PDA

View Full Version : Loose Change - Part IV


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Dog Town
9th August 2006, 02:19 PM
I second Abby on the teacher comment. I would like to believe that is not uncommon! I think what Artistic always says will happen, will sooner than later anywho! " They will awaken the academic beast", then this will really get interesting. Way to go Tall, and welcome!

DT

Dog Town
9th August 2006, 02:29 PM
Also new here, from across the pond :)

Thank God for this forum. I watched Loose Change for the first time a few weeks ago from a link on an online gaming forum - OmG GUYZ U HAVE TO SE THIS PORVES THAT 9/11 WAS An INSiDE JOB LOLZ - and managed to get into some conversations surrounding it and the whole 9/11 CT.

I'll give you an example of a chat I had with a very good and well learned friend of mine:-

Chum: It was a Skyhawk / Cruise Missile / Truck Bomb that hit the Pentagon
Me: There's no evidence to say that's the case.
Chum: Of course there's no physical evidence, they aren't stupid, they removed it.
Me: *repeatedly bang cranium against hard surface*


Same thing happened to me about three weeks ago. I have since led him away from the Dark Side. This is a great place to find answers. Done good, and WELCOME!

brumsen
9th August 2006, 02:29 PM
You do not base a conclusion on reasoning, you base it on evidence.
Hah! an entirely new conception of logic! I keep on learning things here....:rolleyes:

brumsen
9th August 2006, 02:31 PM
You claim definitively that NIST did not look into the idea that explosives were used in the towers. Perhaps you are right. There is only one way to find out: contact NIST. Again, have you or anyone else done so?
Yes, I did. My query has gone unanswered to this date.

ETA: Gravy, do you mean to say that NIST may well have studied events beyond collapse initiation, and alternative hypotheses, just not included the results of those studies in the reports? And your point with me is that I should not conclude from these things not having been written up that no research was conducted?
Well, OK then. This could have been resolved many posts back, had you given me clear direct answers. I am fine with retracting the claim that NIST did not study these things. The discussion started when I was asked over what problem I have with the NIST report: it simply is that - whether they researched them or not - nothing was written about them in the report. In the case of post-collapse initiation events, that is because it should have been within the focus of the report for reasons stated earlier in discussion with R. Mackey and Wildcat. In the case of alternative/CD hypotheses, they should have writen about it since they drew a conclusion about it - which now appears to come from nowhere.

mrfreeze
9th August 2006, 02:41 PM
I dropped them an e-mail as well just now. Hopefully I hear back from them.

Sword_Of_Truth
9th August 2006, 02:42 PM
It was few, roswel/UFOs, JFK, NWO, I believed most of them. Now what changed my mind is a intersting story. Sorry though if derails the thread somewhat. But, back in senior year of High School (2001-2002) *Note at the time I did not believe 9/11 was an inside job.

I had a great US Government teacher who knew about my obessions with CTs and would love to just debat with me about. They were always fun, and he then challenged me that if I could get enough information to convince him that there was something off about JFKs assanation he would give me an 'A' and let me skip class. Not wanting to waste an oppertunity like that I gladly accepted.

Over the course the next few months I read several books on the assantion, went to several websites and did a lot of digging. Here's where it just intersting, I decided to not just stick with the normal conspiracy throires sites and books. I went to every resource I could get my hands on. I mean to skip class the rest of the year and not get in trouble for it, I wanted to cover all my bases.

The more I researched it though, more the theories began to fall apart. Magic bullet was explained, the famous 'back and to the left' head movement, why over the years no one has said anything about it. (I found it during this our government can't keep long terms sercets, short-terms sure. Past a few months not so much.) the list went on.

Face with this new mountian of evidance I had to face facts. I was wrong, and when I would go back to the conspiracy books and sites and would not get any answers to counter this. Truth be told the feeling I got after this was wrong. So I went up to my teacher and told him that I couldn't prove it. I showed him all the information I had. From that day on I relized I need to take the time to look at all the information myself and not listen to just this one side and blinding agree with it. So my days of a CTer was at their end. And I haven't looked back.

As a side note, I got an A in the class, but was not allowed to skip the class.:(

Great story Earl.

I myself am a former CT nutter (*shock* *gasp*). My conversion came about in a more abrupt fashion though.

I was at an annual convention for a political party I was involved in with a group of conspiracists determined to stage a takeover of the party, get ourselves elected and banish the new world order from Alberta forever.

During the course of the days events, I found myself a pal of sorts among our little group with whom I agreed on nearly everything. I actually liked the guy and thought he had a good head on his shoulders.

Until that is, he told me that people in interracial marriages should be put to death. He was not kidding either. I was aware beforehand of the accusations of anti-semitism and various other prejudices about our movement. I never believed in racism or bigotry of any kind. When people pointed out the cartoons of the guys with big noses in the SPOTLIGHT (yeah, them...) or The Micheal Journal I just wrote them off as, well... guys with big noses.

But when that guy, who ten minutes before I respected, basically grabbed me by the shoulders, shook me and effectively said "Hey! WAKE UP AND SMELL THE NAZIISM!!!" I did wake up.

I was floored. I didn't talk to the guy for the rest of the day, or ever again for that matter. I stopped going to our groups meetings (it was the mid-90's, the 19.2 kilobaud was the internet standard and meeting people face to face was still the way to go) after that because I knew that guy was going to be there.

Seperated from thier influence I started to gain a clearer perspective and become more skeptical of some of thier outrageuos claims. I was also young and rebellious back then (like 90% of the loosers) but I've mellowed a bit since.

If Earl and I are any indication, the "truth" movement (except for the crotchety old men like Fetzer, Jones, et al) will fade away due to the onset of maturity. Until then, you all may carry on debunking. :)

simakperrce
9th August 2006, 02:50 PM
Hah! an entirely new conception of logic! I keep on learning things here....:rolleyes:

Putting your meaningless reply aside for a moment, would you agree or not?

brumsen
9th August 2006, 02:57 PM
Putting your meaningless reply aside for a moment, would you agree or not?
No.

A conclusion is based both on premisses and reasoning. Premisses by themselves do not generate the conclusion; reasoning is needed for that.

The premisses may be propositions about (statements of) facts - which in some contexts would be called 'evidence' - but they may also be propositions about values, or analytical truths.

brumsen
9th August 2006, 02:58 PM
I dropped them an e-mail as well just now. Hopefully I hear back from them.
You mean NIST? Well, let me know if they do reply to you.

WildCat
9th August 2006, 03:15 PM
Hey guys, new to the board and I just wanted to come on and say that your doing a great job in countering the whole 'truth movement.' Awesome awesome work.

And this is comming from a former CTer.
So was it the hush money, blackmail, or death threats that turned you around?

;)

Kent1
9th August 2006, 03:18 PM
You mean NIST? Well, let me know if they do reply to you.
I've exchanged e-mails with them.
Brumsen, give me a question or two and I'll see if I get a reply. I can't guarantee anything but I'll try.

simakperrce
9th August 2006, 03:28 PM
No.

A conclusion is based both on premisses and reasoning. Premisses by themselves do not generate the conclusion; reasoning is needed for that.

The premisses may be propositions about (statements of) facts - which in some contexts would be called 'evidence' - but they may also be propositions about values, or analytical truths.

So what 'context' is the collapse of the WTC to be seen in? Values? Sometimes it actually seems that way.

Of course 'reasoning' is needed to come to a conclusion. However, if there is no premise (evidence) at the base of an investigation reasoning is either impossible or useless.

But let's cut through the philosophical crap: You ask NIST to reason the possibility of a controlled demolition? Why?

Dog Town
9th August 2006, 03:47 PM
Hey I get to be Mark too
From B Real at Colbert, after I smacked him upside the head, in a post about MarkyX
Internet warrior? You are nothing...You are probably the same person, just a diffrent personality..
His fellow marooons concur!
Wouldn't be amazed if that was taking place

This because I was on as a guest. I even signed my post DOG TOWN.Which was the name I B'smacked with yesterday. Man that is paranoid.
This being Mark thing is kinda cool though, I feel smarter already!

Arkan_Wolfshade
9th August 2006, 03:49 PM
Hey I get to be Mark too
From B Real at Colbert, after I smacked him upside the head, in a post about MarkyX

His fellow marooons concur!


This because I was on as a guest. I even signed my post DOG TOWN.Which was the name I B'smacked with yesterday. Man that is paranoid.
This being Mark thing is kinda cool though, I feel smarter already!

They're not used to the consistency in story and presentation when facts and logic are used. To them each person has an aspect on the "truth" (unless you're a gov't shill) so if two posters have the same "truth" they must be the same person.

Earl The Tall
9th August 2006, 04:00 PM
So was it the hush money, blackmail, or death threats that turned you around?

;)

Oh the money, are you kidding I got college loans to pay for man!:D

Johnny Pixels
9th August 2006, 04:08 PM
From the British 9/11 Denial movement, hilarity, as they "profile" Jay Ref:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=16326#16326

Just thought I'd wait until Jay Ref clocked off for the day before posting his/her track record, since joining this forum on July 20th.

Joined Forum: 20th July 2006

Total Posts as at 9.20pm Weds 9th August 2006 = 223

Average posts per 'working day' = 14

Date: ----1st Post----Last Post
9/8--------2.18pm-----8.57pm
8/8--------2.22pm-----9.12pm
7/8--------2.27pm-----9.03pm
Sun 6/8--------------------------
Sat 5/8---6.58pm-----7.50pm - (1hrs Overtime?)
4/8--------3.45pm-----8.41pm
3/8--------3.10pm-----6.32pm
2/8--------2.22pm-----8.59pm
1/8--------1.56pm-----9.13pm
31/7-------2.33pm-----9.16pm
Sun 30/7------------------------
Sat 29/7------------------------
28/7-------2.33pm-----9.03pm
27/7-------3.05pm-----9.07pm
26/7-------5.20pm-----9.45pm
25/7-------4.28pm-----7.09pm
24/7-------2.05pm-----10.54pm
Sun 23/7-------------------------
Sat 22/7------------------------
21/7-------3.02pm-----10.17pm
20/7-------4.05pm------8.55pm

In addition to the above, Jay Ref has posted on just two occasions outside of his/her ‘Office Hours’:
1) 1.25am on 28/7
2) 4.36am on 24/7

A few pertinent observations:
1). Jay Ref's current assignment probably began on Monday 18th July; thereby allowing a couple of days to browse the forum before taking on the mantle of Forum Skeptic (or Sceptic as you say in England)

2). Jay Ref doesn't work weekends, although he/she may have booked 1hrs overtime on Saturday 5th Aug.

3). Jay Ref starts work at 2pm (UK time) and finishes work at 9pm (UK time).

I think it is safe to assume that Jay Ref probably works in either Washington D.C. or in Quantico, Virginia. Both locations are in the Eastern US Time Zone. So Jay Ref probably starts work at 8.00am (EST), has a coffee and a de-brief with his/her supervisor regarding the previous days activity on www.nineeleven.co.uk (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/) , along with any other parallel assignments. Posting commences at 9.00am. through 4.00pm; probably allowing an hour before clocking off to write up the required reports.

Jay Ref is probably a College Graduate, recruited through the following program:
www.espionageinfo.com/In-Int/Intelligence-and-Counterespionage-Careers .html (http://www.espionageinfo.com/In-Int/Intelligence-and-Counterespionage-Careers.html)

I could continue with the profiling of Jay Ref but I think you probably get the picture.

I can already predict Jay Ref's attempt to deny these observations ... but the bottom line is that you should all be greatly encouraged that the pathetic minions of the genocidal Bush/Cheney administration feel it necessary to devote resources to engaging on this forum.

In reality, if the guys (& gals) performing these BS assignments knew the real truth ...they'd need a change of underwear.

If this summary helps you to decide whether or not to invest your time engaging these pompous pr*cks, I'm glad to have been of service.

The Watcher

MarkyX
9th August 2006, 04:19 PM
Hopefully a quick debunking.

Pakistani ISI giving 100k to Atta. What's the deal?

gumboot
9th August 2006, 04:33 PM
Ha! Except when the Japanese Self Defenesers shot down an A-6 towing a drone (instead of the drone -ooops offset.) off Hawaii during RIMPAC 96!


Sounds like the automatic air defence gun on the ANZAC Class Frigates. First time they tested one it tracked the drone and took it out very quickly, but then began tracking the wire cable from the drone aircraft, and firing on that...

They promptly shut down the system before it reached the RAAF aircraft that had been towing the drone...leaving a much shorter cable ;)

-Andrew

Abbyas
9th August 2006, 04:43 PM
Question, is it true that as of 9/11/01, logan had no video surveillance? And if so, is that odd?

Kent1
9th August 2006, 04:48 PM
Question, is it true that as of 9/11/01, logan had no video surveillance? And if so, is that odd?

Its true, while they had cameras in parking garages, ramp areas and on Logan's roadways to monitor traffic, there were none in the terminals, gate areas or concourses.

Abbyas
9th August 2006, 04:58 PM
Its true, while they had cameras in parking garages, ramp areas and on Logan's roadways to monitor traffic, there were none in the terminals, gate areas or concourses.

May I assume that Logan was not the only airport that didn't at the time have video cameras in gate areas or concourses? And that while such a thing might have been a good idea, it was not the standard across the board?

gumboot
9th August 2006, 05:04 PM
No.

A conclusion is based both on premisses and reasoning. Premisses by themselves do not generate the conclusion; reasoning is needed for that.

The premisses may be propositions about (statements of) facts - which in some contexts would be called 'evidence' - but they may also be propositions about values, or analytical truths.


Brumsen... one thing you do not seem to understand about the NIST report.

It is a summary of findings.

It does not, anywhere, recount the details of their investigation. The report is all about their conclusions.

Had they found evidence of explosives, no doubt they would have outlined what these findings were, and made a conclusion based on this.

As they say, they found no evidence, therefore simply saying "we found no evidence" IS their findings. Would you prefer an enormous data base of materials which were investigated, with "No evidence of explosives or explosive residue found" on every single one?

Likewise, in crash reports for airliners, they will simply state "there was no evidence of a bomb". They don't go into details explaining how they came to this conclusion.

The purpose of such reports is to inform people of what DID happen, not what DID NOT happen.

The only reason people believe NIST failed to properly investigate CD is because those people already believe it was a CD, thus they think it vitally important to disprove such a theory.

However to the rest of the human race it is painfully obvious it was not CD, therefore there is no need for NIST to elaborate on their conclusion that nothing outside their report contributed to the collapse.

-Andrew

gumboot
9th August 2006, 05:06 PM
-- Do I know what the IAD (Integrated Air Defense) template was at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001? No, I didn't work there then.

If I can get ahold of him, he may be able to tell me about the IAD set up at the Pentagon. My worry is that it was classified as FOUO, or higher than that, and may be so now.


Just a reminder, as per wikipedia, Avengers were deployed to the Pentagon on 9/11 following the attack.

This, to me, clearly indicates the Pentagon had no air defence capabilities installed prior to the attack.

-Andrew

Kent1
9th August 2006, 05:07 PM
May I assume that Logan was not the only airport that didn't at the time have video cameras in gate areas or concourses? And that while such a thing might have been a good idea, it was not the standard across the board?
No Logan wasn't the only one.
The 9/11 commission also states that
"Of the checkpoints used to screen the passengers of Flights 11, 77, 93 and 175 on 9/11, only Washington Dulles International Airport had videotaping equipment in place. That's the video that has been playing all over. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5485376

Although one questionable source (David Icke) states that Newark airport had video cameras in its departure lounges.

NickUK
9th August 2006, 05:13 PM
From the British 9/11 Denial movement, hilarity, as they "profile" Jay Ref:

*can't post URLs yet*

A friend of my dad once managed to kick himself in his balls whilst playing football AND split his pants doing it. All in front of me, his 3 kids and his own mother.

Your post made me laugh more.

That was honest to goodness comedy gold

hellaeon
9th August 2006, 05:19 PM
It's a wide IP ban, all right.

No-one on the SSSF board (has members from all around Australia) can even see the board. People who have never been there are banned. At this time, it would appear that no-one in Australia can see the board.

Fascism in action.

Im catching up on the thread but this is hilarious...
They seriously have NO idea about ANYTHING!

Dog Town
9th August 2006, 06:30 PM
Yet, more humor from the Den of Stoooop Edd!
This one is again from head moonbat B Real. Now he has deduced that I am either Markyx( who is really quite a few people, by their count, there and elswhere). OR ??????
(DT)
Man you and your sidekick are dumber than a bag of hammers. LOL!!!

I even signed it DOG TOWN. Did that escape your pea brains?
Surf was flat and my ankle is sore. If anyone cares,Southbays flat, damnit all!

DOG TOWN!
( End DT ,Start Moonbat)
Didn't miss anything...Just pointed out exactly what I feel. I think you and Marky are the same person. Either that or you 2 are lovers and support each other in forums?

Every time Marky gets completely smashed, you come and say "good job" which is HILARIOUS. You did it on this post!

If you are not Marky, you must love him, there is no other reason for you to come tell him "good job" when in fact he has done the exact opposite...
So now we are lovers, if in fact we are not the same person. Hermaph anybody? That sounds Kinky,and I don't mean the one running for Gov., in my beloved TEXAS! Hey Mark another personality here, to add to the list.

And for the record, not one of them, much less this one. Has ever SMASHED
MarkyX in that forum. I doubt many anywhere have.

T.A.M.
9th August 2006, 06:41 PM
The level of paranoia on the part of Truthers is growing exponentially. They think every skeptic is paid by the government, or Israel. Now they are blocking out new users IPs, so that basically only those who are present members can see the board...likely they are devising a disinformation campaign...lol

OMG it is nice to get away from this computer for most of the day, to enjoy reality, before I wander into this dreamland again...puts things in perspective.

Brainster
9th August 2006, 06:50 PM
Hopefully a quick debunking.

Pakistani ISI giving 100k to Atta. What's the deal?

An allegation made in the Times of India in October of '01. It's unsourced in the ToI article and only mentioned once in major American media (unfortunately the WSJ's Best of the Web picked it up). It's hard to tell whether this is an objective source of information about Pakistan given the obvious enmity between that country and India. I know there were a bunch of wire transfers included in the recent evidence dump from the Moussaoui trial; when I looked through the 9-11 Commission report there was no mention of it.

CTers usually follow this up with the fact that the head of the ISI was meeting with then-Congressman Porter Goss, and some others for breakfast on the morning of 9-11. This checks out; I've read the Washington Post article that discusses the meeting. Sander Hicks (one of the nuttiest of the nutbars) mentions it in the Loosers' Smorgasbord video.

hellaeon
9th August 2006, 06:50 PM
wow....what a catch up....well LC is now officially degenerating to even lower levels of IQ.

I cant believe how much this whole thing has become.

Its fantastic to breath deeply and think there are rational and sane people by the thousands out there.

Delphi ote....hahahaha who would have thought that your comment initially about LC would be still debated 10,000 posts, official debunk papers and a few extra websites later??? Even parts there where us JREFers got almost paranoid!

Unreal.

The story about your teacher earl rules. Awesome. You cant buy education like that.

Hails

Woody-
9th August 2006, 06:52 PM
To repeat, my question was: how does NIST justify the assumption that the collapse continues all the way down after what they call collapse initiation?


I had to pull this one out from a few pages back.

Asking this question is like asking will the egg break when I drop the bowling ball on it from ten foot up.

The force of the the live load that the top part of the building exerts on the floors is several magnitudes more than they where designed to withstand. It would of been a bloody miracle if they didnt collapse.

Gravy
9th August 2006, 06:52 PM
Here's what I have so far; feel free to comment/rip-apart/critique/etc:
Good job, Arkan!

T.A.M.
9th August 2006, 06:59 PM
So they are swimming in bliss over at LC now, over some article Lou Dobbs did today, called 9/11 Lies. Apparently it is nothing more than going over the failures and misquotes of FAA and NORAD (The tapes etc..) but they are all floating over there...anyone catch it and record it...anyone seen it?

Brainster
9th August 2006, 07:14 PM
So they are swimming in bliss over at LC now, over some article Lou Dobbs did today, called 9/11 Lies. Apparently it is nothing more than going over the failures and misquotes of FAA and NORAD (The tapes etc..) but they are all floating over there...anyone catch it and record it...anyone seen it?

No. It's based on the Vanity Fair article (http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01), which is terrific. It's ironic that the Loosers would like it because it also debunks pretty thoroughly the whole LIHOP/stand down scenario.

Gravy
9th August 2006, 07:23 PM
As they say, they found no evidence, therefore simply saying "we found no evidence" IS their findings. Would you prefer an enormous data base of materials which were investigated, with "No evidence of explosives or explosive residue found" on every single one?
That's a great way of phrasing it.

Gravy
9th August 2006, 07:27 PM
From the British 9/11 Denial movement, hilarity, as they "profile" Jay Ref:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=16326#16326
I haven't posted there since they relegated critics to a "corner," but I couldn't help asking their Psychic Friends Network to "do me next."

Abbyas
9th August 2006, 07:34 PM
Not sure if this has been discussed, but the village voice's article on 911 conspiracy movies mentions MarkyX

http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0632,halter,74115,20.html

It's also a rather scathing little piece. Hooray for the sane on the left.

JamesB
9th August 2006, 07:43 PM
Hmm, just heard (from Greening) how the 'Scholars' (yes, I'll have to start using scare quotes now) handled the peer review of Greening's paper. It was reviewed by... Gordon Ross. Ahum.

Welcome to the Dark Side. Don't forget, you have to use scare quotes around "truth" also.

defaultdotxbe
9th August 2006, 07:56 PM
From the British 9/11 Denial movement, hilarity, as they "profile" Jay Ref:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=16326#16326
those poor, paranoid bastards

Brainster
9th August 2006, 08:11 PM
Not sure if this has been discussed, but the village voice's article on 911 conspiracy movies mentions MarkyX

http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0632,halter,74115,20.html

It's also a rather scathing little piece. Hooray for the sane on the left.

The Lefty gatekeepers, as the Deniers call them, have been doing a pretty good job of barring entry, but cracks are certainly starting to appear. Air American Phoenix has become a bastion of Denial, with only the national hosts (Franken, Rhodes & Seder) holding out. Most of the major liberal blogs have agreed not to push 9-11 Denial, but the Huffington Post has had several posts on the subject (in fairness, some skeptical). Daily Kos, the most read and influential liberal blog, bans any of their sub-bloggers from writing positively about the Deniers. Oddly enough that policy was enacted on July 8, 2005 in the wake of the London Bombings the day before. In fact, only one mid-level liberal blog aside from the Huffpo has covered Loose Change; none of the majors will touch it (although it is quite often debated in the comments sections).

Dog Town
9th August 2006, 09:08 PM
The Lefty gatekeepers, as the Deniers call them, have been doing a pretty good job of barring entry, but cracks are certainly starting to appear.

As much as ,I hate the fact this even has to happen! I am like a giddy school girl(no offense to school girls, giddy or otherwise). The more light shown on these Cock-A-Roaches. The more they will be forced into the duck and cover mode(see LCF).When the major heavies weigh in on this, they will get thrashed! Oft used quote;" They Will Awaken the Academic Beast"!
Along with crack well paid reseach staffs. It will be like Hitlers bunker durring the fall. NOTzis LOOSERS again! Hurrah! All you Big Kats here will have been, and are, the tip of the sword. So to speak, and I am speaking!

I Love This Town!

DT

Kent1
9th August 2006, 09:27 PM
Hopefully a quick debunking.

Pakistani ISI giving 100k to Atta. What's the deal?

