is common Counter-terrorism jargon for a terrorist.
Therefore the golfer is talking about killing a terrorist.



WTC fell rapidly, in under 6.5 seconds, straight down, produced large clouds of dust, collapsed into a tidy pile, with the wall facia flopped on top rather than out to the sides.


WTC7 half fell on 30 West Broadway. I am sure the owner of 30 West Broadway would disagree with the assertation that WTC7 fell in "a tidy pile".




12. In every airline crash I've seen, there are the usual seats, luggage, trash, bodies, and recognizable airplane parts including wing tips and tail fin.


He simply hasn't looked at enough aircrashes. Most occur on take off or landing (or soon before/after) at low speed and altitude, with a relatively flat impact trajectory.

However the few high-speed and more vertical impact air crashes produce the same effects as UA93 - a big hole and a whole bunch of confetti.




14. Fetzer has an excellent argument here, which the blogger fails to discount. The only way to force a plane so close to the ground is at lower speeds, braking heavily. There is a compression wave of air that lifts the plane, vacuum above and compression below, and in approaching the ground it would have been forced up unless its downward angle of approach was greater. Interesting!

He simply doesn't understand ground effect (note neither him nor Fetzer actually names it? They probably don't know what it is actually called)



15. "The debris you speak of, covering 8 miles, refers to almost exclusively paper, and other materials that could have easily blown that far." Ha ha ha, that's amusing in itself except that in addition to the fact the debris was scattered along the flight path, there were human body parts:

*yawn*


Clearly, the plane was fragmenting in the sky as it fell.


The Flight Data Recorder (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf) says otherwise (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2778627&postcount=145).

The first links to the NTSB report on the FDR. The second links to a summary of the vital stats from the FDR report, as provided by an aviation industry professional in a professional forum.



Like I said, long, but any comments or critique on my approach or his would be appreciated.

T.A.M.

Hope that helped.

-Andrew

[T.A.M.]

To Wolfshade and Gumboot....Thanks alot.

Your comments not only help in terms of some debating points, but more so they reassure me that I was, in fact, for the most part right in most of comments. I guess when you encounter a guy like this, who attacks yours skills in debating more so than the points you make, it can be off putting. I have never claimed to be a debater, it is far from my forte. I started this whole thing to try and make sure that the facts, according to the scientific principles I hold as true, were visible and explained to the general public, so they would get "both" sides of the argument.

If the vast majority of the fault in my post was in the "argumentation" or "Debate etiquette" form, than I am much relieved. I will leave the major debating of the issues to those who do it best. My job, to me, is to just put the info out there.

I would note though, that the first sentence in my post, was that it was a "brief" debunking. If I, or others, wanted to take the time and energy to do a "detailed" debunking of his points, i am sure the post would have been much stronger.

Once again guys, thanks...

T.A.M.

[brumsen]

As long as the editor agrees? We are the editors. I explained that to him.
I know. No problem there, then. But did Jones still think you were violating academic ethics when you had explained this to him? If so, on what basis?

The papers we write are serious, but calling it a journal is satirical. We decide what papers we want to write and post up. We were making the point that anyone can post something on the Internet and call it a journal. Jones has now proven this point for us.
Proven? No, he is just being consistent. I don't see the satire here, or perhaps I find it just not so funny.
The point should be that any journal, no matter how published, has to earn itself a reputation. Maybe JoD is not planning to do so? Again, hardly satire.

As for higher standards, we don't include such items as Internet rumors about non-existent anti-aircraft guns at the Pentagon for starters. We don't use the neo-Nazi American Free Press as a primary source. We don't use pictures of steel beams cut by steelworkers during the cleanup and claim it was done by thermite. Among other things.
The first two are remarks about sources, and I would tend to agree with you there. The latter is referring to a disagreement about what a certain picture shows. You claim to have the better argument there. So, obviously, do they.

[Darth Rotor]

Guys;
14. Fetzer has an excellent argument here, which the blogger fails to discount. The only way to force a plane so close to the ground is at lower speeds, braking heavily. There is a compression wave of air that lifts the plane, vacuum above and compression below, and in approaching the ground it would have been forced up unless its downward angle of approach was greater.


T.A.M.

Not a compression wave that "lifts" the plane. WTF is he talking about? Ground effect? This guy is full of it. "The only way to force the plane so close to the ground is at lower speeds, braking heavily?" What an idiot. You can crash at high speed, or at low speed. The vector sum of you vertical speeds in the z axis, vertically in negative values, tends to drive the problem.

The way to hit the ground while you still have lift is to fly at it, or to have a positive rate of descent up to the point of impact. 5 feet per minute, or 5000 feet per minute, so long as rate of descent is positive, you will hit the ground. At full power, descent is set with nose attitude. Push forward, descend faster, pull back, descend slower or start to ascend.

If you don't make a control input to break the rate of descent, you will, thanks to gravity always being in operation, hit the ground once you begin a descent. Gravity must be overcome by lift equal to or greater than Gross Wight to avoid impact with the ground.

As a pilot, I had plenty of experience with flying in ground effect, both in fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft. I have taught flight students how to use ground effect to their advantage in the landing environment.

http://avstop.com/AC/FlightTraingHandbook/GroundEffect.html

Note from the left figure that as airspeed increases, ground effect tends to merge into the lift line. (Due to reduced span wise flow, among other things) Notice how, at low angles of attack, in the right figure, the rough merging of the lift vector. No ground effect bonus at low angles of attack. In a descent at full power, you have a negative angle of attack due to lift generated by all that airspeed: L = K * (V^2)/2 (K = surface area, coefficient of lift, density of air, and V = Velocity of the free airstream aka Airspeed)

The key lift from ground effect is manifested at low, not high, airspeeds. The streamlining of vortices at higher speeds reduces the amount of turbulent air around the wings, which is a different condition than at low airspeed, high angle of attack. Spanwise flow is much reduced at high airspeeds.

At low speeds, ground effect reduces vortices under a wing and thus "increases available lift." What it is really doing is reducing subtractions from lift caused by turbulent air flow.

The effect on a plane that is already in a descent is to slightly arrest the rate of descent. If you are descending fast enough, ground effect won't help you. (Note how Navy Jets slam into an aircraft carrier. They don't flare, they fly through ground effect deliberately and slam into the landing zone at a deliberate rate of descent.)

If your Rate of Descent is roughly 3000-4000 feet per minute, which the FDR shows to be the case (from 4nm @ 2000 feet to 40 feet at impact point) Ground Effect does not act as a fluid trampoline. All it might do for a plane descending at those rates, if it does anything at all and I don't think it will, is ensure it does not hit the ground, but rather hits the building itself.

Only if the pilot had put in a significant back stick/nose up control input to a positive angle of attack would the added lift perhaps "assist" him in ballooning and missing the building.

If an aircraft is about level, with little to no rate of descent, ground effect can make for a ballooning if a positive pitch angle is applied to the airfoil, or it will extend the aircraft's glide as power is reduced, allowing the aircraft to settle through ground effect into a nice soft landing. Airline pilots do this all the time to "squeak" on a landing. Ground effect first manifests itself about one wingspan's distance from the ground, with its effects increasing in effectiveness as the plane approaches the ground. Again, you settle through it, as any pilot knows, to achieve a landing.

Flight 77 was not in the landing configuration, but at high speed.

After all that noise I just posted, his whole argument ignores the simple fact of how people fly to an intercept point.

As I noted in a post with John#### elsewhere, to set up a collision, you set up an intercept geometry that aligns you with your target, and you maintain a constant bearing, decreasing range relationship by correcting for changes in bearing with the yoke/stick. It is similar to how you line up and park your car in a narrow parking lot, albeit in three dimensions, or hit another car in a carnival "bumper cars" event.

If the sight picture remains fixed in your windscreen, you will hit it. If the object moves, up or down, left or right, or a combination of those, you will wither miss it, or you correct. If it moves down in the wind screen/forward canopy/window, you move the nose down. If it goes left, you turn a bit left. So long as you keep small corrections, and correct as soon as the slightest change in visual position on your windscreen (which boils down to a crude gun sight at this point, you will be able to fly to intercept. Since the pilot was apparently flying by hand, the auto pilot having been disengaged at about 7500 feet, he was in the visual, stick and rudder realm of flight. He was flying to a point on the ground, one of the most basic and simplest of tasks an inexperienced pilot first learns how to accomplish.

That he was going fast merely required that he set a very good glide slope early on in his attack run, and pay very close attention to his target. He didn't have to scan his airspeed and correct for it, he went to full throttle and by hand, and possibly trim controls, kept the control forces set while full throttle accelerated him. He had a single problem to solve, as a pilot, and that was the relative motion problem of staying on a glide slope to impact at a point.

Since he didn't need to flare, all he had to do was be descending fast enough and ground effect would barely have any effect on him when he reached the point of about a wingspan above the ground. Absent a nose up movement with the stick, the Rate of descent would not have time to abate much, a fraction of a second at his forward speed, to do anything but cause him to be a few feet higher than he aimed at most.

Use as much, or as little, of that as you like to stuff that assertion up his arse, sideways.

DR

[T.A.M.]

DR;

Thanks for the info. While most of it went over my non-aeronautical inclined head, I appreciate the effort. It is that kind of detail that I refer to with links, which he tried to nail me with "Appeal to authority". Well he is probably right, but as a non-authority, who else should I refer to...uncle bob the shoe salesman.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

DR;

Thanks for the info. While most of it went over my non-aeronautical inclined head, I appreciate the effort. It is that kind of detail that I refer to with links, which he tried to nail me with "Appeal to authority". Well he is probably right, but as a non-authority, who else should I refer to...uncle bob the shoe salesman.

