Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Awful Truth About 9/11
The guerrilla reporters of Infowars—last seen being broken up and hauled out of the spin room at CNN's Republican debate—nailed Michael Moore at a screening of Sicko and got him to discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories. (Sorry, other theories of the events of 9/11.) The reporters clearly ask whether Moore thinks "9/11 was an inside job," and he implies that... it might have been.
The interview starts at 5:49 into the video. (If the video doesn't embed, the link is here.)
>
REPORTER: We want to get some ideas, your comments, on 9/11 being an inside job because since your last movie, which gave us a lot of information...
MOORE: Right, right, right.
REPORTER: ... we now are in possession of all other kinds of facts and evidence.
MOORE: Right.
REPORTER: And we know that 9/11 was an inside job.
MOORE: Right.
REPORTER: So we want to get your comments on that.
MOORE: Well, I've had a number of firefighters tell me over the years, and since Fahrenheit 9/11, that they heard these explosions, that they believe there is much more to the story then we've been told. I don't think the official investigations have told us the complete truth. They haven't even told us half the truth. And so I support, and I hope, you know, if there's a new administration or somebody could open up a new investigation of this before we get too far away from it, to find out the whole truth. Let me just give you one thing that has—I've asked for for a long time. I've filmed before, down at the Pentagon, before 9/11. There's got to be at least 100 video cameras ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come we haven't seen the straight—I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video, I want to see 100 videos that exist of this. Why don't they want us to see that plane coming into the building? Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. To hit a building that's only 5 stories high that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released.
REPORTER: The idea that the hole is about 8 feet wide...
MOORE: See, I'm not very good at the physics and all that. But believe me, the questions need to be asked.
REPORTER: So you have a lot of unanswered questions.
MOORE: Oh, and I intend in my own way to find some answers. So, thank you for whatever you're doing.
Sean|6.19.07 @ 1:54PM|#
I like his new hipster glasses. I bet he'll be at the next Arcade Fire show.
|6.19.07 @ 1:58PM|#
I used to say that 9/11 is for my generation what JFK's
assasination was to my parent's. I had no idea that that would mean
that it had to include having an "inside job" conspiracy as
well.
I guess if Oliver Stone won't do it somebody's go to!
|6.19.07 @ 1:59PM|#
Uh, Moore, the Pentagon is a freakin gigantic and its also shaped like a giant bulls-eye.
|6.19.07 @ 2:03PM|#
I wouldn't read too much into MM's comments, he says whatever
his admirers want to hear.
The only principle he seems to follow was articulated in the title
of his "Stupid White Men" book - if business people believe
something then it must be evil. Thankfully that principle won't get
you too far these days although he's probably making the most out
of it.
SugarFree|6.19.07 @ 2:05PM|#
What is it with liberals and documentaries? Can it really be
they don't get enough "free" NPR that they have to go pay money to
hear someone regurgitate "facts" they already believe?
Documentaries = liberal church
Moore and Limbaugh in an eating contest. When they both finish, we
kick them in the stomach like the fat guy in Se7en.
(By the way, the world record for eating mayonnaise is held by Oleg
Zhornitskiy; he ate a gallon in 8 minutes.)
|6.19.07 @ 2:05PM|#
While I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, it certainly might have been. I don't see how we can suddenly assume that the government is being 100% straight with us on this one.
|6.19.07 @ 2:06PM|#
I'm struck by how similar the thinking is of conspiracy nuts like Moore and creationists/ID proponents. There's a kind of infantile view of the world with both.
Russ 2000|6.19.07 @ 2:08PM|#
The lesson learned from 9/11: All the biggest targets are government-built projects. Stay out of government facilities and you've got a much better chance of being safe. Renew your driver's license over the web if you can.
|6.19.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a
plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're
in the river. To hit a building [runway] that's only
5 stories high [a few feet wide] that expertly, I
believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you
should demand that that tape is released.
Yea, that's a tough job...
|6.19.07 @ 2:11PM|#
The best thing that could possibly come out of the release of Sicko is a review penned by Christopher Hitchens.
|6.19.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Dan T. | June 19, 2007, 2:05pm | #
While I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, it certainly might have
been. I don't see how we can suddenly assume that the government is
being 100% straight with us on this one.
Because, Dan T., this is the government that we elected.
If we thought they were hiding something, we could simply vote them
out.
|6.19.07 @ 2:12PM|#
Are you implying that the same government that you'd trust to decide what people eat, drink, smoke, watch on TV, or otherwise amuse themselves might not be 100% honest?
|6.19.07 @ 2:12PM|#
I'm struck by how similar the thinking is of conspiracy nuts
like Moore and creationists/ID proponents. There's a kind of
infantile view of the world with both.
Yeah, I heard some bozo the other day talking crazy about how the
CIA was running secret prisons in Europe...oh wait,
nevermind...
|6.19.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Because all those clips I saw on the TV news on 9/11 of planes
actually flying into buildings were obviously faked -- including
the shots right afterwards of plane-shaped holes in the
buildings.
Stupid White Men indeed.
|6.19.07 @ 2:16PM|#
I don't see how we can suddenly assume that the government
is being 100% straight with us on this one.
We don't and didn't. We dissected the record and found out that the
government missed a lot of warning signs. But an "inside job"? None
of the conspiracy theories has stood up to logical or scientific
evidence. In fact, every one of them has been roundly debunked.
Read Popular Mechanics.
|6.19.07 @ 2:16PM|#
Considering that the current administration can't even cover up a plot to can a couple of US attorneys, you really have to be a retard to think they could have had anything to do with 9/11 or even covered up major facts about it and kept up the ruse for 6 years... No offense to retards....
|6.19.07 @ 2:17PM|#
The idea that 9/11 could have been an inside job doesn't
necessarily mean the attacks were totally faked.