This is an old school CT theory started by Michel Chossudovsky

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html

Bill Herbert has a decent rebuttle. Although it could be updated.

http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/2002_07_01_mckinneysucks_archive.html#78639317

Gravy
9th August 2006, 09:45 PM
Along with crack well paid reseach staffs. It will be like Hitlers bunker durring the fall. Natzi factions LOOSERS again! Hurrah! All you Big Kats here will have been, and are, the tip of the sword. So to speak, and I am speaking!
(bolding mine)
"Notzis" might be a good term for the LC mods.
[/English major mode]

Dog Town
9th August 2006, 09:49 PM
Hehehea! Done!
Damn your good!

Regnad Kcin
9th August 2006, 09:55 PM
From the British 9/11 Denial movement, hilarity, as they "profile" Jay Ref:

...If this summary helps you to decide whether or not to invest your time engaging these pompous pr*cks, I'm glad to have been of service. http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=16326#16326So they have pots and kettles in the U.K. also? I didn't know that.

Dog Town
9th August 2006, 10:32 PM
This is an old school CT theory started by Michel Chossudovsky
Bill Herbert has a decent rebuttle. Although it could be updated.

http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/2002_07_01_mckinneysucks_archive.html#78639317

Update about the money yes. The rest is a joke. The first time he shows,what was left out of the article. Then he shows his own,"BS", that was added to it, you just gotta say he's #1. The way these Cters love to subtract things from articles, and then add their own crap.I'm starting to think they are all C.P.A's. Really bad ones, 2 boot!

(no offense to any CPA's that may reside in this town)

DT

defaultdotxbe
9th August 2006, 10:38 PM
Hopefully a quick debunking.

Pakistani ISI giving 100k to Atta. What's the deal?
i dont know about debunking but i dont see how yet another arab nation hating us fits into a conspiracy theory

Gravy
9th August 2006, 10:44 PM
I want to point out this thread, in which newcomer Joytown sends an email suggesting that NPR link to 9/11 debunking sites, and gets quick action. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61403

Mercutio's thoughtful and (as always) well-phrased prose is also worth reading.

Activism doesn't have to be a full-time job. A little can go a long way. Well done.

Regnad Kcin
9th August 2006, 10:59 PM
From the British 9/11 Denial movement, hilarity, as they "profile" Jay Ref:

Just thought I'd wait until Jay Ref clocked off for the day before posting his/her track record, since joining this forum on July 20th.

Joined Forum: 20th July 2006

Total Posts as at 9.20pm Weds 9th August 2006 = 223

Average posts per 'working day' = 14

Date: ----1st Post----Last Post
9/8--------2.18pm-----8.57pm
8/8--------2.22pm-----9.12pm
7/8--------2.27pm-----9.03pm
Sun 6/8--------------------------
Sat 5/8---6.58pm-----7.50pm - (1hrs Overtime?)
4/8--------3.45pm-----8.41pm
3/8--------3.10pm-----6.32pm
2/8--------2.22pm-----8.59pm
1/8--------1.56pm-----9.13pm
31/7-------2.33pm-----9.16pm
Sun 30/7------------------------
Sat 29/7------------------------
28/7-------2.33pm-----9.03pm
27/7-------3.05pm-----9.07pm
26/7-------5.20pm-----9.45pm
25/7-------4.28pm-----7.09pm
24/7-------2.05pm-----10.54pm
Sun 23/7-------------------------
Sat 22/7------------------------
21/7-------3.02pm-----10.17pm
20/7-------4.05pm------8.55pm

In addition to the above, Jay Ref has posted on just two occasions outside of his/her ‘Office Hours’:
1) 1.25am on 28/7
2) 4.36am on 24/7

A few pertinent observations:
1). Jay Ref's current assignment probably began on Monday 18th July; thereby allowing a couple of days to browse the forum before taking on the mantle of Forum Skeptic (or Sceptic as you say in England)

2). Jay Ref doesn't work weekends, although he/she may have booked 1hrs overtime on Saturday 5th Aug.

3). Jay Ref starts work at 2pm (UK time) and finishes work at 9pm (UK time).

I think it is safe to assume that Jay Ref probably works in either Washington D.C. or in Quantico, Virginia. Both locations are in the Eastern US Time Zone. So Jay Ref probably starts work at 8.00am (EST), has a coffee and a de-brief with his/her supervisor regarding the previous days activity on www.nineeleven.co.uk , along with any other parallel assignments. Posting commences at 9.00am. through 4.00pm; probably allowing an hour before clocking off to write up the required reports.

Jay Ref is probably a College Graduate, recruited through the following program:
www.espionageinfo.com/In-Int/Intelligence-and-Counterespionage-Careers .html

I could continue with the profiling of Jay Ref but I think you probably get the picture.

I can already predict Jay Ref's attempt to deny these observations ... but the bottom line is that you should all be greatly encouraged that the pathetic minions of the genocidal Bush/Cheney administration feel it necessary to devote resources to engaging on this forum.

In reality, if the guys (& gals) performing these BS assignments knew the real truth ...they'd need a change of underwear.

If this summary helps you to decide whether or not to invest your time engaging these pompous pr*cks, I'm glad to have been of service.

The Watcher
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=16326#16326Looking at this remarkable display once again, I find:

Use of the word "probably" -- 6
Use of the construction "may have" -- 1
Use of the phrase "safe to assume" -- 1
Use of the phrase "bottom line" -- 1
Use of the phrase "in reality" -- 1
Use of the phrase "the real truth" -- 1

Total precision of above usage, based on supporting evidence -- 0

(With apologies for quoting the entire amount of inanity.)

brumsen
9th August 2006, 11:27 PM
I had to pull this one out from a few pages back.

Asking this question is like asking will the egg break when I drop the bowling ball on it from ten foot up.

The force of the the live load that the top part of the building exerts on the floors is several magnitudes more than they where designed to withstand. It would of been a bloody miracle if they didnt collapse.
And as I have already said, also a couple of pages back, if it were really that clear-cut, then the possibility of partial collapse of buildings becomes very puzzling. Unless you would like to suggest that no partial collapse has ever occurred, for which reason the possibility is so remote that we don't need to reckon with it.

brumsen
9th August 2006, 11:32 PM
Please, you shouldn't blame your inability to understand words on me.
Semantics of the word 'belief' aside, let us then state, just for the record, that you believe that the NIST report contains the answer to my question as to how the assumption is justied that once begun the collapse would continue, but that you do not wish to be called upon to justify your belief by giving me a reference.

brumsen
9th August 2006, 11:39 PM
I've exchanged e-mails with them.
Brumsen, give me a question or two and I'll see if I get a reply. I can't guarantee anything but I'll try.
Thanks for the offer, but I don't see why I should communicate with NIST through a 3rd party.
My questions are clear enough from this thread I think. Just to state them once more:
1) How has the conclusion that no evidence has been found for alternative hypotheses like CD by means of explosives been obtained?
2) How is the assumption that once collapse has begun it will continue justified - in other words, how is it justified that what is referred to as collapse-initiation events provide sufficient condition for total collapse?

brumsen
9th August 2006, 11:43 PM
So what 'context' is the collapse of the WTC to be seen in? Values? Sometimes it actually seems that way.

Of course 'reasoning' is needed to come to a conclusion. However, if there is no premise (evidence) at the base of an investigation reasoning is either impossible or useless.

But let's cut through the philosophical crap: You ask NIST to reason the possibility of a controlled demolition? Why?
No, you misunderstand what I have said.

They conclude "we've found no evidence for controlled demolition".

I would like to know how that conclusion has been obtained, since there is no place in the report that I can read about it.

gtc
10th August 2006, 12:01 AM
Thanks for the offer, but I don't see why I should communicate with NIST through a 3rd party.
My questions are clear enough from this thread I think. Just to state them once more:
1) How has the conclusion that no evidence has been found for alternative hypotheses like CD by means of explosives been obtained?
2) How is the assumption that once collapse has begun it will continue justified - in other words, how is it justified that what is referred to as collapse-initiation events provide sufficient condition for total collapse?

Can I ask of you the converse?

1) Do you have any evidence for a CD?
2) Do you have any evidence that the conclusion that total collapse would occur is wrong?

Ramooone
10th August 2006, 12:03 AM
Just a reminder, as per wikipedia, Avengers were deployed to the Pentagon on 9/11 following the attack.

This, to me, clearly indicates the Pentagon had no air defence capabilities installed prior to the attack.

-Andrew


yeah, im not sure how good of an idea it is to have anti-aircraft defenses at the pentagon since it is less than a mile away from an international airport. something doesnt sound too safe about that.

brumsen
10th August 2006, 12:07 AM
Brumsen... one thing you do not seem to understand about the NIST report.

It is a summary of findings.

It does not, anywhere, recount the details of their investigation. The report is all about their conclusions.
It seems to me an awfully thick report if it is only about the conclusions.

Had they found evidence of explosives, no doubt they would have outlined what these findings were, and made a conclusion based on this.
But now you seem to be saying something else. For some conclusions, the findings were outlined; for other conclusions, they were not. So why is it that a conclusion saying "we found no evidence for CD" which does not need to be supported by outlined findings?

As they say, they found no evidence, therefore simply saying "we found no evidence" IS their findings. Would you prefer an enormous data base of materials which were investigated, with "No evidence of explosives or explosive residue found" on every single one?
Why an enormous database? If the say they have not found any evidence, they could say what they have done to try and find it. Admittedly I am no expert on this, but they could have checked whether the signatures of, say, the ten most likely kinds of explosives were present. That would not have been a big deal, but it would have supported their conclusion. As it stands we have only the claims of Steven Jones to go by.

brumsen
10th August 2006, 12:11 AM
Can I ask of you the converse?
Yes.

1) Do you have any evidence for a CD?
No.
2) Do you have any evidence that the conclusion that total collapse would occur is wrong?
No.

Would you suggest that somehow my answers to your questions make my questions less valid?

defaultdotxbe
10th August 2006, 12:20 AM
Would you suggest that somehow my answers to your questions make my questions less valid?
is 1+1 really 2? how do you KNOW its 2? do you have proof that its 2? what if i told you its actually 3, i have no evidence its 3, nor do i have evidence its not 2, but i can assure that you have been led astray and everything you think you know about arithmetic is wrong

brumsen
10th August 2006, 12:24 AM
is 1+1 really 2? how do you KNOW its 2? do you have proof that its 2? what if i told you its actually 3, i have no evidence its 3, nor do i have evidence its not 2, but i can assure that you have been led astray and everything you think you know about arithmetic is wrong
Arithmetic is based on axioms. Using arithmetic means to accept those axioms.
It is nonsense to ask for evidence that 1+1=2; the question whether that is true or not is simply not one that can be settled by means of evidence.

brumsen
10th August 2006, 12:30 AM
Hmm, just heard (from Greening) how the 'Scholars' (yes, I'll have to start using scare quotes now) handled the peer review of Greening's paper. It was reviewed by... Gordon Ross. Ahum.
Apparently the issue is not all that clear. Gordon Ross denies (http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/viewtopic.php?t=12&mforum=911studies).

defaultdotxbe
10th August 2006, 12:33 AM
Arithmetic is based on axioms. Using arithmetic means to accept those axioms.
thats the indoctrination talking, you gotta think OUTSIDE the box!

lol

gtc
10th August 2006, 12:45 AM
Would you suggest that somehow my answers to your questions make my questions less valid?

I wasn't seeking to imply that. I was wondering if you were implying that you had evidence (for CD) that NIST should have examined.

However, you do seem to be very interested in a theory for which you have no evidence and for which NIST claim to have no evidence.

Kent1
10th August 2006, 12:46 AM
Thanks for the offer, but I don't see why I should communicate with NIST through a 3rd party.


My questions are clear enough from this thread I think. Just to state them once more:
1) How has the conclusion that no evidence has been found for alternative hypotheses like CD by means of explosives been obtained?

2) How is the assumption that once collapse has begun it will continue justified - in other words, how is it justified that what is referred to as collapse-initiation events provide sufficient condition for total collapse?

Because I've had luck speaking with them in the past and we shared some information.

NIST does discuss some of this information on page 319 9.3.3 Events Following Collapse Initiation

Failure of the south wall in WTC 1 and east wall in WTC 2 caused the portion of the building above to tilt in the direction of the failed wall. The titlting was accompanied by a downward movement. The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points.
The structure below the level of collapse initation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential enery released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of demformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, futher incresing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing materical, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos.

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives panted prior to Sep 11,2001. NIST also did not find any evience that missles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiaing floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

As for more detail on the collapse page 323 Northerwestern University
Roughly NIST agrees with the assessment of the tower's required structural capacity to absorb the released energy of the upper building section as it began to fall as an approximate lower bound. The likelihood of the falling building section aligning vertically with the column below was small, given the observed tilting, so that the required capacity would be greater if interaction with the floors was also considered, as pointed out in the study.

And I'm sure you can find Bazant's paper and the 2006 version with some corrections.
The subsequent progressive collapse was not simulated at NIST because its inevitability, once triggered by column buckling, had already been proven by Bazant and Zhou's (2002) comparison of kinetic energy to energy absorption capability.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/ProgressiveCollapse062-REPORT.pdf

I also know NIST has seen Jones paper, and they find nothing of any value.
But I can ask them for more detail on the "explosives/thermite" investigation.

gtc
10th August 2006, 01:02 AM
Is there anything lacking from that?

They seem to explain why the building collapse continued and also that they did not find any evidence for a CD.

Shrinker
10th August 2006, 01:37 AM
Is there anything lacking from that?

They seem to explain why the building collapse continued and also that they did not find any evidence for a CD.

Brumsen wants evidence of absence of evidence. Perhaps he can explain whether absence of evidence of absence of evidence is evidence or not.

Dog Town
10th August 2006, 01:38 AM
Well those pesky fake terrorists are at it again! Brits caught liquid expolsives trying to get on plane plane. No more carry-ons.Flight to US No Bueno!
I hate these jag offs. Flying just got even more of a hassle. Computers, back packs nothin. Purses only.What spin will the Cters have for this?

This is live right now folks!
Scot Yard About to Speak!

defaultdotxbe
10th August 2006, 01:43 AM
Well those pesky fake terrorists are at it again! Brits caught liquid expolsives trying to get on plane plane. No more carry-ons.Flight to US No Bueno!
I hate these jag offs. Flying just got even more of a hassle. Computers, back packs nothin. Purses only.What spin will the Cters have for this?

This is live right now folks!
Scot Yard About to Speak!
theyre all wound up and ready to go

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10173

Dog Town
10th August 2006, 01:44 AM
I lasted 20 min there. Can't view!

Dog Town
10th August 2006, 01:46 AM
They say they have to test baby milk. Are they getting frisky. or what?
O' from the bottle.

gtc
10th August 2006, 01:49 AM
I lasted 20 min there. Can't view!

Sun Zoo over yonder
That's purely a miniature psy-op to blunt all this talk about 9/11 as an inside job. It's a direct response I suspect.

Way to big note the LC forum. I wish I was so special that the ZOG had to disrupt air travel.

MJChicago
Just because something isnt a fact does not mean that it is fiction. The Earth was flat before it was round, lest we forget.

Doh, I always forget that.

FinalStrike
its a shame that some idiot islamics would do this and not wait for 9/11 truth to come out- they have just comepletely dont the opposite- if indeed this is real...

OK

Dog Town
10th August 2006, 01:51 AM
I can smell the cters swarm over lost liberties.How the gubbers taking them away! Yeah because of the terrorists.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dog Town
10th August 2006, 01:54 AM
How soon till super ID claims it is all because they are getting to close to the truth! Another smoke screen to foil LC! They like themselves alot don't they?

defaultdotxbe
10th August 2006, 01:55 AM
I lasted 20 min there. Can't view!
(assuming you have windows XP)

C:\Documents and Settings\**Your login name**\Cookies\**Your login name**@Loose_Change_Forum[1].txt

delete that, wait 15 minutes for your session to expire (unless you havent tried to access the LC forums in the last 15 minutes) and youll be able to read the forums again (assuming you havent been IP banned, in which case lemme know and ill hook you up with a proxy)

Dog Town
10th August 2006, 01:58 AM
SSoooo Ip banned .Cleaned registry the other day. Still get you are not allowed here login page.

Shrinker
10th August 2006, 01:58 AM
its a shame that some idiot islamics would do this and not wait for 9/11 truth to come out- they have just comepletely dont the opposite- if indeed this is real...

What?! :confused: Obviously this one hasn't been fully brainwashed. Better send him through universalseed again.

Dog Town
10th August 2006, 02:01 AM
6 planes. These pricks are greedy.
8-11 to 911. These guys have a number issue! Thats a lucky number they're messing with. 11. And the number 7. CONSPIRACY?
I get it ! They like the game of craps.

defaultdotxbe
10th August 2006, 02:10 AM
dag nabbit, someone posted a good tutorial on setting up a proxy in IE (i think it was in the LC pt III thread) but now i cant find it

Dog Town
10th August 2006, 02:11 AM
no worries ! Hey did you notice I wanna change Duhh to Dog Town?
At your place!

Dog Town
10th August 2006, 02:16 AM
Cter;
It is the plastic bag makers doing this!!!! Have you seen all the plastic bags they're giving out at the airports? Bet Marvin was running the company!

Nitey Nite!

brumsen
10th August 2006, 03:45 AM
thats the indoctrination talking, you gotta think OUTSIDE the box!

lol
For one moment you had me thinking that you actually wanted to put an argument forward. But apparently not.

brumsen
10th August 2006, 03:50 AM
Brumsen wants evidence of absence of evidence.
That's right. In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1833381&postcount=1306)I explained what form that might take.

Perhaps he can explain whether absence of evidence of absence of evidence is evidence or not.
Why, you wanna play with words?

Cuddles
10th August 2006, 04:39 AM
That's right. In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1833381&postcount=1306)I explained what form that might take.

Why would they bother doing this? If they say they found no evidence of explosives, any sane person will assume they looked for evidence and didn't find any. If they're attempting to cover something up they could have just made up some results that didn't have explosives in them. If they didn't look for explosives at all then they wouldn't have bothered writing that they did, since no sane people actually deny that planes hitting a building could make it fall over.

brumsen
10th August 2006, 04:41 AM
If they didn't look for explosives at all then they wouldn't have bothered writing that they did, since no sane people actually deny that planes hitting a building could make it fall over.
I guess that I'd want to hear that from NIST itself.

Shrinker
10th August 2006, 04:44 AM
I guess that I'd want to hear that from NIST itself.

We aren't NIST. Come back when you've asked them.

Belz...
10th August 2006, 04:54 AM
Semantics of the word 'belief' aside, let us then state, just for the record, that you believe that the NIST report contains the answer to my question as to how the assumption is justied that once begun the collapse would continue, but that you do not wish to be called upon to justify your belief by giving me a reference.

I haven't read the report, myself, so my belief is based on OTHER people who have.

However, it changes nothing about what I said : if you have something to say against the NIST report, you MUST have read it.

Also, I don't need to have read the report in order to comment on specific claims. I WOULD need to read it in order to defend it, which I haven't done so far.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Belz...
10th August 2006, 04:56 AM
1) How has the conclusion that no evidence has been found for alternative hypotheses like CD by means of explosives been obtained?

By NOT finding any evidence.

It seems to me an awfully thick report if it is only about the conclusions.

Are you SURE you've read it ? You don't seem to know what's in it.

brumsen
10th August 2006, 05:12 AM
We aren't NIST. Come back when you've asked them.
I have. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1832171&postcount=1254)

Shrinker
10th August 2006, 05:31 AM
I have. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1832171&postcount=1254)

I beg your pardon, its a fast moving thread. Still, that leaves us with no evidence of no evidence. AKA nothing.

MarkyX
10th August 2006, 05:44 AM
Just want to confirm this in case anyone asks..

The tapes of Flight 77. Does the owners of those tapes need to authorize release or is the FBI holding them?

IronSnot
10th August 2006, 07:06 AM
I haven't posted there since they relegated critics to a "corner," but I couldn't help asking their Psychic Friends Network to "do me next."
Gravy
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 63

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:18 am Post subject:
Do me next! Do me next!

------------------------------

Good luck with that, Gravy.

T.A.M.
10th August 2006, 07:16 AM
Ive got it....the 8/10 plot was actually created by CTers to throw the Debunkers of their 9/11 trail.

60hzxtl
10th August 2006, 07:31 AM
Ive got it....the 8/10 plot was actually created by CTers to throw the Debunkers of their 9/11 trail.


No - it was created to make Dylan and Company have to make another version of the corrected and annotated, and recently updated, new and improved, like never before, extra strength, concentrated, version of Loose Change Airtight, the Final Cut until the next one.



I wonder is any of those arrested in this conspiracy are any of the still alive hijackers from 9/11?

Just asking questions. . .

T.A.M.
10th August 2006, 08:00 AM
no, but you know what would be cool...someone should find people with the same names as the arrested, and then send it to the media...

"8/10 Terrorists not behind bars, but sipping on pena coladas"

60hzxtl
10th August 2006, 08:29 AM
no, but you know what would be cool...someone should find people with the same names as the arrested, and then send it to the media...

"8/10 Terrorists not behind bars, but sipping on pena coladas"


And the real bad guys can count on Dylan to be their character witness.

Johnny Pixels
10th August 2006, 08:38 AM
Gravy
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 63

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:18 am Post subject:
Do me next! Do me next!

------------------------------

Good luck with that, Gravy.

YAY! IronSnot! Welcome to the world of evidence. You'll love it.

Seriously though, welcome to the forums!

Dog Town
10th August 2006, 08:38 AM
Whats going on at Unh uuuuhh central over this attempted bombing?

rikzilla
10th August 2006, 09:06 AM
Gravy
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 63

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:18 am Post subject:
Do me next! Do me next!

------------------------------

Good luck with that, Gravy.

IS!!
good to see you!

guys...this is IronSnot the CTer. He wins hand's down for most reasonable fellow on the Brit Truth board.

welcome! really! while you're here look around. JREF is a great deal more than just a debunk site for CT's.

Regards...damned glad to see you.
-z

IronSnot
10th August 2006, 09:46 AM
Thanks Johnny, Rik.

It can be a bit nutty over there. But it's lightyears ahead of Loose Change.

Anyway late here, catch up another time.

Joytown
10th August 2006, 09:46 AM
Activism doesn't have to be a full-time job. A little can go a long way. Well done.

Thanks! I was moderately amazed myself.

<sarcasm> Actually I gave up my fiance', my job, and my non-skeptic friends so that I could pursue 9/11 myths across the Internet </sarcasm>

-Joytown

Arkan_Wolfshade
10th August 2006, 09:55 AM
Thanks! I was moderately amazed myself.

<sarcasm> Actually I gave up my fiance', my job, and my non-skeptic friends so that I could pursue 9/11 myths across the Internet </sarcasm>

-Joytown

It would help if NPR would get the @#$%ing podcast/mp3/realaudio/whatever posted so I could listen to it. I had to walk in to my office before I could catch it yesterday morning.

chipmunk stew
10th August 2006, 09:59 AM
It would help if NPR would get the @#$%ing podcast/mp3/realaudio/whatever posted so I could listen to it. I had to walk in to my office before I could catch it yesterday morning.
It should be there, AW. You went here, right?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5629332
There's a "Listen" button there. Works for me....:confused:

Arkan_Wolfshade
10th August 2006, 10:00 AM
It should be there, AW. You went here, right?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5629332
There's a "Listen" button there. Works for me....:confused:


Page Not Found

We're sorry, the page you requested is unavailable.

Please visit the NPR Help Center to report this error or use the links or search box below to find the correct page.