Keep in mind that "appeal to authority" does not mean "referring to an expert in the field". Classic example would be saying that "Dr. Jarvis (inventor of artificial heart) does not believe in the Big Bang Theory, therefore the Big Bang Theory is wrong". Whereas, saying "Dr. Jarvis feels that suggestion X is a bad idea to pursue for a new model artificial hear", would be okay.

[smother]

He is talking about Ground Effect. Some CTer essentially made a claim that Ground Effect meant flying an airliner close to the ground is impossible. This is actually nonsense, and I have read a debunk by a pilot somewhere, but am not sure where it is.


Probably Aerospaceweb.org:

www aerospaceweb org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

(put dots in between the URL address)


In addition, many modern airliners are not directly flown by the pilot but by automated systems. Most newer aircraft even use fly-by-wire (FBW) systems that take control inputs from the pilot, process them by computer, and automatically make adjustments to the control surfaces to accomplish the pilot's commands. Though the 757 is not equipped with a fully digital FBW system, it does carry a flight management computer system (FMCS), digital air data computer (DADC), and autopilot flight director system (AFDS) that provide sophisticated control laws to govern the plane's control surfaces. The AFDS not only controls the plane when the autopilot is enabled, but Boeing recommends that these computerized systems always be in operation to advise the pilots on how to best fly the aircraft. The primary advantage of computerized control systems is that they can make corrections to an aircraft's flight path and help prevent the pilot from accidentally putting the plane into an uncontrollable condition. The 757's flight augmentation system is also designed to damp out aerodynamic instabilities, and computerized control systems often automatically account for ground effect by making adjustments to the plane's control surfaces to cancel it out.
These factors make it clear that ground effect could not have prevented a Boeing 757 from striking the Pentagon in the way that Flight 77 did on September 11. Nevertheless, we are still left with the claim that the pilot Hanjour flew a suspiciously "perfect" flight path on his approach to the Pentagon despite his lack of skill. It is unclear what has prompted this belief since very few eyewitnesses even describe how well the aircraft flew. The majority instead focus on the impact and aftermath. Even so, those few who did make statements regarding pilot ability indicate that Hanjour flew in a somewhat erratic manner as one would expect.




This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."
Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

[T.A.M.]

Wolfshade;

so in essence, he was wrong in insiuating I was "Appealing to Authority". My referenced links were to experts in the field in question. They were references to Civil and Structural Engineer Papers on the very topics we were discussing.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Wolfshade;

so in essence, he was wrong in insiuating I was "Appealing to Authority". My referenced links were to experts in the field in question. They were references to Civil and Structural Engineer Papers on the very topics we were discussing.

Bingo.

[Sir Knight]

Sir Knight, I've started a new thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1865201#post1865201) for further discussion of your claims. Thanks for filling me on the murder attempts.


you are welcome, but I am not sure I should thank you for the thread. Not sure now I really wanted to go there due to so much BS and they ask but don't read everything, like here but apparently worse or so it seems. It is like now there is no topic just a shooting gallery. LOL
Oh well it might be short lived and if I continue here I will do my best to stay on topic as I really have wanted to, sincerely...

SK

[Darth Rotor]

DR;

Thanks for the info. While most of it went over my non-aeronautical inclined head, I appreciate the effort. It is that kind of detail that I refer to with links, which he tried to nail me with "Appeal to authority". Well he is probably right, but as a non-authority, who else should I refer to...uncle bob the shoe salesman.

Here is a much shorter version about the so called compression wave:

Many (novice) pilots think that ground effect is caused by air being compressed between the wing and the ground. This is not so. Ground effect is caused by the reduction of induced drag when an airplane is flown at slow speed very near the surface.
http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/aft_perf.htm
I added the term "novice" since pilots who have been around a while tend to learn and retain the subtleties of what really is happening to their aircraft as it flies.

It says some of what I did far more simply. :)

DR

[JamesB]

I know. No problem there, then. But did Jones still think you were violating academic ethics when you had explained this to him? If so, on what basis?


Proven? No, he is just being consistent. I don't see the satire here, or perhaps I find it just not so funny.
The point should be that any journal, no matter how published, has to earn itself a reputation. Maybe JoD is not planning to do so? Again, hardly satire.


The first two are remarks about sources, and I would tend to agree with you there. The latter is referring to a disagreement about what a certain picture shows. You claim to have the better argument there. So, obviously, do they.

Except we have actual evidence we can point to. We can show their picture of a "thermite cut" and place it beside a picture of a beam cut by a torch and show how they are similar. They show the picture, and then show a copy of a patent for a device nobody has ever seen in action and they have no idea whether it would do what they claim it would, and then talk about a supposed secret super nano-thermite which is being developed by the government.

We intend on getting a reputation, but for the research we do, not for how many degrees we have. The "scholars" just carry out crappy biased research based off of dubious sources, and then when challenged on it scream, "But we are scholars we have PhDs, we are experts! The World Trade Centers were like trees, TREES I tell you! Damn all the structural engineers to hell!"

[DavidJames]

Regarding 77 hitting light poles on the way to the Pentagon...

From here: http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11077
TeamFDR has established that the plane -- AA77, from which the flight data recorder was obtained, was flying TOO HIGH to strike those poles. I can't find "TeamFDR's" claim nor the data behind it. Has anyone seen it or a rebuttal?

[Gravy]

Regarding 77 hitting light poles on the way to the Pentagon...

From here: http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11077
I can't find "TeamFDR's" claim nor the data behind it. Has anyone seen it or a rebuttal?
The rebuttal is in the eyewitness accounts and the photos. I'd like to hear the CTs tell that taxi driver that no plane hit the light poles.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ca98bc1035d.jpg

[MikeW]

Regarding 77 hitting light poles on the way to the Pentagon...

From here: http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11077
I can't find "TeamFDR's" claim nor the data behind it. Has anyone seen it or a rebuttal?
I've finally had some FOIA success, and got some documents from the NTSB today about Flight 77 & others. These include the altitude readings they're talking about. Read more & download from http://www.911myths.com/html/ntsb_release_august_22_2006.html

[chipmunk stew]

Regarding 77 hitting light poles on the way to the Pentagon...

From here: http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11077
I can't find "TeamFDR's" claim nor the data behind it. Has anyone seen it or a rebuttal?
It may be related to this:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3271
Poster Snowygrouch from the British 9/11 Truth forum obtained flightpath animations from the NTSB, which apparently indicates an altimeter reading indicating an altitude of 180 above sea level (about 130 above ground level) at the point where the plane hit the light poles.

[Gravy]

I've finally had some FOIA success, and got some documents from the NTSB today about Flight 77 & others. These include the altitude readings they're talking about. Read more & download from http://www.911myths.com/html/ntsb_release_august_22_2006.html
Way to go, Mike!

[realitybites]

Regarding 77 hitting light poles on the way to the Pentagon...

From here: http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11077
I can't find "TeamFDR's" claim nor the data behind it. Has anyone seen it or a rebuttal?
My pal and yours, JDX, says he's been trying to upload the full animation for the past 5 days. I asked him for the site so I could try and upload it as well. Plus, I'd like to see the site in general....

[T.A.M.]

I am confused. does TeamFDR have a new theory. they are admitting AA77 existed, and crashed, as they are basing their comments on the "Recovered Flight Recorder" wrt hitting the poles, but then they are saying the flight could not have hit the poles...

So there theory is what, that the plane crashed somewhere else, and therefore the data on the recorder is inconsistent with the trajectory and damage doen near the Pentagon. they can't have it both ways.

[juryjone]

T.A.M.,

Just a nitpick on your debunk (which was a very fine job IMHO). In point 7, Fetzer referred to "Charles Pagelow". You refer to him twice as "Charles Pagalow". Wouldn't want anyone to imply you were looking for the wrong guy.

[Kent1]

Way to go, Mike!
Mike's FOIA document also seems to answer the mystery of flight speed on flight 77. As some know there has been two claims. One report from FOX news stated 345
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/345.htm
Others stated 530MPH.

So when you read the document 1 (AAL77) page 11-2
I see as airspeed 460 KL.
460 X .15=529MPH to convert from KTS to MPH
So it seems the government report was indeed correct.

[realitybites]

Regarding 77 hitting light poles on the way to the Pentagon...

From here: http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11077
I can't find "TeamFDR's" claim nor the data behind it. Has anyone seen it or a rebuttal?
The only thing about "Team FDR" that I could find on the web was a website for a Magic The Gathering team.
It's Just A Group Of Kids Hanging Out And Playing Magic And Having Fun (http://team-fdr.tripod.com/id1.html).

Goal #3 is to have fun. :)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I assume someone around here can read topo maps:
http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=11&Z=18&X=804&Y=10761&W=3

[chipmunk stew]

I assume someone around here can read topo maps:
http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=11&Z=18&X=804&Y=10761&W=3
Looks to be just under 30' above sea level. (Which makes sense considering how close it is to tidal water.)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Looks to be just under 30' above sea level. (Which makes sense considering how close it is to tidal water.)

Okay, so elevation relative to sea level is between 0' and +30' (approx.) The Pentagon is 71' tall so it's base is between 0' and 30' and its roof is between 71' and 101'. So, once I have some time, I can dig up the height of the street lamps in question and compare that to the FDR data that MikeW most excellently obtained and see if it ties out.

[realitybites]

JDX says the troothers filed a FOIA request and got some DVDs from the NTSB that includes an animation from the data obtained from the FDR of Flight 77.

Although they've been having a difficult time uploading the animation due to someone (or something) attacking his IP.

edit: Old news, I know. Not sure why I made this post. Back to zoning out.

