Loose Change - Part IV

[JamesB]

Damn, you got me beat for titles, but I did submit my response to Legge's paper, a slightly older version found here:

http://www.jod911.com/The_PNAC_and_Other_Myths.pdf

Along with the following inquiry to Jones and Ryan. I'll let you all know if I get a response.

I wrote this paper over a month ago in response to Mr. Legge’s paper “9/11 – Evidence Suggest Complicity: Inferences from Action” but did not consider it for submission in your journal because I assumed I would need PhD level credentials in order to do so. Now that I see in your newest edition, that this is not required, I would like to have it considered for review and submission.

Additionally, since this journal is unconventional by most academic standards, I was wondering if you could fill me in on your peer review process. How many, and what types of authorities would be reviewing papers of these types, and from where would they be obtained? What steps are taken to ensure the academic rigor and accuracy of these papers? Also I am curious as to how this process pertains to the more technical areas touching on areas of structural engineering and the use of demolitions in regards to the World Trade Center towers, since the Scholars for 9/11 Truth appear to have a shortage of experts qualified in those fields.

Thank you for your time, let me know if you have any questions.

[gumboot]

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.

That's basically my claim. :)



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


Bear in mind the pilots' mission was in two parts; locate target, and hit target. I believe the size of the target makes differences between aircraft almost negligable - I'd argue most people with a little flying experience could hit the Pentagon flying almost ANY aircraft (okay, putting aside a few extreme cases, like a space shuttle :p)

It's the first bit - the getting to target, where I feel a modern airliner is much easier.



The 3 carriers you mention are not capital ships but escort carriers, all 3 of them were converted merchant ships.

All three were Casablanca Class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_class_carrier) Escort Carriers...

They were designed from scratch as carriers, were the largest of their type, and were seldom used in escort duties; being used for fleet duties instead. At Leyte Gulf, for example, the 7th Fleet force of escort carriers managed to turn back Kurita's force after Halsey fell for the bait of Ozawa's diversion force and went north.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_class_carrier
Four months seems the longest period any ship was inactive.[/QUOTE]

Considering that after Coral Sea Yorktown was repaired and ready to fight after 3 days at Pearl, 4 months is a very long time.

-Andrew

[Regnad Kcin]

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.My response above was very much a result of your words. That I did not take the time to detail every flaw in your post meant they were, to me, sufficiently self-evident.

You disregarded what followed that statement.What followed your statement was what you say led you to your conclusion. I certainly did regard it, for the moment it required, but considering you presented nothing but wild conjecture, there was little need to pick it apart. I can if you like.

I presented the proof.You and I must have different definitions of the term, then.

The logic goes like this: The attackers went out of their way to do the least possible damage to the Pentagon...You don't know that. You present no supporting evidence whatsoever.

...at a virtual certain risk of complete failure to the mission.You don't know that. Yours is a complete guess, backed up by no supporting evidence whatsoever.

They would not have attacked the Pentagon that way, if the attackers were terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon.Tell me, aside from not presenting any evidence of what the terrorists wanted to do, how is it you know how they "would not have attacked?" In answering, please refrain from guesswork.

Therefore, they were not terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon.Considering your conclusion is a result of flawed reasoning and empty of supporting evidence, it can be dismissed out of hand.

I'm frankly astounded that you choose to propose, much less maintain, such a scenario, especially when the conventional wisdom as to what happened at the Pentagon is so rich with supporting material. Also, there is Occam's Razor to reflect on.

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.Forsooth!

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?Let's set aside the fact the "secret cabal in Afghanistan" is not at all secret, but your "secretive cabal in the US" is unidentified, any "inside job" would require, at a minimum: Two instigators at a sufficiently high level with the desire and ability to conceive and develop a master plan One thoroughly trustworthy underling who would be instructed by the instigator/overseers to research all aspects of the plan. This to include, but not be limited to:
-Human resource recruitment
-Materials procurement for multiple methods and sites
-Method(s) for masking any and all physical evidence in case of discovery Transportation of people and materials (including housing and temporary storage) Installation of materials and equipment at each site Secure communications from point of inception through culmination of the event(s) Security "Official" cover story creation, with all aspects of back story, including 19 "terrorist" biographies and their recent histories, etc. all put in place within the relevant departments of the CIA and FBI Post-event clean-up Contingency plans for each aspect of the plan at each site Ongoing (to present day and beyond) cover-up Sufficient funds to pay for all materials as well as all manpower (including ongoing hush-money) Personnel (unknown number) technically qualified and able to install all manner of hardware and systems for each aspect of the plan. This to include, but not be limited to:
-WTC explosives, wiring, and detonators (the requisite amount and methods necessitating sufficient time and real-time secrecy)
-Remote-control systems for four jet aircraft
-Real-time "voice morphing" equipment and personnel for use during faked hijacking (not to mention advance script-writing for several not-yet-known passengers) (not to mention advance research on who each of those passengers might call in an emergency, along with their phone numbers)And on and on. Such a thing would be, as I said, one of the most complex undertakings of its kind in the history of man. Compare it to: A small number of enemies of the state with a demonstrated desire and willingness to engage in terrorist activity Access to the open borders of a free society The recruitment of 19 or 20 soldiers, only a few under the direction of the above enemies The procurement of 19 or 20 passports Sufficient funds to support the 19 or 20 with rent, food, tuition, transportation, and miscellaneous small expenses during their limited time in the U.S. Basic flight training for a handful of the men Limited need for communications once the plan is first initiated Use of the element of surprise during the operation in order to take control Simple, easy-to-conceal, though dangerous hand weapons to be used against unarmed opponents in close-quarters Use of intimidation and fakery during the operation as well as the suggestion that cooperation will result in a safe outcome Extreme ease of crashing each airplane into some portion of a heavily-populated area (at the very least), thereby achieving a result of terror Somewhat more difficult task of crashing each airplane into some significant landmark, also achieving a measure of terror No need for subsequent secrecyAny questions?

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."It's unfortunate that you feel put upon. Nevertheless, guesswork, conjecture, supposition, imaginings, and especially questions are not evidence, nor do they proof make.

Also, like it or not, if you are proposing a conspiracy theory then you're a conspiracy theorist.

The persistant tendency of the press to minimize coverage of things that damage the Bush Administration is another factor.Never mind the wild generalization of your statement, it's entirely beside the point.

Welcome to the forum.Sarcasm noted.As I mentioned earlier, there was no sarcasm. When I originally responded to you, you had posted four times. I routinely greet people I encounter for the first time when I see they have less than 20 posts.

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.I hope I've sufficiently detailed why nothing you've presented is evidence of anything apart from a modest ability to write fiction. No offense.

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.Others have pointed out your errors with regard to those two points.

Maybe you were unaware that less than 200 persons were killed in the Pentagon attack, instead of thousands.So?

And please don't suggest something along the lines of it somehow proving that a large team of U.S. citizens, going to work each day, for months, on a project that would indiscriminately and without warning slaughter thousands of their fellows, decided at some point their consciences wouldn't allow them to do a bit more killing. Or something.

Please read what I write, and respond rationally to what I actually say.I've given your posts every consideration. You've not been flamed or ridiculed. However, your words will stand or fall on their own. If they don't, you might consider it indicative of their strength.

The JREF is a place that encourages critical thinking on all matter of topics. There's plenty of enjoyment to be had here. Again, welcome. But, I hope you'll understand, as has been said here (and elsewhere) many times, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

[gumboot]

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.)


Nonsense. It is not evidence unless you can prove they specifically intended to hit that exact spot.




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.


He was aiming at a wall 24m high. Put it this way, let's look at the last 5 seconds of the flight, in which he would have covered about 1km of distance.

At 5 seconds (1000m) out his angle of error for a hit on the Pentagon was 1.375 degrees
At 4 seconds (800m) it was 1.719 degrees
At 3 seconds (600m) it was 2.292 degrees
At 2 seconds (400m) it was 3.438 degrees
At 1 second (200m) it was 6.880 degrees

As you can see, the margin of error increases significantly the closer he gets to the target. He had a commercial pilots license. To think someone who is commercial qualified cannot keep an aircraft straight and level is ridiculous.



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

That's not a "version". That's a statement. You have to state HOW they did it. If I say "Al Qaeda did it" or "terrorists did it" both of these have less letters than "The government did it". Does that make them simplier?



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.

And herein lies your problem. The only people in government employ who are willing to sacrifice their lives for "the cause" are the most loyal of patriots. These are the sort of people who are dying in Afghanistan and Iraq. These are the people who died on the beaches of Normandy, in the jungles of Iwo Jima, and in the mud of the Western Front.

You insult the sacrifice of these people when you suggest some of their number for sacrifice their lives in an effort to slaughter the citizens they have sworn to protect.

Anyone corrupt enough to murder their own citizens would not be loyal enough to give their life in the process.



1) Al Qaeda paralyzed our air security.

They did not.


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

While this isn't necessarily true, it may surprise you to know Al Qaeda had a mole in the CIA for most of the 90's. They are a very sophisticated, intelligent, and well resourced enemy.



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.

Here you're full of nonsense. The 9/11 commission was not an investigation into the attacks. These were (and still are) carried out by specialist agencies - for example the FBI is in charge of the criminal investigation while FEMA investigated the Ground Zero site and NIST assessed the actual mechanics of the building collapses.

The 9/11 commission was specifically tasked with providing answers to the families of victims regarding how the attack happened and what the government did in response.

It is understandable (though unacceptable) that the government were reluctant to allow such a study.



Religious zealots who enjoyed lap-dancing and drinking and other non-Islamic activities. Religious zealots who visited and participated in Las Vegas.

Yes.



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.

As far as I am aware western intelligence agencies have always found it incredibly difficult to penetrate such organisations - hence their reliance on "informers", and hence their vunerability to being played by double agents (which has happened repeatedly).



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

Indeed? So the people that were killed there... they were all construction workers were they?

List of victims at The Pentagon by Service (http://www.sadnews.net/CTZ/0Mem/20010911/Pentagon-2001.htm)

Funny construction crew... what have we got here...

7 Lieutenant Colonels
5 Majors
1 Sergeant First Class
2 Sergeant Majors
1 Lieutenant General
3 Captains
1 Sergeant
1 Staff Sergeant
1 Specialist
4 Lieutenants
5 Commanders
5 Lieutenant Commanders

-Andrew

[Kent1]

A small remark. See:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlAluminumGlows_1Mar06.html

Don't make the same mistake as Judy Wood.
The bottom photos are NOT aluminum.
http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks3/chcup/index.html

I spoke to the author about the so called thermite:
"Aluminum has nearly the same specific gravity 2.7 as a lot of things including sand 2.65 (glass) I am sure that there was all kinds of trash in it. Aluminum oxidizes badly in the presence of water or oil. I am sure that it was full of oxides that were probably glowing."

Stephen (the books author) had much to say about the scholars.
.....And lets just say he wasn't very happy with them.

From what I hear this molten metal debate will be in LC3 (The Final Gasp)
Be on the look out for this debate to keep coming back.:D

[chacal]

From what I hear this molten metal debate will be in LC3 (The Final Gasp)

I hear the conclusion will be saved for LC4 (Attack of the Space Lizards)

[60hzxtl]

I hear the conclusion will be saved for LC4 (Attack of the Space Lizards)


Working title:

Son of Loose Change.

[sleahead]

Kent, what is Judy Wood's line of thinking here? Aluminum glows and so .....?

[kookbreaker]

Working title:

Son of Loose Change.

Spare Any Change? -The Decline and Fall of Dylan's Cult.

[gordon ross]

My mistake - please ignore this post.

[gordon ross]

[QUOTE=brumsen;1833408]Apparently the issue is not all that clear. Gordon Ross denies


The issue is perfectly clear.
Dr. Greening is wrong.
You are wrong.

I am appalled that Dr. Greening should suggest or imply that I have acted improperly in any way. The last e-mail which I sent to Dr. Greening was a copy of an e-mail which I sent to Professor Jones. Etiquette dictated that because Dr. Greening's name was mentioned and his report was under discussion, a copy of the correspondence should be forwarded to him. This e-mail is included below, and I would draw your attention to the following passages.
I commented to Professor Jones, "Thank you for the chance to look over this article which has been offered for publication." Does this sound as though I have been asked to take part in a peer review process or does it sound as though I have been given a chance to view an article which was offered in response to my article?
I added, "I would suggest that the author be given a chance to address and review the points I have made." Why would I need to suggest that Dr. Greening should see my comments if I was already taking part in the peer review process?
"It falls into two parts..." This shows that the article under discussion was not in fact Dr. Greening's submission which contained four parts, but was an earlier draft with only two parts.
"The second [part] is a more worthwhile piece of work "
"Furthermore, it follows the logic which we intuitively know"
"I see no reason why a revised edition should meet with opposition to publication. "
".... credit for this new advance and understanding of the mechanisms of the collision should rightly lie with Dr. Greening. "
"I would not wish to pre-empt even his work so far. "
Do these comments give anyone the impression that I was involved in anything underhand or deceitful, or unprofessional?
Does not the very fact that I voluntarily forwarded this e-mail to Dr. Greening suggest that I was being entirely open and honest?
Dr. Greening's reply to my e-mail, the last piece of correspondence which we exchanged, contained his words, "I will refrain from further technical comment otherwise we may get into a protracted debate that would stall the dissemination of my work. I would prefer to see our articles presented "side-by-side" in the Journal of 9-11 Studies and let the scientific community at large reflect on our views."
Both of these wishes were granted; there was no further debate between Dr. Greening and I, and the articles were presented side by side in the Journal, by the editors. I have no power to dictate what appears in the journal and what does not appear. I have never taken part, or even been asked to take part in a peer review of Dr. Greening's work, or anyone else's work, neither for the Journal nor for anyone else.
Why does he wait till now to cry "foul"?
I would suggest that the scientific community or anyone who has a mind to can indeed reflect on our views, by reading the articles concerned, and come to their own conclusions, both on the scientific merits of the analysis, and now also on the reasons and motives behind this sad sideshow.
journalof911studies.com

Gordon Ross.

Copy of my e-mail to Professor Jones, copied to Dr. Greening.

Steven,
Thank you for the chance to look over this article which has been offered for publication. I've given you my first thoughts below and may add something over the next few days.
It falls into two parts, the first on Kinetic Energy is a simple misunderstanding and can be easily rectified, if not removed altogether. The second is a more worthwhile piece of work and removes some of the doubt surrounding the pulverisation of the concrete, in particular the size and amount of debris. Furthermore, it follows the logic which we intuitively know, that the resultant size of the debris is dependent upon the characteristics of the impact, rather than vice versa. My criticism with this second section is with specific reference to the towers rather than the theory itself. I would suggest that the author be given a chance to address and review the points I have made. I see no reason why a revised edition should meet with opposition to publication. I would however not wish to modify my report ahead of publication since credit for this new advance and understanding of the mechanisms of the collision should rightly lie with Dr. Greening. I would not wish to pre-empt even his work so far.
Details of the points that I have raised are given below, and I have taken the liberty of sending a copy of this directly to Dr. Greening rather than add to your clearly busy schedule.
Gordon.

[Brainster]

Working title:

Son of Loose Change.

Looser Change

[milesalpha]

That's basically my claim. :)





Bear in mind the pilots' mission was in two parts; locate target, and hit target. I believe the size of the target makes differences between aircraft almost negligable - I'd argue most people with a little flying experience could hit the Pentagon flying almost ANY aircraft (okay, putting aside a few extreme cases, like a space shuttle :p)

It's the first bit - the getting to target, where I feel a modern airliner is much easier.




All three were Casablanca Class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_class_carrier) Escort Carriers...

They were designed from scratch as carriers, were the largest of their type, and were seldom used in escort duties; being used for fleet duties instead. At Leyte Gulf, for example, the 7th Fleet force of escort carriers managed to turn back Kurita's force after Halsey fell for the bait of Ozawa's diversion force and went north.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_class_carrier
Four months seems the longest period any ship was inactive.

Considering that after Coral Sea Yorktown was repaired and ready to fight after 3 days at Pearl, 4 months is a very long time.

-Andrew[/QUOTE]


No problems with point one and two.

The CVEs were built under the Maritime Commission Contract (marine merchant) and turned over to the US navy as needed. Most were indeed used in fleet actions, mainly because their envisioned mission of convoy escort became less neccesary. However, their aircraft complement of 30 planes clearly indicates that they were not fleet carriers. The battle at Leyte rather illustrates this. The CVEs ran out of anti-ship ammunition very quickly and their aircraft were reduced to buzzing the Japanese with fake attacks in order to try and keep them off the CVEs. A heroic action, because they were so out of their league.

From Wiki

Escort Carriers and Merchant Aircraft Carriers
To protect Atlantic convoys, the British developed what they called Merchant Aircraft Carriers, which were merchant ships equipped with a flat deck for half a dozen aircraft. These operated with civilian crews, under merchant colors, and carried their normal cargo besides providing air support for the convoy. As there was no lift or hangar, aircraft maintenance was limited and the aircraft spent the entire trip sitting on the deck.

These served as stop-gap until dedicated escort carriers could be built in the US (US classification CVE). About a third of the size of a fleet carrier, it carried about two dozen aircraft for anti-submarine duties. Over one hundred were built or converted from merchantmen.

Escort carriers were built in the US from two basic hull designs: one from a merchant ship, and the other from a slightly larger, slightly faster tanker. Besides defending convoys, these were used to transport aircraft across the ocean. Nevertheless, some participated in the battles to liberate the Philippines, notably the battle off Samar in which six escort carriers and their escorting destroyers briefly took on five Japanese battleships and bluffed them into retreating.

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


Yorktown is a rather special case. It was repaired in what most would consider a miraculous amount of time...because it was desperately needed for Midway. Carriers hit in the last 6 months of the war were repaired at a more leisurely pace because that same level of need had ceased to exist. By 1945 virtually all of the American and British (which were almost invulnerable to the kamikaze because of their armoured flight decks) carriers (now numbering in the dozens) were in the Pacific.

[60hzxtl]

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.


The holder of a High School Equivalency diploma has been sharpening his academic prowess and debating skills since 2001.

I think his chain of command includes Major Delusion as well.

[WildCat]

I think his chain of command includes Major Delusion as well.
And Captain Morgan.

[Kent1]

Kent, what is Judy Wood's line of thinking here? Aluminum glows and so .....?

Judy (and Michael Zebuhr the deceased truth member) were going against the "9/11 scholars" by saying that it glows in daylight.
They are having some internal debate right now over the color of the aluminum and how important it is. This goes back to the molten metal flowing from the top of the towers debate.
In section 1 of Jones paper
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[Brainster]

And Captain Morgan.

But what he really deserves is a little Corporal Punishment.

[Gravy]

There is a colonel of truth in what you all say. I salute you.

[Johnny Pixels]

Is there an official version of the collapse times of the WTC towers? 9/11 Deniers shout freefall or whatever at me, I made it about 15 seconds from videos and a stopwatch, the PM article says 8 and 10 seconds from the LDEO data, the 9/11 commission report says 10 seconds on page 305.

Is there a definitive answer anywhere? If so what is it and how was it derived?

I ask purely because of the irony that I had the 9/11 commission report time quoted to me to prove that the official version of events was wrong.

[WildCat]

I ask purely because of the irony that I had the 9/11 commission report time quoted to me to prove that the official version of events was wrong.
The 9/11 report is just an approximation, this isn't the type of thing they were interested in.

[JohnM307]

Nonsense. It is not evidence unless you can prove they specifically intended to hit that exact spot.


On the contrary, probability is evidence and often strong proof. I suppose that you reject every argument that is based on probability -- all of modern nuclear and particle physics research? Do you write off every strange thing as coincidence, no matter how unlikely? Or do you say at one point that it's unlikely to be coincidence and that an alternative explanation is more likely.

In this case, he hit the point of least damage, and he appear to aim for that and no other. (I may have been wrong about the nature of his circular dive. If he pulled out at 2000 feet above the ground, that's not nearly as bad.)

www DOT gwu DOT edu SLASH ~nsarchiv SLASH NSAEBB SLASH NSAEBB196 SLASH doc02 DOT pdf


He was aiming at a wall 24m high. Put it this way, let's look at the last 5 seconds of the flight, in which he would have covered about 1km of distance.

At 5 seconds (1000m) out his angle of error for a hit on the Pentagon was 1.375 degrees
At 4 seconds (800m) it was 1.719 degrees
At 3 seconds (600m) it was 2.292 degrees
At 2 seconds (400m) it was 3.438 degrees
At 1 second (200m) it was 6.880 degrees

As you can see, the margin of error increases significantly the closer he gets to the target. He had a commercial pilots license. To think someone who is commercial qualified cannot keep an aircraft straight and level is ridiculous.


Have you seen any of the quotes about how poor a pilot he was? If he had one, he shouldn't have. In any case, the document I "linked" to above shows how awful a time he had keeping the aircraft level when it was off autopilot. I think we can rule out his flying horizontally 30 feet above the ground without hitting the ground.


That's not a "version". That's a statement. You have to state HOW they did it. If I say "Al Qaeda did it" or "terrorists did it" both of these have less letters than "The government did it". Does that make them simplier?