* All Programs A-Z
* NPR Help Center
* About NPR
* Contact NPR


Lemme check, maybe I am be overzealous with my cookie-blocking.

ETA: Yeah, I was blocking scripts on npr.org

negativ
10th August 2006, 11:04 AM
Cter;
It is the plastic bag makers doing this!!!! Have you seen all the plastic bags they're giving out at the airports? Bet Marvin was running the company!

Nitey Nite!

And what is plastic? A petrolium product.

Bingo.

All roads lead to Haliburton.

This is a good year for The Truth<tm>.

Dog Town
10th August 2006, 11:20 AM
Just want to confirm this in case anyone asks..

The tapes of Flight 77. Does the owners of those tapes need to authorize release or is the FBI holding them?

Oye Vay..Says...................... yes! FBI holds, people must release once they get them! Only owner can release.See Zapruder!(sp)
Your next on The Cters Feud!

Johnny Pixels
10th August 2006, 11:32 AM
I was just looking at this thread over at LC:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2275

Are they still claiming that black smoke comes from oxygen starved fires? Because all these plane crashes appear to be out in the open. Don't they know how to connect dots?

Arkan_Wolfshade
10th August 2006, 11:38 AM
I was just looking at this thread over at LC:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2275

Are they still claiming that black smoke comes from oxygen starved fires? Because all these plane crashes appear to be out in the open. Don't they know how to connect dots?

So, Rox is still ignoring my pic I posted showing the raging tire fire with black smoke (relevant since both tires and many office products are petroleum distallates(sp?))

JohnM307
10th August 2006, 01:11 PM
Well, if someone asked me if I thought that it was possible for a pilot like me to spiral down in high speed from 7000 feet, return to level flight a few meters above the ground and hit a ground target, I would also have to say I highly doubt that.


This is one reason I view the Pentagon attack as the self-injury to make the criminal look like a victim. I think we have three strikes in a "one strike and you're out" situation:

1: The alleged hijackers attempted the attack in this mode (with a high risk of mission failure if they hit the ground instead) instead of diving into the building (possibly at an angle, 30 degrees perhaps) -- the straightforward attack.

2: They succeeded, despite being poor pilots, without even touching the ground.

3: They hit the Pentagon from the horizontal, right where it would do by far the least damage -- a spot under construction, nearly empty.

I watched one of the videos at the Screw Loose Change video site, (I was not allowed to mention the URL -- the system responded with that error -- here's my attempt to sneak it by: www DOT lolloosechange DOT co DOT nr), the computer animation of the AA 77 hitting the Pentagon. One question they didn't consider is whether a real terrorist would attack this way.

The video had other problems as well. For example, where they fit the CGI AA 77 with the actual security video capture of the silhouetted plane behind the security structure, the back of the rudder shifts position -- it's just a tiny flicker, but the real rudder looks steeper than the AA 77 CGI.

tacodaemon
10th August 2006, 01:22 PM
Does anyone know the website of the nutball who does the super-enlargment of blemishes in WTC photos to prove there are alien space ships with reptilian pilots?

My flatmate simply refuses to believe anyone proposes such an explanation. She thinks I made it up.

Sorry for the late response, but that's one of the many pages of stark raving insanity on http://www.wiolawapress.com you're referring to. The whole page is crazy stuff with photoshop filters like that; that's her whole shtick. Here's two WTC-specific pages:

http://www.wiolawapress.com/signature.htm
http://www.wiolawapress.com/wtc.htm

Arkan_Wolfshade
10th August 2006, 01:25 PM
More Firmage critiqueing. Work is busy today, only got through two points:

5 Similarity between PNAC agenda and 9/11 aftermath
The degree of forethought that may have gone into the events of 9/11 is suggested by the similarity of its aftermath to the geopolitical agenda set forth by the neoconservative think tank, Project for a New
American Century, in its 2000 manifesto: “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century”. This document was written for George W. Bush’s team before the 2000 Presidential election. It was commissioned by future Vice President Cheney, future Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld, future Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Florida Governor Jeb Bush (Bush’s brother), and future Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff Lewis Libby.
Journal of 9/11 Studies 23 August 2006/Volume 2
The explicit statements concerning the utility of a “new Pearl Harbor” and the central roles played by Afghanistan and Iraq in configuring a new world order in which American supremacy is unchallengeable, are strikingly prescient of what was fortuitously made feasible by 9/11. Few would argue that we would be in Afghanistan and Iraq today had the attacks of 9/11 never occurred.
It is therefore reasonable to be suspicious of the spectacularly convenient conformance between the PNAC manifesto, the rise to power of those who wrote the document and 9/11’s absolutely essential role in facilitating its implementation.

The section to which Firmage is referring says, “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” In context, it is seen that this is an observation of how change will occur, not a clarion call for how to achieve a desired change. Again, we also see the misuse of his chart as Firmage marks this point as “Suspicious” under the ‘hijackers’ column. This point does not counter any part of the government’s reports on the attacks.
See:
http://cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=PNAC&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=
on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go
Diana Ralph’s Islamaphobia and the “War on Terror”, in Paul Zarembka, editor, The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 2006, Research in Political Economy, Vol.23: 261 - 300.

6 Bill Clinton's failure to neutralize bin Laden
Some commentators have assigned much of the blame for 9/11 on the Clinton administration, for failing
to deal with the bin Laden threat more effectively. It is empirically true that Clinton’s team did not
neutralize bin Laden. As references demonstrate, the reasons for that failure remain unclear, thus this
failure can reasonably be assessed as compatible with any of the three theories proposed.
As with point 2, Firmage marks this as “Sensible” for the idea that the government is responsible. The only way he can make this claim is if he is also implicating former President Clinton into his conspiracy. Only if former President Clinton was involved, and took actions in such a way as to fail to neutralize bin Laden (thus setting up President Bush for using bin Laden as a scapegoat), could this be considered “Sensib[ly]” supporting the “government did it” hypothesis.
See:
http://cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=clinton_administration

gumboot
10th August 2006, 01:50 PM
1: The alleged hijackers attempted the attack in this mode (with a high risk of mission failure if they hit the ground instead) instead of diving into the building (possibly at an angle, 30 degrees perhaps) -- the straightforward attack.


It is postulated that the hijackers overflew the target - having underestimated the speed of the aircraft.



2: They succeeded, despite being poor pilots, without even touching the ground.

There is no evidence they were "poor" pilots, and flying an airliner is incredibly simple. You also forget their objective WAS to touch the ground.

I don't see how anyone can see great amazement in someone CRASHING an airliner.

Consider this...

The Mitsubishi A6M Zero is significantly harder to fly than a modern airliner, yet throughout the latter days of World War 2 the Japanese managed to train hundreds of pilots in a very short space of time.

These Kamakaze pilots, if they were not shot down, were usually successful in hitting their targets - the largest ships; Essex class Carriers and Iowa class Battleships, are both significantly smaller than the Pentagon.



3: They hit the Pentagon from the horizontal, right where it would do by far the least damage -- a spot under construction, nearly empty.

This is a myth. The renovations to the Naval Annex were complete. It was fully staffed at the time it was hit. The majority of those killed were military personnel.

The reason, of course, that this particular section had been renovated was it was the most exposed, and therefore the most likely to be attacked.




One question they didn't consider is whether a real terrorist would attack this way.

Why would they NOT attack that way? Are you intimately familiar with the methodology by which terrorists usually ram hijacked airliners into buildings?



where they fit the CGI AA 77 with the actual security video capture of the silhouetted plane behind the security structure, the back of the rudder shifts position -- it's just a tiny flicker, but the real rudder looks steeper than the AA 77 CGI.

At that resolution, and that frame rate, variations of this degree are irrelevant. I think the pertinent point is the scale of approximate aircraft size is correct (i.e. it's not a cruise missile).

-Andrew

Regnad Kcin
10th August 2006, 01:50 PM
This is one reason I view the Pentagon attack as the self-injury to make the criminal look like a victim...You may speculate all you like, reverse-engineer all you like, doubt all you like, but until you present proof of your allegations you simply have nothing. Or next to it.

Considering what alternative-9/11-conspiracy theorists propose would be one of the most complex undertakings of its kind -- not only to plan, but to implement, and continue to cover-up -- evidence and proof should be dropping from the trees like over-ripe apples. That it isn't might tell you something.

Welcome to the forum.

Darth Rotor
10th August 2006, 01:57 PM
This is one reason I view the Pentagon attack as the self-injury to make the criminal look like a victim. I think we have three strikes in a "one strike and you're out" situation:

1: The alleged hijackers attempted the attack in this mode (with a high risk of mission failure if they hit the ground instead) instead of diving into the building (possibly at an angle, 30 degrees perhaps) -- the straightforward attack.

2: They succeeded, despite being poor pilots, without even touching the ground.

3: They hit the Pentagon from the horizontal, right where it would do by far the least damage -- a spot under construction, nearly empty.

One question they didn't consider is whether a real terrorist would attack this way.

John:

*deep breath*

Not a pilot, are you?

Read Here. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

The map at the end of the article seems to be oriented roughly "north top south bottom."
(See this map. http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=Washington,+DC The far left face of the Pentagon, the Western Face, is the one that got hit. Zoom in if you need to to match that map with the one below. On the Google map, NOrth is top of screen, South is bottoms of screen)



A note, regarding Hanjour: "Even so, those few who did make statements regarding pilot ability indicate that Hanjour flew in a somewhat erratic manner as one would expect"

For openers, your last misunderstanding first.

Four Real Terrorist teams did just that, plan and attack (oops, one team was foiled in PA) buildings with airliners. What is the "would a real terrorist" line, Mister True Scotsman? A suicide attack with an airplane is sort of like a huge, flying car bomb, conceptually. Real terrorists use car bombs all the time. These guys thought big.

Point 1: Pentagon is a short squat building, unlike WTC which is a tall building. As you note, that makes it a tricky target. This "inexperienced-in-757's-pilot" needed to attack the building. He could only be sure to hit it by maintaining control of the aircraft. That means he'd want to fly at an airspeed he could control. Above a certain airspeed, you can start to lose control authority due to aerodynamic loading, not to mention that as airspeed approaches Mach 1 near sea level (DC is less than 1000' above sea level) in an airliner, the plane will likely start to crack up.

So, from the get to, the 60-90 degree vertical dive is a non starter. His odds of aiming it perfectly were very small in that profile, since he was going to fly by hand, and any correction in close woud be amplified by too much airspeed and lift on the wings . . . if the plane didn't crack up before impact.

I'd suggest he'd need a 10-20 degree nose down attitude (10-20 degree dive angle in other words) to ensure his ability to control (up to the last few seconds) the trajectory of the plane, to ensure he didn't over shoot, and ensure he didn't lose flight control effectiveness by exceeding design velocity.

Had he landed in the middle of the building, an empty space, he'd probably have done less damaage. He had to pick a target, so he targeted the West face of the building.

He performed a very straightforward attack, I don't understand your assertion that he did not. If he had gone too fast, even at a low angle of approach, any last minute correction that was an over correction would have caused a ballooning effect, common in a flare maneuver, or in any abrupt raising of the nose with a lot of airspeed on, and thus an overshoot/miss of the Pentagon.

2. The reason he hit his target, in my professional opinion as a pilot, is that he didn't overload his lightweight pilot ass -- unlike what you are doing with your reasoning power in this conversation. He chose a profile that allowed him to control the aircraft within his talent level right up to impact. He succeeded.

3. What makes you think they knew which wing was under construction? I'd have to look at a chart, but Rosslyn, near the Pentagon to the north (see the map) has a lot of high rises. Dumb idea to approach from that side and risk a miss. I'd suggest to you that they chose an approach path (well ahead of time) that allowed the pilot to have the least possible trouble with obstacles, and to approach from the West (where 77 was going to come from in the first place) which is the side of the Potomac River away from Washington DC. (Pentagon is in Virginia)

Summary: He was a greenhorn in the 757, so he built a plan that maximized his odds for mission accomplishment.

DR

Darth Rotor
10th August 2006, 02:15 PM
The Mitsubishi A6M Zero is significantly harder to fly than a modern airliner, yet throughout the latter days of World War 2 the Japanese managed to train hundreds of pilots in a very short space of time.
I will disagree with you here. I am speaking as a pilot. A small single seat plane is generally far easier to maneuver than a bloody big bus with wings. More responsive. The Zero was nothing if not maneuverable. Stick and rudderwise, your claim does not counter John's point.
These Kamakaze pilots, if they were not shot down, were usually successful in hitting their targets - the largest ships; Essex class Carriers and Iowa class Battleships, are both significantly smaller than the Pentagon.
-Andrew
Good point on the ships being smaller targets. At the speed differential between shp and plane, it becomes an exercise in relative motion. The ship becomes a fixed point in your frame of reference, and you fly to it, so it is almost like hitting a building. (Or in my case, NOT hitting a building!!!) .

Land a few on a ship, and you'll see what I mean. :D

DR

Dog Town
10th August 2006, 02:19 PM
Ok, just got the new RS(zep cover), in the post! There is an article on the"Eco-Radical Underground".Nice set of lads.Reminded me of "The Weather Underground".That other group of A holes from the 70's. Which led me to ponder this! How long till the CT crowd goes "V" for Vendetta, or vegetable in their cases?
I can just see the sea of pimples storming the White House. Hell,.. Cheney is packen, might be fun after all!
Just Thoughts!


DT

gumboot
10th August 2006, 03:09 PM
I will disagree with you here. I am speaking as a pilot. A small single seat plane is generally far easier to maneuver than a bloody big bus with wings. More responsive. The Zero was nothing if not maneuverable. Stick and rudderwise, your claim does not counter John's point.


Sorry, I wasn't claiming it was more maneouverable. The 9/11 attacks did not require any significant level of maneouverability.

But A modern airliner is easier, in general, to fly. The automated systems, the warning alarms, the auto-corrections on the control column, navigations systems, etc, all make flying one easy.

Not so for a WW2 era fighter aircraft. (Not to mention WW2 era pilots didn't have the luxury of flight simulators or "Microsoft Flight Simulator" with which to learn how to fly their aircraft and specifically practise their bombing missions... (Microsoft Pacific Theatre Prediction Simulator '43 edition?)



Good point on the ships being smaller targets.


People grossly underestimate the size of the Pentagon, in my experience.

One outside wall of the Pentagon was considerably longer than both the Essex carriers and Iowa battleships, and of course the Pentagon has FIVE sides.

The hijackers also had the advantage of knowing where their targets were in advance, and having geographic features to follow.

-Andrew

Johnny Pixels
10th August 2006, 03:33 PM
Marvel at the debate skills of the CT. His challenge:

I`m loosing my patience here.
I just suggested we appoint all critics to our board of directors and dont ban anyone.

As for ignore the engineering comminity, well you obviously ignored my profile as I`m an undergraduate mechanical engineer in Oxford. I am part of the engineering establishment and am willing to take head on ANY challenge you or anyone else can provide on any mathematical basis (your treading on thin ice there as my maths score was 95% last semester).

So BRING IT ON!

Give me your best and I`ll confidently cut you both to shreds using materials science, logic, mathematics and physics before your fingers have finished typing.

Come on and HIT ME!!
I offer the official report as my evidence. He makes some points, I counter his points. His response?


Which university
I tell him, and that I studied automotive engineering

Perhaps you might explain to me the various differences between centrifugal supercharging versus a roots rotor arrangement.
I refuse, because I can find the answer on How Stuff Works.com, so it proves nothing.

You're rumbled my friend.

You should have been able to answer that immidaiately.

Instead you`ve given youself a get out clause of ANY technical questioning.

I have no interest in discussions with those who mislead others deliberately.

Goodbye.

PS try to find the reciept for that degree chap, I`d get a refund if I were you.
I ask him to respond to my points, he posts pictures of weasels.

This weasel is VERY interesting,

Note his posture http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif

Study his determined demeanor! http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif
Check it out:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=16322#16322

Kent1
10th August 2006, 03:38 PM
I see they finally figured this out

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10134

dylan avery says....
Hanjour was always identified as the fat, bearded man in the dark blue/green shirt and slacks.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/nyc-hijackers-gallery,0,7162333.photogallery?coll=chi-news-hed&index=4 (Fixed)

Incorrect. NBC had it right years ago.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5485376

Watch the video
http://www.911myths.com/HanjourDullesNBC.wmv
Also see
http://www.911myths.com/html/hanjour_video.html

If someone wants to post this there, go ahead.
More great research from the LC gang.

Dog Town
10th August 2006, 03:43 PM
Any One Looking For The "Scholars"??
From An ATS Loud mouth!
there are some people over at physorg.com that would welcome debate on your 'pages' of explanations(i, being one of them). there is a thread there in the 'off topic' section, called, '911 events - new thread'. some of the the scholars for 911 truth hang out there once in a while, so it won't be over everyone's head.


Have no idea if this is true.Anyone hit this spot?

Dog Town
10th August 2006, 03:47 PM
Kent Chicago link broken

Kent1
10th August 2006, 03:47 PM
Any One Looking For The "Scholars"??
From An ATS Loud mouth!


Have no idea if this is true.Anyone hit this spot?
gordon hangs out there. I believe metamars is also a member.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showforum=10

sleahead
10th August 2006, 03:50 PM
1: The alleged hijackers attempted the attack in this mode (with a high risk of mission failure if they hit the ground instead) instead of diving into the building (possibly at an angle, 30 degrees perhaps) -- the straightforward attack.

One general point to make about mission failure. Of course, they had the Pentagon as a specific target but if they missed, could the whole thing be dismissed as failure? From the terrorist point of view, crashing an aircraft into any part of the capital city of your enemy must be considered a successful mission. From the moment they gained control of the aircraft, they couldn't lose.

Gravy
10th August 2006, 03:58 PM
Gravy
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 63

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:18 am Post subject:
Do me next! Do me next!

------------------------------

Good luck with that, Gravy.

IronSnot did me himself! (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=16443#16443)

I'll profile you Gravy. (although I'm not sure that's what you asked for)

Self loathing Canadian, young, sexually repressed, Tory lover, fantasy games developer.

How's that?
0 for 6. Your psychic skills need honing!

Johnny Pixels
10th August 2006, 04:00 PM
IronSnot did me himself! (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=16443#16443)


0 for 6. Your psychic skills need honing!#

I'm beginning to think there's a conspiracy against me now.

DavidJames
10th August 2006, 04:08 PM
IronSnot did me himself! (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=16443#16443)


0 for 6. Your psychic skills need honing!
You know the irony here is just a little research would have changed a couple of those WAGs. These people expose their lack of critical thinking skills on a regular basis. That they can't figure that out, says even worse things about them.

sat556
10th August 2006, 04:08 PM
Marvel at the debate skills of the CT... *snip*

You sure that isn't JDX?

hellaeon
10th August 2006, 04:40 PM
Sorry for the late response, but that's one of the many pages of stark raving insanity on http://www.wiolawapress.com you're referring to. The whole page is crazy stuff with photoshop filters like that; that's her whole shtick. Here's two WTC-specific pages:

http://www.wiolawapress.com/signature.htm
http://www.wiolawapress.com/wtc.htm


hahahaha! wow....


1) How has the conclusion that no evidence has been found for alternative hypotheses like CD by means of explosives been obtained?


Brumsen, this has been answered already by a link posted 2 pages back but
, similar to "Proof of god", there is none. Nothing found leads them to conclude anything towards a CD (God). However people will insist...

Its simply that there is no evidence. They did not start out by saying "we think this happened and thus we will look to see if the evidence exists!" - thats how a CT works. They conclude the results and every experiement leads to it.

I would assume, as per good ol scientific method, they gathered the data, drew conclusions, tested, etc etc and finally came up with a plausible and verifyable conclusion. This was peer reviewed and thus, backed up by a plethora of academics.

My thoughts.

defaultdotxbe
10th August 2006, 04:52 PM
wow, thats all i can say to the lizard whatzit

long story short, she takes this image
http://www.wiolawapress.com/signature/signature_webfairyoriginal.jpg

she zooms in on whatever that is next to towers, enhances edges, zooms, enhances, zooms enhances, and claims to see lizard people and a man in a military haircut flying that "ship"

hellaeon
10th August 2006, 04:58 PM
I thought David Icke was mental....

If you want to see the world of mental instability, check this out!
but be warned, you'll get addicted! (http://www.crank.net/)

Kent1
10th August 2006, 05:21 PM
Abby, tell them to watch the video. They don't get it yet....its not in the article. Its in the video to the right side.

Abbyas
10th August 2006, 05:40 PM
Thanks, Kent.

Have now clarified.

ETA: For all the work Avery has put into 'research' in this thing, I'm shocked that he made such a mistake.

IronSnot
10th August 2006, 05:54 PM
0 for 6. Your psychic skills need honing!
Memory probably. I must have got you mixed up with one of the others here. Probably Arkan. I'll have another look.:D

Arkan_Wolfshade
10th August 2006, 05:58 PM
Memory probably. I must have got you mixed up with one of the others here. Probably Arkan. I'll have another look.:D

Self loathing Canadian, young, sexually repressed, Tory lover, fantasy games developer.

Hrm, nope. Happily married American. Sexually liberated. Politically unaffiliated (social liberal, fiscal conservative, governance libertarian), and DBA for a coin-op video game manufacturer (I'll give you a 1/2 pt here since you got the right industry).

IronSnot
10th August 2006, 06:03 PM
That was quick.

I better find out who it is before I have any more guesses.

Gravy
10th August 2006, 06:07 PM
Memory probably. I must have got you mixed up with one of the others here. Probably Arkan. I'll have another look.:D
I'm honored by the comparison, although I don't think your description fits Arkan either. I certainly haven't found him to be sexually repressed. He's been sexing up this joint left and right, so much so that sometimes I feel bukkaked with smart. (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons)

IronSnot
10th August 2006, 06:12 PM
Actually the sexually repressed was a bit of a go at your

"do me next, do me next"

1/6?
:)

Woody-
10th August 2006, 06:48 PM
And as I have already said, also a couple of pages back, if it were really that clear-cut, then the possibility of partial collapse of buildings becomes very puzzling. Unless you would like to suggest that no partial collapse has ever occurred, for which reason the possibility is so remote that we don't need to reckon with it.


There has been no partial collapse of a building of the same size and design of the WTC towers. The only two collapses of this type of building led to a global collapse. Any partial collapse of any other type of building tells you nothing about how the WTC towers fell.

Gravy
10th August 2006, 06:59 PM
Actually the sexually repressed was a bit of a go at your

"do me next, do me next"

1/6?
:)
"Do me next" would be the opposite of sexually repressed. :o You must have missed this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1829810#post1829810). Can't blame you for being confused, though. Many people here share similar qualities, sanity and critical thinking skills foremost.

Woody-
10th August 2006, 07:42 PM
Brumsen, here are some quotes from credible sources about the chances of the WTC towers globally collapsing once any collapse started.


http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc/

When each tower was built, approximately 4 x 1011 joules of potential energy was stored. This was quickly converted into kinetic energy with each collapse (FEMA 2.27). As each floor collapsed, all of the floors above accelerated and fell on the floor below, and so on, which means that the towers fell faster and faster and the amount of energy traveling downward grew exponentially. As each building collapsed, the perimeter walls seemed to have peeled off and fallen away from the buildings. The collapses left tall, freestanding portions of the exterior wall and interior columns, which could not support themselves and therefore buckled at the connections and collapsed (2.27).


http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground.


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=4&catID=4

"In my theory, the hot fire weakened the supporting joint connection," Connor continued. "When it broke, one end of a floor fell, damaging the floor system underneath, while simultaneously tugging (pulling) the vertical members to which it was still attached toward the center of the building and down." This phenomenon started a parasitic process that accelerated until total failure and the structure fell in on itself, he said.