It's more a matter of who knew what, who ordered what and who you
want to consider on the "inside".
|6.19.07 @ 2:19PM|#
Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a
plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're
in the river.
I'm not a pilot, but I spent many years building simulators. An
air-transport aircraft in a landing configuration isn't all that
hard to point at a target so long as you are not worried about a
smooth landing and roll-out.
|6.19.07 @ 2:20PM|#
"Because all those clips I saw on the TV news on 9/11 of planes
actually flying into buildings were obviously faked -- including
the shots right afterwards of plane-shaped holes in the
buildings."
Don't you know??? Jew Bush in conjunction with the Five J00w
Bankers of the New World Order set up a hologram on the
International Space Station which made it appear there
were planes.
/sarcasm
LarryA|6.19.07 @ 2:23PM|#
Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a
plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're
in the river. To hit a building that's only 5 stories high that
expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape
and you should demand that that tape is released.
Airline pilots don't seem to have too much trouble hitting the end
of a runway, and they must do so at a precise landing angle and at
minimum speed and without any do-overs and starting the first time
they try.
While I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, it certainly might
have been. I don't see how we can suddenly assume that the
government is being 100% straight with us on this one.
But, Dan T, you believe the U.S. government is competent enough to
set up a conspiracy involving at least dozens of people and keep it
a secret for half-a-dozen years. We libertarians don't.
|6.19.07 @ 2:25PM|#
What's more frightening - that our government is involved in a
murderous hoax, or that a group of random thugs could bring off
something so audacious? Both count as conspiracy theories, by the
way - it's just that the conspirators are different, and one theory
supposes an all-powerful organization controlling our lives while
the other supposes chaos and uncertainty at every turn.
I need a coffee.
|6.19.07 @ 2:29PM|#
"It's more a matter of who knew what, who ordered what and who
you want to consider on the "inside"."
Show us some evidence, Dan, that Bush had anything to do with this.
I'm no fan of Bush, but to make incredible claims, you need
incredible proof.
|6.19.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Cesar, You told them about the five Jew bankers??!!?!?!?!
Now they've all gotta be initiated...
Russ 2000|6.19.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Rosie O'Donnell and Michael Moore - two of a
kind.
Michael Moore's a lesbo?
|6.19.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a
plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're
in the river.
That's it! In flight refueling is impossible and must be part of
some government misinformation campaign. The Blue Angels shows are
all done with smoke and mirrors. MM is becoming a parody of
himself.
Who Said It? (No GOOGLING!!!)|6.19.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Like so many human conflicts-especially ones over group
identity and tribal values, which is what the liberal v.
conservative divide within the two-party context mostly
is-arguments both within this movie [Fahrenheit 9/11] and between
it and its detractors swirl not so much around verifiable specific
facts but around overarching narratives and assumptions about
motives. What was Bush thinking as he was told about the Twin Tower
attacks while entertaining a room full of kids? What were the real
motives behind attacking Iraq? (Little noted regarding this
fiercely anti-Bush foreign policy film is the fact that the words
"neocon" and "Israel" are not, in my memory, uttered once, and
Moore is nowhere gonzo enough to engage in any specific conspiracy
theorizing, as opposed to weirdly suggestive "links.") Are the
financial links between the Bush family and Saudi interests,
between the Carlyle Group and weapons manufacturers, between oil
companies, pipeline schemes, and the war in Afghanistan, actually
dispositive about the decisions the U.S. government has made,
before and after 9/11?
Well, I guess it's possible, but this movie comes nowhere close to
proving it, or even shedding light down the paths one would have to
walk to begin trying to prove it. I'd like to be able to pay the
movie the compliment of saying that even by bringing such issues to
the table, Moore has done a public service-a little public choice
analysis when applied to government actions, whether domestic or
foreign, is always welcome and should never be dismissed out of
hand as "conspiracy mongering."
|6.19.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Considering that the current administration can't even cover
up a plot to can a couple of US attorneys, you really have to be a
retard to think they could have had anything to do with 9/11 or
even covered up major facts about it and kept up the ruse for 6
years... No offense to retards....
We couldn't keep the atom bomb secret for two years. Conspiacy nuts
give WAY too much credit to the government for competence.
|6.19.07 @ 2:43PM|#
MOORE: See, I'm not very good at the physics and all that.
But believe me, the questions need to be asked.
HA HA HA HA HA! ROFL
I want to live in world where a lot of other people find that as
funny as I do.
|6.19.07 @ 2:43PM|#
David, was this just a slick way to fit in a Ron Paul reference?
Nice work!
I see you lost your job with YouTube and moved to the Google Video
division. Bummer, man.
|6.19.07 @ 2:46PM|#
While I certainly don't believe 9/11 was masterminded by our own government, I completely sympathize with the theorists who suggest as much. These people see real fallacies in the official story and they jump to conclusions because of that. Most of their theories are wrong I'm sure, but I want the same questions answered that they do. One question stands out the most for me: Why don't they release footage of the plane hitting the pentagon? WHY? Give me one good reason they should not release at least some footage showing that plane. Seriously, if they did, it would take all the wind out of these people's sails.
|6.19.07 @ 2:46PM|#
He wants more video of the Pentagon crash? The physical evidence
on site, such as the black box, an engine inside the building, the
dead passengers, is not enough?
I'm sure Michael Moore wants to investigate 9/11 again and again,
only stopping when it's clear that Bush and Rove and Cheney did it
all.
|6.19.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Show us some evidence, Dan, that Bush had anything to do
with this. I'm no fan of Bush, but to make incredible claims, you
need incredible proof.
Well, I'm not really making such claims as I don't think 9/11 was
an inside job. But I'm not 100% sure of it either.