Precisely my point. Simplicity of a theory may simply be incompleteness. The theory has to explain the facts. The official story doesn't explain many of the facts.


And herein lies your problem. The only people in government employ who are willing to sacrifice their lives for "the cause" are the most loyal of patriots. These are the sort of people who are dying in Afghanistan and Iraq. These are the people who died on the beaches of Normandy, in the jungles of Iwo Jima, and in the mud of the Western Front.


Did I say anywhere that that anyone in our government was knowingly dying for the conspiracy?

In any case, does it really insult those in Iraq to point out that they are participating in aggressive war, a fantasy of conquest of our neocon elite who never had to go to war themselves? Does it insult those who fought and sacrificed their lives on the German side of WWII to suggest that they were part of aggressive war, invading and conquering other countries? The answer either has to be no or yes for both of them.


You insult the sacrifice of these people when you suggest some of their number for sacrifice their lives in an effort to slaughter the citizens they have sworn to protect.


Again, I didn't claim that any of the participants sacrificed their own lives. They "sacrificed" other lives.


Anyone corrupt enough to murder their own citizens would not be loyal enough to give their life in the process.


Precisely. Something else happened.

I wrote earlier: "1) Al Qaeda paralyzed our air security."

Your response: "They did not."

I suppose I should have inserted something to indicate sarcasm in my statement. Or perhaps I should have made a serious statement: "Our air security was paralyzed." Of course, the official story doesn't give any kind of reasonable explanation or accounting for the paralysis of our air security during 9/11.

Quick question: What does the 9/11 Commission's Report say in Chapter 1 about the possibility of fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base intercepting the approaching AA 77? (Not to mention any one of the bases near the path the plane flew.)

The answer to that question can be expressed in one word. (Explaining why Andrews failed to launch intercepters doesn't answer the question, what did the Report say?)


While this isn't necessarily true, it may surprise you to know Al Qaeda had a mole in the CIA for most of the 90's. They are a very sophisticated, intelligent, and well resourced enemy.


I wouldn't be surprised in the least. However, were those who sabotaged investigation the moles? Then how is it that they were promoted and rewarded? The officer who sabotaged Colleen Rowley's case was Marion Bowman, who was later given an FBI reward for exceptional performance.

My earlier quote: "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."


Here you're full of nonsense. The 9/11 commission was not an investigation into the attacks. These were (and still are) carried out by specialist agencies - for example the FBI is in charge of the criminal investigation while FEMA investigated the Ground Zero site and NIST assessed the actual mechanics of the building collapses.


It wasn't nonsense, it was sarcasm. The Bush Administration committed every sin in my earlier quote. This fact doesn't fit the official story. And you are wrong in stating that the 9/11 commision was not an investigation into the attacks.


Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to
provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to
identify lessons learned.


This was a quote from the prefix, page xvi. That includes investigating what happened. Have you forgotten all the complaints about the Bush Administration not producing documents, or stalling before producing them? When was the 9/11 Commission formed? How much money were they allocated? How do those answers compare with the Commissions investigating the two space shuttle disasters.

Does anyone recall Dick Cheney threatening certain senators with treason accusation in calling for investigation of 9/11?


The 9/11 commission was specifically tasked with providing answers to the families of victims regarding how the attack happened and what the government did in response.


That includes finding out what actually happened. That is, investigating. They might use the results of FEMA and NIST, but also check that they are reasonable and consistant with the facts.

Shortly after 9/11, there was at least one suggestion of a billion-dollar independent investigation. Ultimately, it only started 14 months after, with an initial allocation of 3 million dollars. (Total amount 15 million dollars.)


It is understandable (though unacceptable) that the government were reluctant to allow such a study.


Thanks for conceding that the government's reluctance was unacceptable. But it was only understandable if 9/11 was an inside job. The Bush Administration was operating in coverup mode ever since 9/11 occured.

In fact, if someone were to ask me what kind of evidence would convince me of the official story, I would demand the following as a bare minimum:

1) Evidence that the 9/11 Commission was formed at most a month after 9/11, and initially allocated at least one hundred million dollars.

2) Evidence that NORAD got fighter jets up near the hijacked planes within twenty minutes of the first sign of something going wrong for each plane. And after the first plane hit the North Tower, the fighter jets did everything possible short of shooting down the hijacked planes, to prevent them from hitting their targets. (Notice that I didn't require actual shooting down. I understand a strong reluctance.)

My quote: "Religious zealots who enjoyed lap-dancing and drinking and other non-Islamic activities. Religious zealots who visited and participated in Las Vegas."

Your answer: "Yes."

There's a clue there. Were they really suicidal religious zealots?


Indeed? So the people that were killed there... they were all construction workers were they?


No, just a majority of the victims there were construction workers.


7 Lieutenant Colonels
5 Majors
1 Sergeant First Class
2 Sergeant Majors
1 Lieutenant General
3 Captains
1 Sergeant
1 Staff Sergeant
1 Specialist
4 Lieutenants
5 Commanders
5 Lieutenant Commanders


You may have noticed that your numbers don't add up to over 100. Many more victims were killed. The most I will concede is that the construction was nearly complete and they began moving people in. Fewer than 1000 persons were there, as oppose to many thousands in the other wings.

[twinstead]

No, just a majority of the victims there were construction workers.

BS

[MarkyX]

Have you seen any of the quotes about how poor a pilot he was?


He couldn't land. That was his problem.

[Joytown]

www DOT gwu DOT edu SLASH ~nsarchiv SLASH NSAEBB SLASH NSAEBB196 SLASH doc02 DOT pdf

Hey JohnM307 - just a suggestion to make your posted URLS more readible (and more easily clickable) until you have your requisite 15 posts. You don't have to replace all the dots and slashes with words - you can just take the "http://www." at the beginning and leave the rest - that'll get it past the filter.

Thanks!

-Joytown

[Regnad Kcin]

...Thanks for conceding that the government's reluctance was unacceptable. But it was only understandable if 9/11 was an inside job...False dichotomy. (http://info-pollution.com/false.htm)

You know, I spent a good deal of time on my previous post to you pointing out your erroneous analytical processes. At least have the grace to acknowledge it.

[JohnM307]

No matter WHERE they hit, John, they would "happen to hit there". Doesn't that tell you something ?


You're not thinking. You're confusing "any possible" position with one position independently chosen. Sure, a flip of ten coins will produce one one-in-1024 result. But if I compare that with something independently chosen, say HTTHTHHTTH, then if it happens to match, there is something suspicious.

In this case, the spot hit by the aircraft just happened to be the spot that would do by far the least damage. Not only that, they appeared to aim for it and no place else.


Pointing to a target with a plane without actually having to land it isn't particularily difficult. Or so actual airline pilots say.


Easy or difficult for someone who had a lot of trouble maintaining a steady altitude without the autopilot engaged? Easy or difficult for someone who was described as a poor pilot?

www DOT gwu DOT edu SLASH ~nsarchiv SLASH NSAEBB SLASH NSAEBB196 SLASH doc02 DOT pdf


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.


Consider the symbolic damage they inflicted on the World Trade Center.

Okay, if the mode of attack were different -- not horizontal, 30 feet above the ground -- I might accept that they just happened to hit the point of least damage by luck. But that spot was targeted specifically.


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.


How do you know that the government would have to expend an incredible amount of resources? Why couldn't the government do what Al Qaeda was supposed to have done? What could Al Qaeda do that the government couldn't do?


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.


That's close to the official story mentality.


The word you're looking for is "circumvent".


No, the word is paralyze. We had an attack, and our "defense" forces played dead until the Pentagon was hit.


I find the explanation that no one knew exactly what would happen far more believable.


That doesn't explain conduct like FBI officer Marion Bowman rewriting a memo by FBI agent Coleen Rowley to sabotage a warrant request to search a suspect's computer. It also doesn't explain the suspicious story of Al Qaeda expert John O'Neill, marginalized and then driven out of the FBI. It doesn't explain the repeated persistant disregard of numerous warnings the summer before 9/11.


They are allowed to do this to reach their objectives. Don't you know ANYTHING ?


Do you have that kind of understanding about Islam? Do you really think that Atta's womanizing really was anything other than having fun and enjoying life? Do you think that was all part of the plot?

If so, what evidence do you have for that?


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 ?


My whole point was that simplicity of a theory is no indication of how accurate the theory is. Thank's for echoing my point. I could make such examples myself.


Anything bearing Killtown's name is sure to be seen as suspect here.


I think that you can check or refute his claims independent of whether he is suspect. Can you refute his "Pentalawn" page?


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.

You're not thinking. If that guy is indepentently guessed, then there is reason for suspicion. You seem to be confused about any result versus one particular result. Or you are confusing aiming at a bull's-eye and hitting, versus drawing a bull's-eye around a bullet hole.

[JohnM307]

False dichotomy.


Not a false dicotomy. Or only a false dicotomy in the sence that Occam's Razor involves a false dicotomy.


You know, I spent a good deal of time on my previous post to you pointing out your erroneous analytical processes. At least have the grace to aknowledge it.

You haven't shown anything erroneous that I've done. You've only missunderstood and refused to think.

[JohnM307]

Hey JohnM307 - just a suggestion to make your posted URLS more readible (and more easily clickable) until you have your requisite 15 posts. You don't have to replace all the dots and slashes with words - you can just take the [deleted] at the beginning and leave the rest - that'll get it past the filter.

Thanks!

-Joytown

Thanks for the suggestion. (And I had to the http part then as well.)

[Regnad Kcin]

You haven't shown anything erroneous that I've done...Oh?

Welcome to the forum....Sarcasm noted...You were wrong. Simple as that.

[Regnad Kcin]

You've only missunderstood and refused to think.Where? Point it out. Back it up.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You're not thinking. You're confusing "any possible" position with one position independently chosen.

So far you have done nothing to support this assertion. You have merely reiterated your interpretation of the events.


Sure, a flip of ten coins will produce one one-in-1024 result. But if I compare that with something independently chosen, say HTTHTHHTTH, then if it happens to match, there is something suspicious.

Not without corroborating evidence it isn't.


In this case, the spot hit by the aircraft just happened to be the spot that would do by far the least damage. Not only that, they appeared to aim for it and no place else.

Evidence?


Easy or difficult for someone who had a lot of trouble maintaining a steady altitude without the autopilot engaged? Easy or difficult for someone who was described as a poor pilot?

www DOT gwu DOT edu SLASH ~nsarchiv SLASH NSAEBB SLASH NSAEBB196 SLASH doc02 DOT pdf

If he had a license then he had to at least be a passable pilot.


Consider the symbolic damage they inflicted on the World Trade Center.

Okay, if the mode of attack were different -- not horizontal, 30 feet above the ground -- I might accept that they just happened to hit the point of least damage by luck. But that spot was targeted specifically.

Prove it.


How do you know that the government would have to expend an incredible amount of resources? Why couldn't the government do what Al Qaeda was supposed to have done? What could Al Qaeda do that the government couldn't do?

These questions have already been answered. You have chosen to ignore those answers.


That's close to the official story mentality.



No, the word is paralyze. We had an attack, and our "defense" forces played dead until the Pentagon was hit.

Why are disregarding the evidence of scrambled jets?


That doesn't explain conduct like FBI officer Marion Bowman rewriting a memo by FBI agent Coleen Rowley to sabotage a warrant request to search a suspect's computer.

Link to evidence?


It also doesn't explain the suspicious story of Al Qaeda expert John O'Neill, marginalized and then driven out of the FBI. It doesn't explain the repeated persistant disregard of numerous warnings the summer before 9/11.

No, but Hanlon's Razor does.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Not a false dicotomy. Or only a false dicotomy in the sence that Occam's Razor involves a false dicotomy.



You haven't shown anything erroneous that I've done. You've only missunderstood and refused to think.

You appear to have a mistaken understanding of both false dichotomy, and Occam's razor. Occam's razor states, that given only two possible explanations, go for the least complex. This is different from your statement ...Thanks for conceding that the government's reluctance was unacceptable. But it was only understandable if 9/11 was an inside job... which is a false dichotomy because you are taking a situation with N number of possibilities and forcing it into an either/or choice without showing why it can be constrained to that given either/or choice.

[mrfreeze]

Heres an easy question for those who have been at this a while: Why the hell is the movie titled "Loose Change"? I have wondered this a few times but never felt like expending the hassle of looking, and the 2 seconds on google I spent before this didn't answer it. So I figured I would throw it to you guys.

[Brainache]

Heres an easy question for those who have been at this a while: Why the hell is the movie titled "Loose Change"? I have wondered this a few times but never felt like expending the hassle of looking, and the 2 seconds on google I spent before this didn't answer it. So I figured I would throw it to you guys.

Is it because it's a collection of small overlooked "facts" which when collected together the authors(film makers) believe add up to something substantial?
I'm just asking questions.

[Axiom_Blade]

Is it because it's a collection of small overlooked "facts" which when collected together the authors(film makers) believe add up to something substantial?
I'm just asking questions.

Yeah, you're probably right. I thought the name came from the budget they were working under.

[Dog Town]

Heres an easy question for those who have been at this a while: Why the hell is the movie titled "Loose Change"? I have wondered this a few times but never felt like expending the hassle of looking, and the 2 seconds on google I spent before this didn't answer it. So I figured I would throw it to you guys.



Because thats what they made it with. Can't ya tell?
edit Sorry better answer above.

[Dog Town]

Ooops..................

[Dog Town]

There is a heavy handed mod over at ATS, that loves to throw his, I started this board BS. Arguements with him are less than equal ground!
Does anyone here mind if I chanlenge him to ply his trade here?
I am not as eloquent as you folks! I would not be the one to battle with his ignorance. Plus We go in the Studio next week. I will not have the time.
I would love to see you kats put It in it's place. What say yee?
It's name is SkeptikOverlord!

[Brainache]

Well I'm new here and also not too great at formal debating, but I would love to see what Mr Gumboot or Arkan Wolfshade would make of SkeptiK Overlord.(mincemeat I suspect).

[Dog Town]

Well I'm new here and also not too great at formal debating, but I would love to see what Mr Gumboot or Arkan Wolfshade would make of SkeptiK Overlord.(mincemeat I suspect).

That would be on their off days!

I would love to see it. Much a coward I believe , he is!

[Gravy]

Heres an easy question for those who have been at this a while: Why the hell is the movie titled "Loose Change"? I have wondered this a few times but never felt like expending the hassle of looking, and the 2 seconds on google I spent before this didn't answer it. So I figured I would throw it to you guys.
They've given several different versions of how the movie was named, none of which made much cents to me. :D

They can't even get the story of their TITLE straight.

[Brainache]

That would be on their off days!

I would love to see it. Much a coward I believe , he is!

So where does Skeptik Overlord hang out? I'd like to see this guy's work.
Although I generally think that Overlords are overrated.

[Gravy]

Continuing the military theme, i'm reminded of a funny compilation that made the internet rounds years ago. It consisted (supposedly) of excerpts from British Military Officer Fitness Reports. My absolute favorite was"His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of curiosity."
What's that got to do with 9/11? Well, when I'm observing the deniers at Ground Zero, I think of that quote all the time. They are a jaw-droppingly peculiar bunch.

It was just Abby and me today, and we kicked ass, with some help from John Law. The deniers are already nuts, but with each visit we make, they become more frustrated and nutty. Sorry if anyone was there and missed us. The deniers were late and there was a jackhammer festival going on near the usual gathering place. I should have given you my cell number. WE DO NEED YOUR HELP.

Abby had made up her own detailed pamphlets, and I had my flyers, signs and evidence book. When we moved in to tack our signs up above their laminated posters, the deniers once again tried to physically block us, while a small crowd looked on incredulously. I loved it, because there's no better way for the public to know what the deniers are about than to see them denying us the same Constitutional rights that they were exercising.

As that was happening, two dark vans with dark windows pulled up and disgorged two squads of NYPD's finest, dressed in full battle gear, with helmets, flak vests, automatic rifles, and an attack dog. Sorry, deniers, although you accused us of bringing them, they were not there for you. These squads are common sights at high foot traffic areas in New York, such as GZ and train stations, especially when terrorist threat levels are high. Guess who else was with the cops? An NYPD Intelligence Officer, wearing a suit. A MIG! (Man in gray.) Woo Hoo! A paranoid conspiracy nut's wet dream!

Abby explained to the MIG what was going on, and he chose to enforce the U.S. Constitution. The deniers were told to stop denying our rights, and for good measure they were told they could not display their big banner, because NYC law states that the poles supporting protesters' placards and banners must be made of nothing more sturdy than cardboard tubing. This was entirely a technical, "screw you" judgment by the NYPD, as the banner was being held motionless with its poles on the ground, and presented absolutely no danger to anyone. The intelligence officer was acting within the law, but applying a zero-leeway policy to the deniers, which is understandable. The cops detest what these people are doing. Most of the deniers harrumphed and complained loudly, and a few shouted at the cops, which as we all know tends to make armor-encased cops on a hot day more sympathetic and lenient. The dog was licking its chops. As a great dog lover, I know they can smell lying weaple (weasel people).

The result was that our job was made much easier. The deniers didn't spread out as usual, They didn't tear our signs down or shred our literature as they did last week, and we were free to focus on distributing our pamphlets. Despite their numbers, he deniers are at a big disadvantage there. They blow through pamphlets, handing them to everyone who will take them, including to the foreign tourists who comprise about half the crowd. Those 75 year-old Mexican ladies? Probably not gonna be kickin' it troofer stylee on 9/11, but the deniers must put pamphlets in their hands. Excellent. We only have to give our literature to the people who seem interested in the denier's arguments.

A small victory: not only did Les Jamieson fork over beer money to make good on the bet he lost (I'm drinking a Liefmans Goudenband now...hell yes I am), he actually printed new pamphlets to correct that one error! I was shocked. Only 64 errors to go! (Okay, I didn't count them this time.)

On the whole the deniers were more subdued than usual, and they have learned to fear the formidable Abby. The majority of the crowd was very sympathetic to us. There were a few tense moments between the deniers and an irate man who had lost two FDNY buddies at the WTC.

Some of the odder encounters:

One of the dumber deniers told people, on three different occasions, that my flyer couldn't be taken seriously because it had no pictures on it. Honest.

One of the most paranoid deniers, the one who said last week that he could see into my evil soul, today said to me, almost under his breath,
Do you have water?
Sorry?
Do you have water?
Yeah, right here. Do you want some?
I mean at home.
At home?
Water bottles. You know about the pandemic? It's on the government's website.
Oh. Uh, the government does post recommendations for dealing with different emergencies. I have some water stored at home, but only enough for a minor emergency. I have a "go bag." with some supplies, a respirator, not much. I suppose most people aren't prepared for a major disaster.
Yup. The pandemic, Human-to-human. You know there's a nuclear war coming.
'Kay. I should get back to work.

At the end of the day, there was a full-blown screaming freakout by the most tightly-wound of the deniers, a tiny nervous wreck of a woman who even the crazy deniers say is beyond redemption. She's the one who last week demanded that I answer a question, then immediately threatened to have me arrested if I answered. Today she claimed that she was slapped by a woman she was haranguing (inside the no-haranguing zone, which extends 25 feet from the GZ fence), and that two cops were standing right there and witnessed the whole thing and did nothing about it. Some of her fellow deniers admitted that nothing could be less surprising than her getting slapped. I didn't see the alleged slap, but there were two cops standing right there, and they did eventually threaten to arrest her if she didn't stop screaming obscenities. The freakout lasted 10 minutes and attracted a crowd of a few hundred. The funny part was when deniers kept trying to calm her down, but repeatedly couldn't get her name right.
"MY ****** NAME IS SHEILA!" (or whatever it was). She is credit to the cause.

The deniers cannot, will not, and do not, answer questions or produce support for their claims when asked. Ever. Only a couple of them can listen to a complete sentence of mine. The others will not listen, read, or look at anything I present to them. Ever.

In a few hours, I heard dozens and dozens and dozens of claims by the deniers (some of them can really rattle them off). Not a single one was true. They did not say one true thing to the public.

It's a tragicomic experience I wish every debunker here could have. It's one thing to parry and thrust on the internet, quite another to see their breathtaking dishonesty and intellectual torpor in person. You might wind up following them anywhere, but only out of curiosity.

[gumboot]

On the contrary, probability is evidence and often strong proof.


You have a strange understanding of "proof". He had to hit The Pentagon SOMEWHERE. To claim wherever he happened to to hit it was SPECIFICALLY the EXACT locaton he INTENDED to hit, is nothing more than pure speculation. You have absolutely no evidence WHAT SO EVER to support this claim. Thus your process of logic is utterly flawed from the outset.



Have you seen any of the quotes about how poor a pilot he was? If he had one, he shouldn't have.

ONE instructor said he was AVERAGE and couldn't land. ONE. Months before 9/11. They don't just give commercial licenses out at random.



Precisely my point. Simplicity of a theory may simply be incompleteness. The theory has to explain the facts. The official story doesn't explain many of the facts.

Such as?



Did I say anywhere that that anyone in our government was knowingly dying for the conspiracy?

Yes. You claimed an alternative theory of equal simplicity would be for the government to do what the terrorists did. They terrorists killed themselves in order to complete their mission. Ergo, if the government did the same, government employees would have killed themselves.