As soon as the upper floors became unsupported, debris from the failed floor systems rained down onto the floors below, which eventually gave way, starting an unstoppable sequence. The dynamic forces are so large that the downward motion becomes unstoppable."

Via two simple models, Kausel was able to determine that the fall of the upper building portion down onto a single floor must have caused dynamic forces exceeding the buildings’ design loads by at least an order of magnitude. He also performed some computer simulations that indicate the building material fell almost unrestricted at nearly the speed of free-falling objects. "The towers' resistive systems played no role. Otherwise the elapsed time of the fall would have been extended,"


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/12/011204072931.htm

Hamburger and his colleagues have not yet determined which of these scenarios occurred on Sept. 11, but there is little doubt that the collapse of the upper floors of the WTC towers brought down both structures.

''Think of the impact of dropping a 25-story building straight down,'' Hamburger told the audience. ''It was like a pile driver, which is why it collapsed as it did.''


http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3721&isa=Category

Some observers have wondered why the buildings telescoped down, instead of overturning and rolling to their side like a tree. Unlike trees which are solid, rigid structures, buildings such as the WTC towers are mostly open space (offices, staircases, elevator shafts, etc.). Indeed, a typical building is 90% air, and only 10% solid material. Thus, it is not surprising that a 110- story structure should collapse into 11 stories of rubble (actually less, because the rubble spreads out laterally, and parts are compressed into the foundation).



In addition, the towers did not fail from the bottom up, but from the top down. For a portion of the tower to roll to either side, it must first acquire angular momentum, which can only occur if the structure can pivot long enough about a stable plane (e.g. the stump in a tree). However, the forces concentrated near the pivoting area would have been so large that the columns and beams in the vicinity of that area would simply have crushed and offered no serious support permitting rolling. Also, both building sections above the crash site were not tall enough to significantly activate an inverted pendulum effect. Thus, the upper part could do nothing but simply fall down onto the lower part, crushing it. While photographic evidence shows the upper part of the South Tower to be inclined just as it began to collapse, it may not necessarily have rolled to the side, but instead fallen down onto the lower floors in a tilted position. (A careful review of collapse videos and additional photos should help clarify this contention.) Indirect evidence points to minimal vertical resistance to telescoping or pancaking of either tower: the duration of the collapses was nearly the same as that of an object in free fall, while any serious resistance would have slowed down the collapse. In essence then, the towers did not collapse like trees because the structures, despite their strength, were too fragile to sustain such motions.


I saved the best for last, an interview with Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011119fa_FACT

only one said that he knew immediately, upon learning, from TV, of the planes' hitting the buildings, that the towers were going to fall. This was Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, a Maryland-based family business that specializes in reducing tall buildings to manageable pieces of rubble. "Within a nanosecond," he told me. "I said, 'It's coming down. And the second tower will fall first, because it was hit lower down.' "

And you've got these floor trusses, made of fairly thin metal, and fire protection has been knocked off most of them by the impact. And you have all this open space—clear span from perimeter to core—with no columns or partition walls, so the airplane is going to skid right through that space to the core, which doesn't have any reinforced concrete in it, just sheetrock covering steel, and the fire is going to spread everywhere immediately, and no fire-protection systems are working—the sprinkler heads shorn off by the airplanes, the water pipes in the core are likely cut. So what's going to happen? Floor A is going to fall onto floor B, which falls onto floor C; the unsupported columns will buckle; and the weight of everything above the crash site falls onto what remains below—bringing loads of two thousand pounds per square foot, plus the force of the impact, onto floors designed to bear one hundred pounds per square foot. It has to fall."

Loizeaux said that when he demolishes buildings he sometimes tries to make the top twist and fall sideways, which can generate enough "reverse thrust" to push the rest of the building the other way. "The top part of the south tower almost did fall off, which is what would happen in most buildings. Did you see how, when that top part started to fall, it began to rotate? If that piece had kept going out, it probably would have pushed the rest of the building the other way as it fell. But those long trusses saved the day—they gave way, guided that top downward just like a bullet through the barrel of a gun, and mitigated the damage." He added, "Let me tell you something. Far more people would have died if those buildings had been built differently. A conventional frame building would have fallen immediately—no question. Only a tube structure could have taken that hit and survived."

Regnad Kcin
10th August 2006, 09:15 PM
...As for ignore the engineering comminity, well you obviously ignored my profile as I`m an undergraduate mechanical engineer in Oxford. I am part of the engineering establishment and am willing to take head on ANY challenge you or anyone else can provide on any mathematical basis (your treading on thin ice there as my maths score was 95% last semester).

So BRING IT ON!

Give me your best and I`ll confidently cut you both to shreds using materials science, logic, mathematics and physics before your fingers have finished typing.

Come on and HIT ME!!Materials science, logic, mathematics and physics all support the conventional wisdom regarding 9/11.

An undergrad student mechanical engineer proclaiming expertise in this matter, eh? Ask him if he'll consult with a pre-med student to discuss his impending open-heart surgery.

Obviousman
10th August 2006, 10:47 PM
One general point to make about mission failure. Of course, they had the Pentagon as a specific target but if they missed, could the whole thing be dismissed as failure? From the terrorist point of view, crashing an aircraft into any part of the capital city of your enemy must be considered a successful mission. From the moment they gained control of the aircraft, they couldn't lose.

That's close to my own personal theory.

I haven't researched it a great deal, so feel free to point out the flaws.

I don't think the Pentagon was the original target; I think it was the White House.

As people have said, using the FMS to fly you to your target is easy. Programming it with a correct descent rate to intercept your target is more difficult. I think Hanjour found himself too high to hit the White House, having not started a descent early enough and maybe being unwilling to push a higher rate of descent. Making a snap 'D' he turned to make another run on it.

This is where I'm having a problem with my 'pet' theory: if Hanjour was in the left seat (normal pilot position), I would expect him to make a LEFT turn as he overflew Ronald Reagan Airport, in order to acquire / keep the target visual. Instead he made a right turn.

It is possible that the decision was made at this point to try for the Pentagon, which would have been clearly visible. Perhaps he was in the right seat - we can never be sure.

As was pointed out, hitting anything at all would have been considered a success. The aircraft had been hijacked, and if they simply crashed it, killing all on board, that would have been a success. Crashing into a populous area, killing people on the ground, would have been better. Hitting a recognised structure would have been marvellous.

The descending turn set them up for an approach to the Pentagon. Hand flying the aircraft, he aims for the Pentagon. Due to the high speed of the aircraft, Hanjour realises shortly before impact that he is going to undershoot the target. He flattens the approach..... and the rest is history.

defaultdotxbe
10th August 2006, 10:54 PM
Due to the high speed of the aircraft, Hanjour realises shortly before impact that he is going to undershoot the target. He flattens the approach..... and the rest is history.
ive actually heard the opposite described

as he leveled off with the nose pointed at the pentagon (using the center courtyard as a "bullseye") he pushed the engines to full throttle, this increase in speed caused an increase in lift and he realized he would overshoot the target, so he pushed the nose down, overcompensating and hitting the outside wall at ground level

i guess either way is equally likely....was hanjour one of the "still alive" hijackers? maybe we can ask him

Brainster
11th August 2006, 12:33 AM
As was pointed out, hitting anything at all would have been considered a success. The aircraft had been hijacked, and if they simply crashed it, killing all on board, that would have been a success. Crashing into a populous area, killing people on the ground, would have been better. Hitting a recognised structure would have been marvellous.

In many ways the Pentagon was the worst target the plane could have hit, because it was such a reinforced structure. Fewer people died in the Pentagon than in OKC. Symbolically I'm sure it was important to Al Qaeda, but it was a lousy choice.

gumboot
11th August 2006, 12:35 AM
In many ways the Pentagon was the worst target the plane could have hit, because it was such a reinforced structure. Fewer people died in the Pentagon than in OKC. Symbolically I'm sure it was important to Al Qaeda, but it was a lousy choice.


Congress would have been a real pearl.

As I understand it wasn't evacuated until after the Pentagon was hit.

-Andrew

chran
11th August 2006, 02:21 AM
What I don't understand is why the pilot just didn't continue on to Congress or The White House? I mean, if he's coming up the Potomac flying north, WH is right in front of him (on the same line as the Washington Monument) and Congress right next to it!

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=washington+dc&ie=UTF8&ll=38.860296,-76.987896&spn=0.092098,0.215607&om=1

How hard can it be :confused:

gumboot
11th August 2006, 05:19 AM
What I don't understand is why the pilot just didn't continue on to Congress or The White House? I mean, if he's coming up the Potomac flying north, WH is right in front of him (on the same line as the Washington Monument) and Congress right next to it!


I believe he was flying south, down the Potomac.

-Andrew

Big Les
11th August 2006, 06:16 AM
Folks, looking for the best place to post this, but the most recent talk re cell phones at altitude seems to be back in the first "LC" thread. So hopefully you won't mind me putting it here:

http://www.avionicsmagazine.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=0606&file=qa.htm

(Below is part of this interview on a study re interference with aircraft systems)

Avionics: Were cell phones used in violation of the rules?

Strauss: I was able to specifically identify eight signals that were cellular calls in flight. Some were at very high altitude, which is technically not possible, according to most cell phone manufacturers. They say calls can't be made that high. Well, we found differently.

Now, did those calls hold for minutes? Probably not. But were they completed? Yes. Calls actually were initiated at, for example, 7,000 feet, 12,000 feet, 18,000 feet and two at 35,000 feet.

Avionics: Do service providers fear that cell phone use at such altitudes would damage their ground transmitters?

Strauss: That was the original concern. That's why the FCC originally came with the ban on cell phones in the air. The FAA has always deferred to that ban.

In some cases the FCC took care of the FAA's work. Now the FCC is saying, "We no longer see this as an issue because of the sophistication of the cellular network." FCC feels it can probably lift the ban, even if there are problems of interference. They're saying to FAA, "If you want a ban, that's your territory."

JohnM307
11th August 2006, 06:35 AM
You may speculate all you like, reverse-engineer all you like, doubt all you like, but until you present proof of your allegations you simply have nothing. Or next to it.

This is a case of not responding to what I actually wrote. You disregarded what followed that statement. I presented the proof. The logic goes like this: The attackers went out of their way to do the least possible damage to the Pentagon, at a virtual certain risk of complete failure to the mission. They would not have attacked the Pentagon that way, if the attackers were terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon. Therefore, they were not terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon.

Considering what alternative-9/11-conspiracy theorists propose would be one of the most complex undertakings of its kind -- not only to plan, but to implement, and continue to cover-up -- evidence and proof should be dropping from the trees like over-ripe apples. That it isn't might tell you something.

Balderdash. What makes it any harder for a secretive cabal in the US to do something in the US than a secretive cabal in Afghanistan? What can they possibly do in Afghanistan that they can't do in the US -- and leave out "doing things in Afghanistan." What makes it "one of the most complex undertakings of its kind" for the US goverment, but not for a secretive cabal in Afghanistan?

As for evidence and proof "dropping from the trees like over-ripe apples," all it takes is for the evidence and proof to be persistantly disregarded and its presenters demonized as "conspiracy theorists." The persistant tendency of the press to minimize coverage of things that damage the Bush Administration is another factor.

Welcome to the forum.

Sarcasm noted. As is noted that the first response I encounter (outside the introductory thread) is precisely what I complained about. I presented the evidence. You disregarded it.

Or maybe you didn't recognize that my post was a reply to a long post talking about the circular dive of the plane, pulling out and skimming the ground without touching it. Maybe you were unaware that the Pentagon was hit where it was under construction. Maybe you were unaware that less than 200 persons were killed in the Pentagon attack, instead of thousands.

Please read what I write, and respond rationally to what I actually say.

JamesB
11th August 2006, 06:40 AM
Folks, looking for the best place to post this, but the most recent talk re cell phones at altitude seems to be back in the first "LC" thread. So hopefully you won't mind me putting it here:

http://www.avionicsmagazine.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=0606&file=qa.htm

(Below is part of this interview on a study re interference with aircraft systems)

With the exception of the 911 call from the bathroom, when United 93 was only at 7000 feet or so, all the calls were made from airfones anyway.

Hellbound
11th August 2006, 06:47 AM
ive actually heard the opposite described

as he leveled off with the nose pointed at the pentagon (using the center courtyard as a "bullseye") he pushed the engines to full throttle, this increase in speed caused an increase in lift and he realized he would overshoot the target, so he pushed the nose down, overcompensating and hitting the outside wall at ground level

i guess either way is equally likely....was hanjour one of the "still alive" hijackers? maybe we can ask him

I have to agree with you here. The plane impacted almost at ground level, hitting the ground and the wall at almost the same time. The majority of the left wing was found buried under two feet of earth.

What I don't understand is why the pilot just didn't continue on to Congress or The White House? I mean, if he's coming up the Potomac flying north, WH is right in front of him (on the same line as the Washington Monument) and Congress right next to it!

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=washington+dc&ie=UTF8&ll=38.860296,-76.987896&spn=0.092098,0.215607&om=1

How hard can it be :confused:

Chran:

There was another plane on the way (Flight 93). It's likely that 93 was supposed to target the White House. So, he didn't think he needed to go on to other buildings. The idea was to hit our financial, military, and political heads (symbolically), rather than just the amount of damage done. I do think that missing the Pentagon would've been considered a partial failure by al-Queda. Of course, I also think that hitting the ground a hundred yards before the Pentagon would only have reduced the damage done, not prevented the Pentagon from being damaged. Essentially, at the point hat he was that close, it really didn't matter. An aircraft that large, at that speed, is more of an area effect weapon.

Arkan_Wolfshade
11th August 2006, 06:54 AM
... The logic goes like this: The attackers went out of their way to do the least possible damage to the Pentagon, at a virtual certain risk of complete failure to the mission. They would not have attacked the Pentagon that way, if the attackers were terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon. Therefore, they were not terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon.

I believe you are denying the antecedent here. You are saying that:
P1: If they were terrorists then they would not have attacked the Pentagon that way.
P2: The Pentagon was not attacked that way.
C: Therefore they were not terrorists.

The problem with this is that you do not provide sufficient evidence as to why P1 is true. Additionally, you disregard other possible reasons for the Pentagon being the final target. Did they fail at their primary target and the Pentagon was a target of opportunity? Was the Pentagon chosen as a target, not for the physical damage that could be inflicted upon it, but rather the psychological impact of attack the building that represents the US military?



Balderdash. What makes it any harder for a secretive cabal in the US to do something in the US than a secretive cabal in Afghanistan? What can they possibly do in Afghanistan that they can't do in the US -- and leave out "doing things in Afghanistan." What makes it "one of the most complex undertakings of its kind" for the US goverment, but not for a secretive cabal in Afghanistan?

It wasn't a secret Afghanistan cabal. Intelligence services knew that al-Qaeda was a threat and that something was planned, but they didn't know what specifically was planned. Additionally, a group of individuals planning nefarious activites and doing this planning outside of the US, in circles that the intelligence community has trouble infilitrating has as much, if not more, fog of war around them then any black-ops organization within the US.


As for evidence and proof "dropping from the trees like over-ripe apples," all it takes is for the evidence and proof to be persistantly disregarded and its presenters demonized as "conspiracy theorists." The persistant tendency of the press to minimize coverage of things that damage the Bush Administration is another factor.

When the "evidence and proof" have been continually debunked, it does not mean it is being disregarded; it means it has been debunked.


...Maybe you were unaware that the Pentagon was hit where it was under construction.

The construction was completed.

chran
11th August 2006, 06:55 AM
There was another plane on the way (Flight 93). It's likely that 93 was supposed to target the White House. So, he didn't think he needed to go on to other buildings. That makes sense - especially since flight 11 and 175 came from the south and the north to impact the twin towers. Probably so they wouldn't hit each other in mid-flight.

Imagine how we'd laugh and laugh at the terrorists if that happened :covereyes

Belz...
11th August 2006, 07:05 AM
This is a case of not responding to what I actually wrote. You disregarded what followed that statement. I presented the proof. The logic goes like this: The attackers went out of their way to do the least possible damage to the Pentagon, at a virtual certain risk of complete failure to the mission. They would not have attacked the Pentagon that way, if the attackers were terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon. Therefore, they were not terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon.

Please present proof that they went out of their way to do the least possible damage. Perhaps you'd care first to try and understand their flight path before making any such assertion.

Balderdash. What makes it any harder for a secretive cabal in the US to do something in the US than a secretive cabal in Afghanistan? What can they possibly do in Afghanistan that they can't do in the US -- and leave out "doing things in Afghanistan." What makes it "one of the most complex undertakings of its kind" for the US goverment, but not for a secretive cabal in Afghanistan?

The fact that everything they do is secret ? The fact that they all have the same agenda and that the chances that one of their operatives will talk beforehand is minimal ? Surely, this should be part of the reason.

Sarcasm noted. As is noted that the first response I encounter (outside the introductory thread) is precisely what I complained about. I presented the evidence. You disregarded it.

It's standard procedure to welcome people to this forum, though I won't do this for you.

gumboot
11th August 2006, 07:37 AM
Others have already covered this, but I'll reitterate anyway just for fun...

:)

The logic goes like this: The attackers went out of their way to do the least possible damage to the Pentagon, at a virtual certain risk of complete failure to the mission. They would not have attacked the Pentagon that way, if the attackers were terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon. Therefore, they were not terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon.


You make three assertations here

1) They went out of their way to do minimal damage
2) There was virtual certain risk of complete failure
3) Terrorists would not attack the Pentagon in this way

To respond:

1) You provide no evidence
2) False
3) You provide no evidence





Balderdash. What makes it any harder for a secretive cabal in the US to do something in the US than a secretive cabal in Afghanistan? What can they possibly do in Afghanistan that they can't do in the US -- and leave out "doing things in Afghanistan."


To begin with, the "official story" operation is incredibly simple. I have yet to hear an alternative version that is even remotely similar in simplicity. More complicated = harder to keep secret.

Secondly, all those involved in the "official story" version are religious zealots. Religious zealots are more likely to adhere to secrecy rules than government officials and federal employees.





What makes it "one of the most complex undertakings of its kind" for the US goverment, but not for a secretive cabal in Afghanistan?

The nature of the actions themselves. Do you have a "US Government" version that is very simple? I have never heard one myself.





Maybe you were unaware that the Pentagon was hit where it was under construction. Maybe you were unaware that less than 200 persons were killed in the Pentagon attack, instead of thousands.


The section of the Pentagon that was hit was fully staffed at the time. The reason only 125 people died at the Pentagon was because of the incredibly effective renovations which minimised the damage done to the building.

-Andrew

milesalpha
11th August 2006, 07:45 AM
Consider this...

The Mitsubishi A6M Zero is significantly harder to fly than a modern airliner, yet throughout the latter days of World War 2 the Japanese managed to train hundreds of pilots in a very short space of time.

These Kamakaze pilots, if they were not shot down, were usually successful in hitting their targets - the largest ships; Essex class Carriers and Iowa class Battleships, are both significantly smaller than the Pentagon.



-Andrew


Sorry to jump on this late but I really do have to quibble with these points.
First the pilots, the Japanese trained very few pilots in the last 6 months of the war. Those that were trained, were trained to standards far lower than the pre-war, and early war years. The Japanese were limited to a very poor quality of fuel (known as A-G0 if memory serves) that had two effects. Engine stalls killed a lot of trainees, and trainees were limited to very basic flight instruction. The Zero would have been one of the easiest fighters to fly in WWII. Stable, easy to land, and contained very few of the "modern" extras of other fighters (self-sealing tanks as an example).

Kamikazes had a lousy success rate for their main mission. Slightly over 14% of all kamikazes managed to hit a target. However, consider the fact that their goal was to hit the carriers and battleships, then their success rate drops to under 1%. The picket line destroyers were the primary victims but certainly not the intended targets. If I remember correctly, not a single carrier, battlehip or cruiser was lost to a kamikaze attack (not good considering 5000 odd planes were used).

I also must note that you ignore the fact that all kamikaze planes were landed in Cleveland and their pilots replaced with Canadians (snowbirds intercepted on their way to Arizona and Florida) who were promised "Canadian dollar at par" if they succesfully hit a ship. Some Canadians will go a long way for an at par deal.

chipmunk stew
11th August 2006, 07:47 AM
I also must note that you ignore the fact that all kamikaze planes were landed in Cleveland and their pilots replaced with Canadians (snowbirds intercepted on their way to Arizona and Florida) who were promised "Canadian dollar at par" if they succesfully hit a ship. Some Canadians will go a long way for an at par deal.:D

Obviousman
11th August 2006, 08:09 AM
I volunteer!

:jaw-dropp

Big Les
11th August 2006, 08:11 AM
With the exception of the 911 call from the bathroom, when United 93 was only at 7000 feet or so, all the calls were made from airfones anyway.

Acky, you're quite right. Wasn't there some question of one of the flights having calls made from it at around 30k feet though?

Either way, its bollocks. Sorry for the interruption!

Darth Rotor
11th August 2006, 08:16 AM
Sorry, I wasn't claiming it was more maneouverable. The 9/11 attacks did not require any significant level of maneouverability.
I disagree. If you are hitting the face of the Pentagon and probably aiming for the middle of that face of the building, (a much smaller target relative to the WTC) your ability to be precise depends on fingertip control, and aircraft responses to fingertip control.

Fly much?

If Hanjour was very well versed with the 757 GPS coupled approach system, and put in a waypoint (with correct altitude and Lat Long) and programmed the GPS to fly him down an ILS style approach with a touchdown point on the West Face of the Pentagon, he could just push all the buttons and let it fly itself into the Pentagon. Again, he was a novice 757 hand. Pilots tend to try and control their aircraft. The better you know the AFCS, the more comfortable you are with its nuances and limitations, the more likely you are to be able to exploit them to their fullest. A rookie is not likely to have that confidence.

The evidence available suggests that he was flying it by hand, not via AFCS, all the way to impact, which most carrier pilots do as well when trying to hit a pinpoint target -- the deck of a carrier.

Note: it is of course true that an F-18, for example, has a coupled approach mode that virtually flies it to the three wire, but I don't know how many pilots use it. If you don't keep your landing skills sharp, they get rusty and that can lead to Bad Things(TM) around the deck.

But A modern airliner is easier, in general, to fly.
At altitude, at cruise, modern aircraft have a lot of features handy to massively reduce pilot work load. That is irrelevant to aiming your plane as a missile, where the ability to make fine corrections is paramount.

Many WW II era aircraft can be flown hands off, by use of a simple mechanical device (a series of cables, bell crankc, pulleys, and control wheels) called a trim system. I flew T-28's in flight training, which were basically late model WW II era, prop driven, fighter bombers. Similar to a Zero in vintage, but considerably better for having been designed with lessons of early WW II fighters and fighter bombers incorporated. Trimming them up to "hands off" was not all that hard after one got the hang of it, and after that their responsiveness to fingertip control became the driving factor in controllability. That, and pilot monkey skills.

A big bus, be it a B-17, P-3, KC-10, or 767, isn't designed to be that responsive, nor is it.

In the terminal landing phase, it is far easier to fly a small, maneuverable single seat fighter aircraft to a precise spot, a target, than a larger airliner.

Of course, the Captains at most Airlines have some thousands of hours, and can squeak one of those beasts down in a very small landing box. Mastery does not come from Microsoft Flight Simulator, though FAA Class IV sims are fantastic training aids, and quite cost effective.