[brumsen]

Except we have actual evidence we can point to. We can show their picture of a "thermite cut" and place it beside a picture of a beam cut by a torch and show how they are similar. They show the picture, and then show a copy of a patent for a device nobody has ever seen in action and they have no idea whether it would do what they claim it would,
They show a copy of a patent and evidence that the device in question has been manufactured. Are you suggesting that the manufacturer has no idea whether it works?

We intend on getting a reputation, but for the research we do, not for how many degrees we have. The "scholars" just carry out crappy biased research based off of dubious sources, and then when challenged on it scream, "But we are scholars we have PhDs, we are experts! The World Trade Centers were like trees, TREES I tell you! Damn all the structural engineers to hell!"
Yeah ok it's easy to poke some fun there. Where, though, is there an article in the 9/11 studies journal that says WTC towers are like trees? Anyway, we were talking about the reputation of the journal, not of the editors or the authors. A journal earns its reputation by publishing solid research that has passed peer review. Even if you doubt that this is the case with the 9/11 studies journal, the quality of its papers has to my knowledge not been defended by pointing out the author's degrees.
My question, again, is: do you want the JoD to earn a reputation as a solid journal?

[Gravy]

Okay, so elevation relative to sea level is between 0' and +30' (approx.) The Pentagon is 71' tall so it's base is between 0' and 30' and its roof is between 71' and 101'. So, once I have some time, I can dig up the height of the street lamps in question and compare that to the FDR data that MikeW most excellently obtained and see if it ties out.
The lamp posts were about 40 feet tall.

[Gravy]

The lamp posts were about 40 feet tall.

ETA: I haven't read the FDR report, but I believe the data sampling rate may be a source of error when trying to determine a plane's exact altitude at an exact spot. Also, is the recorded altitude above ground level or above sea level?

Didn't mean to quote myself there. But while I'm at it, I just want to emphasize the insanity of CTs using these means of trying to "prove" that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. It's just another way of avoiding dealing with the people who were there.

[Darth Rotor]

The lamp posts were about 40 feet tall.
That puts them at 70-85 feet MSL, depending on the ground sloping between the parking lot and the Pentagon. IIRC, having driven that road, the road to the left (west) of the Pentagon is slightly higher elevation looking east, but I couldn't swear how much, as you look from road to parking lot to Pentagon.

DR

PS: If the hijacker did not reset the altimeter to local settings in the Washington area (1/100th setting represents about a 10 foot change), or left the altimeter set to 29.92. 29.92 is the standard for altitudes above 18,000 feet. Their last cleared altitude was FL 350, or 35,000 MSL referenced to 29.92 inches Hg. (A pressure altitude, technically)

On the way back down, any difference between 29.92 and the actual barometric altimeter setting at Washington Reagan (very close to Pentagon) makes errors of AGL to MSL between 10 and 100 feet likely, assuming the altitudes from FDR are MSL and not from the Radar Altimeter. Now, if he cared to, the hijacker could have listened to the ATIS broadcast at Reagan before he began his descent to set his altimeter to the local settings. Doing so would have made his job easier, so that altitude MSL roughly equals altitude AGL, so my guess is that he might have done so, though perhaps it slipped his mind. I wonder if any FDR showed a change in Kollsman window setting.

Example of why this matters. If the altimeter setting at Reagan was 29.90 at that time, setting 29.92 in the cockpit would indicate 20 feet higher above ground than the plane actually was. Reagan being at 29.85 would put the altimeter showing the plane 70 feet higher than it was.

See where this goes, vis a vis the light poles?

DR

[apathoid]

I've finally had some FOIA success, and got some documents from the NTSB today about Flight 77 & others. These include the altitude readings they're talking about. Read more & download from http://www.911myths.com/html/ntsb_release_august_22_2006.html

A few minutes after the hijackers took control of the cockpit (at approximately 08:52), the horizontal mode was changed to a heading select and the airplane began a 180-degree turn back towards Washington. After the new heading was selected, and up until the last nine
minutes of the flight, the autopilot operated in modes that receive inputs from the MCP (i.e., target values of altitude, speed, and heading set directly by the operators of the aircraft) rather than from the FMC.

Good work Mike. This report answers alot of the questions I had.

[MikeW]

Good work Mike. This report answers alot of the questions I had.
Glad to hear it. What do you think it clarifies, apart from that bit you've quoted? Any analysis & thoughts will be useful.

[Gravy]

That puts them at 70-85 feet MSL, depending on the ground sloping between the parking lot and the Pentagon. IIRC, having driven that road, the road to the left (west) of the Pentagon is slightly higher elevation looking east, but I couldn't swear how much, as you look from road to parking lot to Pentagon.

DR

PS: If the hijacker did not reset the altimeter to local settings in the Washington area (1/100th setting represents about a 10 foot change), or left the altimeter set to 29.92. 29.92 is the standard for altitudes above 18,000 feet. Their last cleared altitude was FL 350, or 35,000 MSL referenced to 29.92 inches Hg. (A pressure altitude, technically)

On the way back down, any difference between 29.92 and the actual barometric altimeter setting at Washington Reagan (very close to Pentagon) makes errors of AGL to MSL between 10 and 100 feet likely, assuming the altitudes from FDR are MSL and not from the Radar Altimeter. Now, if he cared to, the hijacker could have listened to the ATIS broadcast at Reagan before he began his descent to set his altimeter to the local settings. Doing so would have made his job easier, so that altitude MSL roughly equals altitude AGL, so my guess is that he might have done so, though perhaps it slipped his mind. I wonder if any FDR showed a change in Kollsman window setting.

Example of why this matters. If the altimeter setting at Reagan was 29.90 at that time, setting 29.92 in the cockpit would indicate 20 feet higher above ground than the plane actually was. Reagan being at 29.85 would put the altimeter showing the plane 70 feet higher than it was.

See where this goes, vis a vis the light poles?

DR
Very interesting, DR. Thanks for clarifying that.

[JamesB]

They show a copy of a patent and evidence that the device in question has been manufactured. Are you suggesting that the manufacturer has no idea whether it works?


Yeah ok it's easy to poke some fun there. Where, though, is there an article in the 9/11 studies journal that says WTC towers are like trees? Anyway, we were talking about the reputation of the journal, not of the editors or the authors. A journal earns its reputation by publishing solid research that has passed peer review. Even if you doubt that this is the case with the 9/11 studies journal, the quality of its papers has to my knowledge not been defended by pointing out the author's degrees.
My question, again, is: do you want the JoD to earn a reputation as a solid journal?

Please provide the evidence that these devices were ever manufactured. One of the posters on the “journal” forum said they called the company that held the patent, but they never said what they found out. They must not have gotten what they wanted. Please show in the patent where it says that the device can cut a nice clean diagonal cut through 12 inches of steel.

As to the next point, I was speaking more generally of the “scholars”. Face it, the “scholars” are the journal. It is not an independent entity, they created it, they control it. That means Fetzer and Jones. Given your experience with them, you of all people should know that. Listen to one of Fetzer’s radio interviews. I have listened to dozens, just look at my blog. His entire argument is “appeal to authority”. Anytime someone questions him, he starts rattling of all the experts in the “scholars”.

The trees analogy wasn’t in the Journal, but it was made by Judy Wood and posted on the “Scholars” site. Wood was one of the original editors of the journal, although she has been removed for some reason and replaced by waterboy Kevin Ryan. I have no doubt if she had submitted her work it would have been published. Maybe that is why she is no longer an editor? Although I guess she can’t now . It has been “published” already and Jones would accuse her of violations of academic ethics.

And to repeat my answer, yes, I want our work to earn a favorable reputation, but for the merits of its arguments. I couldn’t care less whether people consider us a “journal” or not. Although it is amusing to be given that status by Jones.

Edit: I should point out that I am just one of the people who has posted there. I did not create the site, nor do I control it. If you want to help shape its future, send in a submission.

[apathoid]

Glad to hear it. What do you think it clarifies, apart from that bit you've quoted? Any analysis & thoughts will be useful.

A few things stood out. One, they used basic autopilot modes coupled with VOR navigation. They did not re-program the FMC(which is a snap), instead they engaged HDG select and Vertical Speed/Altitude select. Those are the most basic autopilot modes and they are modelled in MSFS(which the hijackers were in possesion of).

However, even though the EFIS was in the MAP mode at
the time, it was in the 80 nautical mile range setting, and so would not have shown DCA on the display; consequently, it is unlikely that the hijackers used the map display on the EHSI to deduce the correct heading for Washington. It follows that the hijackers had some other means of obtaining this heading.

In the case of AA77, they actually didn't use the EHSI as a GPS of sorts, as I thought they might. Map mode can display airports(like DCA) and navaids up to 320 miles out. Instead, they changed the EHSI mode to VOR and tuned up their navaid and homed it as if they were flying a Cessna. Initially, they were out of range of the VOR. The initial intercept was was probably predetermined from practice runs in MSFS. Once the navaid was in range, they adjusted the course to line up and dialed the HDG knob to match.

Another thing that stood out was the slopiness and poor planning of the descents. UA 93 started down waaaay too early(probably why some had success using their cells). AA77 was in good shape 38 miles away at 7000'(normally in a descent an airliner at that range would still be 10-12,000' or more), but somehow still overshot and had to do that altitude bleeding turnaround. Another thing I noticed in the case of AA77 is that Hani kept getting autopilot disconnects, he ended up trying both the L and R autopilots. I think was essentially fumbling around - and it kept disconnecting because his inputs were out of bounds and it finally stayed on after he started using IAS/FLCH modes...