In any case, does it really insult those in Iraq to point out that they are participating in aggressive war, a fantasy of conquest of our neocon elite who never had to go to war themselves?

It insults them to suggest they'd happily sacrifice their lives in an effort to attack the country they have sworn to protect. If you cannot comprehend how grave an insult this is perhaps you should talk to a few veterans to find out. We have a few on this board. Ask them how keen they'd be to ram a commercial American Airliner full of American citizens into an American building also full of American citizens.

I won't speak for them, but I can tell you now I would NEVER do that to New Zealanders. Never.



I suppose I should have inserted something to indicate sarcasm in my statement. Or perhaps I should have made a serious statement: "Our air security was paralyzed." Of course, the official story doesn't give any kind of reasonable explanation or accounting for the paralysis of our air security during 9/11.

In what way was America's air defence "paralyzed" on 9/11?



Quick question: What does the 9/11 Commission's Report say in Chapter 1 about the possibility of fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base intercepting the approaching AA 77? (Not to mention any one of the bases near the path the plane flew.)

You do realise that the fighter squadrons at Andrews AFB are national guard units right? You do realise they were no on duty that day, right?

Also, I assume you realise the only mention the 9/11 Commission Report makes of the Andrews AFB fighters is to say they were airborne at 1038 with open rules of engagement.



I wouldn't be surprised in the least. However, were those who sabotaged investigation the moles?

You don't understand what a mole is do you? The CIA thought he was working for them! He wasn't. He was planning the African Embassy bombings the entire time. And after the bombings he was arrested.




Then how is it that they were promoted and rewarded? The officer who sabotaged Colleen Rowley's case was Marion Bowman, who was later given an FBI reward for exceptional performance.

Colleen Rowley's request for a search warrant was refused because there was no legal grounds for allowing it. Under FISA regulations at the time it was rejected. That's one of the reasons for the "Patriot Act".




This was a quote from the prefix, page xvi. That includes investigating what happened... ...How much money were they allocated? How do those answers compare with the Commissions investigating the two space shuttle disasters.


The Public Statement (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Statement.pdf) of the 9/11 Commission indicates clearly that their objective was to uncover how the USA failed to prevent the attacks.

Under Findings:

We recognize that we have the benefit of hindsight. And, since the plotters were flexible and resourceful, we cannot know whether any single step or series of steps would have defeated them. What we can say with confidence is that none of the measures adopted by the U.S. government before 9/11 disturbed or even delayed the progress of the al Qaeda plot.

The Statement continues to outline the details of their findings re: the government's failure to delay or prevent the attacks.

As I have said before, the criminal investigation into the attacks was carried out by the FBI.




Thanks for conceding that the government's reluctance was unacceptable. But it was only understandable if 9/11 was an inside job. The Bush Administration was operating in coverup mode ever since 9/11 occured.

Nonsense. The FBI was already investigating the attack itself. If they were worried about covering things up it would be the FBI investigation that they derailed. The 9/11 Commission Report was specifically trying to identify what failed in the US Government, allowing the attack to happen. Naturally as a government you'd be worried about that.





In fact, if someone were to ask me what kind of evidence would convince me of the official story, I would demand the following as a bare minimum:

1) Evidence that the 9/11 Commission was formed at most a month after 9/11, and initially allocated at least one hundred million dollars.

How does not doing this prove the offical story wrong?




2) Evidence that NORAD got fighter jets up near the hijacked planes within twenty minutes of the first sign of something going wrong for each plane. And after the first plane hit the North Tower, the fighter jets did everything possible short of shooting down the hijacked planes, to prevent them from hitting their targets. (Notice that I didn't require actual shooting down. I understand a strong reluctance.)

See above...




There's a clue there. Were they really suicidal religious zealots?

Yes. They were.





No, just a majority of the victims there were construction workers.

No, they weren't. There was no construction going on. It had finished.






You may have noticed that your numbers don't add up to over 100. Many more victims were killed. The most I will concede is that the construction was nearly complete and they began moving people in. Fewer than 1000 persons were there, as oppose to many thousands in the other wings.

...do you actually have any idea what you are talking about? If you followed my link you'd see the rest of the victims either were not listed with rank, or were civilian employees (half of the Pentagon's employees are civilians).

The 126 victims were those working in the ground floor open-plan office of the Naval Annex. As MANY people have said, the extra protection installed in this section prevented immediately collapse of the upper floors, allowing everyone outside the immediate impact area to escape safely.

The only reason thousands died at the WTC was because the aircraft impacts trapped a large number of people above the impact site.

Figures from NIST NCSTAR1-7 (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf) page 120.

Let's take the total who died:

2,749

Of those, 1,974 were trapped above the impact point.

That leaves 775. Now let's take off the victims from the aircraft:
775 - 87 - 60 = 628
Then take out those killed outside the buildings:
628 - 18 = 610
Remove the emergency responders (weren't any at Pentagon)
610 - 421 = 189
Divide by 2 (2 Aircraft at WTC, 1 at Pentagon)
189 / 2 = 94.5

So for 126 to die at the Pentagon is about right.

Once again. It's was not under construction. The office was fully staffed.

-Andrew

[Dog Town]

So where does Skeptik Overlord hang out? I'd like to see this guy's work.
Although I generally think that Overlords are overrated.

At above topsecret. It is a bunch of basement dwelling Cters. Rarely worth the effort. MIB, etccc....yada..yada.....

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/118/pg1/srtpages

It does no real work. Other than give, well thought out, enlongated drivel. While trying to act superior, because he started the joint.

[WildCat]

It's a tragicomic experience I wish every debunker here could have. It's one thing to parry and thrust on the internet, quite another to see their breathtaking dishonesty and intellectual torpor in person. You might wind up following them anywhere, but only out of curiosity.
You have got to videotape some of these encounters and put them up on youtube or some such site for those of us 1,000 miles away!

[Kent1]

A note to all, the new book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" is now out at Barnes and Noble.

Gravy your debunking guide link is on page 164 www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Continuing the military theme, i'm reminded of a funny compilation that made the internet rounds years ago. It consisted (supposedly) of excerpts from British Military Officer Fitness Reports. My absolute favorite was
What's that got to do with 9/11? Well, when I'm observing the deniers at Ground Zero, I think of that quote all the time. They are a jaw-droppingly peculiar bunch.

It was just Abby and me today, and we kicked ass, with some help from John Law. The deniers are already nuts, but with each visit we make, they become more frustrated and nutty. Sorry if anyone was there and missed us. The deniers were late and there was a jackhammer festival going on near the usual gathering place. I should have given you my cell number. WE DO NEED YOUR HELP.
<snip for brevity>
It's a tragicomic experience I wish every debunker here could have. It's one thing to parry and thrust on the internet, quite another to see their breathtaking dishonesty and intellectual torpor in person. You might wind up following them anywhere, but only out of curiosity.

As always, your efforts, and those of Abby (and every here for that matter), are appreciated more than can be easily voiced. I continue to be amazed at the way (the collective) you go above and beyond to try to counter this claptrap. Thank you!

[Dog Town]

Gravy, Abby, and crew! You are heroes to us on the left coast. Again, If any y'all come this way, I got your back! Thank You for all you do, Here there , and elsewhere!

DT

[gumboot]

It was just Abby and me today, and we kicked ass, with some help from John Law. The deniers are already nuts, but with each visit we make, they become more frustrated and nutty. Sorry if anyone was there and missed us. The deniers were late and there was a jackhammer festival going on near the usual gathering place. I should have given you my cell number. WE DO NEED YOUR HELP.


Awesome work guys. :D

Sounds like they have truely lost it.

-Andrew

[Gravy]

You may have noticed that your numbers don't add up to over 100. Many more victims were killed. The most I will concede is that the construction was nearly complete and they began moving people in. Fewer than 1000 persons were there, as oppose to many thousands in the other wings.
I don't know the exact number of people who were in wedge 1, but why "concede" anything when a few minutes of Googling can provide a number of specifics?

The renovation of Wedge 1—the first of the five structural wedges to be renovated—was just five days short of completion and most of its occupants had moved back in; Wedge 2 had been vacated in preparation for the renovation work soon to begin on that segment.
Civil Engineering Magazine, Nov. 2001 (http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline01/0111feat.html)

According to Pentagon renovation manager Lee Evey, about 80 percent of the Wedge One workers had returned to their offices. That sector of the building, therefore, potentially housed about 3500 workers that day.
Architecture Week, Oct. 3, 2001 (http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-1.html)

Earlier I asked what you think happened to flight 77 and what you think hit the Pentagon. I'm interested in your ideas.

[Gravy]

A note to all, the new book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" is now out at Barnes and Noble.

Gravy your debunking guide link is on page 164 www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
Crazy!

[Brainache]

Gravy I have nothing but admiration for you and your friends confronting a group of what sound like complete loonies to me.
I wish I could join you, but I live in Australia.
I hope you watch your step around those people, some of them sound like they could get a bit dangerous.
All the best.
Andy.

[Dog Town]

You have got to videotape some of these encounters and put them up on youtube or some such site for those of us 1,000 miles away!


Yes please! I wanna know what to look out for. Kinda like a certain ethnic driver! I don't mean my great grannie, though she does scare me, 102 years old! Cherokee and all!
They love the WOOOO Wooooo! However, I Do Love her to death!

[chacal]

Yes, these stories of the adventures in GZ are interesting to read. I would like to see few pictures of the truthers too. Or even video.

I visited GZ with Google earth but didn't see any truthers. They were obviously edited out as part of the cover up... yeah

[Kent1]

Another interesting point in the book is the famous Jones"red hot steel" photo
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

The books states that this may be glass. But the point seems moot anyway. One expert suggested some of the steel could of melted anyway in the rubble pile because of the insulating effect.

[Dog Town]

Stevie
Why is he doing this to himself? Fleeting infamy?

[Kent1]

Loose Change is lambasted for its use of (AFP) as a source.

American Free Press of course known for its anti-semitism and Holocaust denial. Page 106 is devoted to this.

[JamesB]

More brilliance from Dylan Avery:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10418

no, sir, actually we love facts. it's why we do this. facts like, you know, the melting point of structural steel being significantly higher than the melting point of jet fuel.

[Gravy]

Glass! What an intriguing idea. I never, ever considered it, although I've spent a good deal of time in glassblowing studios and have held some of that inch-thick WTC glass. 43,600 windows in the towers.

Eta: I have no idea of the melting point of that glass. Glass varies very widely in that respect.

[JamesB]

Loose Change is lambasted for its use of (AFP) as a source.

American Free Press of course known for its anti-semitism and Holocaust denial. Page 106 is devoted to this.

They must have read my paper. ;-) Still waiting for Jones and Ryan to respond on that. Scholarly standards and all.

[Kent1]

More brilliance from Dylan Avery:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10418
The melting point of Jet fuel???
Oh classic! Nothing but the facts!!!!

[Dog Town]

Gravy you guy's is correct! Glass,,,, I argued this on ATS awhile back. Atleast as an option!
Why, I don't know?

[chacal]

In fact, if someone were to ask me what kind of evidence would convince me of the official story, I would demand the following as a bare minimum:

1) Evidence that the 9/11 Commission was formed at most a month after 9/11, and initially allocated at least one hundred million dollars.

What was there to investigate, the case is clear. Or mayby since the attacs were a failure to protect the public "they" didn't want too many revelations on the incompetence of the administration given the prior warnings and stuff.


2) Evidence that NORAD got fighter jets up near the hijacked planes within twenty minutes of the first sign of something going wrong for each plane. And after the first plane hit the North Tower, the fighter jets did everything possible short of shooting down the hijacked planes, to prevent them from hitting their targets. (Notice that I didn't require actual shooting down. I understand a strong reluctance.)

Well have you heard the conversations where they consider scrambling fighters that go like "uuh I don't know... everybody just lef the room" or something like that. Mayby your NORAD wasn't quite prepared for the situation. Is it a particularly common in America to over estimate the capabilities of your super douder military? Or is it only limited to the administration and conspiracy theorists?

My quote: "Religious zealots who enjoyed lap-dancing and drinking and other non-Islamic activities. Religious zealots who visited and participated in Las Vegas."

Your answer: "Yes."

There's a clue there. Were they really suicidal religious zealots?

Is the lapdancing even true? And what kind of behaviour would you expect from nuts who fly planes into buildings? Suicide bombers can even dress as women as some have done in Iraq. Or they could have gone to bars to avert attention. They were on a mission you know.


Do you now believe the official story or do I have contact the ministry of love?;-)

[Kent1]

I'll quote the whole passage...
pg 41
According to Alan Pense, professor emeritus of metallurgical engineering at Lehigh University, "The photographs shown to support melting steel are, to me unconvincing...or show matericals that appear to me to be other than steel. One of these photos appears to me to be mostly of glass with unmelted steel rods in it. Glass melts at much lower temperatures than steel.

[gumboot]

The melting point of Jet fuel???
Oh classic! Nothing but the facts!!!!

Technically, the "melting point" of Jet-A is -40 degrees C (-40 degrees being the solid-liquid transition point). I believe that is somewhat lower than steel... :p

-Andrew

[JamesB]

Technically, the "melting point" of Jet-A is -40 degrees C (-40 degrees being the solid-liquid transition point). I believe that is somewhat lower than steel... :p

-Andrew

That is what I thought when I read it. Well, technically he is correct...

[Kent1]

Technically, the "melting point" of Jet-A is -40 degrees C (-40 degrees being the solid-liquid transition point). I believe that is somewhat lower than steel... :p

-Andrew

Drat, foiled again!:D

[Dog Town]

Hey Gravy, gotta give " Les Than " props for paying up! You should have made him drink it w/ya! Then all betttts would be off. Tape that if you could. I suspect a babbling brook of logical fallacies! Heck, I'd pay to see that!
" Les Than Gone Wild "!!

DT

[sleahead]

Judy (and Michael Zebuhr the deceased truth member) were going against the "9/11 scholars" by saying that it glows in daylight.
They are having some internal debate right now over the color of the aluminum and how important it is. This goes back to the molten metal flowing from the top of the towers debate.
In section 1 of Jones paper
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Thanks for that, Kent. I wasn't expecting a dissenting view from Judy, especially against the work of the god of CT, Steven Jones. These days, no CT interview is complete without the words "Professor Steven Jones, of BYU, says....".

Perhaps she has read this. The author, Mark* Ferran rips into Jones.

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

*Another Mark! Dylan's head must be spinning.

[Obviousman]

Gravy I have nothing but admiration for you and your friends confronting a group of what sound like complete loonies to me.
I wish I could join you, but I live in Australia.
I hope you watch your step around those people, some of them sound like they could get a bit dangerous.
All the best.
Andy.

Ah ha!

Nowra, here.

[Obviousman]

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.


Well, based on what people have said and the released flight path details... there goes that theory!

I'll just sit here in the back, and be werry, werry quiet.
:D

[chipmunk stew]

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%]
I got this in an email recently. It's a quote from Dennis Miller:

A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all Americans who still don't get it,
I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you really need.

Here we go:

The Palestinians want their own country.
There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians.
It's a made up word.

Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years.
Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient
but is really a modern invention

Before the Israelis won the land in the 1967 war,
Gaza was owned by Egypt , the West Bank was owned by Jordan , and there were no "Palestinians."

As soon as the Jews took over and started growing
oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the "Palestinians," weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation."

So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" anymore to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths, until someone points out they're being taped.

Instead, let's call them what they are:
"Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life
And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In
The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."

I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN.
How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters."
Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country.
Oops, just one more thing. No, they don't.
They could've had their own country any time in the last thirty years, especially two years ago at Camp David
but if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living.

That's no fun. No, they want what all the other
Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel
They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course --
that's where the real fun is -- but mostly they want Israel

Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel - or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it --
for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people
away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God's Earth,
and if you've ever been around God's Earth . . you know
that's really saying something.

It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about the great history and culture of the Muslim Middle east.
Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.

Chew this around & spit it out: 500 million Arabs; 5 million Jews.
Think of all the Arab countries as a football field,
and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it.
And now these same folks swear that, if Israel gives them
half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals..

Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea?
Oh, that? We were just kidding.

My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the Numbers.
Imagine 500 million Jews and 5 million Arabs.
I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it
Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not.

Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea? Nonsense.
Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible
Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting.

No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace,
the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that, with vital operations in Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a roomful of super models who've just had their drugs taken away.

However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing moral weight. We've already lost some.
After September 11th, our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful.

Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day), start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint.

If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean and east of the Jordan .

[MRWiffen]

Technically, the "melting point" of Jet-A is -40 degrees C (-40 degrees being the solid-liquid transition point). I believe that is somewhat lower than steel... :p

-Andrew

Technically -40 degrees C is the maximum freeze point of JetA (-47 for JetA-1). ASTM has an odd definition for freeze point on this, they use the first appearance of wax crystals to determine the freeze point. I've taken JetA-1 down to -60 and it is still somewhat fluid. Most of the fuel I test is about 1-5 degC below the maximum temperature. [/netpick]

[gumboot]

I got this in an email recently. It's a quote from Dennis Miller:

Thanks... interesting words...

hmmm... Adjacent Jew-Hater... has a kind of weird ring to it...

-Andrew

[Obviousman]

This was posted on the "pancake theory" thread.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10384

As a non-engineer, and having no reason to doubt what the person says their credentials are, we have a dissenting view.

Can people with the appropriate qualifications comment?

[MarkyX]

This was posted on the "pancake theory" thread.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10384

As a non-engineer, and having no reason to doubt what the person says their credentials are, we have a dissenting view.

Can people with the appropriate qualifications comment?

The person is a mechanical engineer, not a structual.

[MarkyX]

More brilliance from Dylan Avery:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10418

He talks about facts but ignores that every fire safety engineer in the world has already stated that steel did not need to melt!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The problem I see is that his "removing core columns" vs fire is based on his assumption that the fire could not have weakened the steel; which has already been debunked. As soon as you allow for that the core can fail, as animated, without the use of demo charges.

[Johnny Pixels]

This was posted on the &quot;pancake theory&quot; thread.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10384

As a non-engineer, and having no reason to doubt what the person says their credentials are, we have a dissenting view.

Can people with the appropriate qualifications comment?

He says he used Pro Engineer to create them, but makes no mention of what finite element analysis software he used to analyse the collapse, so I'm not entirely sure how he simulated it. But on the other hand it appears to show that the floors collapsed in a pancake stylee, except that the top section panckaes first, and then the bottom. Is he suggesting it as evidence for or against the official story? I'm not entirely sure.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

He says he used Pro Engineer to create them, but makes no mention of what finite element analysis software he used to analyse the collapse, so I'm not entirely sure how he simulated it. But on the other hand it appears to show that the floors collapsed in a pancake stylee, except that the top section panckaes first, and then the bottom. Is he suggesting it as evidence for or against the official story? I'm not entirely sure.

Yeah, if I read his post correctly, he is saying that the fire couldn't have caused it, but by "removing" the core columns (CD) it would cause the collapse as animated; which he claims accurately models what can be seen to have happened.

[MarkyX]

Crazy!

You are being more famous then I am :(

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You are being more famous then I am :(

Yeah, but based on that, and the fact they touch on the AFP link makes me wonder if one of the PM people involved in the book isn't a poster here... Bah, I've been hanging around CT'ers too long; it's getting too easy to come up with this stuff.

[gumboot]

Yeah, if I read his post correctly, he is saying that the fire couldn't have caused it, but by "removing" the core columns (CD) it would cause the collapse as animated; which he claims accurately models what can be seen to have happened.

Can anyone post across his comments/hypothesis from there for the poor banned peoples?

-Andrew

[MarkyX]

Yeah, but based on that, and the fact they touch on the AFP link makes me wonder if one of the PM people involved in the book isn't a poster here... Bah, I've been hanging around CT'ers too long; it's getting too easy to come up with this stuff.

I wouldn't be all that surprised. We are the founders of the real truth movement here :)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Can anyone post across his comments/hypothesis from there for the poor banned peoples?

-Andrew


Just a few comments on the models. I created them using ProE and have been working on them for about nine months now. I used a modeling program to produce the animation. They are to scale down to a mm based on drawings/literature from NIST and FEMA. There were many iterations. The original only had the upper floors. I was going to try and perform a Finite Element Analysis on fires bringing them down but found out quickly how big the model would become and that it would not demonstrate the collapse. I took the majority of my data from the NIST and FEMA reports but I also research old photographs of WTC 1, 2, and 7. NIST and FEMA were very careful to only show 2D drawings and illustrations because showing a realistic 3D model would make it even more difficult to explain fires causing the collapses (which after $20 million, is yet to be simulated). The most remarkable thing I noticed in 3D modeling is how much redundancy was put into the design of the towers (core columns, perimeter columns, and the trusses). My simulation was going to include the planes showing the damage, but it became clear that I would be using the planes as a diversion, like in the actual crash. I can show the openings were consistent with 767's though. I probably removed more of the columns from WTC #1 than I should, but the loads would have simply redistribued themselves and since the towers were built with so many factors of safety (5 is what I found in literature), I am confident office fires did not weaken the steel causing a sudden global collapse. I was also amazed on my final fly-by scene of WTC 1 (after the collapse of WTC 2) and on how little damage it appeared to sustain in the perimeter columns (the opening wasn't changed and I didn't include smoke which might have caused an optical illusion). My model only shows the effects of removing the core columns which is consistent with the videos of the collapses. If I had more time and computer power, I would like to further investigate the explosive aspects of the perimeter columns which would have been consistent with explosives in the trusses.