The automated systems, the warning alarms, the auto-corrections on the control column, navigations systems, etc, all make flying one easy.
So do electro hydraulic mechanical servo systems (boost) for flight surface control, which is the critical assist during the landing phase. Much of that other stuff is great for reducing pilot work load, but its wonderfulness is irrelevent to the task we are discussing: a VFR shallow dive to a point target.
Not so for a WW2 era fighter aircraft.
Fly much?
People grossly underestimate the size of the Pentagon, in my experience.
I agree. In person, it is a monster of a building. ;)
One outside wall of the Pentagon was considerably longer than both the Essex carriers and Iowa battleships, and of course the Pentagon has FIVE sides.
Yes indeed.
The hijackers also had the advantage of knowing where their targets were in advance, and having geographic features to follow.
And thus the ability to do detailed mission planning. You still have to hit the target to accomplish the mission.

DR

Brainster
11th August 2006, 08:21 AM
This is a case of not responding to what I actually wrote. You disregarded what followed that statement. I presented the proof. The logic goes like this: The attackers went out of their way to do the least possible damage to the Pentagon, at a virtual certain risk of complete failure to the mission. They would not have attacked the Pentagon that way, if the attackers were terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon. Therefore, they were not terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon.

That's not very logical of you. First, and most obviously, there are five sides to the Pentagon, so the odds of them hitting any particular side are one in five, before considering factors like terrain and nearby buildings.

Balderdash. What makes it any harder for a secretive cabal in the US to do something in the US than a secretive cabal in Afghanistan? What can they possibly do in Afghanistan that they can't do in the US -- and leave out "doing things in Afghanistan." What makes it "one of the most complex undertakings of its kind" for the US goverment, but not for a secretive cabal in Afghanistan?

What makes it harder? Maybe the fact that in the latter instance you're asking people to go against their native loyalty to the country, whereas in the other you're asking people to go with their existing loyalty. This is somewhat similar to Fetzer's ridiculous argument that conspiracies can be kept a secret--look at the Manhattan Project for example. But that's ignoring that the people working on the Manhattan Project were doing something that coincided perfectly with their loyalty, and that some (whose loyalty lay elsewhere) clearly blabbed to the Russians, as Stalin was well aware of the effort.

As for evidence and proof "dropping from the trees like over-ripe apples," all it takes is for the evidence and proof to be persistantly disregarded and its presenters demonized as "conspiracy theorists." The persistant tendency of the press to minimize coverage of things that damage the Bush Administration is another factor.

We have not disregarded the "evidence" you folks have provided. We have rebutted it, with sites like this and 911 Myths and SLC.

Or maybe you didn't recognize that my post was a reply to a long post talking about the circular dive of the plane, pulling out and skimming the ground without touching it. Maybe you were unaware that the Pentagon was hit where it was under construction. Maybe you were unaware that less than 200 persons were killed in the Pentagon attack, instead of thousands.

Again, one in five chance.

gumboot
11th August 2006, 08:23 AM
First the pilots, the Japanese trained very few pilots in the last 6 months of the war. Those that were trained, were trained to standards far lower than the pre-war, and early war years.


I think you missed my point. Which was, the Kamikaze pilots were not trained very well (hence why they could train so many so quickly).

I would imagine all of the 9/11 hijacker pilots had more extensive training than any Japanese Kamikaze pilots did.



The Zero would have been one of the easiest fighters to fly in WWII. Stable, easy to land, and contained very few of the "modern" extras of other fighters (self-sealing tanks as an example).


So are you saying a Zero is easier to fly than a modern airliner?



Kamikazes had a lousy success rate for their main mission. Slightly over 14% of all kamikazes managed to hit a target.


Yes but Kamikaze pilots also got shot at by allied aircraft and AA batteries on their targets. How many Kamikaze pilots that were NOT shot down before impact missed their targets?

(For the record the vast majority of "failures" were shot down by allied aircraft before they reached their targets)




The picket line destroyers were the primary victims but certainly not the intended targets. If I remember correctly, not a single carrier, battlehip or cruiser was lost to a kamikaze attack.


I believe you're talking about Okinawa, where Kamikazes attacked the destroyers before taking on the capital ships. You are right, in that engagement no capital ships were destroyed.

However, the Pentagon was not destroyed either. The objective, for the purpose of comparison, is hitting the target (also bear in mind any damage done by a Kamikaze that put the ship out of action for any period of time should also be considered a success).

In any event, some capital ships were destroyed by Kamikaze. Including the following Casablanca Class aircraft carriers:

USS St. Lo
USS Ommaney Bay
USS Bismark Sea

In addition a very large number of Aircraft Carriers were damaged by Kamikazes - many of them were either out of the war permanently or for very long periods of time.

-Andrew

milesalpha
11th August 2006, 08:35 AM
[QUOTE=JohnM307;1836634]

As for evidence and proof "dropping from the trees like over-ripe apples," all it takes is for the evidence and proof to be persistantly disregarded and its presenters demonized as "conspiracy theorists." The persistant tendency of the press to minimize coverage of things that damage the Bush Administration is another factor.


[QUOTE]

This point simply does not reflect reality. The mainstream press has been the one outing stories such as Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, CIA prisons, Bush's wiretapping, etc. Bush's popularity has plummeted in response. The clear difference is all of these scandals have actual evidence in support. You want to be believed? Have those 9/11 scholars pony up a few bucks from the fees they make speaking to the true believers and comission their own study, hiring real experts (those pesky structural engineers again) to do the work.

gumboot
11th August 2006, 08:44 AM
I disagree. If you are hitting the face of the Pentagon and probably aiming for the middle of that face of the building, (a much smaller target relative to the WTC) your ability to be precise depends on fingertip control, and aircraft responses to fingertip control.


But this is the exact same lack of logic that CTers apply. It assumes Hanjour had any specific intention to hit that precise spot. We don't know that. Presumably hitting the Pentagon anywhere was enough.

That's a block with a horizontal surface of 135,000m^2 - over 33 acres, with five walls 921ft by 77ft. Hitting a precise spot is difficult, sure. But just hitting it? Anywhere? Easy.



A rookie is not likely to have that confidence.

Certainly he was a rookie, but to suggest he didn't lack confidence seems a bit silly, considering he was a suicide pilot.




Of course, the Captains at most Airlines have some thousands of hours, and can squeak one of those beasts down in a very small landing box.


Most of the commercial airline pilots who have commented on AA77 seem to think a complete novice could be brought up to almost a 100% mission success rate in a matter of hours.

What I am trying to emphasize here is what Hanjour achieved wasn't really that hard. Much is made about the difficulty of achieving what he did, but I don't think I've seen a single commercial airline pilot who was even remotely surprised or impressed (unless, of course, you include JohndoeX ;) )

-Andrew

JohnM307
11th August 2006, 08:51 AM
John:

*deep breath*

Not a pilot, are you?
From your perspective as a pilot, would you be willing to testify in court under oath, that this mode of attack is more likely than not to succeed in hitting the Pentagon? Relatively small likelihood of aiming too low and hitting the ground, or aiming too high and overshooting the Pentagon? (Okay, if he overshoots, he can circle around and try again -- assuming he doesn't crash just beyond. It's not as if anyone were trying to stop him.)

One thing I've noticed from both sides -- a highly competent person in a particular field has often long forgotten how a noncompetent person would think. From the perspective of a non-pilot, but with knowledge of geometry and targeting, I view the actual mode of attack as extremely likely to fail.

Here's an actual picture of the Pentagon from the air: www DOT defenselink DOT mil SLASH news SLASH Sep2001 SLASH 200109115k DOT jpg. Again, as a pilot, would you attack from the horizon, aiming at a side? Or would you attack the roof?

Read Here. [Aerospace Web site removed]
This might address how the plane flew level into the Pentagon. It doesn't address the rest of the issues -- attacking this way in the first place, leveling out, and hitting the Pentagon where it would do by far the least damage.

I also had concerns about three issues in that paper, two of which don't apply to this subject, but which I may discuss in another thread. (The third in part is below.)

A note, regarding Hanjour: "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 quote and other eyewitnesses' quotes in the article are suspicious. They could only have watched for two or three seconds before the plane hit the building.


Four Real Terrorist teams did just that, plan and attack (oops, one team was foiled in PA) buildings with airliners.
You missunderstand. You don't rebut an attempted refutation of a theory be re-reciting the theory. Now who's reasoning bad here?

What is the "would a real terrorist" line, Mister True Scotsman? A suicide attack with an airplane is sort of like a huge, flying car bomb, conceptually. Real terrorists use car bombs all the time. These guys thought big.
Okay, your conception of a "real terrorist" is perfectly fine -- consistant with mine. They don't go out of their way to minimize damage in any of their attacks. Which means that the attack on the Pentagon was not a real terrorist attack.


Point 1: Pentagon is a short squat building, unlike WTC which is a tall building. As you note, that makes it a tricky target. This "inexperienced-in-757's-pilot" needed to attack the building. He could only be sure to hit it by maintaining control of the aircraft. That means he'd want to fly at an airspeed he could control. Above a certain airspeed, you can start to lose control authority due to aerodynamic loading, not to mention that as airspeed approaches Mach 1 near sea level (DC is less than 1000' above sea level) in an airliner, the plane will likely start to crack up.

So, from the get to, the 60-90 degree vertical dive is a non starter. His odds of aiming it perfectly were very small in that profile, since he was going to fly by hand, and any correction in close woud be amplified by too much airspeed and lift on the wings . . . if the plane didn't crack up before impact.

I agree. 60-90 degrees is unlikely. You may recall, I suggested 30 degrees. 10-20 degrees is acceptable as well. I envision an elliptical trajectory into the roof of the Pentagon.


I'd suggest he'd need a 10-20 degree nose down attitude (10-20 degree dive angle in other words) to ensure his ability to control (up to the last few seconds) the trajectory of the plane, to ensure he didn't over shoot, and ensure he didn't lose flight control effectiveness by exceeding design velocity.

Had he landed in the middle of the building, an empty space, he'd probably have done less damaage. He had to pick a target, so he targeted the West face of the building.

And that's the ridiculous target. The empty spot in the center of the building is less than one-fifth of the total area, and he could have aimed halfway between the middle and one side of the roof, making the likelihood of a miss low. But instead, he chose a target and mode of attack that had very low likelihood of success. And the target he chose was the one spot under construction, being built to shield the Pentagon against that kind of attack
.

He performed a very straightforward attack, I don't understand your assertion that he did not. If he had gone too fast, even at a low angle of approach, any last minute correction that was an over correction would have caused a ballooning effect, common in a flare maneuver, or in any abrupt raising of the nose with a lot of airspeed on, and thus an overshoot/miss of the Pentagon.

Exactly the same problem exists with your "straightforward" attack -- any correction is an overcorrection, especially facing a narrow target area. Also, leveling out from the descent was a huge problem.


2. The reason he hit his target, in my professional opinion as a pilot, is that he didn't overload his lightweight pilot ass -- unlike what you are doing with your reasoning power in this conversation. He chose a profile that allowed him to control the aircraft within his talent level right up to impact. He succeeded.

Who's reasoning bad? I saw an example of illogic above, where you re-recited the official theory in reply to an attempt refutation of the official theory.

Would you testify under oath that his mode of attack was likely to succeed? That it would not have likely hit the ground at any point in the attack? That it wouldn't have even touched the ground?


3. What makes you think they knew which wing was under construction?

Okay, if they were real terrorists, they might not have known. Assuming they tried the horizontal approach attack and actually hit (very unlikely), there is at most a one-fifth chance they would have hit the point under construction. (That one-fifth assumes it's the whole side. If only a fraction of the side were under construction, then the probability is smaller.)

On the other hand, it's possible that they did research and discovered that that part of the Pentagon was indeed under construction. (Or maybe the alleged hijackers who lived across from one of our intelligence agencies would have known.) If they did know which side was under construction, they would have avoided it.

The probability of such a mode of attack is far greater if the purpose were to minimize the damage done to the Pentagon and to minimize the casualties. And that only makes sense if it were not a real terrorist attack -- a pretended one instead.


I'd have to look at a chart, but Rosslyn, near the Pentagon to the north (see the map) has a lot of high rises. Dumb idea to approach from that side and risk a miss. I'd suggest to you that they chose an approach path (well ahead of time) that allowed the pilot to have the least possible trouble with obstacles, and to approach from the West (where 77 was going to come from in the first place) which is the side of the Potomac River away from Washington DC. (Pentagon is in Virginia)

"... and risk a miss." What a laugh! Chance a near certain miss in order to avoid risking a miss.

From the photograph that I mentioned above, the north seems like a perfectly fine attack approach. All directions that I can see seem perfectly fine. And if they can attack the Pentagon the way they did, they have no trouble avoiding any of the obsticles.


Summary: He was a greenhorn in the 757, so he built a plan that maximized his odds for mission accomplishment.

Nonsense conclusion. The theory that a greenhorn in the 757 attempted an attack that (to an ordinary competent human being) looks ridiculous, succeeded against long odds, and yet minimized the damage on the Pentagon is highly unlikely.

A plan to maximize the chance of mission accomplishment is simply to dive into the Pentagon -- okay, at an angle of 10-20 degrees, by your numbers.

The proper conclusion is that the following theory is more likely than the official story:

WTC: The Spectacular Attack
Pentagon: The self-injury making the criminal look like a victim
UA93: (I am very unsure) The heart-warming story of tragic American heroism and self-sacrifice

Kent1
11th August 2006, 09:02 AM
Thanks, Kent.

Have now clarified.

ETA: For all the work Avery has put into 'research' in this thing, I'm shocked that he made such a mistake.

From the hints they have been giving I suspect they were looking into putting that one in the new LC movie.

I just caught merc's reply. Not a happy camper....;)
Wikipedia also has had the new photo up for a couple months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour

milesalpha
11th August 2006, 09:08 AM
I think you missed my point. Which was, the Kamikaze pilots were not trained very well (hence why they could train so many so quickly).

I would imagine all of the 9/11 hijacker pilots had more extensive training than any Japanese Kamikaze pilots did.





So are you saying a Zero is easier to fly than a modern airliner?





Yes but Kamikaze pilots also got shot at by allied aircraft and AA batteries on their targets. How many Kamikaze pilots that were NOT shot down before impact missed their targets?

(For the record the vast majority of "failures" were shot down by allied aircraft before they reached their targets)






I believe you're talking about Okinawa, where Kamikazes attacked the destroyers before taking on the capital ships. You are right, in that engagement no capital ships were destroyed.

However, the Pentagon was not destroyed either. The objective, for the purpose of comparison, is hitting the target (also bear in mind any damage done by a Kamikaze that put the ship out of action for any period of time should also be considered a success).

In any event, some capital ships were destroyed by Kamikaze. Including the following Casablanca Class aircraft carriers:

USS St. Lo
USS Ommaney Bay
USS Bismark Sea

In addition a very large number of Aircraft Carriers were damaged by Kamikazes - many of them were either out of the war permanently or for very long periods of time.

-Andrew


My point is that the Japanese trained relatively few pilots but I can accept the idea that the 9/11 pilots were better trained and had a much easier task.

Yes, I would argue that the Zero, in particular, was a very easy plane to fly.

I would have to ask for proof of that last assertion, My Keegan stuff suggest that no capital ships were sunk by Kamikaze, nor damaged severely enough to put them out of the war permanently. The 3 carriers you mention are not capital ships but escort carriers, all 3 of them were converted merchant ships. No American capital ships were lost after Leyte Gulf. I have found this site which gives details for carriers (all nations, all types) damaged by Kamikaze. None were permanently put out of action, and the only ones put out of the war were those struck near the very end of the war. Four months seems the longest period any ship was inactive.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-042.htm

Arkan_Wolfshade
11th August 2006, 09:08 AM
From your perspective as a pilot, would you be willing to testify in court under oath, that this mode of attack is more likely than not to succeed in hitting the Pentagon? Relatively small likelihood of aiming too low and hitting the ground, or aiming too high and overshooting the Pentagon? (Okay, if he overshoots, he can circle around and try again -- assuming he doesn't crash just beyond. It's not as if anyone were trying to stop him.)

One thing I've noticed from both sides -- a highly competent person in a particular field has often long forgotten how a noncompetent person would think. From the perspective of a non-pilot, but with knowledge of geometry and targeting, I view the actual mode of attack as extremely likely to fail.

Here's an actual picture of the Pentagon from the air: www DOT defenselink DOT mil SLASH news SLASH Sep2001 SLASH 200109115k DOT jpg. Again, as a pilot, would you attack from the horizon, aiming at a side? Or would you attack the roof?

This might address how the plane flew level into the Pentagon. It doesn't address the rest of the issues -- attacking this way in the first place, leveling out, and hitting the Pentagon where it would do by far the least damage.

Again, this assumes that where the Pentagon was struck was the intended target from the planning stages onward. Please show where this is the case.


...
Okay, your conception of a "real terrorist" is perfectly fine -- consistant with mine. They don't go out of their way to minimize damage in any of their attacks. Which means that the attack on the Pentagon was not a real terrorist attack.

Again, you are assuming motivations and intentions of the terrorists. Please provide corroborating evidence to back these assertions.


...
Okay, if they were real terrorists, they might not have known. Assuming they tried the horizontal approach attack and actually hit (very unlikely), there is at most a one-fifth chance they would have hit the point under construction. (That one-fifth assumes it's the whole side. If only a fraction of the side were under construction, then the probability is smaller.)

On the other hand, it's possible that they did research and discovered that that part of the Pentagon was indeed under construction. (Or maybe the alleged hijackers who lived across from one of our intelligence agencies would have known.) If they did know which side was under construction, they would have avoided it.

The probability of such a mode of attack is far greater if the purpose were to minimize the damage done to the Pentagon and to minimize the casualties. And that only makes sense if it were not a real terrorist attack -- a pretended one instead.

Again, assumption of motives. Also, the construction was finished. The wing was no longer under construction.


...
Nonsense conclusion. The theory that a greenhorn in the 757 attempted an attack that (to an ordinary competent human being) looks ridiculous, succeeded against long odds, and yet minimized the damage on the Pentagon is highly unlikely.

Argument from personal incredulity. Just because you do not believe it is possible, does not make it impossible.

Johnny Pixels
11th August 2006, 09:16 AM
Not one to cast doubt, but I was shown an article from www.globalresearch.ca (http://forums.randi.org/www.globalresearch.ca) that is supposed to be from the Guardian, although the site does not link to the Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/) website, and I can find no record of it on that site. The author is given as Dan Plesch, who as far as I can tell does write for the Guardian, but only in the opinions section, and the article seems to be a bit more news than opinion.

I'm just checking that there's not another Guardian I'm mistaking this with.

The article is here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PLE20060809&articleId=2930

And I've emailed the Guardian to ask them about it.

ETA: Oh, I've found it. It was from his comment/blog section of the Guardian site, not the Guardian Newspaper

here:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dan_plesch/2006/08/post_288.html

Belz...
11th August 2006, 09:17 AM
I also must note that you ignore the fact that all kamikaze planes were landed in Cleveland and their pilots replaced with Canadians (snowbirds intercepted on their way to Arizona and Florida) who were promised "Canadian dollar at par" if they succesfully hit a ship. Some Canadians will go a long way for an at par deal.

Enjoy it while you can. From Xe.com:

Live mid-market rates as of 2006.08.11 16:16:33 UTC.
1.00 USD United States Dollars = 1.12142 CAD Canada Dollars

chipmunk stew
11th August 2006, 09:19 AM
Nonsense conclusion. The theory that a greenhorn in the 757 attempted an attack that (to an ordinary competent human being) looks ridiculous, succeeded against long odds, and yet minimized the damage on the Pentagon is highly unlikely.

A plan to maximize the chance of mission accomplishment is simply to dive into the Pentagon -- okay, at an angle of 10-20 degrees, by your numbers.

The proper conclusion is that the following theory is more likely than the official story:

WTC: The Spectacular Attack
Pentagon: The self-injury making the criminal look like a victim
UA93: (I am very unsure) The heart-warming story of tragic American heroism and self-sacrifice
Given the high crash rate of military drones, which are actually built and tested to be flown remotely, the chances of pulling off a "self-injury" that intentionally minimizes damage, using an untested, retrofitted airliner (which had to be engineered, installed and flown by someone) would seem drastically lower than an inexperienced, but live, pilot crashing into any spot he happens to hit.

chipmunk stew
11th August 2006, 09:24 AM
From the hints they have been giving I suspect they were looking into putting that one in the new LC movie.

I just caught merc's reply. Not a happy camper....;)
Wikipedia also has had the new photo up for a couple months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour
THEY CAN'T JUST CHANGE THEIR STORY LIKE THAT!!! THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CORRECT ANY ERRORS--WE RELY ON THOSE TO CRAFT OUR CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!! WE CAN'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS!!! THEY HAVE TO STICK WITH THEIR ORIGINAL STORY, EVEN IF THEY FIND OUT IT HAS ERRORS!!!

Belz...
11th August 2006, 09:26 AM
One thing I've noticed from both sides -- a highly competent person in a particular field has often long forgotten how a noncompetent person would think.

And why wouldn't he ?

This might address how the plane flew level into the Pentagon. It doesn't address the rest of the issues -- attacking this way in the first place, leveling out, and hitting the Pentagon where it would do by far the least damage.

You're still assuming that hitting in that particular spot was his intention.

Okay, your conception of a "real terrorist" is perfectly fine -- consistant with mine. They don't go out of their way to minimize damage in any of their attacks. Which means that the attack on the Pentagon was not a real terrorist attack.

Again, you're assuming that he minimised damage on purpose. If I throw a baseball and hit someone in the head, it doesn't mean I did it on purpose.

And that's the ridiculous target. The empty spot in the center of the building is less than one-fifth of the total area, and he could have aimed halfway between the middle and one side of the roof, making the likelihood of a miss low.

Actually, he almost missed the building. So he didn't appear to be too well in control of the plane.

But instead, he chose a target and mode of attack that had very low likelihood of success.

Again with that assumption. Remove that, and your entire line of reasoning collapses.

milesalpha
11th August 2006, 09:27 AM
Enjoy it while you can. From Xe.com:

Live mid-market rates as of 2006.08.11 16:16:33 UTC.
1.00 USD United States Dollars = 1.12142 CAD Canada Dollars

Heck, I'm old enough to remember those hallowed days of the 1960s and early70s when the Canadian buck was worth 1.10+ American dollars. But I have never been one for cross border shopping, as an ex-merchant, I still believe in the "shop locally" mantra.

Abbyas
11th August 2006, 09:28 AM
I just caught merc's reply. Not a happy camper....

Yeah, it's a scream.

I (thanks to you) show a video with a reporter saying Hanjour's in the white.

Merc responds that she was mistaken.

She made a mistake in not making a mistake?

Johnny Pixels
11th August 2006, 09:28 AM
From your perspective as a pilot, would you be willing to testify in court under oath, that this mode of attack is more likely than not to succeed in hitting the Pentagon? Relatively small likelihood of aiming too low and hitting the ground, or aiming too high and overshooting the Pentagon? (Okay, if he overshoots, he can circle around and try again -- assuming he doesn't crash just beyond. It's not as if anyone were trying to stop him.)

One thing I've noticed from both sides -- a highly competent person in a particular field has often long forgotten how a noncompetent person would think. From the perspective of a non-pilot, but with knowledge of geometry and targeting, I view the actual mode of attack as extremely likely to fail.

Here's an actual picture of the Pentagon from the air: www DOT defenselink DOT mil SLASH news SLASH Sep2001 SLASH 200109115k DOT jpg. Again, as a pilot, would you attack from the horizon, aiming at a side? Or would you attack the roof?


This might address how the plane flew level into the Pentagon. It doesn't address the rest of the issues -- attacking this way in the first place, leveling out, and hitting the Pentagon where it would do by far the least damage.