All in all, they seemed well rehearsed, if a little sloppy.

[apathoid]

That puts them at 70-85 feet MSL, depending on the ground sloping between the parking lot and the Pentagon. IIRC, having driven that road, the road to the left (west) of the Pentagon is slightly higher elevation looking east, but I couldn't swear how much, as you look from road to parking lot to Pentagon.

DR

PS: If the hijacker did not reset the altimeter to local settings in the Washington area (1/100th setting represents about a 10 foot change), or left the altimeter set to 29.92. 29.92 is the standard for altitudes above 18,000 feet. Their last cleared altitude was FL 350, or 35,000 MSL referenced to 29.92 inches Hg. (A pressure altitude, technically)

On the way back down, any difference between 29.92 and the actual barometric altimeter setting at Washington Reagan (very close to Pentagon) makes errors of AGL to MSL between 10 and 100 feet likely, assuming the altitudes from FDR are MSL and not from the Radar Altimeter. Now, if he cared to, the hijacker could have listened to the ATIS broadcast at Reagan before he began his descent to set his altimeter to the local settings. Doing so would have made his job easier, so that altitude MSL roughly equals altitude AGL, so my guess is that he might have done so, though perhaps it slipped his mind. I wonder if any FDR showed a change in Kollsman window setting.

Example of why this matters. If the altimeter setting at Reagan was 29.90 at that time, setting 29.92 in the cockpit would indicate 20 feet higher above ground than the plane actually was. Reagan being at 29.85 would put the altimeter showing the plane 70 feet higher than it was.

See where this goes, vis a vis the light poles?

DR

This is a very good point, I seriously doubt the hijackers wouldve changed the baro setting. What I'm not sure of is whether in the DFDR computes the pressure altitude automatically irrespective of the altimeter setting. I suspect it may....

[T.A.M.]

juryone:

You are correct, however, when I went back to google to check what I did the google search on, it was "Charles Pagelow", so the search that turned up with only the MD in it, was on the right guy...but thanks.

Re: Journal of 9/11 Studies.

1. It was created by the "Scholars", is overseen by them, with an advisory board consisting of members of the "Scholars".

2. They do not provide any data on who the "Peers" are that "Peer Reviewed" the articles.

3. Given the credentials of the Full Time members, it is HIGHLY unlikely they have enough EXPERTS in the given Fields to form any PEER REVIEW COMMITTEES of any size beyond 1-2. In the FUll time members I believe they have 1, possibly 2 Physicists, and 1 Mechanical (Dental) engineer.

4. True credibility to any of the articles present in that "journal" would be best gained by the same articles having been successfully PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED in other scientific journals, of which I see no evidence.

As I have asked many, many times, show me ONE case, ONE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL of note, that has PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED, any of the articles in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies".

[NDBoston]

Not to change the subject but I'm planning on going down to GZ on 9/11 to honor my friends and I can't see the families of firefighters and police officers taking the garbage spewed by Dylan Avery and co very well.

I'm hoping the police won't allow the CT's anywhere near the families or it could get ugly.

[T.A.M.]

Mentioning the cells...

I know we have deduced through the Moussaoui Trial info that all but 1 call was made by AIrfone, it would be a worthwhile project for someone to go through the recently acquired data from the NTSB and plot what the exact altitudes were at the times of the calls. It would paint a more accurate picture.

[MikeW]

A few things stood out. One, they used basic autopilot modes coupled with VOR navigation. They did not re-program the FMC(which is a snap), instead they engaged HDG select and Vertical Speed/Altitude select. Those are the most basic autopilot modes and they are modelled in MSFS(which the hijackers were in possesion of)...
Good points, thanks! So it seems to show the signs of an inexperienced pilot...? Might be worth collecting these together, then: there's probably another 911myths.com piece in discussing whether the evidence shows they were crack pilots, or not.

[realitybites]

JDX's post is up regarding Flight 77's FDR. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11235)

This is all way too technical for me, so if anyone has flight experience (billzilla where are you) and have not yet been banned, mosey on over.

[Gravy]

Good points, thanks! So it seems to show the signs of an inexperienced pilot...? Might be worth collecting these together, then: there's probably another 911myths.com piece in discussing whether the evidence shows they were crack pilots, or not.
...or remote pilots, or not. I agree that it would be a good piece for your site.

[Submersible]

Maybe if the producers of "Sweet Misery" would have given away copies of their video, more people would be interested in the genocide that continues to take place on a daily basis in this country.

Do any of you know when and how the door was opened for aspartame's approval?
On Ronald Reagan's FIRST day in office, when Donald Rumsfeld "called in his political markers".

There are hundreds if not thousands of websites dedicated to this "issue" but nobody seems to care. Maybe it's because the majority of this nation has been affected by the massive consumption of methanol and formaldehyde and it's impossible for U.S. to believe that our own government could do something like this.. to U.S.
But it's NOT.

http://www.relfe.com/Aspartame_92.html
http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/01/22/new_mexico_aspartame_bills_charge_fda_inaction.htm

I understand if your one of the brilliant people sitting there thinking "what does this have to do with a Loose Change thread?"
It pertains to this thread because between aspartame and Posilac there is more preventable deaths taking place in this country on a daily basis than there was on 9-11... and the majority of you are stuck here trying to find the words to dismiss what your eyes are showing you, or insult others who do not agree with the "story" offered by the USG.

So maybe if you let your mind drift away from Ground Zero and the rest of the 9-11 soap-opera for a little while and look at some of this government's actions AGAINST U.S. in the past, the next time you watch the video's of the towers as they fall you might start to realize that, it IS possible, for "them",, to DO something like that.... to U.S. !!!


Market Potential & Areas of Application:
Recent figures show that over 1.3 million Americans were diagnosed with cancer in 2003. At some point during his or her lifetime, 1 in 2 American men and 1 in 3 American women will be diagnosed with cancer. This disease claims over half a million Americans every year, and unlike some other major diseases (heart diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, etc.), the relative cancer mortality rate is not subsiding.
http://iurtc.iu.edu/ott/technol/9708/9708_ES_FINAL.html

I loved my country too, before I realized it was already gone.
It's OK to intentionally cause cancer in this country, and it's illegal to provide others with a cure.
http://www.1cure4cancer.com/
http://www.cancertutor.com/Cancer/Laetrile.html

Do you honestly believe that "they" wouldn't kill a few thousand people and drop a few buildings to give 'them' a good enough excuse to re-start our big bad War MACHINE, considering the amount of "elites' and their endless mountain of money involved?? ??
This is from the day before the soap opera started.
http://www.rense.com/general70/trill.htm

This post might be irrelevant or even get edited, which is fine with me ... I'm just trying to help by offering you some other examples of the "impossible" that have already taken place in this country,
and just like the 9-11 CT... most Americans are just not wiling to accept what their eyes are seeing. It can't be that hard to believe that we have been intentionally misled considering the amount of time our eyes are focused on a tube, they did call it programming ya' know.

Rise, surprise ! Open your EYES !
http://courses.washington.edu/hypertxt/nypix/gndzero.jpg
19 Muslims pulled off the worlds best demolition with box cutters and ,
pixie dust ?

COME ON !~

[Darth Rotor]

19 Muslims pulled off the worlds best demolition with box cutters and pixie dust?

COME ON !~
Submersible, the world's best demolition happened at Hiroshima. What are you talking about?

Oh, besides the infamous box cutters, they had a thing called a plan. And tests of the system And rehearsals. And INS asleep at the wheel. And they exploited an overtolerance of illegals within our borders. And they got a little know-how on flying, enough for a one way job. Taking off is relatively easy, as is maneuvering a plane: landing is the tricky part.

And one thing your completely forget: will. There is a little thing old country boys call "want to."

Get your cranium out of your rectum, please, and breath a little fresh air. Attributing to malice what is basically a matter of incompetence seems to be the common theme among the CT/9-11 crowd.

DR

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

# Is Aspartame Safe? (FDA):
To date, FDA has not determined any consistent pattern of symptoms that can be attributed to the use of aspartame, nor is the agency aware of any recent studies that clearly show safety problems.
# Aspartame and the Internet (The Lancet):
Our research revealed over 6000 web sites that mention aspartame, with many hundreds alleging aspartame to be the cause of multiple sclerosis, lupus erythematosis, Gulf War Syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, brain tumours, and diabetes mellitus, among many others. Virtually all of the information offered is anecdotal, from anonymous sources and is scientifically implausible.
# ACSH Debunks Internet Health Hoax (American Council on Science and Health):
Health scare artists have found a whole new medium for terrorizing the public — the Internet. Individuals in search of accurate health information may literally become caught in the Web, where health hoaxes and urban medical myths run rampant. The health scare messages are always the same — whatever it is, it will make you sick.
# Beware The E-Mail Hoax: The Evils Of Nutrasweet (Aspartame) (Dr. Dean Edell):
A highly inaccurate "chain letter" is being circulated via e-mail warning the reader of the health dangers of aspartame (Nutrasweet) diet drinks.

There is so much scientific untruth in it, it’s scary. Be careful, because others know how to manipulate you by this. Just because something is beyond your comprehension doesn’t mean it is scientific.
# FDA Statement on Aspartame (FDA):
Analysis of the National Cancer Institute's public data base on cancer incidence in the United States — the SEER Program — does not support an association between the use of aspartame and increased incidence of brain tumors.
# Study Reaffirms Safety of Aspartame (MIT News):
Even daily large doses of the high-intensity sweetener aspartame, also known as NutraSweet, had no adverse effect on study subjects' health and well-being, a visiting scientist at MIT reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition last week.