If nothing else, there is some reason to think that Osama Bin Laden
was once a CIA operative. Does this make him something of an
"insider"? Maybe.
|6.19.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Yes, the plane that hit the Pentagon was traveling far faster than planes do when they land. I think that it was around 400 mph based on FAA reports. When it flew over my head, I'm sure that it was traveling far faster than planes do when I've watched them land at Reagan National. The initial hole in the Pentagon (before the upper floors collapsed) went from the ground to just beloww the top two floors. Despite hundreds of witnesses like me and video evidence, somehow idiots still think that the simplest explanation must not be true.
|6.19.07 @ 2:53PM|#
"can you provide a link to that review?"
Kwais-
I was just hoping that Hitch writes a review of Sicko.
His review of Fahrenheit
9/11 though, was great.
kohlrabi|6.19.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Dan T,
"Does this make him something of an "insider"? Maybe."
Good point. Aren't we all insiders in a way?
|6.19.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Firefighters told Moore they heard explosions.
Since it is physically impossible for two enormous fireballs to
come into contact with any number of flammable materials and create
random explosions, I say this case is closed. I'm off to the Loose
Change site to hang with people who aren't afraid of the truth.
Peace.
|6.19.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Well, I'm not really making such claims as I don't think
9/11 was an inside job. But I'm not 100% sure of it
either
In reality, can you ever be 100 percent sure of anything that has
happened, anywhere? We aren't even 100 percent sure we understand
gravity.
Holding forth total certainty as a standard dooms 9/11--and just
about any event--to endless investigation. Where do you stop?
Dave W.|6.19.07 @ 3:04PM|#
He wants more video of the Pentagon crash?
let's put the shoe on the other foot:
You are glad that the videos (other than a couple of stills from
one camera) have not been released because?
I mean, I think the plane hit the Pentagon, but I can't figure out
what they are trying to hide. Presence of anti-aircraft guns?
Absence of anti-aircraft guns? The true flight performance
capabilities of passenger jets?
In the case of the Pentagon, I think the most likely thing is that
they are trying to get us used to the idea that we don't get to see
government and gov't confiscated footage, even when a big national
tragedy happens. If that is the true "conspiracy theory" here, I
also think it stinks.
|6.19.07 @ 3:05PM|#
The only thing more devastating to Michael Moore's credibiilty would be if he released five or six half-baked documentaries full of distortions and plays to emotion.
Truthiness Guy|6.19.07 @ 3:05PM|#
I know the awful truth about 9/11, Michael. It's like this
(better sit down):
18 Middle Eastern terrorists hijacked four planes and successfully
crashed three of them into three buildings.
I know it's hard to believe, but there it is.
VM|6.19.07 @ 3:06PM|#
A huge, raging tiger ran into each tower, thereby knocking them
over.
And another tiger got Kennedy.
case closed.
the EVIL MONKEY did it.
Eureka|6.19.07 @ 3:07PM|#
I've finally figured it out! Dan T is just Oliver Stone on a
mescaline binge.
That explains everything.
Dave W.|6.19.07 @ 3:08PM|#
18 Middle Eastern terrorists hijacked four planes and
successfully crashed three of them into three buildings.
1. I thought there were 19.
2. Why were none of them shot down by the air defenses (both air
and ground based)?
Truthiness Guy|6.19.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Dan T.: The idea that 9/11 could have been
an inside job doesn't necessarily mean the attacks were totally
faked.
It WAS an inside job: The terrorists were inside the planes,
weren't they?
|6.19.07 @ 3:13PM|#
F the Bush Administration.
That being said, while I have seen neither Fahrenheit 9/11 nor
Loose Change (even know I know the guys who made it), I don't think
the US government did it themselves because that would hardly make
sense if you believe that we periodically stop planned terrorist
attacks.
I mean, really, isn't it EASIER to just LET someone else do it and
not have to deal with the hassle of covering it up?
|6.19.07 @ 3:14PM|#
PCAS
Popular Mechanic's? Isn't that the publication organ of the
international workers of the world united we stand conspiracy? When
I want to read half assed nonsense about the world I come to these
electronic pages, if I want to find out how to do a brake job, then
& only then do I go to Popular Mechanics.
|6.19.07 @ 3:16PM|#
You are glad that the videos (other than a couple of stills
from one camera) have not been released because?
i don't think "glad" is the term. i don't see the need. there's an
airplane stuck in the pentagon. there were witnesses on the ground
and in the plane. what need is there for even more evidence of what
we already know happened?
2. Why were none of them shot down by the air defenses (both
air and ground based)?
this ain't the cold war of the 1950s. we don't have nike sites and
continental CAPs 24 hours a day.
Truthiness Guy|6.19.07 @ 3:18PM|#
Why were none of them shot down by the air defenses (both
air and ground based)?
I know there are hundreds of anti-aircraft gun stationed all over
Manhattan, but as luck would have it the gunners were all on a
smoke break.
IIRC, there were fighters scrambled and on the way to intercept
Flight 93 when it crashed. The other three attacks came too close
together for anyone to have a chance to react.
|6.19.07 @ 3:18PM|#
I mean, really, isn't it EASIER to just LET someone else do
it and not have to deal with the hassle of covering it
up?
I think this is the more likely possibility.
KinkyCohibaBeretGirl|6.19.07 @ 3:21PM|#
There is no way this administration could have pulled off 9/11.
No way. (I still don't quite get how Bush could be such a stupid
idiot and an evil genius at the same time. Alas. Such is the
bewildering workings of the (il)liberal mind.)
No administration could pull it off under the microscope of the US
presidency.
Why, poor Bill couldn't even get a little sumthin'-sumthin' without
being found out!