I also had concerns about three issues in that paper, two of which don't apply to this subject, but which I may discuss in another thread. (The third in part is below.)


This quote and other eyewitnesses' quotes in the article are suspicious. They could only have watched for two or three seconds before the plane hit the building.


You missunderstand. You don't rebut an attempted refutation of a theory be re-reciting the theory. Now who's reasoning bad here?


Okay, your conception of a "real terrorist" is perfectly fine -- consistant with mine. They don't go out of their way to minimize damage in any of their attacks. Which means that the attack on the Pentagon was not a real terrorist attack.


I agree. 60-90 degrees is unlikely. You may recall, I suggested 30 degrees. 10-20 degrees is acceptable as well. I envision an elliptical trajectory into the roof of the Pentagon.


And that's the ridiculous target. The empty spot in the center of the building is less than one-fifth of the total area, and he could have aimed halfway between the middle and one side of the roof, making the likelihood of a miss low. But instead, he chose a target and mode of attack that had very low likelihood of success. And the target he chose was the one spot under construction, being built to shield the Pentagon against that kind of attack
.

Exactly the same problem exists with your "straightforward" attack -- any correction is an overcorrection, especially facing a narrow target area. Also, leveling out from the descent was a huge problem.


Who's reasoning bad? I saw an example of illogic above, where you re-recited the official theory in reply to an attempt refutation of the official theory.

Would you testify under oath that his mode of attack was likely to succeed? That it would not have likely hit the ground at any point in the attack? That it wouldn't have even touched the ground?


Okay, if they were real terrorists, they might not have known. Assuming they tried the horizontal approach attack and actually hit (very unlikely), there is at most a one-fifth chance they would have hit the point under construction. (That one-fifth assumes it's the whole side. If only a fraction of the side were under construction, then the probability is smaller.)

On the other hand, it's possible that they did research and discovered that that part of the Pentagon was indeed under construction. (Or maybe the alleged hijackers who lived across from one of our intelligence agencies would have known.) If they did know which side was under construction, they would have avoided it.

The probability of such a mode of attack is far greater if the purpose were to minimize the damage done to the Pentagon and to minimize the casualties. And that only makes sense if it were not a real terrorist attack -- a pretended one instead.


"... and risk a miss." What a laugh! Chance a near certain miss in order to avoid risking a miss.

From the photograph that I mentioned above, the north seems like a perfectly fine attack approach. All directions that I can see seem perfectly fine. And if they can attack the Pentagon the way they did, they have no trouble avoiding any of the obsticles.


Nonsense conclusion. The theory that a greenhorn in the 757 attempted an attack that (to an ordinary competent human being) looks ridiculous, succeeded against long odds, and yet minimized the damage on the Pentagon is highly unlikely.

A plan to maximize the chance of mission accomplishment is simply to dive into the Pentagon -- okay, at an angle of 10-20 degrees, by your numbers.

The proper conclusion is that the following theory is more likely than the official story:
WTC: The Spectacular Attack
Pentagon: The self-injury making the criminal look like a victim
UA93: (I am very unsure) The heart-warming story of tragic American heroism and self-sacrifice

This all reminds me of an episode of Magnum PI. Magnum is in trouble, trapped with a bad guy in a room. The woman he's helping shoots out the lights, and Magnum jumps the bad guy. Afterwards he says "That was some pretty fancing shooting", and the woman replies "I was aiming for his head"

Kent1
11th August 2006, 09:42 AM
Yeah, it's a scream.

I (thanks to you) show a video with a reporter saying Hanjour's in the white.

Merc responds that she was mistaken.

She made a mistake in not making a mistake?
I can't take full credit for this one.
I knew it was simply pointing at the wrong guy, but I never had the video.
A couple months back Mike and I were chatting about it. Then he pointed me to the NBC video and added it to his website. So again, nice work Mike.

R.Mackey
11th August 2006, 09:46 AM
Nonsense conclusion. The theory that a greenhorn in the 757 attempted an attack that (to an ordinary competent human being) looks ridiculous, succeeded against long odds, and yet minimized the damage on the Pentagon is highly unlikely.
I am not a pilot, and to my ordinary competent self, that particular flying maneuver seemed plausibly easy. (And the terrorists were trained, to some degree, as pilots.) Also, to my ordinary competent self, I'd have hit the Capitol instead. My ordinary competent reasoning suggests that the Pentagon was a target of opportunity. This is, however, speculation, and not worth a damn. Yet it is every bit as valid as your unsolicited opinions.

The proper conclusion is that the following theory is more likely than the official story:

WTC: The Spectacular Attack
Pentagon: The self-injury making the criminal look like a victim
UA93: (I am very unsure) The heart-warming story of tragic American heroism and self-sacrifice

You keep using this word "likely." You're using it wrong.

This is not a probabilistic calculation. If we knew nothing about the events of that day, only knew the end results, it might make sense to compare two competing theories on the basis of how credible they are. I disagree completely with the credibility of your theory, but this is irrelevant. In this case, we have heaps of evidence -- we know who was flying the plane, we have their actions in the planning stages, we have the flight path, we have admission of responsibility by Al-Qaeda conspirators. There is no "likely" about it, the events have been reconstructed. Your theory is comprehensively ruled out by the evidence.

Speculate all you want, until you refute the evidence or provide your own, your claim that the story is "unlikely" is absolutely unfounded. That is the proper conclusion.

Hellbound
11th August 2006, 09:52 AM
I am not a pilot, and to my ordinary competent self, that particular flying maneuver seemed plausibly easy. (And the terrorists were trained, to some degree, as pilots.) Also, to my ordinary competent self, I'd have hit the Capitol instead.

Just to re-iterate something I mentioned before...

The fourth plane (93) was headed for DC before going down. It's likely that it was headed for the Capital/White House. So likely, the pilot of Flight 77 didn't think he needed to hit the Capital, because another plane was already headed there.

Also, remember that al-Queda is, in many ways, similar to a military organization. They had planned this out, and each had their targets prior to the incident. Whiel this does not preclude a last minute change of plans, I think it more likely that the Pentagon was his intended target, and 93 was supposed to have hit the Capital.

R.Mackey
11th August 2006, 10:01 AM
Also, remember that al-Queda is, in many ways, similar to a military organization. They had planned this out, and each had their targets prior to the incident. Whiel this does not preclude a last minute change of plans, I think it more likely that the Pentagon was his intended target, and 93 was supposed to have hit the Capital.
Also completely plausible.

If I'd been in command -- well, I'd have to be a raving psycho, but suppose I otherwise reasoned as I do now -- I'd have the Capitol at the top of my list anyway, and diverted to a secondary target only if it was already gone. I would have been assuming that not all four planes would succeed.

Again, sheer speculation. There are a great many symbolic targets in DC. I only wanted to point out that JohnM307's claim that "no ordinary person would think like..." is nonsense, the terrorists had many choices, and the one they selected seems reasonable to me. His assertion not only is not evidence, but is not even true.

JohnM307
11th August 2006, 10:04 AM
You make three assertations here

1) They went out of their way to do minimal damage
2) There was virtual certain risk of complete failure
3) Terrorists would not attack the Pentagon in this way

To respond:

1) You provide no evidence
2) False
3) You provide no evidence


1) The description of the attack mode, and that they hit the right point is evidence in support. (They could have hit anywhere, but they happen to hit there.)
2) Use a little imagination, perhaps with a little physics -- just a tiny bit off, especially when leveling out just above the ground, and he hits the ground. A tiny error in angle is hugely amplified.
3) It's obvious that terrorists would not attack to do minimal damage.



To begin with, the "official story" operation is incredibly simple. I have yet to hear an alternative version that is even remotely similar in simplicity. More complicated = harder to keep secret.

Here's an alternative version that's even simpler: "The Government Did It."

A second possible version is that a secretive cabal in the US did exactly the same thing as the upper-ranks in Afghanistan were supposed to have done. How many people would need to know? Very few.

Of course, mere simplicity of the story means that the story is incomplete. The same is true for the "official story." Add some details that should be a part of the "official story" and things become much more complicated and much more unlikely. For example:

1) Al Qaeda paralyzed our air security.
2) Al Qaeda persuaded our "intelligence" and "investigative" agencies to sabotage investigation and possible prevention of the attacks. (Consider repeatedly disregarded warnings from the Arizona flight school, and Minnesota FBI agent Colleen Rowley who personally confirmed to me that a superior altered a memo of hers to prevent it from supporting a warrant to search an Al Qaeda suspect's computer.)
3) Al Qaeda persuaded the Bush Administration to staunchly oppose investigation of the attacks, to stall and stonewall when investigation occured, to grossly underfund the 9/11 Commission, etc.


Secondly, all those involved in the "official story" version are religious zealots. Religious zealots are more likely to adhere to secrecy rules than government officials and federal employees.

Religious zealots who enjoyed lap-dancing and drinking and other non-Islamic activities. Religious zealots who visited and participated in Las Vegas. And also, a religious zealot could be deceived into obeying someone quite different from whom (or the organization) he thinks he's obeying. His superior might be a mole or CIA agent, directing his activities.


The nature of the actions themselves. Do you have a "US Government" version that is very simple? I have never heard one myself.

As I said before, it's only simple because it's incomplete. And one can give a US Government version that's just as simple -- they (or a small cabal) did whatever the high-ranking Al Qaeda persons did.


The section of the Pentagon that was hit was fully staffed at the time. The reason only 125 people died at the Pentagon was because of the incredibly effective renovations which minimised the damage done to the building.


Get your facts straight. That section was under construction and mostly unstaffed.

k47 DOT pbase DOT com SLASH u3 SLASH watson SLASH large SLASH 536173 DOT 347821 DOT jpg shows an unscathed computer monitor on top of a file cabinet on the fifth floor and (an open book? a printer?) on top of a wooden podium or stool on the third floor. Things look overall randomly stacked up.

www DOT geoffmetcalf DOT com SLASH pentagon SLASH images SLASH 5 DOT jpg (and 3.jpg) show large spools of industrial cable in front of the Pentagon hole (this was before the collapse).

thewebfairy DOT com SLASH killtown SLASH pentalawn DOT html has more interesting pictures. (I'd normally call them evidence, but apparently many folk here disagree.)

But you are partly right; it was in fact the only spot designed to withstand an impact. So of course, just by coincidence the plane just happened to hit there. Which leads to something from another post (I forget whether its yours):

Somebody said that it was a simple 1 in 5 odds that they'd hit the right spot. First, that means 4 in 5 that they'd hit a different spot. Second, that's a conditional probability. It assumes that they would attack in that mode, and that they would not hit the ground (or miss the Pentagon completely). Try 1 in 10 for each of those, the odds drop down to 1 in 500.

kookbreaker
11th August 2006, 10:05 AM
This all reminds me of an episode of Magnum PI. Magnum is in trouble, trapped with a bad guy in a room. The woman he's helping shoots out the lights, and Magnum jumps the bad guy. Afterwards he says "That was some pretty fancing shooting", and the woman replies "I was aiming for his head"

What is called when they fire at the side of a barn at random, then draw circles around the holes and say what great shots they were? Texas Marksman?

Arkan_Wolfshade
11th August 2006, 10:40 AM
1) The description of the attack mode, and that they hit the right point is evidence in support. (They could have hit anywhere, but they happen to hit there.)

This shows that the attack caused less damage than other targets. It does not substantiate the claim that that was their intent.


2) Use a little imagination, perhaps with a little physics -- just a tiny bit off, especially when leveling out just above the ground, and he hits the ground. A tiny error in angle is hugely amplified.

If the physics is there to support your assertion then please show your math.


3) It's obvious that terrorists would not attack to do minimal damage.

I assume from this statement that your measure of "damage" is limited to the body count. As stated above, there are other forms of damage that are achieved by striking at the military heart of DC.



Here's an alternative version that's even simpler: "The Government Did It."

Please explain why this is more simple.


A second possible version is that a secretive cabal in the US did exactly the same thing as the upper-ranks in Afghanistan were supposed to have done. How many people would need to know? Very few.

Unlike al-Qaeda, there is no evidence presented to suggest that such a cabal exists.


Of course, mere simplicity of the story means that the story is incomplete. The same is true for the "official story." Add some details that should be a part of the "official story" and things become much more complicated and much more unlikely. For example:

1) Al Qaeda paralyzed our air security.

Fighters responded. Aircraft were grounded. How exactly did they "paralyze our air security"?


2) Al Qaeda persuaded our "intelligence" and "investigative" agencies to sabotage investigation and possible prevention of the attacks.

Evidence?


(Consider repeatedly disregarded warnings from the Arizona flight school, and Minnesota FBI agent Colleen Rowley who personally confirmed to me that a superior altered a memo of hers to prevent it from supporting a warrant to search an Al Qaeda suspect's computer.)

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.


3) Al Qaeda persuaded the Bush Administration to staunchly oppose investigation of the attacks, to stall and stonewall when investigation occured, to grossly underfund the 9/11 Commission, etc.

Evidence?


Religious zealots who enjoyed lap-dancing and drinking and other non-Islamic activities. Religious zealots who visited and participated in Las Vegas. And also, a religious zealot could be deceived into obeying someone quite different from whom (or the organization) he thinks he's obeying. His superior might be a mole or CIA agent, directing his activities.

Evidence that can be discussed, as opposed to sweeping generalizations?


As I said before, it's only simple because it's incomplete. And one can give a US Government version that's just as simple -- they (or a small cabal) did whatever the high-ranking Al Qaeda persons did.

Without supporting evidence, the simplicity of any counter-hypothesis is moot.

Darth Rotor
11th August 2006, 10:48 AM
From your perspective as a pilot, would you be willing to testify in court under oath, that this mode of attack is more likely than not to succeed in hitting the Pentagon? Relatively small likelihood of aiming too low and hitting the ground, or aiming too high and overshooting the Pentagon? (Okay, if he overshoots, he can circle around and try again -- assuming he doesn't crash just beyond. It's not as if anyone were trying to stop him.)
Yes, I would offer the informed opinion that given the poor/low pilot skills in that model of aircraft, a low angle descent (with only an aircraft as an attack weapon) has a much higher pK TO HIT than a high angle descent attack, given airframe limitations and chance of small over corrections causing a miss or a glancing blow.
One thing I've noticed from both sides -- a highly competent person in a particular field has often long forgotten how a noncompetent person would think. From the perspective of a non-pilot, but with knowledge of geometry and targeting, I view the actual mode of attack as extremely likely to fail.
Fail at doing what? Hitting the building? It hit the building, so the attack succeeded. The robustness of the building went a long way to mitigating the damage done, as well as the multiple avenues of evacuation for those not within the impact zone.
www DOT defenselink DOT mil SLASH news SLASH Sep2001 SLASH 200109115k DOT jpg. Again, as a pilot, would you attack from the horizon, aiming at a side? Or would you attack the roof?
With a bomb or a plane? There are five rows of rooves. There is space between each series of offices, each ring. The E ring (outer) holds some of the most important offices. The face of any of its (E RIng's) walls is the easiest and largest target in cross section to aim at and hit.
This might address how the plane flew level into the Pentagon. It doesn't address the rest of the issues -- attacking this way in the first place, leveling out, and hitting the Pentagon where it would do by far the least damage.
Your assessment is incorrect. The horizontal attack would do the most possible damage for the weapon chosen, by hitting all building, and none of the space in between buildings. An attack from a high angle, vertical dive would have been faced with: hitting some building and some space in any of the five "rings" of the Pentagon.

What is funny is . . . he might have missed his intended target. Hanjour might actually have been aimiing at the roof of E or D ring, with the aim of penetrating into A ring top down, and slightly over controlled the nose and hit the face of E ring. Again, low time pilot, trying to sweeten the shot to hit his target. But I think he went for the KISS principle: ensure a hit by aiming at a large cross section target full of offices and people.
I also had concerns about three issues in that paper, two of which don't apply to this subject, but which I may discuss in another thread. (The third in part is below. This quote and other eyewitnesses' quotes in the article are suspicious. They could only have watched for two or three seconds before the plane hit the building.
You are suspicious of the eyewitness statements why? Your own predisposition to having come to a conclusion that their observation does not coincide with? I accept that eyewitness statements have to be viewed with care, as they are subject to some erroros in interpretation and verbalization. Any cop or lawyer here can expand on that as needed.

A simple detail like a large plane tilting its wings back and forth is easily discernable, from the road. (I have driven that road) I have also spent many hours watching planes maneuver close to the ground. Even a novice observer can pick up a gross detail like wings tilting back and forth.
You missunderstand. You don't rebut an attempted refutation of a theory be re-reciting the theory. Now who's reasoning bad here?
That wasn't a rebuttal. It was a use of your own terms, tossed into your face and then linked to the next piece to fit "real terrorists" in a plane with what we seem to agree on as typical terrorist behavior: using a vehicle to attack a building.
Okay, your conception of a "real terrorist" is perfectly fine -- consistant with mine. They don't go out of their way to minimize damage in any of their attacks. Which means that the attack on the Pentagon was not a real terrorist attack.
Your second sentence is false, since you offer no proof of their intention other than a statement of your belief. I have offered you a reasonable linkage of factors that suggest why the attack was aimed at where it hit. (See above on my "he might have missed his intended target" and how that would really make the joke on me! :D )
Your assertion of "go out of their way to minimize damage in other attacks" flies in the face of the intention of attacking a building: to damage it. Your assertion ignores the limitation of the single weapon attack on that (massive) building. The strength of the Pentagon, and the fact that maximizing the attack potential of the 757 on it was achieved (direct hit) points to a successful execution of an attack.

To sweeten the shot, IMO, he would have flown at a higher airpseed, and inceaased the kinetic energy at impact. Choosing that profile adds risk, in aircraft handling for a 757 novice, that I spelled out quilte clearly in my aircraft handling discussion.

See also my remarks above about "the spaces between the rings" of the building as being wasted kinetic energy transfer at impact on empty space. Maximize damage? Hit ALL BUILDING at impact.
I agree. 60-90 degrees is unlikely. You may recall, I suggested 30 degrees. 10-20 degrees is acceptable as well. I envision an elliptical trajectory into the roof of the Pentagon. And that's the ridiculous target. The empty spot in the center of the building is less than one-fifth of the total area, and he could have aimed halfway between the middle and one side of the roof, making the likelihood of a miss low. But instead, he chose a target and mode of attack that had very low likelihood of success. And the target he chose was the one spot under construction, being built to shield the Pentagon against that kind of attack
That last line of bull has been addressed already by others. We have discussed the roof attack, also a more difficult attempt for a novice in model. Ease of holding the aircraft on course, and on target, was critical to getting a direct hit anywhere on the building. He made a direct hit. What more do you want out of this guy? He's not Chuck Yaeger. If I were aiming at E Ring's face, I'd aim at the middle or second from top row of windows with my cockpit, to ensure the middle and bottom of my jetliner hit the middle of the building without touching any ground/losing any airspeed at impact. All weapon KE applied to target. Maximize damage.

But let's not pretend to know why he chose which of the five faces to attack. I assess why I think the West face was chosen by the pilot attacker. Any of the five faces of the building was the simplest way to make a direct hit on the building, based on his mission planning, his contingency planning, and his own route of approach.

If, for example, he originally intended to attack the south east face, but over shot and came back around from the west, or if he originally intended to attack a northern face, but over shot and had to turn around to re attack, he'd still pick a face of the building: each of which presents the largest possible cross section to him as a target. To do damage YOU HAVE TO HIT.

Let's presume an originally intended a 30-40 degree dive, aimed at a C-ring, (the middle of the five rings) Whichever segment of C-ring he hits, he smacks through, and his engines hit air, the wing tips hit parts, perhaps, of B and D ring, and more of the fire is outside the building SINCE THE FUEL IS IN THE WINGS than on the inside of the building. It's a trickier shot. That makes for a larger fire from a visual perspective, but less actual damage to the building overall.

So, your steeper dive is not a good max damage attack profile, but it might have made for a bigger visual spectacle, and perhaps that was one of the mission intentions.

Let's look at another angle. For one reason or another, he realizes he over shot, or made some error and has to reattack, all the while descending since he wants to minimize the time US has to react. He picks the closest face based on his reattack maneuver, and glides her in. His plane and wings ALL PENETRATE BUILDING to the max extent his weapon at impact airspeed allows, hits no "Space" at impact, and then goes as far as Kinetic Energy allows. Fire follows. Note that whatever he hits after penetrating the entire E (Largest) ring SEE YOUR PICTURE is additional damage to another, inner ring of the building, which funnily enough is consistent with the higher risk attack that would have been harder to pull off. Hey, bonus damage, easier shot. What a concept!

The glide in attack is A) an easier hit pK, and B) maximizes Kinetic Energy transfer to the building with the greatest part of the weapon: the plane.

Are you aware of who inhabits the E ring of the Pentagon? Do a little research, OK? Killing leadership is a big deal.
Who's reasoning bad? I saw an example of illogic above, where you re-recited the official theory in reply to an attempt refutation of the official theory.
I threw your own words into your face, and then backed it up with what we agree on as a terrorist MO. I did not engage in fallacy.
Would you testify under oath that his mode of attack was likely to succeed? That it would not have likely hit the ground at any point in the attack? That it wouldn't have even touched the ground?
I'd be happy to tell anyone clueless about flying, and choosing weapons for damaging a building, how a pilot with limited skills in model could maximize the kinetic energy transfer of his weapon, an airlier, to a large building, while minimizing his risks of missing and failing at his mission.
Okay, if they were real terrorists, they might not have known. Assuming they tried the horizontal approach attack and actually hit (very unlikely), there is at most a one-fifth chance they would have hit the point under construction. (That one-fifth assumes it's the whole side. If only a fraction of the side were under construction, then the probability is smaller.)
Already answered by others.
On the other hand, it's possible that they did research and discovered that that part of the Pentagon was indeed under construction. (Or maybe the alleged hijackers who lived across from one of our intelligence agencies would have known.) If they did know which side was under construction, they would have avoided it.
Why?

Two ways to consider that from an attack option. Under Construction means weaker, so YOU PENETRATE FARTHER INTO THE INNER RINGS AT IMPACT. Maybe under construction is a good place to attack in order to MAXIMIZE damage (to multiple rings rings.)

Down side; likelihood is fewer dead bodies in the under construction wing, but that is offset by the chance for greater casualties in the inner rings you'll hit by PENTERATING the weaker (not finished yet) face of the building and wrecking more spots further in.

Looks to me like a trade off, with a probably higher payoff, and a thorny "min max" problem during mission analysis.
The probability of such a mode of attack is far greater if the purpose were to minimize the damage done to the Pentagon and to minimize the casualties. And that only makes sense if it were not a real terrorist attack -- a pretended one instead.
A pretend attack would have hit just short of the Pentagon, and done little to no damage. The actual attack hit. As to your ability to assess and mission plan, see my above comments.
"... and risk a miss." What a laugh! Chance a near certain miss in order to avoid risking a miss.What are you talking about? Could you please elaborate on that remark?
From the photograph that I mentioned above, the north seems like a perfectly fine attack approach. All directions that I can see seem perfectly fine. And if they can attack the Pentagon the way they did, they have no trouble avoiding any of the obsticles.
The choice of approach path over suburban Virginia is logical, since they were coming in from the West. Approach and departure corridors already in the ATC structure gives him better "masking" as the flight path looks (on rader) more like a blip in an expected place to ATC, and thus less chance that a controller smells a rat.

Depending on the prevailing wind that day, one would want to appear to be near a discernable approach or arrival route until the last minute, to increase the odds of not being detected as anything other than just another airliner flying into DC. Wind from south? Approach from the North is the expected flow, and so on depending on the wind.