"We conclude that aspartame is safe for the general population," said Paul A. Spiers, visiting scientist in the Clinical Research Center (CRC).
# A Web of Deceit (TIME magazine):
A widely disseminated e-mail by a "Nancy Markle" links aspartame to Alzheimer's, birth defects, brain cancer, diabetes, Gulf War syndrome, lupus, multiple sclerosis and seizures. Right away, the long list warrants skepticism. Just as no single chemical cures everything, none causes everything.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

[kookbreaker]

There are hundreds if not thousands of websites dedicated to this "issue" but nobody seems to care. Maybe it's because the majority of this nation has been affected by the massive consumption of methanol and formaldehyde and it's impossible for U.S. to believe that our own government could do something like this.. to U.S.
But it's NOT.

*Yawn*

Its a load of ROT! (http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp)


This post might be irrelevant


It is.


or even get edited,


It won't. But you'll never, ever acknowledge that. You just wanted to get your nutty paranoid jab in.

[juryjone]

Maybe if the producers of "Sweet Misery" would have given away copies of their video, more people would be interested in the genocide that continues to take place on a daily basis in this country.

Do any of you know when and how the door was opened for aspartame's approval?
On Ronald Reagan's FIRST day in office, when Donald Rumsfeld "called in his political markers".

[snip]

Rise, surprise ! Open your EYES !
http://courses.washington.edu/hypertxt/nypix/gndzero.jpg
19 Muslims pulled off the worlds best demolition with box cutters and ,
pixie dust ?

COME ON !~

We had spaghetti at our house three times last week.

[T.A.M.]

Submersible:

Noone is saying the point doesn't deserve discussion. The JREF Forum is a huge forum...and yes I will say what you anticipated...Keep the comments to the TOPIC of the Forum thread. Go make your own thread on it. I might actually go there and debate with you on it, as it is a topic I have read a little on, although it was a while ago...and I still drink about 6 diet cokes a day.

[Submersible]

We had spaghetti at our house three times last week.

I keep eating all the smoked turkey necks out of my red beans & rice, but the beans still taste good.:blush:

I might actually go there and debate with you on it, as it is a topic I have read a little on, although it was a while ago...and I still drink about 6 diet cokes a day.

It would be healthier for you to buy a 20 crack rock,,but that's your choice.

[T.A.M.]

Like I said, bring it to an appropriate forum, and I might debate it with you. You are right about one thing...the same paranoid assertions about govt wrt 9/11 feed right inot the same thoughts about Aspartame...big brother out to get the sheeple for money, at all costs....

[apathoid]

Good points, thanks! So it seems to show the signs of an inexperienced pilot...? Might be worth collecting these together, then: there's probably another 911myths.com piece in discussing whether the evidence shows they were crack pilots, or not.

I agree. I'm sure Giulio can offer alot more insight than I can. But it does seem that, in the case of AA77 and UA 93, the hijackers made things a little harder on themselves than need be.

[Jennie C.]

Hi, this is post #1, as you might have seen. Over the last 2 or so weeks, I've wound my way up to page 36 of thread 1. At that point, people weren't discussing the video but making fun of Loosers (which is fine, they're hilarious). So if this was discussed in the Mountain of Material since then, my apologies.

I've watched Every Bit of LC2E, including the closing credits. I didn't want to be Accused Of Anything. (wink to Delphi). At about the hour mark, he goes on and on about 200 passengers' being evacuated from Flight 93 at Cleveland Hopkins.

Ummm, there were only 43 passengers on UA 93. That's from the manifest. The manifest is generated by the airline (united), not the guvmint. So where did he get the other 157 passengers? He never even Mentions the discrepancy.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hi, this is post #1, as you might have seen. Over the last 2 or so weeks, I've wound my way up to page 36 of thread 1. At that point, people weren't discussing the video but making fun of Loosers (which is fine, they're hilarious). So if this was discussed in the Mountain of Material since then, my apologies.

I've watched Every Bit of LC2E, including the closing credits. I didn't want to be Accused Of Anything. (wink to Delphi). At about the hour mark, he goes on and on about 200 passengers' being evacuated from Flight 93 at Cleveland Hopkins.

Ummm, there were only 43 passengers on UA 93. That's from the manifest. The manifest is generated by the airline (united), not the guvmint. So where did he get the other 157 passengers? He never even Mentions the discrepancy.

First off, welcome to the forums.

As far as the additional 157 passengers? I would guess he found them the same place as his 167 billion in gold under WTC. j/k If I had to guess, I would say he saw the capacity on the 757-200 for 2nd class passengers and ran with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#757-200

Passengers
(2 class) 200 (12 + 188)


Or, it's one of the "intentional" errors to get people to investigate and learn the "truth".

ETA: And you're quite the trooper for wading throw PT I.

[Dog Town]

As far as the additional 157 passengers? I would guess he found them the same place as his 167 billion in gold under WTC. j/k If I had to guess, I would say he saw the capacity on the 757-200 for 2nd class passengers and ran with it:
The number is all passengers from all hijacked aircraft on 911!They were killed in tha nasa building at Cleve Intl. I think , hell it's confusing!
Welcome JC!

DT

[steve s]

From the thread T.A.M is involved in...
12. In every airline crash I've seen, there are the usual seats, luggage, trash, bodies, and recognizable airplane parts including wing tips and tail fin.

Have him look at this photo (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w941031.htm), and ask him "Where are the seats, bodies, wing tips and tail fin?"

Steve S.

[Darth Rotor]

The number is all passengers from all hijacked aircraft on 911!They were killed in tha nasa building at Cleve Intl.
DT
By dropping bars of gold bullion on their heads at speeds faster than free fall, from an undamaged military building's roof that was 3" bar around 4' centers. :p

DR

[steve s]

Keep in mind that "appeal to authority" does not mean "referring to an expert in the field". Classic example would be saying that "Dr. Jarvis (inventor of artificial heart) does not believe in the Big Bang Theory, therefore the Big Bang Theory is wrong". Whereas, saying "Dr. Jarvis feels that suggestion X is a bad idea to pursue for a new model artificial hear", would be okay.

Other classic examples inclulde:

Citing several twenty-something wannabe filmmakers as authorities on anything outside of playing video games.

Citing a nuclear physicist whose specialty is cold fusion as an expert on structural engineering and controlled demolitions.

Citing a group of philosophy profs and a theater instructor (a.k.a Scholars for Truth) as authorities on anything other than philosophy and theater.

Steve S.

[T.A.M.]

Steve...thanks man, great photo.

[steve s]

Steve...thanks man, great photo.

No problem. Here's the homepage for that site.
Plane Crash photos. (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/pictures.htm)

If you sift through them you should find more examples. The one I linked to above is the most glaring example of total obliteration. One thing you quickly learn is that no two crash sites are alike.

Steve S

[chipmunk stew]

...the 9-11 soap-opera...
I don't like you.

[tsig]

I have NEVER claimed to have EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE, not once have I used that term. I have said FACTS, referred to things I have in my personal possession that proves a conspiracy involving the GOV, CIA etc.
I shall even include the COURT SYSTEM.

These are facts, which I have shown to many lawyers, none of which said I was crazy but many were too scared to do anything with it.

Not the first time this has happened. I have known about many conspiracies, and things just appear to get worse not better. They get bigger with time. I guess I am just that kind of magnet, I am lucky. LOL NOT!

And it isn't one piece of paper I have but boxes of stuff. One thing could be maufactured but all the tapes, papers, court documents and other things including pictures reports etc could not be done, well not by me anyway. There are people on here that hear some ring of truth in what I say and those people might get a shot at learning some things.

Being on here does not give me away nor does it change the facts.

I know what I have and in time maybe others will also but these are not things I could really put on the board that is why I am looking for people who might know how to help me and know what to do with what I do have. And in case you haven't noticed, which is more the case than not, I am trying to discuss the video and aspects of the video. You guys keep coming back and misquoting me and I have tried to move beyond that now.


Whatever we know we will not find out from you. You are all blow and no go.

You are just jerking people around.

[apathoid]

From the thread T.A.M is involved in...


Have him look at this photo (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w941031.htm), and ask him "Where are the seats, bodies, wing tips and tail fin?"

Steve S.

Well, my eyes might be deceiving me, but I think I can make out the tail on the right.
I think this one is fairly interesting. No tail, no engines, no wreckage, a big black mark..

http://911research.com/essays/pentagon/docs/sacramento_dc8_feb1602_1_s.jpg

...is all thats left of an Emery DC-8 that crashed shortly after takeoff. FYI - the the DC-8 is quite a bit larger than the 757..

[T.A.M.]

Steve

I looked at most of the photos on that site.

What strikes me, is when you look at photos of crashes where the planes came down in free fall, or where they struck the earth at full or high speed, the debris is minute is size, and widespread...hmmmmm

[Sword_Of_Truth]

19 Muslims pulled off the worlds best demolition with box cutters and ,
pixie dust ?

COME ON !~

A.) Argument from incredulity.

B.) That's not what they did at all. They used hijacked passenger jets with nearly full fuel loads and rammed the towers at maximum speed.

Or had you not heard that part?

[T.A.M.]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10385

For those who cannot view the above,

an LC poster named Ulises, states he hates Maddox because he "says Dylan Avery should be killed", and then goes on to comment how he hates the "Screw Loose Change" videos that Maddox made.

dear god in heaven, who will be the next person to be responsible for the "Screw Loose Change" videos?, Pope Benedict, Bon Jovi, The Continent of Australia?

[T.A.M.]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10296

sorry bout the multiple LC forum posts guys, but I thought it was time in here for a little humor.