I also modeled WTC7 (in a different animation) and was also amazed how easy it would have been to remove the 18 core columns (in red) which was probably the cause of the collapse. NIST would have been better off saying the firefighters had the capability to set charges in three hours (to support Silverstein's confession) rather than produce a report explaining fires taking out base girders which was the most robust part of the building. I also created scale models of the pentagon crash but the most I can prove is the downing of lightpoles is consistent with a 757 wingspan, but is also consistent with a Global Hawk wingspan.

As for me, I have a BS and an MS in Mechanical Engineering. I have a Professional Engineer's license and have worked in construction. I created these simulations to push for a REAL independent investigation of 9-11. The next step is naturally building a scale model and either support or refute the simulation. But I don't have that type of budget.

Finally, if it were not for the free exchange of ideas on the internet and for the movie "In Plane Site" and "Loose Change 2nd Edition," I would have been still one of those that still believes the government's story which has yet to prove one fact or produce one piece of evidence. Also popular blog sites like this one and "youtube.com" help increase the distribution of simulations like mine and spread the word to reopen the 9-11 investigation. Thanks for watching.


That'll teach 'em for only IP-banning my work addy.

[gumboot]

I also created scale models of the pentagon crash but the most I can prove is the downing of lightpoles is consistent with a 757 wingspan, but is also consistent with a Global Hawk wingspan.

:jaw-dropp :eek: :boggled: :shocked: :flamed: :faint:

-Andrew

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Global Hawk:
* Wingspan:

RQ-4A: 35.4 meters
RQ-4B: 39.9 meters
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hawk

Boeing 757:
Wingspan 124 ft 10 in (38.05 m)
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#General_characteristics

[chipmunk stew]

I wouldn't be all that surprised. We are the founders of the real truth movement here :)
We know that at least one person here (Cpt Columbo) has been in contact with Benjamin Chertoff--destroying the cousin-of-Michael myth--so it would be unsurprising if he or his staff were lurking, at the very least.

[Johnny Pixels]

Global Hawk:
* Wingspan:

RQ-4A: 35.4 meters
RQ-4B: 39.9 meters
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hawk

Boeing 757:
Wingspan 124 ft 10 in (38.05 m)
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#General_characteristics

I never realised they were that big. Pity about it having a straight wing though, because that kinda rules it out of doing 500mph into the pentagon at low level.

[Doubt]

I got this in an email recently. It's a quote from Dennis Miller:

Nope. It is not from Dennis Miller:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overview.asp

[sleahead]

From the computer modeller's post:

I was going to try and perform a Finite Element Analysis on fires bringing them down but found out quickly how big the model would become and that it would not demonstrate the collapse.

Can anybody here who is familar with this type of work tell me how he reached that conclusion?

[WildCat]

Can anybody here who is familar with this type of work tell me how he reached that conclusion?
He reached the conclusion by watching a video on universalseed, then modeled accordingly to support his conclusion.

[gumboot]

Global Hawk:
* Wingspan:

RQ-4A: 35.4 meters
RQ-4B: 39.9 meters
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hawk

Boeing 757:
Wingspan 124 ft 10 in (38.05 m)
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#General_characteristics

Oh wow...

I feel stupid... :o

Never realised they were so big!

-Andrew

[WildCat]

Oh wow...

I feel stupid... :o

Never realised they were so big!

-Andrew
But still unlikely to be mistaken for a 757.

[gumboot]

I never realised they were that big. Pity about it having a straight wing though, because that kinda rules it out of doing 500mph into the pentagon at low level.

According to wikipedia it seems to have a top speed of about 400 MPH. If we work out impact force...

KE = 1/2mv^2

For a Global Hawk you are talking about 11,612 kg fully loaded with fuel, and a maximum speed of 400 MPH.

=1/2 * 11,612kg * 176.667 m/s^2

=1/2 * 11,612 * 176.667^2

=181 MJ

Comparing that to a Boeing 757 (128,730 lb) with 1/2 fuel load (5,744.5 US gal @ 6.84 lb/gal) travelling at 500 MPH

=1/2 * 76,212kg * 223.52 m/s^2

=1/2 * 76,212 * 223.52^2

=1,903 MJ

In other words a 757 would impact with 10x the kinetic energy.

So the question; is 181 MJ enough energy to do that much damage to The Pentagon?

Or is it a waste of time?

-Andrew

[Hutch]

Just for information to the more dedicated (some of whom don't get out much to the rest of this Forum...;) ) there is a Confernece called The Amazing Meeting held in January 2007. Since the theme is "Skepticism and the Media", thought you might be interested.

Also, as found in this post, Sundays' are given over to papers/presentations from members of the TAM/JREF. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1838724&postcount=3 Last year a member of the JREF Forum, RSLancaster, did a presentation on his pet topic (a charlatan names Kaz).

It seems to me that the LC and 9-11 conspiracy, dependent on the Media (especially the visual media) would be a good topic for a paper on their methods and how it can be debunked using many of the same methods.

Gravy, Markxy, Brainster, something to consider.

[chipmunk stew]

Nope. It is not from Dennis Miller:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overview.aspD'oh!
Thanks for the heads up.


Reminder to self: Always fact check your email forwards.

[Johnny Pixels]

According to wikipedia it seems to have a top speed of about 400 MPH. If we work out impact force...

KE = 1/2mv^2

For a Global Hawk you are talking about 11,612 kg fully loaded with fuel, and a maximum speed of 400 MPH.

=1/2 * 11,612kg * 176.667 m/s^2

=1/2 * 11,612 * 176.667^2

=181 MJ

Comparing that to a Boeing 757 (128,730 lb) with 1/2 fuel load (5,744.5 US gal @ 6.84 lb/gal) travelling at 500 MPH

=1/2 * 76,212kg * 223.52 m/s^2

=1/2 * 76,212 * 223.52^2

=1,903 MJ

In other words a 757 would impact with 10x the kinetic energy.

So the question; is 181 MJ enough energy to do that much damage to The Pentagon?

Or is it a waste of time?

-Andrew

Well if we listen to the CTs, a Boeing 757 wouldn't do that much damage to the Pentagon, so there's no way it could've been a Global Hawk. Unless it were packed with explosives, but then why the huge fuel fireball, and not an explosive blast? [rhetorical question]And why didn't they think about this before suggesting it, or do they not think?[/rhetorical question]

[JamesB]

Well if we listen to the CTs, a Boeing 757 wouldn't do that much damage to the Pentagon, so there's no way it could've been a Global Hawk. Unless it were packed with explosives, but then why the huge fuel fireball, and not an explosive blast? [rhetorical question]And why didn't they think about this before suggesting it, or do they not think?[/rhetorical question]

Other than being able to fly, a Global Hawk (or a cruise missile for that matter) lookes nothing like a 757, and could never be mistaken for one in broad daylight by anyone with less than a .12 blood alcohol level. Much less hundreds of people.

[Brainster]

Eric Hufschmid or one of his fans appears to have put this hilarious attack video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJc_Xh3oy2s&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fscrewloosechange%2Eblogspot%2Eco m%2F) against the Loosers together. From what I can hear, all the sound bites come from the infamous phone conversation a few months back where Dylan and his buddies tried to get Hufschmid to take down his page (http://www.erichufschmid.net/InvestigateTheTruthSeekers.htm) accusing them of being part of the plot.

The creator has very, very carefully quote mined the phone conversation for clues that the Loosers are capitalist pawns of the Zionist Illuminati. It's funny to see their own tactics used against them, but anybody who's listened to that phone conversation will realize how carefully cropped their words are. My favorite comes near the end, where Bermas supposedly says, "John Kerry--fan of John Kerry by the way." In fact, when I listened (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/dylan-co-suck-up-to-holocaust-denier.html) to this phone conversation three months ago, what Bermas actually said was, "John Kerry. And I'm no fan of John Kerry by the way..." This Dowdification (changing the meaning of a quote by removing a few inconvenient words like "And I'm no") is patently dishonest.

But it's funny as hell.

Hat Tip on the video to Chacal in the Neo-Nazis Driving the 9-11 "Truth" Movement thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60669).

ETA: My guess is it's not Hufschmid himself; surely he'd know better than to call the Mossad the Mossaud.

[MarkyX]

Eric eric eric..

You need to learn lessons from me.

[TjW]

Well if we listen to the CTs, a Boeing 757 wouldn't do that much damage to the Pentagon, so there's no way it could've been a Global Hawk. Unless it were packed with explosives, but then why the huge fuel fireball, and not an explosive blast? [rhetorical question]And why didn't they think about this before suggesting it, or do they not think?[/rhetorical question]
My goodness, you think that would be a problem for a CT'r? Clearly, shaped charges were embedded during the "reconstruction", etc, etc... still more proof of a conspiracy.
Please note: I'm not advocating this myself.

[njslim]

Someone has been leaving copies of this rag in the lobby of the local
supermarkets (Northern NJ) next to the community bulletin boards with
sign FREE - TAKE ONE. Saw one couple months back blaming "Zionists"
for the World Trade Center.

[Kent1]

Im going to post this photo now. We have had it for a while, but I didn't have permission to make it public until now.
The photo is from Steve Spak

NIST did NOT know of the photo until we gave it to them a little while back.
It IS one of the best known photos of the southside damage.

So here it is.....I'll let you guys debate it.

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC72.htm


A statement from Steve Spak:

"This photo was taken a couple of hours before number 7 WTC collapsed. Two water mains that supplied lower Manhattan were damaged leaving little or no water pressure in the area. Hours before the collapse of 7 WTC, Fire Chiefs at the scene advised all units to stay away from 7 WTC because of the collapse dangers. They had no water to fight the blaze and the building was damaged from the collapse of the North Tower. You can see a big hole on the lower floors in this photo. I believe that the Chiefs made the right decision in letting 7 WTC burn."

Steve Spak
stevespak.com

Also he told me:
"Sorry, That's the only photo that shows the damage, The smoke cleared for a second."

[kookbreaker]

Impressive shot! I'm glad he got it!

[Belz...]

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


Apparently, this got SRW banned:

Man you are reaching, Pulling down a building is not the same as inploding it. If you watched what it took to Pull bldg6 you would know that never happend to 7. Who pulled it Godzilla with the help of Mothera?

Merc has a short temper, apparently.

[SRW]

Apparently, this got SRW banned:



Merc has a short temper, apparently.


That among other things, 8 out of 15 of the posts I made over there were deleted. The results are some strange one sided arguments Merc has with himself.

[Belz...]

On the contrary, probability is evidence and often strong proof. I suppose that you reject every argument that is based on probability -- all of modern nuclear and particle physics research? Do you write off every strange thing as coincidence, no matter how unlikely? Or do you say at one point that it's unlikely to be coincidence and that an alternative explanation is more likely.

I'm sorry. Here you just show an utter ignorance of probability. Every event is, in itself, an occurance of very low probability, given that we don't know all the factors involved.

As an example of how little things can change a lot: I wouldn't be a computer programmer if not for a little 1992 game called Star Control II, and I probably wouldn't be here talking to you. Isn't that amazing ? What are the odds ? 1:1, actually.

In this case, he hit the point of least damage, and he appear to aim for that and no other.

Well, he didn't get to TRY AGAIN, dummy.

In any case, does it really insult those in Iraq to point out that they are participating in aggressive war, a fantasy of conquest of our neocon elite who never had to go to war themselves? Does it insult those who fought and sacrificed their lives on the German side of WWII to suggest that they were part of aggressive war, invading and conquering other countries?

Why, yes. Yes it is. Though I seldom agree with US policies, I would never dare presume that US soldiers risk their lives for petty reasons.

My earlier quote: "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."

Boy, they really are poor at covering up their tracks, aren't they ?

Please name one fact that doesn't "fit" the official story.

Thanks for conceding that the government's reluctance was unacceptable. But it was only understandable if 9/11 was an inside job. The Bush Administration was operating in coverup mode ever since 9/11 occured.

Speculation.

1) Evidence that the 9/11 Commission was formed at most a month after 9/11, and initially allocated at least one hundred million dollars.

That's the most hilarious thing I've heard all week.

This reminds me of one of our clients here, if you'll bear with me. Because most of our clients are government agencies, when looking for companies to fullfill specific tasks for them, they HAVE to pick the lowest bidder, by law, so long as this bidder / company matches a certain profile. Well, this particular client wanted a very specific company, and made that profile so that ONLY that one company could be eligible.

My point ? Your first point MAKES the official story impossible to start with.

2) Evidence that NORAD got fighter jets up near the hijacked planes within twenty minutes of the first sign of something going wrong for each plane.

I can see where this is going. You're not asking for evidence to convince you. You're telling us what SHOULD'VE happened on 9/11. Well, that's just too bad. That's not what happened. Now let's find out what DID happen and why.

[Kent1]

That among other things, 8 out of 15 of the posts I made over there were deleted. The results are some strange one sided arguments Merc has with himself.

I guess taking screenshots might help.

I got another batch from Magnum Photos that shows lots of smoke from the southside, on top of all the videos and other photos we have.

These guys are starting to look like no planers.

Lets see if these links works: (you may have to register)
http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CSearchZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=SearchThumb_SearchZoom&o=&Total=390&FP=4516025&E=2V6DH6VKE5OJF&SID=JMGEJNTIS3JFS&Pic=248&SubE=2K7O3RKUAN7

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=DocThumb_DocZoom&o=&DT=DOC&E=2K7O3RTAP4C&Pass=&Total=109&Pic=15&SubE=2K7O3RKU3F4

[Belz...]

You're not thinking. You're confusing "any possible" position with one position independently chosen. Sure, a flip of ten coins will produce one one-in-1024 result. But if I compare that with something independently chosen, say HTTHTHHTTH, then if it happens to match, there is something suspicious.

Really ? Why ? Why would there be something suspicious ? 1 out of 5 sides was hit. There was 20% chances that this was the strengthened side. Add to this the fact that the north sides are harder to approach, and this probability jumps to 33%. Add that hitting the west side is just dumb because they weren't coming from that angle, and it jumps to 50%. Make him miss the Pentagon on the first approach, and what do you get ?

In this case, the spot hit by the aircraft just happened to be the spot that would do by far the least damage. Not only that, they appeared to aim for it and no place else.

Just because I clap my hands and thunder follows doesn't mean I caused the thunder. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy.

Easy or difficult for someone who had a lot of trouble maintaining a steady altitude without the autopilot engaged? Easy or difficult for someone who was described as a poor pilot?

He was diving. Why would he need a steady altitude ? You're just inventing parameters that aren't there.

Okay, if the mode of attack were different -- not horizontal, 30 feet above the ground -- I might accept that they just happened to hit the point of least damage by luck. But that spot was targeted specifically.

You don't know that. You're still speculating.

How do you know that the government would have to expend an incredible amount of resources? Why couldn't the government do what Al Qaeda was supposed to have done? What could Al Qaeda do that the government couldn't do?

Because then they wouldn't have to cover it up.

No, the word is paralyze. We had an attack, and our "defense" forces played dead until the Pentagon was hit.

Not true. You might want to check your timeline again. Jets were mere minutes away when the south tower was hit.

That doesn't explain conduct like FBI officer Marion Bowman rewriting a memo by FBI agent Coleen Rowley to sabotage a warrant request to search a suspect's computer. It also doesn't explain the suspicious story of Al Qaeda expert John O'Neill, marginalized and then driven out of the FBI. It doesn't explain the repeated persistant disregard of numerous warnings the summer before 9/11.

You're right. It doesn't. Of course, you'll have to provide more than mere assertion.

Do you have that kind of understanding about Islam?

You tell me. Dying to destroy the enemies of the fate is a GUARANTEE for paradise, 72 virgin women and 28 pubescent boys. I think it's safe to say that the ends justified the means, in their eyes.

Do you really think that Atta's womanizing really was anything other than having fun and enjoying life? Do you think that was all part of the plot?

I think that, no matter what your faith is, in the end people simply do whatever the hell they WANT to do.

My whole point was that simplicity of a theory is no indication of how accurate the theory is. Thank's for echoing my point. I could make such examples myself.

You still don't understand what simplicity means when speaking of theories.

You're not thinking. If that guy is indepentently guessed, then there is reason for suspicion. You seem to be confused about any result versus one particular result. Or you are confusing aiming at a bull's-eye and hitting, versus drawing a bull's-eye around a bullet hole.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I ask people why they play lottery and their knee-jerk response is "well, someone's gotta win!" OF COURSE someone's gotta win, the odds of SOMEONE winning are very high. The odds of YOU winning ? Abysmal.

[Joytown]

I guess taking screenshots might help.

I got another batch from Magnum Photos that shows lots of smoke from the southside, on top of all the videos and other photos we have.

These guys are starting to look like no planers.

Lets see if these links works: (you may have to register)
http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CSearchZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=SearchThumb_SearchZoom&o=&Total=390&FP=4516025&E=2V6DH6VKE5OJF&SID=JMGEJNTIS3JFS&Pic=248&SubE=2K7O3RKUAN7

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=DocThumb_DocZoom&o=&DT=DOC&E=2K7O3RTAP4C&Pass=&Total=109&Pic=15&SubE=2K7O3RKU3F4

Wow .. fantastic set of photos.

More evidence against the absurd claim of "small fire at WTC7" (as well as corroborating photos for those who claim that the one "smoke" pic of WTC7 was photoshopped):

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CSearchZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=SearchZoom_SearchZoom&Total=390&FP=4516025&E=2V6DH6VKE5OJF&SID=JMGEJNTIS3JFS&Pic=170&o=UY5

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CSearchZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=SearchZoom_SearchZoom&Total=390&FP=4516025&E=2V6DH6VKE5OJF&SID=JMGEJNTIS3JFS&Pic=338&o=UY5

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=DocZoom_DocZoom&&E=2K7O3RTAP4C&DT=DOC&Pass=&Total=109&Pic=22&o=UY5

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=DocZoom_DocZoom&&E=2K7O3RTAP4C&DT=DOC&Pass=&Total=109&Pic=90&o=UY5


Also .. a shot of the jet engine part some are claiming to be planted:

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CSearchZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=SearchZoom_SearchZoom&Total=390&FP=4516025&E=2V6DH6VKE5OJF&SID=JMGEJNTIS3JFS&Pic=380&o=UY5

-Joytown

[Johnny C.]

do any of you guys have or know where i can get a picture of that buckled steel column from inside wtc5. was that from the NIST report?

[SRW]

I guess taking screenshots might help.

I got another batch from Magnum Photos that shows lots of smoke from the southside, on top of all the videos and other photos we have.

These guys are starting to look like no planers.

Lets see if these links works: (you may have to register)
http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CSearchZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=SearchThumb_SearchZoom&o=&Total=390&FP=4516025&E=2V6DH6VKE5OJF&SID=JMGEJNTIS3JFS&Pic=248&SubE=2K7O3RKUAN7

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=DocThumb_DocZoom&o=&DT=DOC&E=2K7O3RTAP4C&Pass=&Total=109&Pic=15&SubE=2K7O3RKU3F4

Facts of LC world:
All statements that do not agree with their view of events are faked.

All pictures that show bldg 7 burning or with damage to it are faked.

"Pull it " can only be interpreted as an order to demolish a building.

Critical thinking cannot and will not be allowed.

And as no plane hit bldg 7 It could only have fallen by CD.

Not that planes striking building have any significant affect on them.

No I really do think that Godzilla and Mothera are real possibilities in the LC'ers world. I'm banned until 2009, so I should be able to comment on "Loose change the finial finial finial, really were not kidding, this is it, last cut"

By the way these photos are really good.

[jhunter1163]

Belz:

Do you think the Ur-Quan were involved in 9/11?

[Brainster]

You're not thinking. You're confusing "any possible" position with one position independently chosen. Sure, a flip of ten coins will produce one one-in-1024 result. But if I compare that with something independently chosen, say HTTHTHHTTH, then if it happens to match, there is something suspicious.

Yes, but the key word in there is "then". If you calculate the odds of some improbable event happening beforehand, it can be quite astronomical. If you calculate the odds of some improbable event happening afterwards, it's a dead certainty. What were the odds that Mariano Rivera would give up two runs in the bottom of the ninth of game seven of the 2001 World Series? Pretty low, I'd say. That he did give up those two runs does not indicate that something sinister was behind it. It just indicates that a low probability event occurred.

[DavidJames]

You're not thinking. You're confusing "any possible" position with one position independently chosen. Sure, a flip of ten coins will produce one one-in-1024 result. But if I compare that with something independently chosen, say HTTHTHHTTH, then if it happens to match, there is something suspicious.If you were to show evidence that you predicted that sequence of coin flips, that would indeed be suspicious. More importantly, if you were able to show evidence the pilot intended to hit that exact spot, that would also be suspicious. You've been asked multiple times now about that. Do you have any evidence the pilot choose that spot? The answer is a simple yes or no.

If you answer, yes, provide that evidence (not conjuecture, assumptions or guesses)

[Kent1]

The new debunking book has a better picture of this photo.