Michael Moore is a Leni Riefenstahl wannabe. Sadly for him, she
was, and always will be the shit when it comes to political
propaganda films.
I can see why MM wants socialized medicine. His morbid obesity is
gonna cost him plenty, if it hasn't already.
http://www.therealcuba.com/MichaelMooreVaradero%20Beach1%20copy.jpg
|6.19.07 @ 3:21PM|#
I mean, really, isn't it EASIER to just LET someone else do
it and not have to deal with the hassle of covering it
up
so, you're a LIHOPer, not a MIHOPer?
|6.19.07 @ 3:24PM|#
While I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, it certainly
might have been.
Does not compute.
|6.19.07 @ 3:25PM|#
I know you all hate Michael Moore and all, but there's really
not that much that should be controversial in what he actually
says, above, which (as a review) is thus:
A) He'd like to see a full investigation of the events surrounding
9/11, as he feels that the ones thufar have been insufficient, and
he has met others who similarly feel that the investigations
thusfar have been insufficient.
B) He'd like to see video footage that we all have great cause to
assume exists, and yet which none of us has ever been shown, for
reasons none of us seems to understand.
C) It's hard to steer a plane, at 500 mph, into the side of a
5-story-tall building. (Note, by the way, that jetliners land at
about 150 mph).
Is any of those three statements really, truly beyond the
pale?
Can y'all put the ad hominems aside for the briefest of moments?
And, yes, I know he was answering a question posed by someone who
believes that "9/11 was an inside job," but perhaps y'all could
shelve your Association fallacies for a moment, too, when
evaluating the actual statements made above.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
|6.19.07 @ 3:26PM|#
What is it with liberals and documentaries? Can it really be
they don't get enough "free" NPR that they have to go pay money to
hear someone regurgitate "facts" they already believe?
Liberals : documentaries :: conservatives : talk radio
I don't know why.
|6.19.07 @ 3:29PM|#
wow, I don't even know what those acronyms mean, but I'm
guessing "let it happen on purpose" and "make it happen on
purpose." Is that right?
I'm only providing an argument against the MIHOP theory on the
grounds that it's more difficult than it needs to be. I'm not
making any claims about the liklihood of the administration having
LIHOP.
|6.19.07 @ 3:31PM|#
but perhaps y'all could shelve your Association fallacies
for a moment, too, when evaluating the actual statements made
above.
But they really aren't facts to be debated. They are:
A) opinion
B) speculation
C) duh!
What should we address, what opposing theories or explanations
should we counter with?
|6.19.07 @ 3:33PM|#
I have to agree with Patrick Meighan.
I don't see anything that MM is saying that is controversial. In
fact, many of the things he is saying sound similar to Ron Paul. I
think the problem for this crowd is the messenger. You hate MM so
anything he says will be met with derision and disdain.
But ultimately he was saying that the government hasn't done a
thorough investigation and that they have been rather protective of
any footage/info about what happened that day.
OH THE HORROR of someone speculating that the government hasn't
been completely forthcoming.
|6.19.07 @ 3:34PM|#
The Ron Paul campaign has officially told Truthers to STFU! Not
in those harsh words, of course, but they did strongly urge that
the message of the Ron Paul campaign to be that of the Ron Paul
campaign. Check all other agendas at the door.
p.s. Is the government covering something up about 9/11? Yes!
They're covering their incompetent asses! This is the same
incompetent government that bungled the planting of WMDs in
Iraq.
|6.19.07 @ 3:38PM|#
ChicagoTom:
To illustrate my glorious consistency, I think it is stupid when
Paul says it, too.
TallDave|6.19.07 @ 3:38PM|#
The man clearly knows his key demographic. (BTW, why does he
think security cameras watch the sky all day? Are New York and D.C.
plagued by flying petty criminals?)
Seriously, what % of his stuff do you think he even believes
himself? His career is mostly a scam to make himself rich off the
passionately gullible.
|6.19.07 @ 3:43PM|#
albo,
A) You could defend the sufficiency of the investigations thusfar
undergone.
B) You could explain why no video footage has been released.
C) You could say, "I agree with Michael Moore that it must be
exceptionally difficult to steer a plane, at 500 mph, into the side
of a 5-story-tall building," (which, I assume, is the rough
translation of "duh").
Or, possibly, you (and David Weigel) could've just ignored the
whole thing.
Any of the above would've been a more reasonable, logical course
than resorting to the long stream of ad hominems and Association
fallacies of which this comment thread is composed.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
TallDave|6.19.07 @ 3:45PM|#
C) You could say, "I agree with Michael Moore that it must
be exceptionally difficult to steer a plane, at 500 mph, into the
side of a 5-story-tall building," (which, I assume, is the rough
translation of "duh").
Isn't the Pentagon the largest office building in he world?
|6.19.07 @ 3:46PM|#
The-administration-let-it-happen-on-purpose* assertions were
also made about the sinking of the Lusitania and about
Pearl Harbor. AFAIK, in all the decades since those events, no
solid evidence has been found to support those theories.
Not that such theories must always be false. But they do
seem to accompany attacks that result in U.S. declarations of war,
and they have not previously panned out.
*By which I mean "the administration had the opporunity to prevent
the attack and elected not to," as opposed to "the administration
could have prevented the attack if the administration were not
incompetent or negligent."
|6.19.07 @ 3:46PM|#
"The man clearly knows his key demographic. (BTW, why does
he think security cameras watch the sky all day? Are New York and
D.C. plagued by flying petty criminals?)"
TallDave,
He does not appear to believe that security cameras watch the sky
all day.
He does appear to believe that security cameras watch the Pentagon
all day.
Is that such a crazy, improbable thing to believe?
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
|6.19.07 @ 3:47PM|#
OH THE HORROR of someone speculating that the government
hasn't been completely forthcoming.