The above link is an example of some of the "low IQ" LC posters...just read...and I am not referring to the first guy who posted...well you'll see who I am referring to...lol

[Dog Town]

Pope Benedict
Yes, because he should hate the Joooos too, just another shill for the man!
There's your sign!

[tsig]

Well if I was anyone else I would be dead several times, but then again I refer you to my previous posts where I have clearly stated, THEY MAKE MISTAKES and ARE NOT GOD.

I just don't go down easily not that they haven't tried. I have plenty of documentation on that. And for the RECORD, I have said/stated that I have evidence of attempts on my life, I NEVER said they the CIA was directly responsible for that, what I did say was the CIA help set me up.
Maybe if it was the CIA that tried to kill me maybe I might not be posting, but then again I am not absolutely sure WHO tried to kill me every time but I know that my life has had several attempts on it, and I do know who tried to kill me on one occsion. The problems here is that you guys ADD to what I have said, and mix it around and then accuse me of things I didn't say but what you have said or made up/misconstrued etc.

And I have never said I was impressed by them either, just they are capable of more than you give them credit for.


Sir K, sir K I am now dazzled by your brillance, since all who are around you are killed your plan in coming here was to wipe out the Jref.

We may be able to survive better than you so your plan could backfire.

[Brainster]

Hi, this is post #1, as you might have seen. Over the last 2 or so weeks, I've wound my way up to page 36 of thread 1. At that point, people weren't discussing the video but making fun of Loosers (which is fine, they're hilarious). So if this was discussed in the Mountain of Material since then, my apologies.

I've watched Every Bit of LC2E, including the closing credits. I didn't want to be Accused Of Anything. (wink to Delphi). At about the hour mark, he goes on and on about 200 passengers' being evacuated from Flight 93 at Cleveland Hopkins.

Ummm, there were only 43 passengers on UA 93. That's from the manifest. The manifest is generated by the airline (united), not the guvmint. So where did he get the other 157 passengers? He never even Mentions the discrepancy.

It was mentioned in one of the the second versions (not sure about 2E). The "theory" that they are hinting at is known as the "Bumble Planes" theory. The idea is that the four flights that were (as we know) hijacked that day, actually landed at an Air Force base somewhere, while substitute drones took their place in the sky. The passengers on the other three planes were then bundled onto Flight 93, which took off for Cleveland.

Welcome to the board!

[realitybites]

The troothers are always on about how NIST, FEMA, the federal gov't, my mom, your dad, our uncles... didn't even look for evidence of explosives when investigating the towers' collapse.

I've always just assumed it was because, well... it didn't look like it. The 'squibs' they incessantly refer to come out much too softly to be explosive charges - they appear to "flow" out of the buildings.

Now the images and video of these 'squibs' are taken too far away to determine with any certainty the precise material they're made up of.

So... I'm gonna go ahead and postulate that what we saw was obviously the fizzy ejecta of something bomb sniffing dogs had no chance in hell of detecting....

... Finely concentrated Mentos/Diet Coke directional charges.

Suck on THAT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFf-kW1E0Tc), Avery!

[JamesB]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10296

sorry bout the multiple LC forum posts guys, but I thought it was time in here for a little humor.

The above link is an example of some of the "low IQ" LC posters...just read...and I am not referring to the first guy who posted...well you'll see who I am referring to...lol

OMG, that is some of the stupidest stuff I have ever read.

And it's unlikely that they could have flown widebodies into the towers with the required precision, or that the large jets would have made it all the way inside, producing the needed explosion and justification for the towers collapsing.

It was just going to bounce off the windows?

In other words, from a technical standpoint, you can't pull off 9/11 with widebody jets. They're not maneuverable enough.

Were they required to do some dogfighting I was not aware of?

The scary thing is, the poster is not a troll, he has 973 posts to his record.

[Dog Town]

Finely concentrated Mentos/Diet Coke
Yep, won't be flying with those ever again!

[Dog Town]

The scary thing is, the poster is not a troll, he has 973 posts to his record.
Hell K townie has that in one thread, over in the next room! Most consisting of "Ok do you agree"?

[T.A.M.]

The real CDs that I have seen also show squibs ejected from many levels simultaneously (makes sense, the charges go off all together, or extremely close), where as in all the WTC videos supposedly showing "squibs" they occur as "one here" another "there".

just rediculous.

[realitybites]

The real CDs that I have seen also show squibs ejected from many levels simultaneously (makes sense, the charges go off all together, or extremely close), where as in all the WTC videos supposedly showing "squibs" they occur as "one here" another "there".

just rediculous.
You grossly understimate the power of Diet Coke and Mentos.

[T.A.M.]

I have seen the videos...I think you are on to something...I mean who would suspect Diet Coke bottles next to the Steel Columns...that is it, i am sold, the WTCs were brought down via CD using Diet Coke and Mentos...

[defaultdotxbe]

the diet coke next to the collumns was only half of it, most peopel dont realize it but the WTC was actually BUILT out of mentos, just waiting for the day the govt would bring in the nanotech-enhanced super diet coke (and we all though coke II was just a failed marketing product)

[mrfreeze]

Killtown has been banned from LC forums for being a **** disturber, and according to some a govt agent.

[Dog Town]

Killtown has been banned from LC forums for being a **** disturber, and according to some a govt agent

Ohh where is the justice? Sitt'en right next to irony!

[Mancman]

the diet coke next to the collumns was only half of it, most peopel dont realize it but the WTC was actually BUILT out of mentos, just waiting for the day the govt would bring in the nanotech-enhanced super diet coke (and we all though coke II was just a failed marketing product)

Don't forget that the buildings allegedly had coke bottles built within the mentos core. The thermate was used to burn through the coke bottles, releasing the substance and starting the collapse.

[Abbyas]

Killtown has been banned from LC forums for being a **** disturber, and according to some a govt agent

Ah, the implosion of the truth movement.

[Dog Town]

Don't forget that the buildings allegedly had coke bottles built within the mentos core. The thermate was used to burn through the coke bottles, releasing the substance and starting the collapse.

Yet, more of the contradiction, I mean conspiracy unravels! The architect was secretly the guy that built the "Watts Towers"! Shhhh!

[Belz...]

Ah, the implosion of the truth movement.

In a non-controlled way, without all that 3" rebar.

[chipmunk stew]

Ah, the implosion of the truth movement.
See it in action--it's a breathtakingly beautiful sight:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11097

[mrfreeze]

Merc is calling for people to actually investigate 9/11 by doing actual research. http://www.ninjaproxy.com/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.pl/011110A/http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11140

[Belz...]

Do you honestly believe that "they" wouldn't kill a few thousand people and drop a few buildings to give 'them' a good enough excuse to re-start our big bad War MACHINE,

Yes, I do. Honestly. If _I_ were a world leader, I'd never go so far as to murder people for my agendas, no matter how tyranical I'd get. Purges ? Sure. Killing your enemies ? Yeah. 3000 of your own, innocent people just to start a war ? Far-fetched.

[Belz...]

Killtown has been banned from LC forums for being a **** disturber, and according to some a govt agent.

Amazing. And he's at the OTHER end of the loon spectrum (for those who haven't seen his thread, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61633))

[mrfreeze]

Well he did sort of call the admins "power hungry" among other things.

[Abbyas]

See it in action--it's a breathtakingly beautiful sight:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...howtopic=11097

Holy Smoke.

Killtown suggests a forum "jail" and now he works for NWO?

The egotism of these people to think that someone that disagrees with them must be getting paid to do so.

[Belz...]

See it in action--it's a breathtakingly beautiful sight:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11097

Sun Zoo is at his usual best:

Seeing [the jail section] would be a HECK of a turnoff for newbies that much I do know. They might rush over and start listening to the "dungeon people" like some devil calling out to them, shouting things..

They are SO affraid of skeptics, it's irrational. Dare I say it's Crazy!

I also like this comment:

I see the purpose of proposing a "jail section" as a way to give new-comers to this message board a bad taste in their mouth, to say that "the 9/11 truth movement" are bunch of pompous a-holes who "jail" anyone who might disagree with their views. DEFINITELY not a good idea.

Uh-huh. And banning is Soooo much better.

[Palimpsest]

See it in action--it's a breathtakingly beautiful sight:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11097

It's like a graceful ballet of paranoia and delusion.

coup de pied d'ironie, from Sun Zoo:
This is a Truth Forum. Not a throw people in jail that we don't agree with forum.

glissade de fascisme, again from Sun Zoo:
Don't trust you FL2

Keep an eye on im mods..

replique de paranoia, from FL2:
Sun Zoo is one of those guys who if paid enough would join the NWO no doubt about it.

pas de chat de mob mentality, from solgrabber:
Always had a funny gut feeling about Killtown.

[SRW]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10296

sorry bout the multiple LC forum posts guys, but I thought it was time in here for a little humor.

The above link is an example of some of the "low IQ" LC posters...just read...and I am not referring to the first guy who posted...well you'll see who I am referring to...lol

Yes they have their thinking caps on to tight,

LC paraphrase mode/ everyone knows boings can't shoot missile's and are not maneuverable enough to fly into the towers so they must have used missiles/lc off

Sometimes I really wish I was a pot smoker, I just cannot sustain a laughing fit as long as that deserved.

[T.A.M.]

That Killtown Jail/banning thread was like...like...I am having a hard time finding the words to describe it.

It was amazing. I have never seen a group turn on one of its most dedicated like that...I mean that would be like people here forcing Gravy or Gumboot our of here...

I feel guilty for enjoying it. For the first time, I actually feel bad for Killtown.

is the moon full. Am I in an alternate dimension...