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CSearchZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=SearchZoom_SearchZoom&Total=390&FP=4516025&E=2V6DH6VKE5OJF&SID=JMGEJNTIS3JFS&Pic=170&o=UY5

Its interesting to note how this fire continued to grow thoughout the various photos I've found.
Mike also notes it on his website. http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

[Kent1]

I'm also hoping to get more photos from Wille Circone.
His photos aren't shown very often.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=106251&mesg_id=106678
And another small batch at 911pictures
http://www.911pictures.com/photos_catalog.phtml?category=wtc&prenxt=168
http://www.911pictures.com/photos_catalog.phtml?category=wtc&prenxt=192
Like this
http://www.911pictures.com/photos_info.phtml?PID=911-1330&category=wtc

"Heavy volumes of smoke pour from building WTC-7 shortly before its collapse during the World Trade Center Disaster on September 11th, 2001"

[Brainster]

And as no plane hit bldg 7 It could only have fallen by CD.

Not that planes striking building have any significant affect on them.

Well put. The fascination with Building 7 seems to be rising; we'll see if it survives that Debunking 911 photo, which is terrific as are these.

[SRW]

Well put. The fascination with Building 7 seems to be rising; we'll see if it survives that Debunking 911 photo, which is terrific as are these.

Shocking isn't it how when you start asking questions answers start appearing. It's not that the answers, were not there all along it's just that they were not paying attention.

[Kent1]

Because these photos attack the "minimal" damage claims, I think this hurts the recruiting effort.
But I think most of the hard core CT'ers are going to move into two areas.
The time of the fall, and the symmetry. And they're going to forget about everything else.

The reason the fall occured so quickly has to do with the interior collapsing first. This also ties into the symmetry as the interior fell in on itself before the outer frame.
Next time you watch the penthouse fall, watch the windows. Can you see light coming through the building?

[T.A.M.]

(1) awesome Photo by Spak. That seals it for me. The testimony I had heard from firefighters had me convinced anyway, but proof is in the picture.

(2) That Humschmidt video, awesome. Turning on each other...MarkyX, this is a nother sign that they are about to fall apart as a group (The CTers).

[Dog Town]

I wouldn't be all that surprised. We are the founders of the real truth movement here :)

From what I see, in my month long trolling of the dark side. You guys are It!
You helped me save my best friend, well read, educated, and cool, from the Do Over Delinquents! All I had to do was follow your lead! Well,.. and use my grey matter!
Again my hat is of to you all!


DT

[Gravy]

do any of you guys have or know where i can get a picture of that buckled steel column from inside wtc5. was that from the NIST report?
That's on page 15 of the FEMA report on bldgs 4,5 and 6:http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch4.pdf

[twinstead]

From what I see, in my month long trolling of the dark side. You guys are It!
You helped me save my best friend, well read, educated, and cool, from the Do Over Delinquents! All I had to do was follow your lead! Well,.. and use my grey matter!
Again my hat is of to you all!


DT

The fact that otherwise well-educated folks can fall for the dark side is a testimate to the 911 'truth' movement's techniques, not their facts. I'm glad you were able to save one.

[Gravy]

Im going to post this photo now. We have had it for a while, but I didn't have permission to make it public until now.
The photo is from Steve Spak

NIST did NOT know of the photo until we gave it to them a little while back.
It IS one of the best known photos of the southside damage.

So here it is.....I'll let you guys debate it.

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC72.htm


A statement from Steve Spak:

"This photo was taken a couple of hours before number 7 WTC collapsed. Two water mains that supplied lower Manhattan were damaged leaving little or no water pressure in the area. Hours before the collapse of 7 WTC, Fire Chiefs at the scene advised all units to stay away from 7 WTC because of the collapse dangers. They had no water to fight the blaze and the building was damaged from the collapse of the North Tower. You can see a big hole on the lower floors in this photo. I believe that the Chiefs made the right decision in letting 7 WTC burn."

Steve Spak
stevespak.com

Also he told me:
"Sorry, That's the only photo that shows the damage, The smoke cleared for a second."
Good photo and followups. I believe in the original we're looking at the SW corner damage to WTC 7, not at the even more extensive damage higher up on the center of the south face that was described in firefighters' reports (the setback on the Verizon building at left is at about floor 10).

[Gravy]

"I think it's safe to say almost everyone in the entertainment industry has seen our flick." –Dylan Avery, on LC Blog (http://loosechange911.blogspot.com)

ETA: All I hear from Camp Freedom regarding my acceptance of Korey Rowe's challenge of a debate is crickets. Lots of crickets up there.

[Johnny Pixels]

"I think it's safe to say almost everyone in the entertainment industry has seen our flick." –Dylan Avery, on LC Blog (http://loosechange911.blogspot.com)

Ah the entertainment industry, the industry that makes money out of making things up.

[negativ]

I think it's safe to say almost everyone in the entertainment industry has had the flu, too.

[Earl The Tall]

"I think it's safe to say almost everyone in the entertainment industry has seen our flick." –Dylan Avery, on LC Blog

ETA: All I hear from Camp Freedom regarding my acceptance of Korey Rowe's challenge of a debate is crickets. Lots of crickets up there.

Which reminds me, has anyone seen World Trade Center yet. I read that Stone staied away from the thories in making the film. I wonder of the Deniers consider that a betraly on his part.

[mrfreeze]

Which reminds me, has anyone seen World Trade Center yet. I read that Stone staied away from the thories in making the film. I wonder of the Deniers consider that a betraly on his part.

Big time. Although now they are rumoring that he is going to make a pro conspiracy flick with Charlie Sheen. I'm sure it will be up to the standard quality of Mr. Sheen's other work. Such as The Wraith.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Which reminds me, has anyone seen World Trade Center yet. I read that Stone staied away from the thories in making the film. I wonder of the Deniers consider that a betraly on his part.

I have not yet watched, but I have read the review in the Chicago Tribune. According to the write-up he does stay away from an CTs and focuses on the human part of the story (Cage's and the other actors characters). In fact, they went out of their way (the paper) to mention that this film is a definite deviation from his other films like JFK and such.

[Johnny C.]

That's on page 15 of the FEMA report on bldgs 4,5 and 6:http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch4.pdf
thanks, ever since the forum got backed up the image you PMed me didnt work

[mrfreeze]

You know, one thing I never see mentioned is whether Stone really believes that JFK was a conspiracy, and that his film blew the lid off of it, or if he knew he was stretching the actual facts and did so anyway in order to make a good movie and cash in on the paranoia around it?

[T.A.M.]

I saw "World Trade Center" today. It was an awesome movie...in a gut wrenching, reminds me of why I come here and post kind of way.

I recommend it to all here.

[mrfreeze]

When the discussion of how Oliver Stone is a traitor for not telling the truth of 9/11 came up, this gem shortly followed:

Stone has never said on record what he does or does not believe about 9/11.

My guess is he knows damn well the official version is false, but for whatever reason did not want to touch the subject in this film. Maybe he trusts dylan & co. to nail it in LCFC? Maybe he's got something else up his sleeve? Who knows, but either way I don't think it's a huge deal that Stone didn't get into a 9/11 theory.

Bolding mine.

[Regnad Kcin]

You forgot to bold the "my guess" part.

[mrfreeze]

Oops your right. Fixed.

[JamesB]

Which reminds me, has anyone seen World Trade Center yet. I read that Stone staied away from the thories in making the film. I wonder of the Deniers consider that a betraly on his part.

I saw it yesterday. It is pretty good. It does focus on the personal story, although the depictions of the aftermath were pretty realistic. The CTs are just being jerks because it doesn't buy into their paranoia.

[njslim]

Saw "WORLD TRADE CENTER" on Friday - wore my Port Authorithy memorial
shirt in honor of the 37 Port Authorithy Police (and 47 civilian employees)
who didn't make it out. Felt a shudder when showed scene of twin towers
as dawn broke over NY - live only few miles west of New York and could see
towers from down the road a bit. Stone played it straight - heard that
Paramount kept him on tight leash after "ALEXANDER" bombed. On Google
News had some articles from moonbat types whining that Stone did not
make the movie they wanted, full of dark conspiracy and betrayal. Read
one article from whack job from Indymedia who saw early preview that the
noise of the building collapse confirms the CD theory as the floors pancake
going boom, boom, boom must be explosions. Also whack job imagines that
the hissing of the fires is thermite bombs. Urge everone to go see it - worth
the price .

[Gravy]

I spoke too soon about not hearing from Korey Rowe. I did get an email from him. All he said about the debate is that it would take some doing to set up. I replied with some suggestions about how this can be done on the quick and cheap. Anyway, he didn't say no!

I found out why he called me names in his blog post. (http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/) He's angry that I called Nancy Jo Sales, the author of the Vanity Fair piece, and told her that he had exaggerated his military record. She wound up grilling him over that.

Problem is, I've never contacted Sales in any way, and I don't know of anyone who has. She probably learned about the alleged exaggeration the same way I did: through Screw Loose Change. Won't it be nice when the Oneonta fact-checkers union strike is over?

Rowe says in his blog post that the recut version of LC is up on Google. It isn't. It hasn't been released yet.

I'll keep you updated on any developments.

[Brainster]

Eric Hufschmid or one of his fans appears to have put this hilarious attack video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJc_Xh3oy2s&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fscrewloosechange%2Eblogspot%2Eco m%2F) against the Loosers together. From what I can hear, all the sound bites come from the infamous phone conversation a few months back where Dylan and his buddies tried to get Hufschmid to take down his page (http://www.erichufschmid.net/InvestigateTheTruthSeekers.htm) accusing them of being part of the plot.

Just a heads up here; the creator commented on SLC (http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=115548867306014097). This was intended to be a spoof of Dylan's quote-mining and not meant to be taken seriously. I enjoyed it anyway.

[XXX]

Wow. In another 9/11 discussion on another board I have now, for the first time, been hit with the "low yield hydrogen bomb" theory.

Good god.

[JamesB]

I spoke too soon about not hearing from Korey Rowe. I did get an email from him. All he said about the debate is that it would take some doing to set up. I replied with some suggestions about how this can be done on the quick and cheap. Anyway, he didn't say no!

I found out why he called me names in his blog post. (http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/) He's angry that I called Nancy Jo Sales, the author of the Vanity Fair piece, and told her that he had exaggerated his military record. She wound up grilling him over that.

Problem is, I've never contacted Sales in any way, and I don't know of anyone who has. She probably learned about the alleged exaggeration the same way I did: through Screw Loose Change. Won't it be nice when the Oneonta fact-checkers union strike is over?

Rowe says in his blog post that the recut version of LC is up on Google. It isn't. It hasn't been released yet.

I'll keep you updated on any developments.

That would be me. I e-mailed her with some comments, I also included some links to articles on Rowe, like when he was getting all excited that Loose Change fans were making threatening phone calls to the law firm handling the Naudet case, and then he claimed he was in the initial invasion of Afghanistan, even though he got there over 2 months after Kabul fell. She said she wanted to interview me and asked for my phone number, but she has never called.

I guess we all are Gravy.

[gumboot]

Other than being able to fly, a Global Hawk (or a cruise missile for that matter) lookes nothing like a 757, and could never be mistaken for one in broad daylight by anyone with less than a .12 blood alcohol level. Much less hundreds of people.


I have my suspicions if a Global Hawk hit the side of the Pentagon it would just sort of collapse in on itself without doing any damage. They are made of incredibly light weight materials.

-Andrew

[apathoid]

I have my suspicions if a Global Hawk hit the side of the Pentagon it would just sort of collapse in on itself without doing any damage. They are made of incredibly light weight materials.

-Andrew

I agree. And this thing isnt exactly fast either. The Air Force says the Global Hawk can hit 340 kts at 65,000'. Just an educated guess on my part, but I would think this is close to stall speed in the thin air 13 miles up because 340 kts TAS, at 65,000 ft, becomes 145 kts IAS.

At sea level, this thing probably cant hit 200 mph. It only weighs 26,000 lbs too. Plugging these numbers into the kinetic energy formula, a Global Hawk impact at the Pentagon would only have 1/64th the energy a 100 ton 757 had at 550 mph. So yeah, it probably would bounce off the Pentagon leaving a neat pile of plastic...

[Belz...]

Belz:

Do you think the Ur-Quan were involved in 9/11?

What the ??

No, more likely a bad Umgah joke.

Where the hell did that come from, man ?

[jhunter1163]

As an example of how little things can change a lot: I wouldn't be a computer programmer if not for a little 1992 game called Star Control II...


As someone else who wasted a LOT of his youth saving the galaxy in that game, thought you'd appreciate the reference.

And the Umgah joke theory probably has as much solid evidence backing it up as Loose Change.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Won't it be nice when the Oneonta fact-checkers union strike is over?Even though I have the entire day ahead of me, I don't expect to encounter anything anywhere near this funny. Maybe not even during the rest of the week.

[JamesB]

Another Dylan highlight.

QUOTE (Chris Sarns @ Aug 13 2006, 08:25 AM)
Can you possibly believe that the PENTAGON was DEFENCELESS on 911, that there was NO on site radar or anti aircraft ability? At very least they would have stinger missels and certianly a lot more very sophisticated stuff.


no, i can't believe it. but mark roberts does. he states it like it's fact. just like he states factually that there were no wargames on the morning of 9-11...

the smartest tour guide in the world.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10426

Now correct me if I am wrong, but if you are arguing that something exists, doesn't the burden of proof fall on you to prove it exists, rather than on someone else to to prove it doesn't exist?

[Darth Rotor]

The person is a mechanical engineer, not a structual.
So what? The differences are small, and they all start at the same place.

Let's see, are you an engineer? I passed the EIT, however, I did not spend 5 years as an EIT, and so never was in position to take the cert to become a PE. Life took me in other directions, for which I am grateful.

A "structural engineer" is related to a"Mechanical Engineer" and a "civil engineer." When I was finishing my degree, I was told by a prof that a civil engineer, like an aerospace engineer, was a special case of "Mechanical Engineer." Structures likewise. Of course, it's been thirty years, and everyone wants to make differences without distinction, but in defense of the distinction, the world of building things has only gotten more complicated, so people tend to specialize and stovepipe even more than formerly.

Mechanical engineers, aerospace engineers, Civil Engineers, Ocean Engineers (another field related to Structural and Mechanical Engineers) all start with the same basics. Statics, Dynamics, Strength of Materials, and so on. Mechanical engineers take courses in Material Science (as do structural engineers and Ocean Engineers and Civil Engineers and Aerospace Engineers.) In order to stay current within their profession, all of these sorts of engineers have to keep track of the advances in engineering materials: sort of like Doctors needing to stay up to speed on their professional journals.

New forging methods, new casting methods, new treating methods, new surface hardening methods, new and better material development, and new allows to apply to particular engineering problem sets. (The HY 80 to HY 100 steel in US submarines a few decades ago is an example. The Russian titanium metallurgy that made the Alpha class possible is another.)

A Mechanical engineer will have a well grounded basis for analyzing the structures at hand. A great deal of his formal education and professional work has to do with stresses, strains, material properties, fatigue loadiing, thermal loading, etc. If one specializes as a structural engineer, of course, one would be far more in tune with the nuances of material selection, and load distribution plan, of building something as complicated as a sky scraper.

Don't poo poo the ME, it all starts with free body diagrams of girders! :p

Structural engineers, naturally, like civil engineers, would tend to be far more familiar at an intuitive level with concrete and glass, construction materials in detail, subtle methods of using rebar or other combination methods, and integrating multiple materials into a building due to the demands of the job.

DR

[Belz...]

As someone else who wasted a LOT of his youth saving the galaxy in that game, thought you'd appreciate the reference.

And the Umgah joke theory probably has as much solid evidence backing it up as Loose Change.

Sorry, J. I had forgotten my reference to that game. Slow monday, I guess.

ETA: My personal favourites were the Spathi. I just love these guys.

[jhunter1163]

The Spathi rocked. Who were those spider-looking guys? They were pretty rude-looking.. I forget the names.. been a LONG time since I played that game. I'm gonna go play it now though.

[eeyore1954]

From Chris Sarns
Can you possibly believe that the PENTAGON was DEFENCELESS on 911, that there was NO on site radar or anti aircraft ability? At very least they would have stinger missels and certianly a lot more very sophisticated stuff.

Another Dylan highlight.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but if you are arguing that something exists, doesn't the burden of proof fall on you to prove it exists, rather than on someone else to to prove it doesn't exist?

But it pretty much has been proved on the Loose Change board that the Pentagon defense systems exist because a friend of John Doe who either worked at the Pentagon or the CIA told him there was such a system.

[Johnny Pixels]

But it pretty much has been proved on the Loose Change board that the Pentagon defense systems exist because a friend of John Doe who either worked at the Pentagon or the CIA told him there was such a system.

Funny how none of them show up in aerial photos, or for that matter, in real life. The government must be jamming peoples eyeballs.

[Darth Rotor]

In this case, he hit the point of least damage, and he appear to aim for that and no other. (I may have been wrong about the nature of his circular dive. If he pulled out at 2000 feet above the ground, that's not nearly as bad.)
I am trying to arrive at how you chose what "the point of least damage" is, since any of the five faces of the Pentagon, had he hit them, would not have collapsed completely, and many of the people working in them would have not been killed. We already went over why you don't aim at the empty spaces between wings, or the center empty space. We agreed on why it would be a less than optimal attack mode, and I Showed you that, once again

MAXIMUM POTENTIAL DAMAGE FOR THE WEAPON, one 757 at X knots, is a direct hit on the target transferring 100% of the Kinetic Energy of the weapon to the Building. The attack made a direct hit, minus a fraction for one wingtip, apparently, and was thus a successful Max Damage Attack. QED

Your assertion that all of them in any other wing would have died? Without merit, see the fraction of E Ring actually damaged. The Army Colonel I mentioned some pages ago: he was in the E ring at the time of impact, about 50 meters from the hole. He got knocked off of his feet, his ears were ringing, the lights went out, but he and everyone else in the room got out alive.

Using the dimensions that Gumboot provided of the size of the Pentagon, compare in cross section the size and shape of the 757 used to attack it. Apply that cross section to any of the five faces of the E Ring. You end up with about the same sized hole, and the same amount of penetration. The other 4/5 fifths of the building take no damage at all. The Rings (A-E) of the sector attacked takes similar damage, but a great deal of each ring is still standing, just as a great deal of E Ring - A Ring of the attacked face were still standing . . . albeit in worse shape.
No, just a majority of the victims there were construction workers.
You may have noticed that your numbers don't add up to over 100. Many more victims were killed. The most I will concede is that the construction was nearly complete and they began moving people in. Fewer than 1000 persons were there, as oppose to many thousands in the other wings.
Your "thousands" jab assumes an order of magnitude greater casualty count for an identical Kinetic Energy strike on a structurally sound, and similar piece of the building, one not under construction.

Around 200 died in the Pentagon. How does an identical weapon kill 10 times more? 5 times more in a strike on a buidling made of the same basic structure?

For greater effects on a robust building, you have to use more weapons. They had one weapon. Any other Face of the E Ring may have produced double casualties, or triple, with a few more people in the office, so we are around 400 - 600, but the building still absorbs the impact, and most people get out via the fire escape/evac routes. The weapon in question did not destroy the entire E Ring, it damaged part of it, and part of D (and C IIRC).

Thousands? Your strawman based on what valid casualty estimation model? Nothing besides your keyboard.
Have you seen any of the quotes about how poor a pilot he was? If he had one, he shouldn't have. In any case, the document I "linked" to above shows how awful a time he had keeping the aircraft level when it was off autopilot. I think we can rule out his flying horizontally 30 feet above the ground without hitting the ground.
You and gumboot are both off base here.

As I noted before, at 7nm per minute, from the diagram of the flight path, he has to descend about 2000 feet, at roughly 3000-4000 feet per minute at full power. That is a dive angle you can plot, certainly below the 20 degrees I suspected. The x coordinate is 4 nm = 8000 yards = 24,000 feet. The y coordinate is 2000 feet. What is the glide slope? (The slope of that line is about 4.8 degrees.)

To hit the middle of the face is a simple problem in relative motion for a pilot. You put your target on a spot in the windscreen and fly, keeping the target in the spot the whole time. If it moves at all, you correct for it with the control column, since the evidence showed he went to max power around the time he began the final straight in dive/glide.

Constant bearing decreasing range.

As you get closer, gumboot points out the problem of how being slightly off from farther out would require larger corrections closer in. The FDC showed HE WAS FLYING BY HAND, and thus making fine corrections all the way in to impact. The witnesses saw some wing movement, which makes sense for final corrections into his impact point.