Dunno about you, but I operate under that assumption as SOP.
That the guvmint could competently carry out such a event and leave
behind no clear evidence as to its complicity, and do it with such
precision (and convince sooooo many eyewitnesses)...now THAT's a
conspiracy theory.
TallDave|6.19.07 @ 3:49PM|#
Patrick,
If they're pointing at the Pentagon itself, take a guess at their
framerate and how many frames a plane hitting the building would
appear in.
How many cameras do you suppose are set up at the proper angles and
framerates to monitor incoming planes?
|6.19.07 @ 3:51PM|#
"Isn't the Pentagon the largest office building in he
world?"
It may, perhaps, be. But it is not the *tallest* office building in
the world, and was, purportedly, hit from the side, at 400-500
mph.
The length and width of the Pentagon, it would seem, should be
immaterial to the difficulty (or ease) of hitting a 5-story high
building with a Boeing 757 at 400-500 mph.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
Dave W.|6.19.07 @ 3:51PM|#
this ain't the cold war of the 1950s. we don't have nike
sites and continental CAPs 24 hours a day.
1. I don't know about those defense systems specifically, but I
think the US has air defense systems capable of shooting down slow
planes over US airspace on very short notice. I imagine that these
days surface to air missiles are the main thing. They are probably
smaller than anti-aircraft guns, and more discreet.
2. I think those defense systems are normally operational 24/7,
Russkies or no Russkies.
3. While you may not believe my guess in points 1 & 2, I don't
think you have hard evidence to disprove it.
4. It would take an investigation to really say one way or the
other. there should be an investigation, a real one, so that we can
say one way or the other.
5. I am not very worried about a repeat of 9/11 at all. I still do
think there could be an airplane attack of some type where the
ability to shoot down planes (any planes, not just certain planes)
in a timely fashion could save lives, perhaps even millions of US
citizen lives. Therefore, an investigation of this aspect of 9/11
is worthy of resource allocation.
TallDave|6.19.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Also, planes seem to manage to hit runways thousands of times a day without much trouble. A runway is a considerably narrower target than the WTC or Pentagon, and landing intact is obviously considerably harder than just crashing into something.
Dave W.|6.19.07 @ 3:56PM|#
The length and width of the Pentagon, it would seem, should
be immaterial to the difficulty (or ease) of hitting a 5-story high
building with a Boeing 757 at 400-500 mph.
Is there some reason it would have been important to hit the side,
rather than the center?
Could the fact that he hit the side be an indication that it almost
missed the intended target?
(Not that any of this would justify the failure to release
footage.)
|6.19.07 @ 3:56PM|#
"If they're pointing at the Pentagon itself, take a guess at
their framerate and how many frames a plane hitting the building
would appear in. How many cameras do you suppose are set up at the
proper angles and framerates to monitor incoming
planes?"
Now we're getting somewhere! You're the first person I, personally,
have heard theorize that the Pentagon security cameras have a low
frame-rate, and thus any security footage existant would feature
the plane in very few frames. And you're certainly the first person
on this thread to offer such a theory.
That could very well be the explanation. Seriously.
That said, it might help if the actual video footage (low frame
rate and all) were released to you and me, rather than simple still
photos. Then we could, maybe, confirm your hypothesis.
Is it so unreasonable to ask that this video footage (which belongs
to the public) be released to the public?
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
|6.19.07 @ 4:01PM|#
"Also, planes seem to manage to hit runways thousands of
times a day without much trouble. A runway is a considerably
narrower target than the WTC or Pentagon, and landing intact is
obviously considerably harder than just crashing into
something."
As mentioned several times above, jetliners land on runways at
about 150 mph.
The 757 purportedly hit the Pentagon at 400-500 mph.
"Is there some reason it would have been important to hit the
side, rather than the center? Could the fact that he hit the side
be an indication that it almost missed the intended
target?"
I dunno. Maybe. It's possible that we may have more evidence with
which to answer these questions if the Pentagon would release the
video footage of the impact. If only it would do so.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
TallDave|6.19.07 @ 4:04PM|#
They have released the gate camera footage. It shows
exactly what you'd expect: a couple frames with the plane in low
resolution. Here's one of a million sites that has the
frames.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
Moore said:
"To hit a building that's only 5 stories high that expertly, I
believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you
should demand that that tape is released."
That's just deliberately misleading fodder for his key demo. Given
that he's built a career on deceptive video edits pandering to a
certain point of view, it's overwhelmingly likely he already knows
there's no answers there.
FOX TV producer|6.19.07 @ 4:05PM|#
I dunno. Maybe. It's possible that we may have more evidence
with which to answer these questions if the Pentagon would release
the video footage of the impact. If only it would do so.
You just wanna see that video, dontcha? I know your type.
|6.19.07 @ 4:07PM|#
"You just wanna see that video, dontcha? I know your
type."
Oh, an ad hominem. How fresh.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
|6.19.07 @ 4:08PM|#
This is not the anti-Michael Moore smoking gun. He is skeptical that the government of President George W. Bush tells the truth and says to people who PRETEND to know more, I hope there is an investigation. Whether one hates Moore, loves him, or simply has not made up there mind, he seems to be acting with REASON, if not the web magazine then Reason itself.
TallDave|6.19.07 @ 4:09PM|#
The 757 purportedly hit the Pentagon at 400-500
mph
According to who? The simulations were based on around 350mph. That
means they hit a target at least twice as wide as a runway going
about twice as fast as landing speed. Sounds pretty easy.
TallDave|6.19.07 @ 4:11PM|#
How responsive is a 747?