[SRW]

Merc is calling for people to actually investigate 9/11 by doing actual research. http://www.ninjaproxy.com/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.pl/011110A/http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11140


I had to read one of his post twice to believe it.

"Go to New York and find people on the impact side of WTC2 who didn't see a plane."

yeah actual research. I am going to volunteer to ask questions in DC I'll be there in OCT.

[Dog Town]

I feel guilty for enjoying it. For the first time, I actually feel bad for Killtown.

This too shall pass! I'm still laughing my buttox off! Irony at it's best, or paranoia, or both. Bahhhahh! One of'em, though! Still laughing............

[Jennie C.]

By dropping bars of gold bullion on their heads at speeds faster than free fall, from an undamaged military building's roof that was 3" bar around 4' centers. :p

DR

Now THAT's Inscrutable. :) Good one Darth.

[apathoid]

That Killtown Jail/banning thread was like...like...I am having a hard time finding the words to describe it....

.....like being bukakked with stupid, maybe?

[Brainache]

That Killtown Jail/banning thread was like...like...I am having a hard time finding the words to describe it.

It was amazing. I have never seen a group turn on one of its most dedicated like that...I mean that would be like people here forcing Gravy or Gumboot our of here...

I feel guilty for enjoying it. For the first time, I actually feel bad for Killtown.

is the moon full. Am I in an alternate dimension...

Has Killtown become Trotsky to JDX's Stalin?

[gumboot]

I've finally had some FOIA success, and got some documents from the NTSB today about Flight 77 & others. These include the altitude readings they're talking about. Read more & download from http://www.911myths.com/html/ntsb_release_august_22_2006.html


The whole FOIA thing is just INSANE. And it's not just Americans that can get the information!

And this is the country in which the government is establishing a police state? :confused:

The US would have to be the worst police state EVER!

I wonder how asking for a FOIA release on the Fuhrer's directive for the "final solution" would have gone in 1944 Germany...

-Andrew

ETA. Any time I hear a claim of police state, I try imagine a similar scenario occuring in Nazi Germany or the USSR. It's laughable what these CTers call a "police state".

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The whole FOIA thing is just INSANE. And it's not just Americans that can get the information!

And this is the country in which the government is establishing a police state? :confused:

The US would have to be the worst police state EVER!

I wonder how asking for a FOIA release on the Fuhrer's directive for the "final solution" would have gone in 1944 Germany...

-Andrew

ETA. Any time I hear a claim of police state, I try imagine a similar scenario occuring in Nazi Germany or the USSR. It's laughable what these CTers call a "police state".

Yeah, I haven't completely lost faith in the checks and balances system.

[mrfreeze]

I reckon kids have a much easier time seeing through the bullsh*t because they haven't been through all the mind-programming their parents have.


Just wow. Could that "mind programming" be another word for.. I don't know... EDUCATION!

[gumboot]

Yeah, I haven't completely lost faith in the checks and balances system.


Not to mention Sir Knight's argument that the whole wiretapping thing proves the police state.

And his evidence?

The US Courts say it's illegal? :confused:

Again... lame police state.

JUDGE: I'm sorry Herr Hitler, but you can't exterminate the Jews. It's against the constitution.
HITLER: Aw damn. I don't agree, but well, you are the law.

:rolleyes:

-Andrew

[T.A.M.]

So there is this guy who posts over on Abby's site, called rros...something or other. Anyway, he claims that now a full 60 out of 60 faculty at BYU who sat in on a talk of Steven Jones have now come out in support of him, saying an independent investigation of 9/11 is warranted.

Anyone got any info on the validity/exagerration of this comment?

[defaultdotxbe]

theres a simple guage by which you can determine the existance of a police state

if you can, in public, state that the nation is becoming a police state, and not be arrested, its probably not a police state

[Gravy]

So there is this guy who posts over on Abby's site, called rros...something or other. Anyway, he claims that now a full 60 out of 60 faculty at BYU who sat in on a talk of Steven Jones have now come out in support of him, saying an independent investigation of 9/11 is warranted.

Anyone got any info on the validity/exagerration of this comment?
Jones makes the same claims in his talks. No doubt if people did agree with him, it's because of how he phrased the question.

[Sir Knight]

theres a simple guage by which you can determine the existance of a police state

if you can, in public, state that the nation is becoming a police state, and not be arrested, its probably not a police state


No it has to do with the level of privacy and civil rights one has, and I can tell you from personal experience you are DEAD WRONG.

[T.A.M.]

Abby makes a good point after rros said this. After he made the comment about the 60 out of 60, he then defends the BYU refusal to get behind Jones, as them being the most right wing University.

Abby nailed him, indicating that this is just the common CTer arguement that when someone doesn't come out about something it is due to fear or being republican.

[defaultdotxbe]

No it has to do with the level of privacy and civil rights one has, and I can tell you from personal experience you are DEAD WRONG.

wouldnt my example fall under civil rights?

[T.A.M.]

I remember an Anderson Cooper special on CNN about N. Korea, and obvious police state/dictatorship. In this special, a video that showed a defaced poster of Kim Jon was recorded. The person who recorded it, for fear of the lives of his family and himself, had to leave N. Korea, with the video. The whole time the documentary showed him, his back was turned to the cam, or he was "masked" out.

Now that is a police state.

Here you can mock Bush, make videos of him, draw him in the form of satan, go down near his own private dwelling and protest....

give me a freaking break...

[T.A.M.]

the same video showed men being shot by firing squad for voicing opinions against the reigning dictator, to set an example for the rest of the village they lived in.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So there is this guy who posts over on Abby's site, called rros...something or other. Anyway, he claims that now a full 60 out of 60 faculty at BYU who sat in on a talk of Steven Jones have now come out in support of him, saying an independent investigation of 9/11 is warranted.

Anyone got any info on the validity/exagerration of this comment?

Well, unless things have changed dramatically:
"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php?person=1&page=miller/vita.php

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department
http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2

[CurtC]

That Killtown Jail/banning thread was like...like...I am having a hard time finding the words to describe it.
Describe it like this: Lord of the Flies

[T.A.M.]

That is a very astute analogy...well done...Lord of the Flies it is then.

[defaultdotxbe]

That is a very astute analogy...well done...Lord of the Flies it is then.

sucks to your truth movement!

[gumboot]

sucks to your truth movement!

Mod = conch?

Which would make it "Lord of the Flies" with dozens of conches...

Ouch.

-Andrew

[delphi_ote]

Well you better put me in touch with one of those people you said come on here then because my family is all dead. And phoning just don't work I guess. And I just lost a very near and dear friend lately which knew of everything that has happened to me. They said he died of a heart attack from other complications.
Standard passive aggressive pathological liar tactic: when your negative behavior becomes so obvious someone calls you out on it, immediately put up a smokescreen of vulnerability. Defend yourself by making yourself so pathetic nobody would attack you.

Your torrent of antisocial behavior makes me doubt everything you type, but you obviously need help. Pofessional help. You're not getting any sympathy from me until you see a doctor. Your behavior on this forum has been reprehensible and embarrassing. Whatever friends or family you have living or dead would be ashamed of what you're doing. Stop indulging these unhealthy fantasies and go talk to someone who can help you.

[delphi_ote]

Mod = conch?

Which would make it "Lord of the Flies" with dozens of conches...

Ouch.

-Andrew
They're all on Jack's side of the island, I'm afraid.

[WildCat]

That Killtown Jail/banning thread was like...like...I am having a hard time finding the words to describe it.
Does Killtown get a badge?

[Gravy]

In other news, after 53 pages, Killtown has admitted to the Shanksville crash! (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1868181&postcount=2110)

[R.Mackey]

Does Killtown get a badge?
Fair is fair.

I'm hoping, now that he's seen the true face of his former associates, that he takes their words a little more... dare I say... skeptically.

[Brainster]

So there is this guy who posts over on Abby's site, called rros...something or other. Anyway, he claims that now a full 60 out of 60 faculty at BYU who sat in on a talk of Steven Jones have now come out in support of him, saying an independent investigation of 9/11 is warranted.

Anyone got any info on the validity/exagerration of this comment?

My guess this is about the WND article that claimed Jones had called for armed insurrection. I knew the moment I read it that the author had confused Fetzer for Jones. Jones has said that the article caused a fuss at BYU. Shame, because it was a good article otherwise. At any rate, I am sure they are supporting him over this particular charge, not his ridiculous theories.

[brumsen]

Well, unless things have changed dramatically:
"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" (..) - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php?person=1&page=miller/vita.php

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department
http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2
Would you be so kind as to point us to where these quotes may be found, for they are not on the URLs you include.

[brumsen]

Please provide the evidence that these devices were ever manufactured. One of the posters on the “journal” forum said they called the company that held the patent, but they never said what they found out. They must not have gotten what they wanted. Please show in the patent where it says that the device can cut a nice clean diagonal cut through 12 inches of steel.
I don't have that evidence. FeO claims to have it, but OK, that is second-hand.

As to the next point, I was speaking more generally of the “scholars”. Face it, the “scholars” are the journal. It is not an independent entity, they created it, they control it.
Yes, the journal is published by the "Scholars", on that we agree. But even if they - especially Fetzer - do not cease to talk about their authority, this is not how they defend the reputation of the journal, to my knowledge at least. If so, please provide evidence of that.

The trees analogy wasn’t in the Journal, but it was made by Judy Wood and posted on the “Scholars” site. Wood was one of the original editors of the journal, although she has been removed for some reason and replaced by waterboy Kevin Ryan. I have no doubt if she had submitted her work it would have been published. Maybe that is why she is no longer an editor? Although I guess she can’t now . It has been “published” already and Jones would accuse her of violations of academic ethics.
Right, I suppose all this means that we can safely dissociate the credibility of Judy Wood's claims from the credibility of the journal?
ETA: Wood appears to have left the Scholars; she's no longer listed. Interesting.