Please, watch any film of Navy jets flying into an aircraft carrier, or any film of an aircraft landing in a cross wind. You will see small to medium adjustments in the wings as the pilot fine tunes his line up. He is solving a visual relative motion problem to arrive at a point.
The official story doesn't explain many of the facts.
Actually, it explains most of them pretty well, and this latest release from NTSB improves on the fidelity. Why it was classified for so long is, however, disturbing. I am guessing someone in the FAA was afraid of losing their job.
Did I say anywhere that that anyone in our government was knowingly dying for the conspiracy?
Since I am not sure which consipracy theory you are alluding to, I am guessing you feel the Al Q hijackers were hired by someone in government? Do I have that right?
In any case, does it really insult those in Iraq to point out that they are participating in aggressive war, a fantasy of conquest of our neocon elite who never had to go to war themselves? Does it insult those who fought and sacrificed their lives on the German side of WWII to suggest that they were part of aggressive war, invading and conquering other countries? The answer either has to be no or yes for both of them.
Well, having served in that war, I for one am insulted by a great deal of what the ignoramuses in the general public, in the media, and on the internet say about the war's causes, its effects, its conduct, its motivations, and its current state of play. Most of you have it wrong, and I wish this War as a Spectator Sport habit would be excised, but it won't be any time soon.

I am no fan of neocons like Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, etc. The former left his post when the going got tough and got a golden parachute job with World Bank. The other two were architets of a war plan that ignored sound military advice, see General Shinseki's fate. (If you haven't read Cobra II, please do.) See also General Zinni's original plan, when he was CENTCOM.

Like the typical Washington suit and tie operators, they left the men in uniform holding the bag of sh** they excreted into Iraq policy forumlation. At least Sec Def Rumsfeld is man enough to try to polish the turd, and not run away and leave some one else to clean up his mess. Agree with him or not, like his methods or not, like his style or not, he's still on the job trying to get it right.

That the policy makers took a high risk approach, and tried to solve a political problem by the sword and get away with changing a country without all the tools in place to do so is not a new habit. Their reach exceeded their grasp, and the price they were willing to pay, and the price they were willing to ask the voters to pay, was set low enough to be swallowable at the outset. That price has increased one hundred fold since March of 2003. The original estimates on Iraq reconstruction to US Treasury was 3 billion dollars. Can you believe that? I didn't at the time, bu then, I didn't think Paul Bremmer would be an idiot and try to disenfranchise the Sunni of Central Iraq.

So, sure, I am displeased at how the military is being used to further political ends, even though that is why the military exists: as a political tool of blunt force. The question is, are those ends that of a party, a sub set of a party, or the ends of generally taking care of America's long term strategic health?

Another topic, that.

For the record, I was also pissed at Clinton's "do it on the cheap" nonsense in Somalia, where he asked 1/3 the forces (without armor that was requested) to do what 20,000+ Marines had done at the outset. I am disgusted with what was done to Serbia. I never considered the problems of Albania to be a major US security interest, yet on their behalf, Serbia was bombed by NATO for 71 days. All this while Europe was making all kinds of noise in about the EU being a rival to the US, an EU unable to put 18 European nations against Serbia without American help. ('Scuse me while I sneer.)

I personally do not consider setting up a Muslim client state, Bosnia, on the soil of Europe to be a strategically valid action, but NATO for some idiotic, collective political reason did so.

The Iraq War was not the only options available in dealing with Saddam. It was presented to the public as an "either or" dilemna, and VP Cheney's "if there is a one in a hundred chance he can do it, we can't sit by and wait" was IMO a significant mind set influencing that decision.

One of the talking points was "either we take out Saddam, or he will get WMD's into the hands of terrorists." That was a false dilemma, since other options, to include doing more work on sanctions, more inspections, more air or Tomahawk strikes on WMD sites (like Clinton did) or a whole lot of other multilateral action, were options. None of them were simple, all required patience and hard work, and few of them included letting loose the world's most lethal military on anyone.
I wrote earlier: "1) Al Qaeda paralyzed our air security."
You obviously have not read the NEAD's paper. The "denial" phase, response to an unexpected occurrence, is CLEARLY in evidence to anyone with a clue about interagency communication, air traffic control, Command and Control, and decision making. So was the lag time between FAA contact to NEADS and the scramble decision.

The Fighters WERE NOT ON ALERT 5!

They were at best on alert 15 (I have a hunch that they were actually on Alert 30, but I have yet to find anyone who can or will confirm that) which means the launch standard is "in the air by 15 minutes from now" once the launch order is given. You will note from that article that the USAF Major on watch launched the fighters even without a perfect dose of Situational Awareness, which put the fighters a bit sooner than they might have been, given the confusion factor between ATC and the Military, and the apparent hesitancy in Air C2.
Quick question: What does the 9/11 Commission's Report say in Chapter 1 about the possibility of fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base intercepting the approaching AA 77? (Not to mention any one of the bases near the path the plane flew.)
Andrews is not an ACC FIghter base. That would be Langley, in Hampton VA. GET YOUR HANDS ON SOME FACTS.
Have you forgotten all the complaints about the Bush Administration not producing documents, or stalling before producing them? When was the 9/11 Commission formed? How much money were they allocated? How do those answers compare with the Commissions investigating the two space shuttle disasters.
Yes, people afraid to look bad and have their shortcomings linked to 9-11. I saw similar ass covering in the Navy for most of my career. Governent officials use ass covering as a survival tool. Think Vince Foster.
Does anyone recall Dick Cheney threatening certain senators with treason accusation in calling for investigation of 9/11?
I don't, but if he did, he was not only wrong but politically obtuse. It also means he knew some stuff went wrong on his watch, and he, among others, would be holding the bag. Comes with the badge.
Thanks for conceding that the government's reluctance was unacceptable. But it was only understandable if 9/11 was an inside job. The Bush Administration was operating in coverup mode ever since 9/11 occured.
The 9-11 comission was, from its outset, a political animal. It was not a scientific forensic investigation, nor an accident investigation, nor a police investigation, nor an FBI investigation.
1) Evidence that the 9/11 Commission was formed at most a month after 9/11, and initially allocated at least one hundred million dollars.I am trying to understand why it was important to apportion blame immediately. What was necessary immediately was to do roughly what was done:
Try to improve security, go after AQ and their host the Taliban.

That said, a lot of people were mad at how America had been caught flatfooted and successfully attacked, so a lot of folks wanted answers. (Oh Admiral Stark, how you must be watching this from the grave and shaking your head.) None of those answers would undo the damage done, however. Thirty years of pacifist hijacking policy, and unwillingness to fund an Air Marshall program, came home to roost.
2) Evidence that NORAD got fighter jets up near the hijacked planes within twenty minutes of the first sign of something going wrong for each plane.
Read the NEAD's report. Then let's revisit this. Oh, and as a former career service member, thanks so very much for your zero defects expectations from your military. Since you won't pay to fund zero defects (no one has that kind of money) I really appreciate your hypocrisy for what it is: the braying of an ass.

DR

[JamesB]

But it pretty much has been proved on the Loose Change board that the Pentagon defense systems exist because a friend of John Doe who either worked at the Pentagon or the CIA told him there was such a system.

Well gee, how can I argue with that definitive proof...

[Darth Rotor]

Well gee, how can I argue with that definitive proof...
The Air Defense systems at the Pentagon might well be classified, should there be active Stinger or other assets in the hands of security there. This could become one of those "very difficult to discuss due to no official disclosures" issues.

An old Secret Service agent (since retired) neighbor of mine, would not answer my questions about Stingers at Camp David or the White House at a bar b cue one fine afternoon, chiding me with my own understanding of "need to know" from my military frame of reference. I accepted his rebuke.

I figured that after the light civil aircraft crashd near the White House in Clinton's time, there would be Stingers there 24/7.

Never got confirmation, so I could only guess.

DR

[CurtC]

The Air Defense systems at the Pentagon might well be classified, should there be active Stinger or other assets in the hands of security there. This could become one of those "very difficult to discuss due to no official disclosures" issues.
Except that right after 9/11, missiles were deployed at the Pentagon, and it was public knowledge. I don't see how you could have missile crews around the Pentagon without it being plainly visible to everyone. It's not as if the Pentagon is tucked away at some remote location.

[CptColumbo]

I spoke too soon about not hearing from Korey Rowe. I did get an email from him. All he said about the debate is that it would take some doing to set up. I replied with some suggestions about how this can be done on the quick and cheap. Anyway, he didn't say no!

I found out why he called me names in his blog post. (http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/) He's angry that I called Nancy Jo Sales, the author of the Vanity Fair piece, and told her that he had exaggerated his military record. She wound up grilling him over that.

Problem is, I've never contacted Sales in any way, and I don't know of anyone who has. She probably learned about the alleged exaggeration the same way I did: through Screw Loose Change. Won't it be nice when the Oneonta fact-checkers union strike is over?

Rowe says in his blog post that the recut version of LC is up on Google. It isn't. It hasn't been released yet.

I'll keep you updated on any developments.
I e-mailed her as well as James, and talked to Ben Chertoff about it (he may have talked to her about the errors regarding him).

[JamesB]

The Air Defense systems at the Pentagon might well be classified, should there be active Stinger or other assets in the hands of security there. This could become one of those "very difficult to discuss due to no official disclosures" issues.

An old Secret Service agent (since retired) neighbor of mine, would not answer my questions about Stingers at Camp David or the White House at a bar b cue one fine afternoon, chiding me with my own understanding of "need to know" from my military frame of reference. I accepted his rebuke.

I figured that after the light civil aircraft crashd near the White House in Clinton's time, there would be Stingers there 24/7.

Never got confirmation, so I could only guess.

DR

A Stinger is a MANPAD, theoretically there could be one stationed at my house (it is in the back bedroom in the closet). The mere speculation of something does not in anyway constitute proof.

Besides, the scholars are claiming it is an anti-aircraft gun. Some have even claimed it is an underground missile battery.

[Hellbound]

The Air Defense systems at the Pentagon might well be classified, should there be active Stinger or other assets in the hands of security there. This could become one of those "very difficult to discuss due to no official disclosures" issues.

An old Secret Service agent (since retired) neighbor of mine, would not answer my questions about Stingers at Camp David or the White House at a bar b cue one fine afternoon, chiding me with my own understanding of "need to know" from my military frame of reference. I accepted his rebuke.

I figured that after the light civil aircraft crashd near the White House in Clinton's time, there would be Stingers there 24/7.

Never got confirmation, so I could only guess.

DR

I have no special knowledge or expertise on these areas specifically, but judging from what I've seen at other areas...

I'd suspect that nay AA capability they had would tend towards light, hand-held systems (Stingers, for example), and these would also be kept locked up in an arms room, released only when needed. It would take time to get them out, and I suspect even then they'd only be brought to ready if a suspected air attack was coming in (a fair certainty of coming in) and even then only with an appropriate order.

Just my guess, though, so means nothing except another option to play with :)

[Darth Rotor]

Except that right after 9/11, missiles were deployed at the Pentagon, and it was public knowledge. I don't see how you could have missile crews around the Pentagon without it being plainly visible to everyone. It's not as if the Pentagon is tucked away at some remote location.

Thanks Curt, my memory did not hold that tidbit.

A two man stinger team on the roof of the Pentagon would not be particularly visible to much of anyone.

Depends on if you are deploying Stingers for PR value, to show "we are protecting" (typical political use of image to ensure the illusion of security)

or

if you are putting a few Teams on the roof, from where you get a better point defense coverage and a neglible visual signature for much of anyone on the ground.

DR

[Hishighness]

My personal view on 9/11 is what the government says, but I can also believe that Dubya knew and didn't stop it, but I haven't seen any proof of that. That's just taking Dubya's character (or lack thereof) in to account.

[CurtC]

A two man stinger team on the roof of the Pentagon would not be particularly visible to much of anyone.
Maybe someone familiar with military technology can answer this question for me. If there were a Stinger crew on the roof of the Pentagon on 9/11, and they knew that flight 77 was coming in, could a Stinger have hit the plane?

I thought Stingers were heat-seeking and would have a hard time with a target approaching directly at you at high speed.

[kookbreaker]

All of this "missile defense for the Pentagon" stuff misses much of the problems with protecting a hard target at the expense of the surrounding soft targets.

Most, if not all, fixed anti-air missile systems are designed to take out airborne targets before they can fire themselves. They really aren't designed to disintigrate their target, merely destroy its ability to fly.

Trouble is, this OK in a battlefield, perfect over the empty Oceans, but is a nightmare over soft targets like a modern US city. Two examples of this come to mind:

The Patriot Missile system deployed in Isreal during Desert Storm: This made lots of shots, looked good for the networks, but actually increased casualties as a bunch of Scud & Patriot Chunks landing on houses did a lot more damage than an individual SCUD hitting its target. Imagine chunks of plane & missile landing all over Washington DC and Virginia suburbs.

Pearl Harbor: The major cause of civilian casualties during the Pearl Harbor attack was (tah-dah!) falling spent bullets used in air defense.

If there are any defenses for the Pentagon, it is likely as Huntsman puts it: Stingers in a closet, probably just in case someone hijacks a helicopter and starts firing at the Building or something. Not for prevention of Kamakazi attacks. The idea of an automatic missile system, near so many soft targets and so close to the airport, is just plain laughable.

[60hzxtl]

Good points Kookbreaker - what goes up must come down.

Further, it is not like the ONLY thing in the sky was Flt 93, Flt 77, etc - Speaking of kooks - look at the nutcase that sees a 3rd plane at WTC, discussed at Journal of Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Point is there were other planes in the sky - that had not as yet landed on the forced shut down. Want to take a chance that you just took out the FEDEX plane, or the Shuttle?

Ooops doesn't work.

[Darth Rotor]

Maybe someone familiar with military technology can answer this question for me. If there were a Stinger crew on the roof of the Pentagon on 9/11, and they knew that flight 77 was coming in, could a Stinger have hit the plane?

I thought Stingers were heat-seeking and would have a hard time with a target approaching directly at you at high speed.
Thanks to superb engineering, current generation IR missiles have a "forward quarter engagement capability." <== That means that the heat signature of the intake of the engines is enough heat to lock onto. Is it as sweet of a shot as right up the rear end? No, but in the absense of countermeasures, it is good enough to engage and hit.

Now, would a Stinger into the intake of one engine of a 757 a few miles away be enough to knock it out of the sky? Probably, however, given that the explosion might cause enough structural damage to take the wing off, all bets are now off. On the other hand, if it just blew the engine off, and the (now damaged) wing stayed on (of course, it is now on fire and one engine's thrust just went away, and some of the flight control surfaces are damaged, and some of the flight control rigging has been damaged . . .) an experienced pilot might be able to cut fuel, deploy the fire bottle, and get the aircraft on the ground: that is what professionals train for. Tough, but as long as he has lift, the pilot might keep it flying.

A novice like Honjour? He'd be hard pressed not to hit the ground before he hit his target, since he just went into asymmetrical thrust, has a significant yaw rate problem, no copilot to rely on, and he's bleeding airspeed while he works to restore control of the aircraft.

Edit: I note Kookbreakers comments, and concur with his assessment.

DR

[Hishighness]

There were reports of a 3rd plane bringing down the South Tower on September 11th. But obviously they were refuted later. Part of the "fog of war" as it were.

[JamesB]

Maybe someone familiar with military technology can answer this question for me. If there were a Stinger crew on the roof of the Pentagon on 9/11, and they knew that flight 77 was coming in, could a Stinger have hit the plane?

I thought Stingers were heat-seeking and would have a hard time with a target approaching directly at you at high speed.

I am not an ADA expert, but it is my understanding that the Stinger can engage from all directions. The older systems such as the Redeye or the Soviet SA-7 were limited in that you had to have a lock on the engines from behind.

Now whether it would actually be able to successfully engage and destroy a fast approaching suicidal jetliner is another question. The Avenger, which actually was deployed after 9/11 would have a better chance, with better communication and control capabilities, and the ability to fire up to 8 missiles.

[60hzxtl]

The high priest of the cult is loosing it -

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10556

Or another thought - its toooooo quiet over at the forums, and we need to gin up some more boogie men!


Now, don't tell Dylan that the higher the altitude, the colder the air, so all planes in the sky are not created equally. Oh wait, he doesn't read!

Pssst Dylan! They are after you! You could hide under the bed, but Korey says its a FUTON!

reference? - http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/

[Regnad Kcin]

The high priest of the cult is loosing it -

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10556...i hate to come off like a nutcase.Too late.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So what? The differences are small, and they all start at the same place.

A "structural engineer" is related to a"Mechanical Engineer" and a "civil engineer." When I was finishing my degree, I was told by a prof that a civil engineer, like an aerospace engineer, was a special case of "Mechanical Engineer." Structures likewise. Of course, it's been thirty years, and everyone wants to make differences without distinction, but in defense of the distinction, the world of building things has only gotten more complicated, so people tend to specialize and stovepipe even more than formerly.

If such is the case then it should be easy for the truthers to find a structural engineer to back up thier claims. Five years later, however, we're all still waiting.

There isn't a huge amount of difference between transplant surgeons and neurosurgeons either. No sane hospital director will allow a guy who swaps livers near a patients head with a bonesaw and that is when one life is at stake.

Here we have thousands of lives hanging in the balance. Someday, another hi-rise tower will catch fire. It's inevitable. It might not happen from terrorism, it could just be a knocked over paint thinner can that catches fire. No false flags, no religious fascists, no agenda of any kind. Just a straight up run-of-the-mill, could-happen-anywhere-to-anyone accident.

I'm sure that if Steven Jones and Judy "Scholars for Tooth" Wood are on the scene that they'll tell the fire chief "I hate George Bush, therefore the building is safe to send firefighters into."

I don't go to gynecologists to get my eyes checked. I wouldn't go to a proctologist to have my extra uvula removed. For my money, when I suspect that a building may collapse, I wanna hear it from a STRUCTURAL engineer.

[T.A.M.]

I noticed a funny thing. Lately, I have had a few "Truthers" tell me that "heresay" (which is what they call eyewitness testimony) is not good evidence. Now while I agree that in a case where one side says this happened, and another side says it didn't, neither testimony carries much weight, multiple eyewitness testimony to a common event, in my opnion, carries weight. that said, if the LC "Truthers" want to say that eye witness testimony is little in terms of evidence that is fine...but then...

Then I go to the front page of the LC main site...and what does their quote next to the burning WTC rubble say...

"Evidence is derived from news footage, scientific fact, and most important, Americans who suffered through that tragic day."

Now it seems to me, the makers of LC are are saying that of their evidence, the most important, is that provided by those who suffered through that tragic day...ie eyewitness testimony.

CT = Contradiction Theorist

[defaultdotxbe]

I noticed a funny thing. Lately, I have had a few "Truthers" tell me that "heresay" (which is what they call eyewitness testimony) is not good evidence. Now while I agree that in a case where one side says this happened, and another side says it didn't, neither testimony carries much weight, multiple eyewitness testimony to a common event, in my opnion, carries weight. that said, if the LC "Truthers" want to say that eye witness testimony is little in terms of evidence that is fine...but then...

Then I go to the front page of the LC main site...and what does their quote next to the burning WTC rubble say...

"Evidence is derived from news footage, scientific fact, and most important, Americans who suffered through that tragic day."

Now it seems to me, the makers of LC are are saying that of their evidence, the most important, is that provided by those who suffered through that tragic day...ie eyewitness testimony.

CT = Contradiction Theorist
what they mean to say is eyewitnesses who agree with them are good sources, but those who disagree are not


for example: the dozens or hundreds of people who say a 757 hit the pentagon are unreliable, but the one guy who say a small commuter plane, he knows what happened



it annoys me, they demand we explain why one guy saw a small plane, yet they offer no explanation as to why dozens saw a large one

[rwguinn]

If such is the case then it should be easy for the truthers to find a structural engineer to back up thier claims. Five years later, however, we're all still waiting.

There isn't a huge amount of difference between transplant surgeons and neurosurgeons either. No sane hospital director will allow a guy who swaps livers near a patients head with a bonesaw and that is when one life is at stake.

Here we have thousands of lives hanging in the balance. Someday, another hi-rise tower will catch fire. It's inevitable. It might not happen from terrorism, it could just be a knocked over paint thinner can that catches fire. No false flags, no religious fascists, no agenda of any kind. Just a straight up run-of-the-mill, could-happen-anywhere-to-anyone accident.

I'm sure that if Steven Jones and Judy "Scholars for Tooth" Wood are on the scene that they'll tell the fire chief "I hate George Bush, therefore the building is safe to send firefighters into."

I don't go to gynecologists to get my eyes checked. I wouldn't go to a proctologist to have my extra uvula removed. For my money, when I suspect that a building may collapse, I wanna hear it from a STRUCTURAL engineer.

There are Civil Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Chemical Engineers, and Electrical/Electronic Engineers.
Mechanical engineers are civil engineers who refuse to believe that forces always sum to zero.
A Structural Engineer is a Civil or mechanical engineer who has additional study in building codes. When he is designing and analyzing, he is a mechanical/civil engineer. He then takes the results of that and proceeds to make sure it meets minimum code standards.
In a lot of ways, stuctural engineers are "cookbook" guys--the codes won't let them be anything else.
ETA-and by the way, the codes are written by mechanical, civil, chemical, and electrical engineers...

[CurtC]

The high priest of the cult is loosing it -

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10556
I was gonna say that maybe we should pop in over there and egg on this kind of lunacy, but I see the forum regulars are already doing just that.

[60hzxtl]

I was gonna say that maybe we should pop in over there and egg on this kind of lunacy, but I see the forum regulars are already doing just that.

Oh, go on, tell them the worst chemtrails are the ones you can't see. . .

[Gravy]

Another Dylan highlight.