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzCqVPMpHwg
|6.19.07 @ 4:11PM|#
Those of you calling for more investigations, although I'm not
sure what a "real" investigation is, it seems to me you are
assuming there is evidence--and significant evidence--not yet seen
by the 9/11 commission. Do any of you have any evidence at all that
leads you to believe this is the case?
Again, as I said before, and I've debated this issue for 5 years
over at Fark, and I've read all the literature, when are we going
to stop? When we achieve a conclusion that meets everybody's
agenda? When we know 100 percent of everythign that happened down
to the second? When?
FOX TV producer|6.19.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Patrick -- It's 4:10 pm. Do you know where your sense of humor
is? :-) [for the avoidance of doubt]
he seems to be acting with REASON, if not the web magazine then
Reason itself.
DRINK!
|6.19.07 @ 4:14PM|#
Interesting how the neocons are rushing to defend Bush against
any hint of his malfaesance in 9/11.
Most ordinary Republicans no longer trust the Republican elites.
They are more in Michael Moore's camp than in that of the
Kennebunkport Republicans.
Thank you GW, you have succeeded in alienating not only the
independents but your own Republican base as well.
kohlrabi|6.19.07 @ 4:14PM|#
I agree with Patrick Meighan from Venice, CA. Everyone here is acting like there's some prior reason to be sceptical of what MM is saying. It's not like there's any record or documentation that might challenge his credibility.
|6.19.07 @ 4:22PM|#
"They have released the gate camera footage. It shows
exactly what you'd expect: a couple frames with the plane in low
resolution. Here's one of a million sites that has the
frames."
I don't see video there. I see a few still frames. Where's the
video footage that includes those frames?
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
|6.19.07 @ 4:24PM|#
in response to the framerate argument...
They also confiscated camera footage from the gas station across
the street. Why would they have done that?
Again, I really believe 18 or 19 muslim radicals did this. But I
want to know why they don't release that footage. It would put an
end to most if not all of this conspiracy crap.
|6.19.07 @ 4:24PM|#
Whoa...these infowars people actually buy this pigshit. I thought they were just trying to nail Moore for being an idiot.
Gahan|6.19.07 @ 4:25PM|#
"I don't see anything that MM is saying that is
controversial."
REPORTER: And we know that 9/11 was an inside job.
MOORE: Right.
That's not controversial?
Dave W.|6.19.07 @ 4:25PM|#
Again, as I said before, and I've debated this issue for 5
years over at Fark, and I've read all the literature, when are we
going to stop? When we achieve a conclusion that meets everybody's
agenda? When we know 100 percent of everythign that happened down
to the second? When?
I dunno, but I would be a JFK conspiracist if they were still
sitting on the Zapruder film. They aren't so I am not.
Some people are possible to satisfy.
|6.19.07 @ 4:26PM|#
Consider this: MM believes that the target of the plane was to
hit the 50 foot facade of the Pentagon. He is too clever by
half.
Wouldn't the terrorist's purpose be served if the plane were to hit
ANY part of the Pentagon? Ground-Zero Cafe? The far side, from
inner-ring, out? When you think of it that way, the Pentagon is one
whopping big target.
Their purpose is served whether they drill the plane through the
front steps, of if they crash it through the roof, across the
center, and into the other side.
As for the security cameras, think two things: 1. They are watching
ground approaches, not the air.
2. Ever think the room holding the video tapes might have been
severely damaged?
3. Would YOU reveal where your security cameras were?
4. Maybe they shut off a lot of them, given the renovation work at
that part of the building (think lots of heavy equipment tearing up
the ground)
Occam's razor. Use it, or be left bleeding on the side of the
road.
|6.19.07 @ 4:28PM|#
They also confiscated camera footage from the gas station
across the street. Why would they have done that?
Some people are possible to satisfy.
And they did release that gas station video recently, if I recall
correctly. It reveals nothing that contradicts the "official
story," but it hasn't shut up the truthers.
|6.19.07 @ 4:29PM|#
Dan T.,
Your work here is finished. You've made the religious right look
halfways respectable. Come home for a rest, and congratulations on
a job well done.
Karl
|6.19.07 @ 4:30PM|#
And one last thing. Who cares about the video? Video can be faked. There were parts of the airplane and the people found in the pentagon. The black box was right there. What could video from some unacknowledged pentagon camera possibly change?
|6.19.07 @ 4:34PM|#
Anyone who watched them fight the fire at the Pentagon would know that he hit in a good location for the fire fighters. The fire took many hours to control as it spread into the roof. If he'd crashed the plane into the middle, controlling the fire would have been far more difficult. I would guess, based upon the fact that he took out some street lights along 395, he came very close to crashing short of the building.
Gahan|6.19.07 @ 4:35PM|#
I fail to see what the government would have to gain by staging
an airplane attack on the Pentagon given that we all saw, in
graphic detail, the very real airplane attack that took place at
the World Trade Center. Is an attack on the Pentagon (a legitimate
military target) really supposed to generate any extra moral
outrage that wasn't already achieved with the twin towers (two
skyscrapers full of civilians).
Seriously, if you are an evil government planning to turn a phony
attack into an excuse to go to war, don't you think you would
choose a target people are a bit more sympathetic towards than the
Pentagon?
|6.19.07 @ 4:38PM|#
C) It's hard to steer a plane, at 500 mph, into the side of
a 5-story-tall building. (Note, by the way, that jetliners land at
about 150 mph).
Please find your nearest FBO and pay $100 for an orientation flight
to dispel your ignorance of flying.
It is far easier to control a plane at maximum performance than at
stall speeds. Jetliners land at 150mph because runways are short,
not because it is easier for the pilots.
|6.19.07 @ 4:39PM|#
"Those of you calling for more investigations, although I'm
not sure what a "real" investigation is, it seems to me you are
assuming there is evidence--and significant evidence--not yet seen
by the 9/11 commission. Do any of you have any evidence at all that
leads you to believe this is the case?"