So, while to the layman any of five faces is a good idea in a completely unconstrained environment, a pilot would analyze all of the standard instrument and visual approaches and, if he were clever, pick one that allowed procedural masking and better odds of successful sneak attack.
Nonsense conclusion. The theory that a greenhorn in the 757 attempted an attack that (to an ordinary competent human being) looks ridiculous, succeeded against long odds, and yet minimized the damage on the Pentagon is highly unlikely.
His attack maximized the damage of his a mamageable, maskable attack profile, as I have continued to point out, due to making a direct hit, considering the limitations of his weapon.

It is only nonsense to you since you either know little about flying, or have already convinced yourself of your hypothesis.

You and I will both agree, however, that had me flown as fast as possible for the altitude, (probably a hundred knots faster, maybe more, than he actually hit the building at) he'd have imparted greater Kinetic Energy to the building, done more damage, and possibly killed more people. Why he chose the airspeed of impact that he did he'll never tell us, he's dead, but it allowed him to CONTROL the plane up until impact and hit what he aimed at.

Minimize the damage? Don't hit the building. Your argument is all about "being a little bit pregnant" to a certain extent. Your position, that the only consideration he had was minimizing damage, ignores his mission imperative to hit, not miss, his target.

A plan to maximize the chance of mission accomplishment is simply to dive into the Pentagon -- okay, at an angle of 10-20 degrees, by your numbers.
Yay, we see eye to eye on something! :D
The proper conclusion is that the following theory is more likely than the official story:
Pentagon: The self-injury making the criminal look like a victim
[/LIST]
The proper conclusion is that you have convinced yourself of 2, and have no desire to understand otherwise, regardless of the tools and mission the pilot faced. I repeat, to "minimize the damage" on purpose, you miss the building and crash near it.

DR

Pardalis
11th August 2006, 10:58 AM
The proper conclusion is that the following theory is more likely than the official story:

WTC: The Spectacular Attack
Pentagon: The self-injury making the criminal look like a victim
UA93: (I am very unsure) The heart-warming story of tragic American heroism and self-sacrifice


You know, this works as well for me:

WTC: The Spectacular Attack on capitalism
Pentagon: The Spectacular Attack on US military might
UA93: well... they didn't get that far.

60hzxtl
11th August 2006, 11:01 AM
Minimize the damage? Don't hit the building. Your argument is all about "being a little bit pregnant" to a certain extent. Your position, that the only consideration he had was minimizing damage, ignores his mission imperative to hit, not miss, his target.


Yay, we see eye to eye on something! :D

The proper conclusion is that you have convinced yourself of 2, and have no desire to understand otherwise, regardless of the tools and mission the pilot faced. I repeat, to "minimize the damage" on purpose, you miss the building and crash near it.

DR


I think you hit the 3-Wire there DR!

aggle-rithm
11th August 2006, 11:03 AM
Religious zealots who enjoyed lap-dancing and drinking and other non-Islamic activities. Religious zealots who visited and participated in Las Vegas. And also, a religious zealot could be deceived into obeying someone quite different from whom (or the organization) he thinks he's obeying. His superior might be a mole or CIA agent, directing his activities.



Why wouldn't a religious zealot who believed he was getting a free ticket to Heaven by being a martyr, cut loose and enjoy himself? It couldn't hurt, could it?

Abbyas
11th August 2006, 11:18 AM
Why wouldn't a religious zealot who believed he was getting a free ticket to Heaven by being a martyr, cut loose and enjoy himself? It couldn't hurt, could it?

Indeed.

And in many religions, especially ones in which women are to be protected, much sexual behavior, on the part of men, is excused.

I've got a buddy who works in NYC strip clubs who has told me about the local Hasidm (a 'fundamentalist' jewish sect) that tend to be some of the rowdiest spectators in the joint.

Edited for grammar

Pardalis
11th August 2006, 11:21 AM
John, how do you account for the DNA of the crew and passengers of flight 77 found in the Pentagon rubble?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61202-2001Nov20?language=printer

JohnM307
11th August 2006, 11:38 AM
There is no evidence they were "poor" pilots, and flying an airliner is incredibly simple. You also forget their objective WAS to touch the ground.


All indications that I've seen everywhere quote their teachers, fellow students, etc. as saying they were lousy pilots. No evidence?

thewebfairy DOT com SLASH killtown SLASH flight77 SLASH hijackers DOT html

Second, the target was the Pentagon, not the ground! In fact, they didn't touch the ground, despite numerous "eyewitness" testimony otherwise. (I "linked" to photos elsewhere.)

thewebfairy DOT com SLASH killtown SLASH flight77 SLASH hijackers DOT html


I don't see how anyone can see great amazement in someone CRASHING an airliner.

Read what I say, and think please! The target was the Pentagon, not the ground!


This is a myth. The renovations to the Naval Annex were complete. It was fully staffed at the time it was hit. The majority of those killed were military personnel.


No! It was under construction!


The reason, of course, that this particular section had been renovated was it was the most exposed, and therefore the most likely to be attacked.


I really doubt that. If the Pentagon could be attacked from the air, it could be attacked from any side.


Why would they NOT attack that way? Are you intimately familiar with the methodology by which terrorists usually ram hijacked airliners into buildings?


Perhaps because the immediately obvious way would be to dive into the Pentagon, perhaps at a shallow angle. Even 10-20 degrees into the roof gives a far bigger target than the side. And they avoid the ground which would ruin their plans if they hit it instead of the Pentagon.


At that resolution, and that frame rate, variations of this degree are irrelevant. I think the pertinent point is the scale of approximate aircraft size is correct (i.e. it's not a cruise missile).


On the contrary, if the back of the real tail is more vertical than the back of the tail of a 757, then it can't be a 757. But I'm not going to debate about what the obscure, dark, blocked object is. If I start talking about those freeze frames and the later videos that were released, I'm going to talk about the Pentagon's refusal to release anything that shows clearly what was in flight just before it hit the Pentagon.

Hellbound
11th August 2006, 11:50 AM
All indications that I've seen everywhere quote their teachers, fellow students, etc. as saying they were lousy pilots. No evidence?
Actually, all you've seen say that one particular highjacker was a lousy pilot.
Second, the target was the Pentagon, not the ground! In fact, they didn't touch the ground, despite numerous "eyewitness" testimony otherwise. (I "linked" to photos elsewhere.)

thewebfairy DOT com SLASH killtown SLASH flight77 SLASH hijackers DOT html

Actually, yeah, he did hit the groun, at almost the same time he hit the building. Most pieces of the left wing were found buried under about 2' of earth, where the wing impacted the ground.
No! It was under construction!

Parts of that wind were under consruction, but the area that was actually struck had already been completed, and was staffed. You are quite simply wrong.

JohnM307
11th August 2006, 11:55 AM
I have to agree with you here. The plane impacted almost at ground level, hitting the ground and the wall at almost the same time. The majority of the left wing was found buried under two feet of earth.


Care to provide evidence of this? This is the first time I heard anything of the sort, about a wing from the plane found buried at the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission's report doesn't mention it.

Belz...
11th August 2006, 12:02 PM
Heck, I'm old enough to remember those hallowed days of the 1960s and early70s when the Canadian buck was worth 1.10+ American dollars. But I have never been one for cross border shopping, as an ex-merchant, I still believe in the "shop locally" mantra.

Well, as a consumer, I can only hope that the American dollar CONTINUES to drop, no offense to anyone here. It makes shopping on Amazon much more appealing ;)

Belz...
11th August 2006, 12:14 PM
1) The description of the attack mode, and that they hit the right point is evidence in support. (They could have hit anywhere, but they happen to hit there.)

No matter WHERE they hit, John, they would "happen to hit there". Doesn't that tell you something ?

2) Use a little imagination, perhaps with a little physics -- just a tiny bit off, especially when leveling out just above the ground, and he hits the ground. A tiny error in angle is hugely amplified.

Pointing to a target with a plane without actually having to land it isn't particularily difficult. Or so actual airline pilots say.

3) It's obvious that terrorists would not attack to do minimal damage.

It is obvious. However, you're forgetting some very important elements; mainly that they might have wanted to inflict symbolic damage in this instance.

Here's an alternative version that's even simpler: "The Government Did It."

I can see reasoning isn't your forté. "In fewer words" doesn't mean simpler. In order to pull this off and keep it secret, the government would have had to expend an incredible amount of ressources, while Al-Qaeda would simply have to do what they usually do.

A second possible version is that a secretive cabal in the US did exactly the same thing as the upper-ranks in Afghanistan were supposed to have done. How many people would need to know? Very few.

An assertion that's easy to believe if you have "Superman: the movie" mentality; namely that Lex Luthor could have done all this with only two idiots for henchmen.

1) Al Qaeda paralyzed our air security.

The word you're looking for is "circumvent".

2) Al Qaeda persuaded our "intelligence" and "investigative" agencies to sabotage investigation and possible prevention of the attacks.

I find the explanation that no one knew exactly what would happen far more believable.

3) Al Qaeda persuaded the Bush Administration to staunchly oppose investigation of the attacks, to stall and stonewall when investigation occured, to grossly underfund the 9/11 Commission, etc.

Personnal opinion. Not really powerful in a debate.

Religious zealots who enjoyed lap-dancing and drinking and other non-Islamic activities. Religious zealots who visited and participated in Las Vegas.

They are allowed to do this to reach their objectives. Don't you know ANYTHING ?

As I said before, it's only simple because it's incomplete. And one can give a US Government version that's just as simple -- they (or a small cabal) did whatever the high-ranking Al Qaeda persons did.

Hey, I got an even simpler one: "Satan did it". I mean, I'm he's supernatural, so all he has to do is clap his hands and it just happens, right ?

Get your facts straight. That section was under construction and mostly unstaffed.

Merely stating something doesn't make it true.

shows an unscathed computer monitor on top of a file cabinet on the fifth floor and (an open book? a printer?) on top of a wooden podium or stool on the third floor. Things look overall randomly stacked up.

"Looks" ? I'm still not interested in your opinion.

thewebfairy DOT com SLASH killtown SLASH pentalawn DOT html has more interesting pictures. (I'd normally call them evidence, but apparently many folk here disagree.)

Anything bearing Killtown's name is sure to be seen as suspect here.

Somebody said that it was a simple 1 in 5 odds that they'd hit the right spot. First, that means 4 in 5 that they'd hit a different spot.

So, when someone wins the lottery, and there was 13.999.999 chances out of 14.000.000 that he didn't win, you call that suspect ? Wow. You really know your statistics.

Darth Rotor
11th August 2006, 12:17 PM
What I am trying to emphasize here is what Hanjour achieved wasn't really that hard. Much is made about the difficulty of achieving what he did, but I don't think I've seen a single commercial airline pilot who was even remotely surprised or impressed (unless, of course, you include JohndoeX ;) )

-Andrew
Part of that reason for that, in my estimation, is that he didn't over load his talent, and set an achievable target in the target planning process. I don't doubt that Airline Captains would expect a novice with some flight training to be able to meet the 'good enough' standard to glide a plane into the building. I agree with them. I may be giving Honjour too much credit for mission planning, however, I am of the belief that these lads did a great deal of planning. This was no rush job. Thus, it seems rational to me that the more difficult approach John insists on would have been, in the mission planning phase, been discarded in favor of a more achievable goal.

More on that in my last reply to John. You and I are quibbling over which type of aircraft would be easier to use to hit a building. The more maneuverable the aircraft, the more accurate you are likely to be, but we will both agree that a small fighter, or an airliner, are in the class of "easy enough to fly into a building" to achieve the mission.

DR

kookbreaker
11th August 2006, 12:26 PM
Indeed.

And in many religions, especially ones in which women are to be protected, much sexual behavior, on the part of men, is excused.


Even if it isn't excused by the religion, since when the heck is that a deterrent?

Prominent Televangelists soliciting Crack Whores? Nope! Can't Happen! They're Too Devout! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Swaggart). COmmitting adultery? Can't happen, they're reverends! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bakker)

And of course, by the same logic, no Catholic Priest ever molested boys since they are the representatives of Gawd, right?

Hellbound
11th August 2006, 12:28 PM
Try this documentary (http://shopping.discovery.com/product-41953.html) from Discovery. They specifically talk about the pieces of wing found buried (the tip of the wing, IIRC). NOT the whole wing, as you are trying to strawman here. I also doubt the commission would specify the location of every piece of debris found.

I will withdraw the claim, however, as I can't find another source for it at the time. I'll see if I can look at the documentary again, and find their source.

IN any case, he very nearly did hit the ground, as he impacted the lower portion of the building.

MikeW
11th August 2006, 12:35 PM
Just jumping back in the thread for a moment, re: Mark Bingham and the other passengers missing from the manifest... It might be worth pointing out that they're all included on a United Airlines release listing passenger names issued a few days after the attacks, see http://www.unitedespanol.com/press/pressroom/2001/us_0912c.html . Which suggests to me that they did appear on some list, somewhere, unless of course you want to argue that United are "in on it", too.

Regnad Kcin
11th August 2006, 12:43 PM
Welcome to the forum....Sarcasm noted...My words were sincere. That you assumed something different with no supporting evidence might perhaps tell you something about your analytical process.

There is not time at the moment for me to rebut the remainder of your response to mine. I'll be back later.



(Edited for clarity.)

Darth Rotor
11th August 2006, 12:44 PM
Just jumping back in the thread for a moment, re: Mark Bingham and the other passengers missing from the manifest... It might be worth pointing out that they're all included on a United Airlines release listing passenger names issued a few days after the attacks, see http://www.unitedespanol.com/press/pressroom/2001/us_0912c.html . Which suggests to me that they did appear on some list, somewhere, unless of course you want to argue that United are "in on it", too.
:rolleyes:
What you don't see on that link is the black helicopter, a Little Bird, hovering outside the office where the president of the company stood as he directed that information be posted to the United Airlines Web Site. The flight crew had the whisper mode on, and were using Top Secret stealth technology to reduce their visual and IR signature, in a recent kit supplied by Cyberdyne Systems (with patent pending.)
:rolleyes:

Blue Thunder was a documentary, right?

DR

defaultdotxbe
11th August 2006, 01:23 PM
Here's an alternative version that's even simpler: "The Government Did It."
the explanation is not in the who, but the how, for al-qeada the "how" is

1) learn to fly planes
2) hijack planes
3) crash them into buildings

for the govt the how is much more complicated

1) "remotely" hijack planes
2) swap planes with drones, or use CGI planes (in LIVE video)
3) crash drones into targets (or fire missiles at targets and say it was planes)
4) blow up a field in PA for no reason
5) plant evidence to make it look like planes in all 3 locations
6) keep everyone involved quiet for 5+ years

A second possible version is that a secretive cabal in the US did exactly the same thing as the upper-ranks in Afghanistan were supposed to have done. How many people would need to know? Very few.

you see, the real complexity isnt in even in the plan itself, its in the coverup, those "cavemen" in afghanistan never tried to hide the fact that they did, nor do they try to hide the fact of HOW they did it, keeping the secret is the difficult part, and involes many more people than "planning"

Religious zealots who enjoyed lap-dancing and drinking and other non-Islamic activities. Religious zealots who visited and participated in Las Vegas.
martyrdom absolves ALL sins, it doesnt surprise me they wanted to live it up knowing they could still get into paradise

As I said before, it's only simple because it's incomplete. And one can give a US Government version that's just as simple -- they (or a small cabal) did whatever the high-ranking Al Qaeda persons did.
except the al-qeada people didnt keep the whole thing covered up for 5 years

Somebody said that it was a simple 1 in 5 odds that they'd hit the right spot. First, that means 4 in 5 that they'd hit a different spot. Second, that's a conditional probability. It assumes that they would attack in that mode, and that they would not hit the ground (or miss the Pentagon completely). Try 1 in 10 for each of those, the odds drop down to 1 in 500.
check your history, they did attack, and they did hit the pentagon, applying odds to individual elements of historical events is pointless

think about thiswhat are the odds that you would even be born?

1 million sperm
1-2 days per month fertility
you mother not having a "headache" that day

hell forget that, what are the odd that your parents would even meet? or that they would be born? or their parents be born? by your logic the odds any person on the planet even exists is astronomical beyond comprehension

Kent1
11th August 2006, 01:26 PM
Some interesting new info has come out today
Government Releases Detailed
Information on 9/11 Crashes

Complete Air-Ground Transcripts of Hijacked
9/11 Flight Recordings Declassified


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm


At 9:23am, the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) shows a text message to Flight 93 reading: "BEWARE OF ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION [sic]. TWO AIRCRAFT IN NY, HIT TRADE CNTER BUILDS [sic]." Five minutes later at 9:28am Flight 93 was sending the message "***(mayday)*** (hey get out of here) ***" as it was being hijacked.

MikeW
11th August 2006, 01:28 PM
Some interesting new info has come out today
Government Releases Detailed
Information on 9/11 Crashes

Complete Air-Ground Transcripts of Hijacked
9/11 Flight Recordings Declassified


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm
You beat me to it! Everyone should at least look at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf , though, which finally shows the flight path of Flight 77. And it's interesting...

Gravy
11th August 2006, 02:36 PM
Thanks Kent & Mike

JohnM307, I apologize if I missed it, but can you state what you think happened to flight 77, and what you think hit the Pentagon?

Gravy
11th August 2006, 04:08 PM
I would ask someone to post this on LC, but no doubt banishment would quickly follow. I'll email Mr. Rowe.

A message from Korey Rowe, (http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/) producer of Loose Change

...What do you say to your Critics?
I say debate me on camera! Not Jason, not Dylan, me.
I suggest a moderated debate in a neutral location in New York City, since you'll be visiting shortly. Your 9/11 facts against mine. The only stipulation I have is that we both agree that the videotape must be unedited for distribution via Google Video, YouTube, etc.

By the way, a professor of visual arts in NYC has apparently been trying to set up such a meeting between me and the three of you, which I agreed to long ago. What's the holdup?

I also offered to sit down with the three of you on a non-adversarial basis and show in detail how your facts are wrong and your methods are flawed. I received no reply.

How do you explain the viewers guides?

I say, "have you read them?" These guides are fact-less, minus the errors that we publicly retracted and that have now been fixed in the second edition re-cut that we just put up on Google video, ONCE AGAIN FOR *********** FREE! They attack our character. You know, fine, I’m not Jesus, I’m not perfect, no one is. I have made mistakes, I am human. My biggest mistake was not being able to see the truth before I went to Iraq and killed people for a lie. Human beings protecting there homes, their children and what little possessions they had managed to keep for their short existence in a place not one of you would ever go willingly. You disgust me Mark Roberts, you spineless worm. Go for it man, attack my military record, have a blast. Where's yours ********, and what’s your REAL NAME?
Let's suppose you're right and my Loose Change Viewer Guide contains no facts. How about my compilation Loose Change Creators Speak? Are you going to claim that voice-morphing technology was used to fake all those interviews I transcribed? Remember, those interviews are promoted on your website.

As for getting facts correct, I never attacked your military record. I thank you for your service to our country. I did recently comment that military service seemed to have made you decisive but not wise, as evidenced by your statement in this week's Albany Times-Union: (http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=506008)

[Reporter] In a conspiracist's world, any piece of evidence can be dismissed as fabrication, disinformation or naivete. So what would convince the three Oneonta filmmakers their theories are flawed?

...Rowe, the Army veteran, merely shakes his head.
"There is not one thing that they can do that can dissuade me from what I think," Rowe said. "I know they did it. ... I'm more sure of it every day."
So, facts that contradict your beliefs won't change your mind? You've adopted a religion, not a cause.
Want some more? How about these quotes from an April 15 interview on Air America Phoenix?

Rowe: Well, supposedly those bombs weren't there. According to the official version, there was never any charges placed inside the World Trade Center. And it's a question of why they would they be in there, and why you would want to bring down the World Trade Center themselves. I mean, the World Trade Center was built in 1973 with asbestos and other dangerous materials that aren't allowed in today's building world. I mean, they received numerous citations to clean up the buildings. And to clean up those materials would have cost over a billion dollars. So, I mean, yes, running planes into the buildings would have been sufficient enough as an attack, but it wasn't the overall goal of Larry A. Silverstein, who owned WTC Building 7 and leased the rest of the buildings. It wasn't enough for him. I mean, now he's got prime real estate in downtown Manhattan, and after a 220 million investment turned into a two billion dollar profit.

***
Host: One thing that's interested me: all that gold. I'd never heard figures anything like that. So, no one knows where all that gold went.

Bermas?: No. Nobody has a clue.

Rowe: Actually, we heard recently that the amount of gold was so much higher, somewhere near over trillion dollars.

***
Rowe:[Getting the FBI's response to a FOIA request very wrong] The FBI said that there was actually 84 video cameras that would have captured flight 77 flying into the Pentagon. Not one of those videos has been released or shown to the public to prove that a plane hit the building when obviously it didn't.

***
Caller: The presumption is that a missile hit the Pentagon. It would have to come from either a ship or a plane.

Rowe: Or ground. Actually, it could have been a Javelin round, which is a two-man team. It costs up to around $750,000 to for the equipment for one round to actually have the piece that locks onto to whatever you're shooting from.

Caller: And it could cause the damage that was shown...

Rowe: Yes, it could do that, but it would have to be significantly modified. But I would lean closer to a missile being shot by an airplane.

***
Host: In the movie JFK, Kevin Costner was asked, you know, how can you keep a conspiracy of this magnitude alive? And he said, "Orders."

Rowe: Absolutely. In the military you sign away your rights. I mean, if you break your arm, you get arrested for destruction of government property, and you get fined.

They honestly have you in whatever way they want you. They will twist the things, they will compile evidence, to support their story, no matter what. They own you the moment you sign that line.

***
Caller: I was just wondering about, there was a man on flight 93 in Pennsylvania, and he was talking to his wife –

Rowe: That's not true, ma'am. You're referring to Todd Beamer. Todd Beamer never talked to his wife. In fact, he only talked to a Verizon operator for what, 19 minutes, Dylan?

Avery: Yeah. [Wrong. It was 13 minutes.]

Rowe: And she actually offered to patch him through to his wife, and he didn't really want to talk to his wife, 'cause, I guess it wasn't all that important.
Your facts about the events of 9/11 against mine, Mr. Rowe. Agreed?

Sincerely,
Kram Strebor, vertebrate, planet Earth.
(Code name used for security reasons)

Darth Rotor
11th August 2006, 04:14 PM
You beat me to it! Everyone should at least look at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf , though, which finally shows the flight path of Flight 77. And it's interesting...
Wow, thanks.

The plot confirms the right turn, and my belief that they flew it down by hand. Not sure how much faster than 460 knots a 757 can go at Sea Level-1000 feet MSL.

A look at the Jepson charts of the Standard arrivals to Reagan, as well as various instrument approach procedures, and see if any of them match that flight path. My hunch is that none of them do.

With the hijackers having turned off the IFF, they probably weren't all that worried at pretending to be masquerading as a plane going into Reagan. Inside inside the TCA (about 50 NM around DC) they'd have to be talking to approach/center and be squawking to carry on any masquerade of "innocent flight." For some miles before impact, their blip would be a contact (typically classified as "VFR, not squawking, altitude unkown" by a controller) if the radar contact was being tracked.

At 7,000 feet, they should have been showing up on ATC's scopes.

Not sure what reported visibility was that day. Was it CAVU? If it was hazy, he might have had some trouble picking out the pentagon visually, then once having acquired the target, his four mile straight in was a bit short, but his stick and rudder skills sufficed to aim the plane accurately enough to hit his target.