And to repeat my answer, yes, I want our work to earn a favorable reputation, but for the merits of its arguments. I couldn’t care less whether people consider us a “journal” or not. Although it is amusing to be given that status by Jones.

Edit: I should point out that I am just one of the people who has posted there. I did not create the site, nor do I control it. If you want to help shape its future, send in a submission.
:confused: In your earlier post you said you were one of the editors?
Anyway, it's the editors that shape the future of the journal - and that also means solliciting good articles. But authors just want their work published - they do not care about shaping the future of a journal - they just want their work to get the best possible exposure.

[Gravy]

Would you be so kind as to point us to where these quotes may be found, for they are not on the URLs you include.
They university took them down when a BYU colleague of Jones (a humanities prof. who is also a "Scholar") complained that Jones' paper had been submitted for a second, and proper, peer review.

However, Jones himself only says that two of the four reviewers are physicists. For all we know, the other two are charwomen.

Same schtick, different day.

So, the removal of the comments was not because the physics and engineering people at BYU changed their minds, but because an outsider complained about them.

[brumsen]

They university took them down when a BYU colleague of Jones (a humanities prof. who is also a "Scholar") complained that Jones' paper had been submitted for a second, and proper, peer review.
In the version I know it was a scholar from another university (Ohio University) - Richard McGinn.

So, the removal of the comments was not because the physics and engineering people at BYU changed their minds, but because an outsider complained about them.
An outsider complained, pointing out (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Comments_Jones_05May2006.html)that there might well be grounds for an ethics complaint with ASCE. Isn't the removal of the comments an indication that they agreed with that?
Now it is their business whether they actually changed their minds.... however, would you actually want to suggest that the ASCE code enforces the removal of comments made to one's best professional judgment?

ETA: be all this as it may - it is a bit dubious to quote the comments here on this forum as if they were still standing.

[Gravy]

In the version I know it was a scholar from another university - Richard McGinn.
Ah. Sounds right. It's been a while since I looked into this.

An outsider complained, pointing out that there might well be grounds for an ethics complaint with ASCE. Isn't the removal of the comments an indication that they agreed with that?
That could be indicative of many things, such as the University wanting to avoid public controversy.

Now it is their business whether they actually changed their minds....however, would you actually want to suggest that the ASCE code enforces the removal of comments made to one's best professional judgment?
I don't understand the question. BYU administration, not the ASCE, issued the statements and removed them. And the ASCE certainly doesn't rule over Jones' physics colleagues, who also issued a statement that they did not agree with him.

The department statements were apparently in response to media stories that suggested that Jones had the support of the BYU science community:

Reached for comment, structural engineering professors Steven Benzley and Rick Balling both said they supported the statement as written.

Balling said he and Benzley have made contact with Jones on more than one occasion, engaging him in a dialogue about the more technical aspects of his research.

Once again, Jenkins said top university officials did not influence the structural engineering faculty or the College of Engineering and Technology to challenge Jones’ work.

She said the college administration wrote the statement in response to media reports that Jones’ colleagues “had given in essence a vote of confidence to his hypotheses.”

“In fact,” Jenkins said, “the faculty hadn’t supported that further research be done in this area, and so they were concerned about misrepresentation in the media.”

On Sept. 22, prior to going public with his provocative suggestions, Jones gave a seminar to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy.

After the seminar, all but one of Jones’ colleagues said they agreed an investigation was in order, Jones said. And the lone dissenter came around the next day.

In a Nov. 11 interview, Physics Professor Harold Stokes, one of several faculty members who attended the seminar, said the explosive demolition hypothesis “certainly raises some interesting questions” and that Jones’ claims “certainly appear to be valid.”

Like many of his other colleagues, though, Stokes was up front in saying that he didn’t have the technical expertise to properly scrutinize Jones’ claims.

In an effort to accommodate administration and others, Jones said he has modified his paper, and submitted it to another journal and another round of peer reviewing.
http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724

ETA: be all this as it may - it is a bit dubious to quote the comments here on this forum as if they were still standing.
Agreed. The full story should be told.

[gumboot]

Right, I suppose all this means that we can safely dissociate the credibility of Judy Wood's claims from the credibility of the journal?


Isn't her area of expertise dentistry? And she compares the WTC to TREES?

That's all I need to know about Ms Wood.

-Andrew

[brumsen]

Isn't her area of expertise dentistry? And she compares the WTC to TREES?

That's all I need to know about Ms Wood.

-Andrew

Yeah, but she has left the scholars and is no longer an editor of the journal. So it may be all you need to know about ms Wood, it is not all you need to know about the credibility of the journal.

[brumsen]

That could be indicative of many things, such as the University wanting to avoid public controversy.
True. But it's not very courageous not to stand behind one's judgement and withdrawing it for fear of controversy, is it?

I don't understand the question. BYU administration, not the ASCE, issued the statements and removed them.
Parkinson, the Fulton College Dean, is a member of ASME (not ASCE - my mistake; but it makes little difference here) and as such is governed by their code; the comments were issued under his authority.

[Gravy]

True. But it's not very courageous not to stand behind one's judgement and withdrawing it for fear of controversy, is it?
Or, it's reasonable to cut a colleague some slack when they've given their assurance that their paper would be submitted for proper peer review.

Or, it would be ethical to remove the statements if it was determined that Jones' claims were not investigated thoroughly enough.

I don't know if either of these were the case, but they seem like reasonable possibilities.

[brumsen]

Or, it's reasonable to cut a colleague some slack when they've given their assurance that their paper would be submitted for proper peer review.

Or, it would be ethical to remove the statements if it was determined that Jones' claims were not investigated thoroughly enough.

I don't know if either of these were the case, but they seem like reasonable possibilities.
It was on the basis of something like your second possibility that the dean was written to, stating that a complaint to ASME was being considered.

Of course, the ethical thing was not to have published those statements in the first place, if they agreed that such a complaint might have a basis. However, there has to my knowledge not been any official retraction. So it keeps circulating, as evidenced on this forum as well.

However, I don't see how this undercuts my position that it is not very courageous to withdraw such a statement, without changing one's mind. I mean: either you withdraw because you agree that the issues have not been researched enough, but you attempt to bolster your statement by doing the research and engaging in discussion with Jones, perhaps eventually re-publishing the statement; or you withdraw because you don't want to bother. But, well, making a statement without wanting to defend it when pressed.... and then not even retracting it, but just removing... hmmm.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Would you be so kind as to point us to where these quotes may be found, for they are not on the URLs you include.


“The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones’s hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU’s own faculty members,” it reads in part.

“Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.”
http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724

eta:
Even trying to get to the announcements page of the CE site yields http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/LayerAnnouncements
Not Found
The requested URL /ce/LayerAnnouncements was not found on this server.

Apache/1.3.29 Server at www.et.byu.edu Port 80

[brumsen]

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724

That's a newsarticle quoting a statement that was on a website at the time of writing - december 2005. It is not anymore.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That's a newsarticle quoting a statement that was on a website at the time of writing - december 2005. It is not anymore.

Have they published a statement officially retracting their position, or did they just take the statement down? There is a significant different between the two in the academic world.

ETA: And I also think it is telling that BYU has allowed the news article to remain as is, without having them add a follow-up statement indicating that the statements were removed.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Have they published a statement officially retracting their position, or did they just take the statement down? There is a significant different between the two in the academic world.

ETA: And I also think it is telling that BYU has allowed the news article to remain as is, without having them add a follow-up statement indicating that the statements were removed.

I have contacted the College of Engineering at BYU to confirm these quotes. If I get approval from them I will post their reply in full here.

What I sent

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am contacting you to ensure that I am not misrepsenting BYU in quoting statements made by your faculty on my webblog. If possible I would like to verify with you that veracity of the quotes and if BYU (a) stands by these statements or (b) has retracted these statements. The statements in question are as follows:
"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

and

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department

I thank you for your assistence in this matter and would also like to ask if I may quote your response regarding these statements?

Thank you for help.

Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxx

[gumboot]

What I sent

I think they will be very suspicious about a letter from someone who just puts a whole lot of X's instead of a name...:rolleyes:

Maybe you should have signed it with a big wolf paw print ;)

-Andrew

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think they will be very suspicious about a letter from someone who just puts a whole lot of X's instead of a name...:rolleyes:

Maybe you should have signed it with a big wolf paw print ;)

-Andrew

Dangit, did I forget the 'o's between the 'x's?

eta: note to self: stop posting/email before having coffee

[chipmunk stew]

Merc is calling for people to actually investigate 9/11 by doing actual research. http://www.ninjaproxy.com/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.pl/011110A/http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11140
Wow, for once he makes sense (mostly). I hope a lot of people take him up on it. This is basically what we've been asking them to do--talk to people who were there. I hope they can develop a taste for humble pie because a lot is going to be thrown in their faces.

[chipmunk stew]

The whole FOIA thing is just INSANE. And it's not just Americans that can get the information!

And this is the country in which the government is establishing a police state? :confused:

The US would have to be the worst police state EVER!

I wonder how asking for a FOIA release on the Fuhrer's directive for the "final solution" would have gone in 1944 Germany...

-Andrew

ETA. Any time I hear a claim of police state, I try imagine a similar scenario occuring in Nazi Germany or the USSR. It's laughable what these CTers call a "police state".
Don't forget: this is the most craftily genius/bumblingly idiotic cabal in the history of mankind.