Speaking only for myself, I'd simply like to see an investigation
of the events of 9/11 that's not conducted by appointees of the
people who benefitted (politically) the very most by the events of
9/11.
I have no evidence that any element of our government had any
involvement (passive or active) in the events of 9/11, nor that
anything occurred on or around 9/11 that differs from the generally
accepted narrative: that several Saudis and a few Egyptians
hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon, and
a field in Pennsylvania, having been sent on that mission by al
Qaeda, and that the attack was a complete surprise to our
administration. In fact, that's what I, personally, happen to
believe. But until there's an official investigation by folks who
did not happen to be appointed by those who benefitted
(politically) the very most by the events of 9/11, I can't bring
myself to certainty on that score, and am bound, as an
independent-thinking citizen, to be (at the very least)
curious.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
g3n3r1c|6.19.07 @ 4:49PM|#
GWB our president can produce WMD or UBL but he can pull of the biggest terrorist attack in world history with all the ppl in the state and defense and CIA that constantly leaking information helping the people that attacked us.
|6.19.07 @ 4:50PM|#
I don't think the footage from the gas station was released as
you say. I searched for it and I couldn't find it and I'm sure if
it had been released i could find some mention of it. From what
I've read, at least 80 cameras should have caught this on
tape.
In response to the argument about black box and parts found at
pentagon: Once again, why not release the tape or even transcripts
from that black box? And i can't find any credible evidence about
parts being found. They covered up with tarps any parts they hauled
off, and they will not show any pictures of those parts. Again, why
be secretive? It would be so easy to dispell the myths about 911,
either release the tapes from the black box, release some footage
showing the plane hit the building, or show us pictures of airplane
parts that can be positively identified.
|6.19.07 @ 4:56PM|#
"REPORTER: And we know that 9/11 was an inside job.
MOORE: Right.
That's not controversial?"
Decontextualized (as you've done above), it's controversial. In
context, it was clearly a case of Michael Moore acknowledging the
"reporter"'s line of thought, rather than agreeing with the
"reporter"'s statement.
If you read the whole of the quoted piece, Michael Moore is clearly
calling for further investigations and declaring that there are, in
his view, questions that need to be answered, NOT that he *has*
answered the questions, and the answer(s) is/are that 9/11 was an
inside job.
"I fail to see what the government would have to gain by
staging an airplane attack on the Pentagon given that we all saw,
in graphic detail, the very real airplane attack that took place at
the World Trade Center."
Though it's not my belief that the Pentagon attack was staged (as I
said above, I believe it was hit by a Boeing 757 flown by an al
Qaeda operative, just like you do), my understanding of the theory
advanced by those who *do* believe that it was staged is that, in
the wake of the horrific attacks on the WTC, the Boeing 757 filled
with Americans was intentionally shot down by a U.S. military
aircraft just off the Eastern Seaboard, and that the Pentagon was
subsequently targeted by a U.S. missile and credited an another al
Qaeda airplane attack, in order to prevent potential domestic
outrage.
Again, it's not my theory, but it's my understanding of their
theory.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
|6.19.07 @ 4:58PM|#
"""I mean, I think the plane hit the Pentagon, but I can't
figure out what they are trying to hide. Presence of anti-aircraft
guns? Absence of anti-aircraft guns? The true flight performance
capabilities of passenger jets?
In the case of the Pentagon, I think the most likely thing is that
they are trying to get us used to the idea that we don't get to see
government and gov't confiscated footage, even when a big national
tragedy happens. If that is the true "conspiracy theory" here, I
also think it stinks."""
As if they are saying, "just believe us", which has been this
administration's mantra all along. That's why I agree with Dan T's
first post. If you don't believe the government is honest with us
anyway. Why start now? That doesn't mean you accept a conspiracy.
I'm a believer of the obvious, 19 guys hijacked planes and flew
then into buildings, and in one case, the ground. But I don't
believe much of anything coming out of this administration's mouth,
or previous ones for that matter.
I know people who will tell you that everyone in government lies,
and in the same breath tell you Bush has never lied. I guess they
want to believe the status quo of government lying does not apply
to the people they like.
""" What could video from some unacknowledged pentagon camera
possibly change?"""
It would shut up the people claiming it wasn't a plane. So the
video does have the potential to change something.
There were plenty of eyewitnesses, that's good enough for me, But I
guess not for others.
I think Dave W is close to being right. It's part of the new "you
don't have the right to see government" agenda so popular with the
Bush admin.
MattXIV|6.19.07 @ 5:02PM|#
if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. To hit a building that's only 5 stories high that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released.
This is particularly funny given that guided missiles steered by an
operator using real-time video have been used as anti-tank weapons,
which involves not only hitting a much smaller target than a
building that is 5 stories tall and has a 29 acre footprint, but
one that is often moving. Although I do think most of those bad
boys are travelling at around 300 mph after the main engine kicks
in.
I've finally figured it out! Dan T is just Oliver Stone on a mescaline binge.
That explains everything.
Eureka wins the prize for most plausible conspiracy theory
articulated in the thread.
Dave W.|6.19.07 @ 5:09PM|#
What could video from some unacknowledged pentagon camera
possibly change?
Like I said above, I think they are withholding video (and/or
releasing video very slowly) just to f**k with people. Same reason
they withheld the Zapruder film -- to show who is in charge
here.