(Chris Sarns @ Aug 13 2006, 08:25 AM)
Can you possibly believe that the PENTAGON was DEFENCELESS on 911, that there was NO on site radar or anti aircraft ability? At very least they would have stinger missels and certianly a lot more very sophisticated stuff.

no, i can't believe it. but mark roberts does. he states it like it's fact. just like he states factually that there were no wargames on the morning of 9-11...

the smartest tour guide in the world.
The Oneonta FCU Local is still on strike (Fact-Checkers' Union).

Below are two instances where I apparently state "factually that there were no wargames on the morning of 9/11" The first is from page 15 of my "Loose Change Viewer Guide." It's also the third item in the index on page 2: "Air Defenses / Norad Exercises on 9/11."

[Avery] The first, "Vigilant Guardian", is described as
"An exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide".

[Me] The 9/11 Commission report described it as an exercise "which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union". (Chapter 1, note 116) Contrary to conspiracy theorist claims that air defenses had “stood down” on 9/11, they were unusually “geared up.” Because of the semiannual exercises that had been going on for several days, NORAD radar stations and battle rooms were fully staffed, with top commanders there to make decisions.

[Avery] The second, "Northern Vigilance", moved fighter jets to Canada and Alaska to fight off an imaginary Russian fleet.

[Me] Most people don’t know that NORAD is a joint U.S./Canadian organization. The normal force of fighters on alert to protect the country remained in place: 14 at 7 air bases.

From Loose Change Creators Speak (http://tinyurl.com/s8ouv), page 69.

Caller (reading question): NORAD averaged 2 or 3 war exercises a year in the decade prior to 9/11. Do you believe that, contrary to official reports, prior knowledge of top officials had anything to do with the 15 war exercises being practiced by NORAD on the single day of 9/11?

Bermas: Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, it's too much of a coincidence that supposedly 19 guys with box cutters were able to piggyback onto war games that were almost the same exact thing.

[Me] 15 war games? NORAD was running three long-scheduled exercises: Northern Guardian, Vigilant Guardian, and Northern Vigilance. Neither affected the readiness of the normal alert fighter bases. On 9/11, 14 fighters were on alert status as usual.

And need I remind Avery that on September 11, 2002, portable missile batteries were temporarily placed near the Pentagonin case of an "anniversary attack." I guess all the regular missile batteries were down for maintenance.

Thanks to MikeW for this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1829961&postcount=1154).
Richard Clarke:
The Secret Service and Customs had teamed up in Atlanta to provide some rudimentary air defense against an aircraft flying into the Olympic Stadium. They did so again during the subsequent National Security Special Events and they agreed to create a permanent air defense unit to protect Washington. Unfortunately, those two federal law enforcement agencies were housed in the Treasury Department and its leadership did not want to pay for such a mission or run the liability risks of shooting down the wrong aircraft. Treasury nixed the air defense unit, and my attempts within the White House to overfule them came to naught. The idea of aircraft attacking in Washington seemed remote to many people and the risks of shooting down aircraft in a city were thought to be far too high. Moreover, the opponents of our plan argued, the Air Force could always scramble fighter aircraft to protect Washington if there were a problem. On occasions when aircraft were hijacked (and in one case when we erroneously believed a Northwest flight had been seized), the Air Force did intercept the airliners with fighter jets. We succeeded only in getting Secret Service the permission to continue to examine air defense options, including the possibility of placing missile units near the White House. Most people who heard about our efforts to create some air defense system in case terrorists tried to fly aircraft into the Capitol, the White House, or the Pentagon simply thought we were nuts.

ETA: Anyone care to post a link to this over there? (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10426)

[Darth Rotor]

If such is the case then it should be easy for the truthers to find a structural engineer to back up thier claims. Five years later, however, we're all still waiting.

There isn't a huge amount of difference between transplant surgeons and neurosurgeons either. No sane hospital director will allow a guy who swaps livers near a patients head with a bonesaw and that is when one life is at stake.

Here we have thousands of lives hanging in the balance. Someday, another hi-rise tower will catch fire. It's inevitable. It might not happen from terrorism, it could just be a knocked over paint thinner can that catches fire. No false flags, no religious fascists, no agenda of any kind. Just a straight up run-of-the-mill, could-happen-anywhere-to-anyone accident.

I'm sure that if Steven Jones and Judy "Scholars for Tooth" Wood are on the scene that they'll tell the fire chief "I hate George Bush, therefore the building is safe to send firefighters into."

I don't go to gynecologists to get my eyes checked. I wouldn't go to a proctologist to have my extra uvula removed. For my money, when I suspect that a building may collapse, I wanna hear it from a STRUCTURAL engineer.
I understand, and given the amount of misinformation out there, I don't really blame you for the added level of specialization you'd rather hear it from. Your dissing of ME's, however, smells of "the insecurity of the uninformed." In your defense, you'd rather have "the best answer" rather than "a good answer."

DR

[Gravy]

A request to people who post links to the LC forum. Could you also quote a snippet of the post in question so folks like me who are IP banned can get the gist of it? Switching IPs is a pain in the butt for me, and often doesn't work anyway. As a result I simply don't try, and I fear I'm missing some comedy gold. Thanks.

[mrfreeze]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10387
Let the infighting begin!
And for those who are banned, it is basically a fight between the LCers and the No Planers in regards to William Rodgriguez disassociating himself with reopen911.org.

[Gravy]

I understand, and given the amount of misinformation out there, I don't really blame you for the added level of specialization you'd rather hear it from. Your dissing of ME's, however, smells of "the insecurity of the uninformed." In your defense, you'd rather have "the best answer" rather than "a good answer."

DR
The prejudice against ME's seems to come from the fact that a couple of prominent ones have not acquitted themselves well in 9/11 discussions. We have to remember that these people don't represent all ME's.

[Darth Rotor]

The prejudice against ME's seems to come from the fact that a couple of prominent ones have not acquitted themselves well in 9/11 discussions. We have to remember that these people don't represent all ME's.

OK, I'll buy that whole guilt by association bit, I do seem to recall one CT sort claiming to be an ME student, but I guess there are professional ME's who are playing along? For Shame.

DR

[Gravy]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10387
Let the infighting begin!
And for those who are banned, it is basically a fight between the LCers and the No Planers in regards to William Rodgriguez disassociating himself with reopen911.org.
Thanks for the summary. And let's remember that when it comes to flights 77 and 93, the LCers ARE no-planers.

[Gravy]

OK, I'll buy that whole guilt by association bit, I do seem to recall one CT sort claiming to be an ME student, but I guess there are professional ME's who are playing along? For Shame.

DR
Yes. Two that come to mind are Judy Wood, whose six-year coma may have severely affected her engineering knowledge, and Gordon Ross, whose math looks impressive to someone like me who counts with his fingers and toes, but apparently does not impress more knowledgeable folk.

From Judy Wood's presentation about how the towers should have toppled like trees.
ETA: This is NOT a parody. It is real-world.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044c276fdc1dff.jpg

[60hzxtl]

Doooh!


http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/

Gee! I wonder if Google is checking to see if he is helping himself to material he doesn't own?

Want stock footage ? Help yourself, after all as the Executive Producers says, they are :

"burning 10,000 DVDs to go to Ground zero with TO EDUCATE."

Psst - Korey, its a big hole still, 10,000 copies won't fill much of it. . .

[Pardalis]

From Judy Wood's presentation about how the towers should have toppled like trees.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044c276fdc1dff.jpg

You got to be kidding me!

[sleahead]

A neat post from the above mentioned spat over on LC:

Sun Zoo aka Rob aka Robert aka OmegaPoint aka HeadHunter,

You recently voiced the concern that discussing the use of VIDEO FAKERY on 9/11 "makes us all look like kooks". I asked if this applied to you and ALL of your various personae, but got no answer. Let me, then, reassure you - you look like five kooks, AT THE LEAST!

IOK

"makes us all look like kooks". So funny. And what is this thing they all seem to have about one person assuming multiple identities?.

[Darth Rotor]

From Judy Wood's presentation about how the towers should have toppled like trees.

To be honest with you, my gut instinct would, with where the structure was originally weakened by the imnpact, have been to predict a failure off center with the resultant tipping, like topping a tree.

The problem is, unlike a tree, which is a fairly homogenous material, the WTC was, internally, mostly air, or a honey combe construction. Unlike a tree, whose strength is not it its bark, its outer lattice gives the building the majority of its strength. This means that its failure mode would not be predicted as being like a tree, but rather where it is at its weakest, which would be (I think) somewhere other than the outer lattice; somewhere inside the structure.

Since none of us were able to take straing guage readings inside the floors that were damaged by the impact, and the subsequent fire, it is hard to determine where the initial catastrophic failure occurred. As analogy the tree is a good picture, but as a structue, I don't think it emulates the box of girders very well. Trees are stronger form the inside out, and are also irregular and grainy, fiberous building materials as compared to steel.

Another point is my lack of understanding of how good a thermal insulator concrete is. If rebar was woven in and among the concrete, but the concrete didn't insulate the rebar that well, the thinner rebar would, weaken due to thermal loads (due to significantly smaller cross section) before the thicker I Beams and T Beams in the girders -- analogy could be 'what burns first and fastest, a thin stick or a thick log' -- causing the floors to sag and droop for three or four floors before those girders began to lose strength from thermal fatigue. That would account for a pull in a lateral direction against the outer girders, which is a lateral load not a compression load, and which stresses the girders like a cantilever (diving board) in their weakest load bearing axis.

That amount of shift in the floor's load bearing capacity, and strength in the form of rigid members supporting the outer lattice would account for an inward sag, sag now changes the weight of the upper flors into a cantilver load, not a compression load, and the vertical members fail like straws being stood on by a grown man. The first failure's impact load begins the subsequent cascading failure due to dynamic, not static, loading.

Still can't get the NIST report, DNS server failure.

It is a CT plot, a DOS attack by LC! Damned conspirators! :)

DR

[Gravy]

You got to be kidding me!
Pardalis to ATC (Airhead Traffic Control): "Is this real-world or exercise?"

ATC: "This is not a drill. We need somebody up there to, ah, do something about her."

Pardalis: "I'll scramble some eggs. You're on your own."

[JamesB]

You got to be kidding me!

We wish we were kidding. I have done 3-4 posts on this over at SLC. Jim Fetzer just eats this stuff up. It is quite hilarious. EXCELLENT!!

[mrfreeze]

Wow. This post just sums up the entire attitude of some of the people following this movement
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10570&view=findpost&p=6699638

Even if....The more people attack the government the better it is in my opinion. More attacks mean more attention. That's all we need right now. ATTENTION. Details can only be investigated by a commission.

[Dog Town]

Ok.... it's been about a month now, since I smacked a pal of mine, out of the Dark Side! Since that time, I have asked every person, I have come in contact with, couple of thousand atleast, friends and strangers. I have yet to find one person! Not one, that buys it and, few have even heard of it. It is non existant for the most part.. Estimate heard of, less than 10%, amount buy it O%! Have any of you others found many? I know you heroes that go to GZ find them. I know if I find the nest I will find some eggs. But, are there any outside of their insular echo chambers? I am dying to find one face to face, this typing ain't my forte! Just curious!

DT

[Brainster]

I noticed a funny thing. Lately, I have had a few "Truthers" tell me that "heresay" (which is what they call eyewitness testimony) is not good evidence. Now while I agree that in a case where one side says this happened, and another side says it didn't, neither testimony carries much weight, multiple eyewitness testimony to a common event, in my opnion, carries weight. that said, if the LC "Truthers" want to say that eye witness testimony is little in terms of evidence that is fine...but then...

Either you or they have the wrong impression of what hearsay is. Suppose I witness a crime and tell you what happened. Your testimony would be inadmissable in a court of law as hearsay. There are some exceptions to the rule; for example, if someone confesses a crime to you, you can then testify as to the confession. Here's a pretty good explanation (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/405/405lect11.htm) of the hearsay rule.

What you are describing is called "he said, she said". There are other reasons why eyewitness testimony is sometimes considered unreliable, especially in sudden, very brief incidents.

[Gravy]

Ok.... it's been about a month now, since I smacked a pal of mine, out of the Dark Side! Since that time, I have asked every person, I have come in contact with, couple of thousand atleast, friends and strangers. I have yet to find one person! Not one, that buys it and, few have even heard of it. It is non existant for the most part.. Estimate heard of, less than 10%, amount buy it O%! Have any of you others found many? I know you heroes that go to GZ find them. I know if I find the nest I will find some eggs. But, are there any outside of their insular echo chambers? I am dying to find one face to face, this typing ain't my forte! Just curious!

DT
I wasn't aware of these theories until I joined this forum in March. None of my friends have ever heard of them (most are a bit older than the LC crowd), and of the thousands of people I have given tours to at Ground Zero, no one has ever asked me a conspiracy-related question.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I wasn't aware of these theories until I joined this forum in March. None of my friends have ever heard of them (most are a bit older than the LC crowd), and of the thousands of people I have given tours to at Ground Zero, no one has ever asked me a conspiracy-related question.

It's all delphi_ote's fault. Blame HIM! :boggled:

[Gravy]

It's all delphi_ote's fault. Blame HIM! :boggled:
I do! I've been talking to The Law Firm of Johnny Cochrane about this.

[mrfreeze]

I do! I've been talking to The Law Firm of Johnny Cochrane about this.

If the chemtrails don't fit, you must acquit?

[chipmunk stew]

It's all delphi_ote's fault. Blame HIM! :boggled:
It's Lisa's fault.

[Axiom_Blade]

I wasn't aware of these theories until I joined this forum in March. None of my friends have ever heard of them (most are a bit older than the LC crowd), and of the thousands of people I have given tours to at Ground Zero, no one has ever asked me a conspiracy-related question.

I live in a small college town in California. It's lousy with 9/11 CTers.
I guess it all depends on where you live, and who you know.

I find that they like to hang out in coffee shops...

[MarkyX]

Hey Gravy, you know where I can nab official information on the war games, such as how many of them were being run and so forth?

[Dog Town]

I live in a small college town in California. It's lousy with 9/11 CTers.
I guess it all depends on where you live, and who you know.

I find that they like to hang out in coffee shops...

I live in Venice, doesn't get much more eclectic, my friends equally so.
I don't do coffee, will look into that , however!

DT

[Dog Town]

Hey Gravy, you know where I can nab official information on the war games, such as how many of them were being run and so forth?

Vanity Fair?

DT

[Mr. Skinny]

I was born in 1952 and ya know, they've been making chemtrails over Dayton ever since I was born. Now I understand why I don't see the Troof.

Yep, it's chemtrails. They've been after me the whole time.

And obviously, the chem has got to me.

FREE SKINNY!!!!!!

[WildCat]

I do! I've been talking to The Law Firm of Johnny Cochrane about this.
If you've been talking to Johnny about this you can qualify for the $1 million...

[chipmunk stew]

Dylan steps in to clear up a forum poster's confusion about whether a set of WTC7 pictures shows the south side or the west side (the picture shows the southwest side, the west shown clearly, the south obscured by smoke):
it's the southeast side.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10574&view=findpost&p=6702007

[NDBoston]

For people who are IP banned:

http://unipeak.net

It allows you to read the board anytime you like

[Earl The Tall]

Hey Gravy, you know where I can nab official information on the war games, such as how many of them were being run and so forth?

That is a real good question there. Not sure the information is something that they will tell you but I bet you could at least ask.

Northeast Air Defense Sector Public Affairs
1 (315)334-6536 DSN: 587-6536
pa@neads.ang.af.mil

EDIT: It might help better if I gave you the right region. Sorry.

[gtc]

And what is this thing they all seem to have about one person assuming multiple identities?.

I've noticed that elsewhere (i.e. indymedia). I think it stems from three factors:

1) A pre-existing tendency to believe in the existence of conspiracies.

2) An inability to accept that their view might not be as popular as they believe.

3) A sense of self-importance.

It all adds up to a belief that their work is so important, that there just has to be a psy-ops campaign against them. It would be heartbreaking for them to realise that they are just seen as cranks by the small minority of people who are actually aware of them.

[SRW]

I live in a small college town in California. It's lousy with 9/11 CTers.
I guess it all depends on where you live, and who you know.

I find that they like to hang out in coffee shops...

I work at a large college and live in a small College town, in CA and there does not seem to be much CT awareness around. Although the Town I work in has more woo per square foot than anywhere else on the globe.

[SRW]

A neat post from the above mentioned spat over on LC:



"makes us all look like kooks". So funny. And what is this thing they all seem to have about one person assuming multiple identities?.

I guess it's Ok then to have 4 sock puppets running over there.

[Brainster]

I wasn't aware of these theories until I joined this forum in March. None of my friends have ever heard of them (most are a bit older than the LC crowd), and of the thousands of people I have given tours to at Ground Zero, no one has ever asked me a conspiracy-related question.

I had heard of LIHOP and MIHOP and knew what they were as long ago as 2003, but I had no idea of the details. I certainly remember the controversy over Cynthia McKinney's remarks, and that was in 2002. I had heard of the Meyssan (sp?) book, and like many I thought it was just another example of America-bashing from France, but so ridiculous that I could not imagine anybody with better than a room temperature IQ believing it.

My suspicion is that the usual response to speculation about government involvement in 9-11 has been what that kid "Live Free or Die Tryin'" over at the LC forum experienced. When he talked about it with his dad, the old man went a little psycho on the kid, waving a boxcutter under his throat.

That stage of raw anger is probably coming to an end; the next stage is potentially dangerous. But I suspect it will become like the Kennedy Assassination: something that a lot of people agree is fishy but aren't particularly interested in poking into it further.

For a lot of these Deniers it's all about Bush, and once he's gone it won't have the same urgency. There was a lot of the same sort of speculation in the early 1970s that Nixon was somehow involved in the Kennedy assassination and that this was how we'd finally get rid of him. But interest in that particular theory dried up pretty quickly after Watergate.

[T.A.M.]

I totally agree. I do feel if the republicans maintain the whitehouse (unlikely) that there will still be CT momentum, but if a democrat gets in, along with troop pullout in Iraq, the Troof movement will fade into oblivion, and I'll get some of my time back...lol

[kevin]

I understand, and given the amount of misinformation out there, I don't really blame you for the added level of specialization you'd rather hear it from. Your dissing of ME's, however, smells of "the insecurity of the uninformed." In your defense, you'd rather have "the best answer" rather than "a good answer."

DR

I personally won't accept the word of a mechanical engineer on structural issues, nor do I think mechanical engineers are qualified to make engineering statements about structural causes of the collapse. I do think they are more qualified to handle effects of fire on steel (but how that weaking affects force distribution and building structural integrity should then be shifted to a structural engineer), the fuel distributions (fluid dynamics not high on structural engineers studies) and information about the airplanes.

I do think they have a body of knowledge that allows them to analyze the structural issues and present more useful information than other observers, but their knowledge is not as extensive, nor their experience as appropriate to the requirements of this type of analysis as a structural engineer.

There is a good reason Mechanical Engineers aren't allowed to seal a building's structural drawings. Just as a structural engineer isn't allowed to seal the HVAC drawings for a building, or design engines.

[Dog Town]

That stage of raw anger is probably coming to an end; the next stage is potentially dangerous


I can see the futher than.. sect of the"movement" going postal! Ala, "Weather Underground", or their modern day brothers, "The Eco- Terrorists" ! That does give me chills! They had best not come knocking on my door!

DT

[tacodaemon]

Would those of us anti-CTs who don't post here that much but lurk a lot, such as myself, be of any use at GZ on the special Saturday morning jaunts? I've thought about taking one of those el cheapo Chinatown buses up from DC to see what's going on there, but probably I would want to plan with Gravy and Abby ahead of time.

[Brainster]

Dylan steps in to clear up a forum poster's confusion about whether a set of WTC7 pictures shows the south side or the west side (the picture shows the southwest side, the west shown clearly, the south obscured by smoke):


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10574&view=findpost&p=6702007

The fact checkers' strike in Oneonta enters it's second year! ;)

That's going on the blog, thanks for the catch!

[SRW]

I can see the futher than.. sect of the"movement" going postal! Ala, "Weather Underground", or their modern day brothers, "The Eco- Terrorists" ! That does give me chills! They had best not come knocking on my door!

DT

I would not be surprised to see them start to buddy up with the Islamic extremists, seems like a perfect match.

[tsig]

Oh, go on, tell them the worst chemtrails are the ones you can't see. . .

I see you really are truely evil in a nice sort of way. You know some of them will believe it. Then you will have a following. There's nobody more demanding than true believers.

[T.A.M.]

That won't happen, because 90% of the CTers don't believe "Islamic Extremists" exist.

[Dog Town]

I would not be surprised to see them start to buddy up with the Islamic extremists, seems like a perfect match.
CTer;
But....but....they don't exist...,do they?

edit: Damn'it TAM ya beat me! Doh!

[T.A.M.]

ya gotta be quick...wit da wit...

[Dog Town]

ya gotta be quick...wit da wit...

Typing slow, wit like light'nin! Great minds do think alike. This page proves that.
Atleast on this topic!

DT

[Gravy]

If you've been talking to Johnny about this you can qualify for the $1 million...
You probably need to be in certain states to get the reference. "The Law Firm of Johnny Cochrane" is still going strong. They advertise on TV a lot.