DR

EDIT: At 400- 460 knots(he accelerated) a 3-4 NM final from 2000' to about 100' above sea level. (Reagan is at 15' above sea level, Pentagon a bit higher up IIRC.) So, at roughly 7 miles a minute, go 4 nm and descend 1900 feet, you need to descend between 3000 and 4000 fpm. At that airspeed, nose down, and with a descent already begun, very doable.

Darth Rotor
11th August 2006, 04:21 PM
Rowe: Absolutely. In the military you sign away your rights. I mean, if you break your arm, you get arrested for destruction of government property, and you get fined.

That lying sack of feces. If you inflict a "self inflicted wound" on your own person, you can be charged, and fined, at an Article 15 proceeding or a court martial. If you break your arm in the line of duty, you are treated, not fined, not arrested.

What an embarassment to the word "veteran." If you meet him is there a chance you can punch him in his lying mouth, or would that prejudice your position? On second thought, I guess you probably shouldn't go into the mud and wrestle with the pig. :cool:

DR

Abbyas
11th August 2006, 04:42 PM
You disgust me Mark Roberts, you spineless worm. Go for it man, attack my military record, have a blast. Where's yours ********, and what’s your REAL NAME?

Does anyone besides me think it's hilarious that Loose Change Enemy #1 is not Bush or Cheney but our very own Gravy?

With all the attention these guys are giving their debunkers, I think that the Maddox piece, his linking to Gravy's Viewers Guide and Maddox's minions are really, really getting to them.

MarkyX
11th August 2006, 04:43 PM
Damnit, I want a **** you from Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe.

Darth Rotor
11th August 2006, 04:44 PM
Does anyone besides me think it's hilarious that Loose Change Enemy #1 is not Bush or Cheney but our very own Gravy?

With all the attention these guys are giving their debunkers, I think that the Maddox piece, his linking to Gravy's Viewers Guide and Maddox's minions are really, really getting to them.
T-Shirt Idea

"Dylan Avery Cooked in Gravy!"

There have to be better ones.

Here's one:
"Loose Change"
*Pic of three morons in a bowl of gravy in the act of drowning*
"Drowned in Gravy"

DR

Gravy
11th August 2006, 04:46 PM
While we're on the subject of Mr. Rowe, let's not forget this post on Screw Loose Change: Korey Rowe Supports Threatening Lawyers, Exaggerates War Record. (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/korey-rowe-supports-threatening.html)
It's quite a read.

Your response, Mr. Rowe? Feel free to sign up here. Unlike on your forum, you won't be banned here for disagreeing.

"Camp Freedom," indeed.

Gravy
11th August 2006, 04:48 PM
Damnit, I want a **** you from Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe.
Oh, I bet they'd hate you even more than me if they thought we weren't the same person.

Gravy
11th August 2006, 04:52 PM
Does anyone besides me think it's hilarious that Loose Change Enemy #1 is not Bush or Cheney but our very own Gravy?

With all the attention these guys are giving their debunkers, I think that the Maddox piece, his linking to Gravy's Viewers Guide and Maddox's minions are really, really getting to them.
Wow – the Maddox page (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons) has had 621,802 hits since July 27.

MarkyX
11th August 2006, 04:55 PM
Oh, I bet they'd hate you even more than me if they thought we weren't the same person.

Maybe if I flip them off, like Bush did in front of the camera in the same exact pose..

That way, they will not only know I am a different person, but I am Bush's bastard son.

The conspriacy would be so filled with awesomeness, that all the 9/11 Denier's head would explode at the exact same time and voila, no more Truth Movement.

Darth Rotor
11th August 2006, 05:00 PM
While we're on the subject of Mr. Rowe, let's not forget this post on Screw Loose Change: Korey Rowe Supports Threatening Lawyers, Exaggerates War Record. (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/korey-rowe-supports-threatening.html)
It's quite a read.

Your response, Mr. Rowe? Feel free to sign up here. Unlike on your forum, you won't be banned here for disagreeing.

"Camp Freedom," indeed.
From:
http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2002/07/23/afghan.html
Tom Rowe said he didn't know how to feel when he heard about the Sept. 11 attacks, knowing his son had just joined the army. "Since 9/11, when we were invaded, Korey's mom and myself had mixed feelings," he said. "But after talking to Korey for a while, and realizing that Korey was 100 percent behind what he was doing, it was a little better."

The biggest change in his son, Rowe said, has been mentally.

"He has matured immensely," he said. "Six months in Afghanistan has shown him how some people in other parts of the world live."

Korey Rowe agrees.

"The military is probably the best thing I have ever done for myself," he said.

Mr Rowe has perhaps reverted to his pre, not yet matured form, since his participation with Loose Change.

However . . . not a few returning soldiers experience a let down, emotionally, after returning from the intense environment that being in a war zone presents. I suspect he is looking for something as all consuming as that was, and has found it in Loose Change.

Gravy: In the next two years, don't be surprised if you meet a lot of military folks who are wary of, or even bitter about, the political shennanigans that got the US into the Iraq war. The opening rounds were the retired generals breaking Omerta.

I predict you will see quite a bit more in the next two years. You will also start to see acting out in reaction to "the stab in the back." We are just now seeing the tip of the ice berg. I chose those words explicitly, as I have seen them a number of different places. It puts a chill down my spine.

DR

Gravy
11th August 2006, 05:12 PM
DR, That news story is about Rowe's tour in Afghanistan, but it's his tour in Iraq that got him steamed.

Obviousman
11th August 2006, 05:32 PM
A point that should be clarified is when people start talking about "flying" the aircraft, and how difficult it is.

You might be confused; we have professional pilots saying it was easy to fly the aircraft into the Pentagon / WTC, but we have professional pilots talking about the high degree of skill needed to operate the aircraft.

I have purposely used two words there - "fly" the aircraft, and "operate" the aircraft.

Any but the most ham-fisted of people can fly an aircraft (of most varieties) with only the most basic of training. Operating the aircraft safely within design limits, dealing with systems failures or emergencies, negotiating bad weather - that takes a great deal of skill and years of training (because you never stop learning).

I remember a section from a great book called F-4 PHANTOM: A PILOTS STORY by Robert Prest. He was an RAF Phantom pilot. He talks about how he could easily & quickly teach his mother to fly an F-4. A little more time and she could takeoff and land one. Maybe even some basic aeros. He then talks about how she wouldn't be able to handle the emergencies, employ the aircraft as a weapon system, etc. That was why not everyone can become a pilot.

I just thought that distinction should be made.

"The superior pilot employs their superior knowledge to avoid situations where they may be called upon to use their superior skills."

Brainster
11th August 2006, 06:26 PM
I would ask someone to post this on LC, but no doubt banishment would quickly follow. I'll email Mr. Rowe.

Rowe's always been something of the quiet one among the three; it's interesting that he wants to debate you. Definitely choose one on one rather than three on one; they can dominate the time without seeming unfair and one can be reloading while the other's taking shots at you. Also insist on some sort of agreement on visual aids--photos/video etc. Will there be an audience? I certainly recommend against that as Looser than Words can probably summon a decent crowd. Also insist on neutral cameraman, as I suspect the NYU prof can arrange.

Hit him where he's weak--passengers, planes and cellphone/Airfone calls, for starters. Don't let him dodge the issue; Rowe does not seem sophisticated enough to elude these issues if you hammer on them, but expect him to try a quick diversion or two. Remember how Fetzer tried to talk about the hijackers every time the passengers came up?

Anticipate his (or the moderator's) questions and work out the bullet points you want to cover. Almost certainly there will be a question to both of you about how you got started doing this. Work in some humor right here if you can. If you can hit one little joke about yourself and then one about Loose Change, you'll be off to the races. Abby may be able to help you in this regard.

Avoid getting emotional towards the other debater; this almost always backfires. Treat it as an intellectual exercise, and forget about the person you're debating. That's not to say you can't express outrage, but direct it at the words and ideas, not the person. Talk at a normal pace; the usual response of somebody being on camera, stage or the radio is to try to speed it up. But also avoid pauses at the end of sentences if you have more to say, because a smart opposing debater will use that opportunity to get in a response.

Don't let him get you on side paths, like the Iraq War. Whether you agree with him or not on that issue, push it off the table and remind him that you are there to discuss 9-11 and not the aftermath. You hit the exact right note on Korey's military service, but don't let him bully you with it like he tries to in that post.

Visuals--avoid moving while you are talking; see Sander Hicks in the Smorgasbord video for a good example of why this is a bad idea. Korey will probably show up in one of those "Investigate 9-11" tee shirts, so it shouldn't be hard to outdress him.

Consider holding a mock debate beforehand to get comfortable. Filming that would be great, so you can critique your own performance afterward.

I apologize if this is all obvious stuff, but it was actually something I wanted to put down anyway for others who might be interested in doing media appearances. James and I may have some overflow here in the next month and I don't mind sharing some opportunities.

Brainster
11th August 2006, 06:53 PM
That lying sack of feces. If you inflict a "self inflicted wound" on your own person, you can be charged, and fined, at an Article 15 proceeding or a court martial. If you break your arm in the line of duty, you are treated, not fined, not arrested.

My dad used to love to tell about the time he got badly sunburnt on the beach on a day off and his CO threatened to charge him with destruction of government property. :D

But obviously there's a big difference between that and a combat injury.

MarkyX
11th August 2006, 06:56 PM
Need a quickie.

Where can I find the law, in black and white on a government site, stating that the owners of the evidence (such as Pentagon tapes) have the authority to release them and not the FBI?

Gravy
11th August 2006, 06:58 PM
Rowe's always been something of the quiet one among the three; it's interesting that he wants to debate you.
All good points, Brainster. Just to be clear, in his blog post he didn't specifically challenge me to a debate, he challenged "critics." As a critic, I accept his challenge. His comments about me were in the next paragraph.

Brainster
11th August 2006, 07:07 PM
Need a quickie.

Where can I find the law, in black and white on a government site, stating that the owners of the evidence (such as Pentagon tapes) have the authority to release them and not the FBI?

Point them to the legal history of the Zapruder film. I believe that case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

mrfreeze
11th August 2006, 07:08 PM
Here's hoping this actually happens.

T.A.M.
11th August 2006, 07:12 PM
If you want to see the person every one should emulate when it comes to debating, check out the "Hardfire" Ron Weick Videos on 9/11. Man that guy is so calm when he debates, it is scary. Emulate him, with your knowledge base and facts on 9/11, and the LC crew will be peeing in their pants.

Gravy
11th August 2006, 07:13 PM
Need a quickie.

Where can I find the law, in black and white on a government site, stating that the owners of the evidence (such as Pentagon tapes) have the authority to release them and not the FBI?
I'd be surprised if it's easy to find on a government site. I don't think it's a question that the public asks often. A distinction: when private property is used as evidence in a trial, it becomes a matter of public record, although the property itself remains the owner's, unless they've signed over the rights.

T.A.M.
11th August 2006, 07:14 PM
Oh ya, and when they fall back on the "We are only asking questions", DONT LET THEM AWAY WITH IT!! That drives me. That film (LC) is so far from "just asking questions" that is a cop out that should not be left unaddressed.

Brainster
11th August 2006, 07:20 PM
All good points, Brainster. Just to be clear, in his blog post he didn't specifically challenge me to a debate, he challenged "critics." As a critic, I accept his challenge. His comments about me were in the next paragraph.

Actually I had been more thinking about why him. You, me, JamesB or Markyx are obvious people to challenge, depending on how confident they are. But they've pretty consistently put Dylan or Jason out front in challenging situations. I've listened to a ridiculous amount of stuff from the Loosers and can't recall him being in the forefront of an interview where he wasn't alone.

Is this just a little Friday night machismo on his part?

Brainster
11th August 2006, 07:25 PM
If you want to see the person every one should emulate when it comes to debating, check out the "Hardfire" Ron Weick Videos on 9/11. Man that guy is so calm when he debates, it is scary. Emulate him, with your knowledge base and facts on 9/11, and the LC crew will be peeing in their pants.

I don't think there's any doubt that the interview with Les Whatshisname was one of the alltime great moments in 9-11 Denial Debunking. Kudos again to Ron, Gravy, and Mike!

MarkyX
11th August 2006, 07:26 PM
Point them to the legal history of the Zapruder film. I believe that case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Hm I'm reading through, not giving much info. I need something hard that will say upfront that the FBI cannot release tapes without owner's permission

MarkyX
11th August 2006, 07:28 PM
Actually I had been more thinking about why him. You, me, JamesB or Markyx are obvious people to challenge, depending on how confident they are. But they've pretty consistently put Dylan or Jason out front in challenging situations. I've listened to a ridiculous amount of stuff from the Loosers and can't recall him being in the forefront of an interview where he wasn't alone.

Is this just a little Friday night machismo on his part?

I'm the last person to be debating.

Let's say I would put Korey's military training to the test if he says something very stupid (ex: Hijackers being alive) :eek:

I've encountered a few morons today at the theatres and just wish that an ACME safe will fall on them.

MarkyX = One angry bastard

Gravy
11th August 2006, 07:37 PM
That reminds me: for those who expressed a desire to help deal with Les and his Ground Zeros tomorrow, they set up near the big awning to the PATH station, Fulton & Church Sts. I'll be there at around 12:30. Les is supplying the beer.

Abbyas
11th August 2006, 07:38 PM
I'll be there at around 12:30. Les is supplying the beer.

A dollar says the man hasn't even changed his pamphlets.

JamesB
11th August 2006, 07:41 PM
I would ask someone to post this on LC, but no doubt banishment would quickly follow. I'll email Mr. Rowe.

A message from Korey Rowe, (http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/) producer of Loose Change


I suggest a moderated debate in a neutral location in New York City, since you'll be visiting shortly. Your 9/11 facts against mine. The only stipulation I have is that we both agree that the videotape must be unedited for distribution via Google Video, YouTube, etc.

By the way, a professor of visual arts in NYC has apparently been trying to set up such a meeting between me and the three of you, which I agreed to long ago. What's the holdup?

I also offered to sit down with the three of you on a non-adversarial basis and show in detail how your facts are wrong and your methods are flawed. I received no reply.


Let's suppose you're right and my Loose Change Viewer Guide contains no facts. How about my compilation Loose Change Creators Speak? Are you going to claim that voice-morphing technology was used to fake all those interviews I transcribed? Remember, those interviews are promoted on your website.

As for getting facts correct, I never attacked your military record. I thank you for your service to our country. I did recently comment that military service seemed to have made you decisive but not wise, as evidenced by your statement in this week's Albany Times-Union: (http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=506008)


So, facts that contradict your beliefs won't change your mind? You've adopted a religion, not a cause.
Want some more? How about these quotes from an April 15 interview on Air America Phoenix?


Your facts about the events of 9/11 against mine, Mr. Rowe. Agreed?

Sincerely,
Kram Strebor, vertebrate, planet Earth.
(Code name used for security reasons)

I think I have read everything you have posted publicly, and I don't recall you attacking his military service. I have probably brought it up more than anyone has, but since I wear a patch on my right shoulder too, I think I have the right to bring up when he is exaggerating his service.

Somehow I doubt they would ever agree to a debate in a fair arena, but you never know.

Gravy
11th August 2006, 07:43 PM
A dollar says the man hasn't even changed his pamphlets.
I woldn't expect him to do that now. He's printed thousands of them. And if he changes one thing, he should correct everything, in which case the pamphlet would be the size of a postage stamp. As a visual aid I've taken his pamphlet and highlighted everything that's false or misleading. It's quite colorful.

Dog Town
11th August 2006, 07:47 PM
MarkyX, or any of ya come to Venice or LA, I've got your back. Lots of friends here. Sorry I missed the C-Span Debacle in my own town! Newbie!

defaultdotxbe
11th August 2006, 08:01 PM
I woldn't expect him to do that now. He's printed thousands of them. And if he changes one thing, he should correct everything, in which case the pamphlet would be the size of a postage stamp. As a visual aid I've taken his pamphlet and highlighted everything that's false or misleading. It's quite colorful.
you shoudl post a PDF of that

Earl The Tall
11th August 2006, 08:10 PM
...What do you say to your Critics?
I say debate me on camera! Not Jason, not Dylan, me.

Hm that sounds like a set-up to me. Though Gravey your response was brillant and covered a lot of bases to try and make it a fair debate. It will not happen under those terms. He wants it to be more like the extra footage on MarkyX's wonderful 9-11 deniers speak video, in the street with 'their' camera surronded by supporters. You will be shouted down no matter how much you are right, or how many facts on your side.

I would love to see a fair debate, but my pessimistic side tells me it will never happen.

JamesB
11th August 2006, 08:16 PM
Hm that sounds like a set-up to me. Though Gravey your response was brillant and covered a lot of bases to try and make it a fair debate. It will not happen under those terms. He wants it to be more like the extra footage on MarkyX's wonderful 9-11 deniers speak video, in the street with 'their' camera surronded by supporters. You will be shouted down no matter how much you are right, or how many facts on your side.

I would love to see a fair debate, but my pessimistic side tells me it will never happen.

With Jason Bermas standing beside him yelling "I don't know anyone here. I am just interested in the truth!"

Kent1
11th August 2006, 08:43 PM
With Jason Bermas standing beside him yelling "I don't know anyone here. I am just interested in the truth!"

Why am I not shocked....

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9586&st=0

Do You Support Israel's Right To Exist?, or should they pack up thei tents and go

Do you support Israel's right to exist?
Yes [ 16 ] [28.07%]
No [ 41 ] [71.93%]

MarkyX
11th August 2006, 08:44 PM
Hm that sounds like a set-up to me. Though Gravey your response was brillant and covered a lot of bases to try and make it a fair debate. It will not happen under those terms. He wants it to be more like the extra footage on MarkyX's wonderful 9-11 deniers speak video, in the street with 'their' camera surronded by supporters. You will be shouted down no matter how much you are right, or how many facts on your side.

I would love to see a fair debate, but my pessimistic side tells me it will never happen.

Yep, the thought crossed my mind.

You need to remember that Deniers attack in packs. When going alone, they get teared up (see Exhibit Les), but together, they are a force too annoying to ignore.

But...if it's a neutral area like the cable access debate that Les was in, then I don't see the problem. However, knowing Korey, he will refuse.

Just look at the 9/11 Deniers Speak how Korey reacts to a freaking witness of the WTC7. This guy is not interested in facts or debate.

MarkyX
11th August 2006, 08:45 PM
Why am I not shocked....

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9586&st=0

Do You Support Israel's Right To Exist?, or should they pack up thei tents and go

Do you support Israel's right to exist?
Yes [ 16 ] [28.07%]
No [ 41 ] [71.93%]

What do you expect from a movement backed up by neo-nazis?

Kent1
11th August 2006, 08:52 PM
Another myth I'd like to end. I see Merc doesn't understand how building 7 was structured. Its supposed to be blue at the top.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9496&st=60
See the corners...
http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~raives/images/wtc7_tall2.jpg
Or here for a close up
http://www.spesh.com/mirrors/wtc2/IMG_1499.JPG

Im shocked how many think that FEMA photo is fake beacuse of the blue.
Again very poor research.

WildCat
11th August 2006, 09:15 PM
Im shocked how many think that FEMA photo is fake beacuse of the blue.
Again very poor research.
It is impossible to overestimate the stupidity of the loosers.

T.A.M.
11th August 2006, 09:38 PM
Let me see...9/11 coming up...war in Iraq...Korey serviced in Iraq...mentions you dissing his service...

I get the impression they wanna set you up to argue over terrorist and the war with a former serviceman. Becareful not to mock him or engage in any belittling or name calling. Apart from that, he does seem like the quietest of the three, though quiet doesn't mean ignorance or stupidity by a long shot.

I agree with the others. No audience, just you, Korey, A moderator, and Audio/Visual equipment + operator.

Kent1
11th August 2006, 09:39 PM
It is impossible to overestimate the stupidity of the loosers.

That same corner spawns lots of myths. The squibs is another...scroll to the bottom and compare the Northwest video screen shot and the damage photo or the original video.
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm
Of cource Mike also has a great page on this stupid myth that Steven Jones continues to push.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html

Gravy
11th August 2006, 09:39 PM
I would love to see a fair debate, but my pessimistic side tells me it will never happen.
I agree. They have nothing to gain by participating in a moderated debate, but if they're dumb enough to suggest it, I'm game.

Rowe hasn't replied to my email, but I was surprised to see an email from Steven E. Jones in my inbox (he hasn't replied to my emails in the past).

Turns out his email wasn't for me directly. I was on the "send to" list along with Fetzer and a couple of others. He was replying to someone else's email, which referenced Jones saying that the definition of entropy is "things topple over." He was angry at the person who mentioned that, and demanded a cite for it. I was happy to help out by immediately providing the cite, which was from my very first 9/11 debunking effort, in April.

At 12:54 in this video of Dr. Jones' lecture at UVSC: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

"Not what I would expect from the law of entropy, which is, 'things topple over.' "

The quote is about WTC 7.

Kent1
11th August 2006, 09:45 PM
I agree. They have nothing to gain by participating in a moderated debate, but if they're dumb enough to suggest it, I'm game.

Rowe hasn't replied to my email, but I was surprised to see an email from Steven E. Jones in my inbox (he hasn't replied to my emails in the past).

Turns out his email wasn't for me directly. I was on the "send to" list along with Fetzer and a couple of others. He was replying to someone else's email, which referenced Jones saying that the definition of entropy is "things topple over." He was angry at the person who mentioned that, and demanded a cite for it. I was happy to help out by immediately providing the cite, which was from my very first 9/11 debunking effort, in April.

At 12:54 in this video of Dr. Jones' lecture at UVSC: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

"Not what I would expect from the law of entropy, which is, 'things topple over.' "

The quote is about WTC 7.

Could you by chance post that e-mail?

Nice strawman by those fire photos at around 11 min on that video BTW. This is classic Jones!

Gravy
11th August 2006, 09:46 PM
Let me see...9/11 coming up...war in Iraq...Korey serviced in Iraq...mentions you dissing his service...

Just to be clear, he didn't say I dissed his military record, he challenged me to do so. I have no idea why. I've never done so before, and I have great respect for people's military service. My best guess? He was serving under General Budweiser today.

Gravy
11th August 2006, 09:52 PM
Could you by chance post that e-mail?

There was content from more than one person in the email, and I don't want to step on any toes by printing it. I will say that the quote was used in a paper titled "The Devil in Doctor Jones," which apparently was submitted to the Scholars for publication. :D

Kent1
11th August 2006, 09:55 PM
There was content from more than one person in the email, and I don't want to step on any toes by printing it. I will say that the quote was used in a paper titled "The Devil in Doctor Jones," which apparently was submitted to the Scholars for publication. :D
LOL! You can have the person send it here also if they want to...
http://www.jod911.com/
:D

Obviousman
11th August 2006, 10:03 PM
Jack White (infamous for his dubious JFK, Apollo, and now 9/11 work) is now starting up on WTC 6. Claims it fell before WTC 1 or 2 did.

As usual, he "discovered evidence of fakery" in the images. Just like he did for every other screwball CT he has signed up to.

Wonder what he thinks of David Icke?:D

Gravy
11th August 2006, 10:17 PM
Jack White (infamous for his dubious JFK, Apollo, and now 9/11 work) is now starting up on WTC 6. Claims it fell before WTC 1 or 2 did.
:jaw-dropp

Speaking of crazies, Korey Rowe linked to a new post by Holocaust/Apollo/9/11 denier Eric Hufschmid, which contains a truly hilarious extended analogy about the quality of Dylan Avery's work compared to his. http://www.erichufschmid.net/If-I-were-a-Carpenter.html

(Note to newcomers: Hufschmid does not make tables.)