[negativ]

For a lot of these Deniers it's all about Bush, and once he's gone it won't have the same urgency.

I fully expect that on the morning after Election Day 2008, the LCers will be congratulating themselves on being responsible for thwarting the Bushitler Administration's plans to cancel elections and open up the Haliburton death camps.

[Dog Town]

I fully expect that on the morning after Election Day 2008, the LCers will be congratulating themselves on being responsible for thwarting the Bushitler Administration's plans to cancel elections and open up the Haliburton death camps.

Unless,...Hill C. runs. I could see the GOP slaughtering her! Heavy Woooo Potential There!!

DT

[R.Mackey]

I personally won't accept the word of a mechanical engineer on structural issues, nor do I think mechanical engineers are qualified to make engineering statements about structural causes of the collapse. [...]

I do think they have a body of knowledge that allows them to analyze the structural issues and present more useful information than other observers, but their knowledge is not as extensive, nor their experience as appropriate to the requirements of this type of analysis as a structural engineer.

I agree. Speaking as one in the field of Aeronautical Engineering, similar to ME but with a different focus, there are specialized tricks in each area.

Finite Element Analysis is a discipline that both structural and mechanical engineers should be exposed to. The mathematics is the same whether you model a dam or a gasket. However, it's how you use those models that matters. I've had formal training in FEM, but not much practice with steel-frame structures. Even though I can derive the equations and iterative solution approach from scratch, if I tried to set up a structural calculation, I'd probably do it wrong. I just don't have the practice in choosing reasonable materials coefficients, damping, grid generation, simplifying assumptions, etc. I'd be a fool not to consult a real structural engineer to gain his insights.

Of course, if our intrepid ME student did this, there's no reason why he couldn't run the calculation and get some reasonable answers. But here, we note that NIST has already done some rather sophisticated modeling and come up with a different answer. (Can't get to NIST right now, sorry. OMGZ0RZz!1! Teh C0NSPREC33!) It's impossible to tell, without more detail, why this anonymous model doesn't agree -- but there's probably a valid explanation. One that doesn't involve thousands of right-angle thermite charges.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Unless,...Hill C. runs. I could see the GOP slaughtering her! Heavy Woooo Potential There!!

DT

<thread derail> Or Condi Rice. If the republicans beat the dems to the punch on two of thier biggest pet issues (blacks & women) it could wreck the democrats for an entire generation. The nomination of the first ever african american woman to be president by the republicans would be an unprecedented propaganda coup.

I'd expect the CT's to respond with something even more asinine and absurd than usual like Condi as a genetically engineered psuedo-african-american, or a long lost missing black child who spent decades in a NWO re-education facility prior to being "activated" and so on and so on...
</derail>

[gtc]

<thread derail> Or Condi Rice. If the republicans beat the dems to the punch on two of thier biggest pet issues (blacks & women) it could wreck the democrats for an entire generation. The nomination of the first ever african american woman to be president by the republicans would be an unprecedented propaganda coup.

I'd expect the CT's to respond with something even more asinine and absurd than usual like Condi as a genetically engineered psuedo-african-american, or a long lost missing black child who spent decades in a NWO re-education facility prior to being "activated" and so on and so on...
</derail>

Well, I have already seen CTs posting cartoons of her in blackface makeup. It seems racism is bad, unless you don't agree with your opponent, then its GAME ON!

[Brainster]

<thread derail> Or Condi Rice. If the republicans beat the dems to the punch on two of thier biggest pet issues (blacks & women) it could wreck the democrats for an entire generation. The nomination of the first ever african american woman to be president by the republicans would be an unprecedented propaganda coup.

I'd expect the CT's to respond with something even more asinine and absurd than usual like Condi as a genetically engineered psuedo-african-american, or a long lost missing black child who spent decades in a NWO re-education facility prior to being "activated" and so on and so on...
</derail>

Talking horse race only here, not my personal politics:

Condi has no real chance for the Republican nomination right now. About the only scenario I could see is that Dick Cheney resigns for health reasons, and she gets appointed and confirmed by the Senate and thus becomes the heir apparent. She'd never make it through a Republican primary process at her current level. I'd love to have seen her take over for Cheney in 2004, but figured when she didn't that Jeb was running in 2008. Looks like that's not going to happen right now.

The most likely scenario is for her to run for Governor of California next time around and see what happens from there. She is also doing nothing to indicate her interest in running in 2008--no visits to Iowa and New Hampshire, for example.

I have assumed that the Republicans would be the first to nominate a woman or a black to the top spot, for the simple reason that it's less risky for them; they already get a majority of the white male vote and that's not likely to decline just because a woman or a black is representing the party.

But I have also long believed that Hillary will be the Democrat's nominee in 2008, and I see zero reason to conclude that's not going to happen outside of Mark Warner. Warner is trying to position himself to the right of Hillary, which means he's targeting an apparently small portion of the Democratic base as of now. Gore would have an excellent chance at the nomination if he could narrow the field to that threesome. Dark horse (which usually means favorite among the Democrats): Russ Feingold.

Hillary's gotta run; the next election in 2012 would have her defending her Senate seat at the same time. Condi doesn't have to run; she's got time to prove herself in an executive position. McCain has to run; he's too old to wait around and he's doing all the things he needs to mend his tattered right wing. Repubs tend to go with the guy whose turn it is; Ford in 1976, Reagan in 1980, Bush, Sr. in 1988, Dole in 1996. They never go with some guy out of nowhere. Giuliani is the other possibility, but I get the sense he's hoping for the VP slot or the 2012 nomination if the Republicans lose.

[Obviousman]

Well, I'm suspended from there again.

What for this time? I don't know. In the "Poor Gravy" thread, I said:

In my opinion, Killtown did dodge the questions. They were clearly put, and he had the opportunity to answer - but chose not to do so.

chucksheen, on the other hand, did answer the questions. I don't agree with his reasoning, but they were answered clearly.

I don't know if that was the reason for my suspension (until November this time).

The other thing I posted was on the "Newly released FAA transcripts.." thread.

They were comparing what was published by a newspaper in 2001 with the newly released transcript.

There was discussion about a section where one of the sectors said they didn't have the flight plan. I pointed out that I thought they were referring to AA11, and not AA77. JDX said this was a "good pickup". I took that to mean that they agreed.

There was further discussion about whether it might refer to a transponder (SSR). I agreed with JDX that this was not the case.

There was more discussion about why a controller wouldn't have a flight plan. I pointed out that, in my day, you manually addressed the plans to the sectors involved. Not being familiar with the US system, I asked on pprune about it. I got a reply:

On a related note, when you lodge a flight plan in the US, can all ATC stations access it or does it only go to the units concerned? In my day, we'd figure out what airspace the plan concerned was going to involve, give it the relevent routing indicators (addresses) and throw it on the AFTN. If a flight had a major diversion from its planned track or alternates, someone would have to re-route / retransmit the plan to the affected stations.

I'd imagine that with the systems of today, any station can call up a plan?
No, only those concerned can look at the flight plan. If there's a major reroute, the concerned controller just enters it in his flight data system (called URET in CONUS) and it's sent along to those that need it by the automated system. At the same time it's taken down from the sectors that no longer need it.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2776914&postcount=6

I looked up URET and passed the information on to Russell Pickering:
Russell,

According to this reply from pprune

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?...914&postcount=6

the flight plans are only sent to the stations concerned.

I'm not familiar with US airspace & don't have the charts, so you'll have to look up the sectors involved and work out if the plan would have been sent to them. That might explain why one sector did not have a copy of the plan.

The same post says that a request for the plan would be made via URET.

Here is a link to a description of URET:

http://www.caasd.org/library/papers/uret/index.html

This link is from the FAA and describes the ATC functions, so it may also be of use to you:

http://www.faa.gov/Atpubs/ATC/

This seem to generate a impression that somehow I was arguing or debating with them.

JDX then says at the end of a post:
Even if they needed a flight plan, all they need to do is pick up the landline and call the local FSS. Your spin and distraction is incredible Obviousman... here it comes again...

Presumably that is why I have been banned again.

Anyone have the e-mail addy for Dylan Avery? I want to protest this.

[Big Les]

I posted this thread on its own recently; probably should have gone here. Rather than bump that one, I'll add it in here where CTs and skeptics alike can see an object lesson in ill-informed CT meeting aviation professionals and coming off very much second-best.

As the posters there kept (keep?) saying, the CT is trying to draw spurious conclusions using the incorrect data, and is coming at it all wrong due to not having taken the time to familiarise himself with the technology involved. He's also doing the textbook CT ignorance of replies posts, and claiming that no-one is answering his questions when in fact either a) they are and he's not understanding them or b) they aren't, because it's not possible to give a meaningful answer. To him, either reason equates to "you can't prove me wrong!" or "you're in on it". He poses as someone trying to debunk LC, but it's pretty clear he has preconceived ideas of what 9/11 represents.

It seems to me that some people have inflated ideas of both their own self-importance, and their own intelligence. They think that they don't need multiple qualifications and years in the field to be able to analyse complicated science/engineering/whatever else issues. I think this is a social phenomenon propagated in part by the popular media and post-modernist thinking (all opinions are valid) but now I'm getting into a rant and risking coming off "inflated" myself!

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=237976&page=8

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Talking horse race only here, not my personal politics:

Condi has no real chance for the Republican nomination right now. About the only scenario I could see is that Dick Cheney resigns for health reasons, and she gets appointed and confirmed by the Senate and thus becomes the heir apparent. She'd never make it through a Republican primary process at her current level. I'd love to have seen her take over for Cheney in 2004, but figured when she didn't that Jeb was running in 2008. Looks like that's not going to happen right now.

The most likely scenario is for her to run for Governor of California next time around and see what happens from there. She is also doing nothing to indicate her interest in running in 2008--no visits to Iowa and New Hampshire, for example.

I have assumed that the Republicans would be the first to nominate a woman or a black to the top spot, for the simple reason that it's less risky for them; they already get a majority of the white male vote and that's not likely to decline just because a woman or a black is representing the party.

But I have also long believed that Hillary will be the Democrat's nominee in 2008, and I see zero reason to conclude that's not going to happen outside of Mark Warner. Warner is trying to position himself to the right of Hillary, which means he's targeting an apparently small portion of the Democratic base as of now. Gore would have an excellent chance at the nomination if he could narrow the field to that threesome. Dark horse (which usually means favorite among the Democrats): Russ Feingold.

Hillary's gotta run; the next election in 2012 would have her defending her Senate seat at the same time. Condi doesn't have to run; she's got time to prove herself in an executive position. McCain has to run; he's too old to wait around and he's doing all the things he needs to mend his tattered right wing. Repubs tend to go with the guy whose turn it is; Ford in 1976, Reagan in 1980, Bush, Sr. in 1988, Dole in 1996. They never go with some guy out of nowhere. Giuliani is the other possibility, but I get the sense he's hoping for the VP slot or the 2012 nomination if the Republicans lose.

Two names I don't want to see come up in elections for a long time are "Clinton" and "Bush".

Ironically, for similar reasons to what the truthers will tell you. Though they will put the whole bohemian grove/NWO/Bilderberg/Trilateral Commission spin on it.

The perception of America becoming the property of a pair of rotating dynasties would be bad enough by itself. If both Hillary and Jeb cared about the country, they'd step aside.

[sleahead]

Obviousman, Gravy's Viewer Guide gives this link to Dylan's email address: dylan@loosechange911.com. The link doesn't seem to work for me, but the email address might still be valid.

If you do get to write to him, don't forget to remind him of how he values constructive converstion on 9/11 matters, as stated in his PM to Hutch. Your post on ATC matters could not be construed as anything other than constructive comment.

[chipmunk stew]

Well, I have already seen CTs posting cartoons of her in blackface makeup. It seems racism is bad, unless you don't agree with your opponent, then its GAME ON!In chucksheen's sig:
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/condi.jpg

[Darth Rotor]

Talking horse race only here, not my personal politics:

Condi has no real chance for the Republican nomination right now. About the only scenario I could see is that Dick Cheney resigns for health reasons, and she gets appointed and confirmed by the Senate and thus becomes the heir apparent. She'd never make it through a Republican primary process at her current level. I'd love to have seen her take over for Cheney in 2004, but figured when she didn't that Jeb was running in 2008. Looks like that's not going to happen right now.

The most likely scenario is for her to run for Governor of California next time around and see what happens from there. She is also doing nothing to indicate her interest in running in 2008--no visits to Iowa and New Hampshire, for example.

I have assumed that the Republicans would be the first to nominate a woman or a black to the top spot, for the simple reason that it's less risky for them; they already get a majority of the white male vote and that's not likely to decline just because a woman or a black is representing the party.

But I have also long believed that Hillary will be the Democrat's nominee in 2008, and I see zero reason to conclude that's not going to happen outside of Mark Warner. Warner is trying to position himself to the right of Hillary, which means he's targeting an apparently small portion of the Democratic base as of now. Gore would have an excellent chance at the nomination if he could narrow the field to that threesome. Dark horse (which usually means favorite among the Democrats): Russ Feingold.

Hillary's gotta run; the next election in 2012 would have her defending her Senate seat at the same time. Condi doesn't have to run; she's got time to prove herself in an executive position. McCain has to run; he's too old to wait around and he's doing all the things he needs to mend his tattered right wing. Repubs tend to go with the guy whose turn it is; Ford in 1976, Reagan in 1980, Bush, Sr. in 1988, Dole in 1996. They never go with some guy out of nowhere. Giuliani is the other possibility, but I get the sense he's hoping for the VP slot or the 2012 nomination if the Republicans lose.
I get the feeling that Warner, unless he gets caught in a massive gaffe, is far more electable that Hillary among swing voters. Rudi is a cypher to me, but he was a decent mayor for New York, for all the whinging the left side of the fence did about him.

McCain is more dead in the water now than he was in 2000. That was his opportunity. He also had an oppourtuinty in the fall of 2002 to ask the hard questions, as he did vis a vis Clinton in Bosnia and Kosovo, and he failed to take the opportuinty. He bought the thin premise hook line and sinker.

Politically, he's still too hard to "control" by the money men funding the Republican party, IMO, to get an endorsement. They want a more tractable front man. If he ran, though, I'd vote for him, for no better reason than he was a Navy Pilot :D and he's not afraid to break a rice bowl here and there.

Unfortunately, and no disrespect intended to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, he's not an intellectual giant. I worry that he could be fooled or misled by his "handlers," or his advisors, on complex issues.

DR

[Brainster]

I posted this thread on its own recently; probably should have gone here. Rather than bump that one, I'll add it in here where CTs and skeptics alike can see an object lesson in ill-informed CT meeting aviation professionals and coming off very much second-best.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=237976&page=8

Yeah that thread cracked me up. I think he misrepresented (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2768106&postcount=55) his bona fides here:

Tong Li, phD.
SuperNova International, Inc.
1709 Thompson St.
Lansing, MI 48906

That is, unless people in the granite wholesaling business (http://lansing-mi.addresses.com/city/lumber~and~building~material/lansing-michigan-mi-221.html) have a lot of PhD's on staff.

[Brainster]

Looks like we got another guy using the scientific method (http://www.freewebs.com/democraatus/page04.htm) to model the collapses.

I've been burned on this stuff before (see the Hufschmid video the other day for example), so I'm not going to automatically believe this is serious. But if you check his earlier posts (http://www.freewebs.com/democraatus/page01.htm), it looks like Spooked 911 may have met his match.

[CptColumbo]

That is, unless people in the granite wholesaling business (http://lansing-mi.addresses.com/city/lumber~and~building~material/lansing-michigan-mi-221.html) have a lot of PhD's on staff.
It's not beyond the realm of possibility. They may have a geologist on staff.

Or maybe his last name is PhD.

[Steve]

I personally won't accept the word of a mechanical engineer on structural issues, nor do I think mechanical engineers are qualified to make engineering statements about structural causes of the collapse. I do think they are more qualified to handle effects of fire on steel (but how that weaking affects force distribution and building structural integrity should then be shifted to a structural engineer), the fuel distributions (fluid dynamics not high on structural engineers studies) and information about the airplanes.

I do think they have a body of knowledge that allows them to analyze the structural issues and present more useful information than other observers, but their knowledge is not as extensive, nor their experience as appropriate to the requirements of this type of analysis as a structural engineer.

There is a good reason Mechanical Engineers aren't allowed to seal a building's structural drawings. Just as a structural engineer isn't allowed to seal the HVAC drawings for a building, or design engines.

I agree completely, Kevin. I have worked as a mechanical technologist in a multi-discipline engineering firm for 30 years. We specialize in buildings design and have in-house structural, mechanical, civil and electrical engineers, and also architects. The reason we have specialists in each field is that the detailed knowledge and experience required to properly engineer the specialized systems is not easily transferred from one discipline to another. Some of the more serious problems we have encountered have occurred when an engineer (or architect) in one discipline has assumed, incorrectly, that they could do the work of another discipline on a "small simple job". For the design, or post-failure analysis, of a structure as complicated as the WTC towers I would only trust a really top level structural engineer, and even then, only when the design and calculations have been independently checked and verified.

[nathanmcginty]

I get the feeling that Warner, unless he gets caught in a massive gaffe, is far more electable that Hillary among swing voters. Rudi is a cypher to me, but he was a decent mayor for New York, for all the whinging the left side of the fence did about him.

McCain is more dead in the water now than he was in 2000. That was his opportunity. He also had an oppourtuinty in the fall of 2002 to ask the hard questions, as he did vis a vis Clinton in Bosnia and Kosovo, and he failed to take the opportuinty. He bought the thin premise hook line and sinker.

Politically, he's still too hard to "control" by the money men funding the Republican party, IMO, to get an endorsement. They want a more tractable front man. If he ran, though, I'd vote for him, for no better reason than he was a Navy Pilot :D and he's not afraid to break a rice bowl here and there.

Unfortunately, and no disrespect intended to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, he's not an intellectual giant. I worry that he could be fooled or misled by his "handlers," or his advisors, on complex issues.

DR

As long as we're derailed here...

My .02

I don't the the Dems will go for Hillary. She might run, but they won't like it. She's way too divisive. Lots of people HATE her.

My money is on Gore. He says he's not going to do it, but, hell, we've heard more out of him in the past year than we did when he was VP. He's got a movie out (wouldn't doubt if it gets at least nominated for an Academy Award), he's been putting in appearances, I've seen his old campaign videos popping up on the Interwebs...

Let's not forget Obama, either. He's got the "heat" on him as the new Dem posterboy, too.

As for the Republicans, there's no way they'd nominate Condi. I either see the Governator (if they get that bill passed to allow him to run) or Jeb Bush.

Or maybe they can run Marvin Bush, seeing as he's so powerful and made so much money off the gold they found in the basement of the WTC. :) (that's like one of the first times i've ever used a smiley face).

[60hzxtl]

re-rail


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10256&st=30

pg two is the capper!

See it before it disappears, gets revised, recut, done over, edited, revamped. amended, changed, or even, loosely changed!


Sundance is his new priority. (unless the chemtrails take him out first. . . )

But I'm not out to make money. . .

Theatrical release next - come pay to see what you've seen for free!

[CptColumbo]

Or maybe they can run Marvin Bush, seeing as he's so powerful and made so much money off the gold they found in the basement of the WTC. :) (that's like one of the first times i've ever used a smiley face).

Take a breath and sit down, it becomes easier as time passes.

[Belz...]

See it before it disappears, gets revised, recut, done over, edited, revamped. amended, changed, or even, loosely changed!

SO THAT's what they mean by "loose change" !!!

[Belz...]

re-rail


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10256&st=30

pg two is the capper!

See it before it disappears, gets revised, recut, done over, edited, revamped. amended, changed, or even, loosely changed!


Sundance is his new priority. (unless the chemtrails take him out first. . . )

But I'm not out to make money. . .

Theatrical release next - come pay to see what you've seen for free!


gelignite got suspended or banned, methinks.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Looks like we got another guy using the scientific method (http://www.freewebs.com/democraatus/page04.htm) to model the collapses.

I've been burned on this stuff before (see the Hufschmid video the other day for example), so I'm not going to automatically believe this is serious. But if you check his earlier posts (http://www.freewebs.com/democraatus/page01.htm), it looks like Spooked 911 may have met his match.

:jaw-dropp

[Darth Rotor]

Yeah that thread cracked me up. I think he misrepresented (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2768106&postcount=55) his bona fides here:



That is, unless people in the granite wholesaling business (http://lansing-mi.addresses.com/city/lumber~and~building~material/lansing-michigan-mi-221.html) have a lot of PhD's on staff.
evilroy= killtown?

DR

[realitybites]

Looks like we got another guy using the scientific method (http://www.freewebs.com/democraatus/page04.htm) to model the collapses.

I've been burned on this stuff before (see the Hufschmid video the other day for example), so I'm not going to automatically believe this is serious. But if you check his earlier posts (http://www.freewebs.com/democraatus/page01.htm), it looks like Spooked 911 may have met his match.

Paper towers. Brilliant. Abso-friggin'-lutely brilliant.

My own experiment involving graham cracker towers with gummi bear cores will be finished later this month and will conclusively prove holograms hit the towers causing them to evaporate to another dimension where Kennedy can use them as his own private penthouses.