That said, what could the video POSSIBLY show? Off the top of my
head: another aircraft in the vicinity, say an F-16. a soldier
standing on the lawn with a surface to air missile launcher, but
not making any attempt to fire it at the approaching jet. a soldier
attempting to fire at the approach jet, but having her (shoddy)
surface to air missile launcher fail to fire due to shoddy
workmanship. A guard running for cover instead of for an alarm
switch. There are many incriminating and/or embarrassing
possibilities. Not that any of these possibilities are true, but if
any one of these possibilities were true, then it would change our
perception of 9/11 in significant ways.
|6.19.07 @ 5:21PM|#
I'm confused about a couple things. First, if 9/11 was a conspiracy, why has Bin Laden taken credit for it? Secondly, if Bush knew it was going to happen, why, when informed during his appearance at the elementary school, did he not heroically snap into action instead of sitting there looking like a deer in headlights?
|6.19.07 @ 5:21PM|#
Now we're getting somewhere! You're the first person I,
personally, have heard theorize that the Pentagon security cameras
have a low frame-rate, and thus any security footage existant would
feature the plane in very few frames. And you're certainly the
first person on this thread to offer such a theory.
I recall making similar arguments in a similar thread weeks
(months?) ago, but I'm pretty sure it was after the thread was way
down the page.
It's speculation about the quality of the security cameras, but
it's at least very reasonable speculation. Frame rate, velocity of
the object, and field of view of the camera (and at what focal
depth the impact area was) are all variables that can tell you the
maximum number of frames of video with an aircraft were even
POSSIBLE to have. At that time, most security cameras (used for
perimeter security) didn't NEED to have high frame rates so most
didn't. I don't know if this applies to the Pentagon, but I
wouldn't doubt it.
Further things complicating number of "good" video frames are focus
at distance and resolution, as well as ability to deal with
blooming effects (security cameras probably don't deal with them at
all).
Michael Moore may be correct that there were 100 cameras looking at
the Pentagon. But what he doesn't offer a guess at is how many were
looking at the exact right place at the exact right time at a good
resolution and a useful distance so that the event would be in
non-pixelated focus.
|6.19.07 @ 5:23PM|#
Leland,
thank you. great site with great technical detail. And yes it does
definitively show that it was a 757 hit the pentagon. \
Like I said in my first and second post, i don't, and never have,
believed any of these conspiracy theories; i just can't stand the
poor arguments made against them. And I really believe it would be
easy for the government to end the argument by releasing footage,
voice recorder tapes, and pictures.
Plus I really really wanna see the plane hit the pentagon.
|6.19.07 @ 5:24PM|#
I dunno. Maybe. It's possible that we may have more evidence
with which to answer these questions if the Pentagon would release
the video footage of the impact. If only it would do so.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
You mean like the video found in this story: US releases 9/11
Pentagon video.
Note: this story is more than a year old
|6.19.07 @ 5:29PM|#
All good points, Timon.
"Michael Moore may be correct that there were 100 cameras
looking at the Pentagon. But what he doesn't offer a guess at is
how many were looking at the exact right place at the exact right
time at a good resolution and a useful distance so that the event
would be in non-pixelated focus."
Releasing all the video footage (as opposed to individual still
frames) from the Pentagon's perimeter on the morning of 9/11 (no
matter how poorly framed or poorly resolved they may be) would
certainly relieve Michael Moore (and you, and me, and everyone)
from having to make such guesses.
Releasing *no* video footage from the Pentagon's perimeter on the
morning of 9/11 seems to encourage us to make such guesses.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
|6.19.07 @ 5:31PM|#
You know, it really is hilarious at some level. Leftoids hem and
haw about how we don't know if a plane struck the Pentagon because
the government won't release video footage. Then the video footage
is released and ... Leftoids hem and haw about how we don't know if
a plane struck the Pentagon because the government won't release
video footage.
One wonders if they simply aren't paying attention or if they don't
want to pay attention because it might disturb (or shatter) their
preconceived notions.
Of course, it doesn't help that Michael Moore is a lying cad, which
has been demonstrated more than once. Still, "fool me once, shame
on you. Fool me twice..."
|6.19.07 @ 5:35PM|#
Pinette,
No problem. I can't say I want to see the video of the plane
hitting the Pentagon (again!), but it's out there. I do think we
haven't heard the full story, but I don't think the full truth is
protected by a hidden conspiracy.
Keep in mind that even the evening of 9/11, many news organizations
were already censoring video, because the images were considered
too graphic. Within a month, many organizations decried the
continual showing of 9/11 video because it would continue to
"enrage" Americans. The conspiracy to hide information is obvious
and hardly starts within the government.
|6.19.07 @ 5:42PM|#
Also being in the simulator business, I know that it's one hell
of a lot easier to control a plane at 300-500 kts. as opposed to
150 kts. Especially an airliner.
If that thing has an autopilot worth a damn, it's also not hard to
pick a spot out on a huge, wide building to hit from several miles
out. Minor corrections would be needed, but the plane could pretty
much fly itself there.
|6.19.07 @ 5:43PM|#
"You mean like the video found in this story: US releases
9/11 Pentagon video. Note: this story is more than a year
old."
Thanks, Hand. Unfortunately, that particular camera is framed such
that the plane (assuming, of course, that it's a plane) passes
through frame so quickly as to be utterly indiscernable as a
plane.
Were there any other security video cameras filming around the
Pentagon that morning? May we please see the video footage from
each of the other cameras on the perimeter? If not, then why
not?
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
|6.19.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Releasing all the video footage (as opposed to individual
still frames) from the Pentagon's perimeter on the morning of
9/11
Now we get to the agenda. The Pentagon should release all video of
the perimeter for the day? Why the entire perimeter? Do you need to
know the placement of all security cameras? Who goes in and out
during the day and where they go in and out? What patrols exists
and when they operate? How personnel and patrols respond to
attacks?
You may not want that information, but enemies of the country would
love that information bonanza. Sure, cameras can be moved,
personnel changed, patrols modified, but that's expensive. You
don't need the entire perimeter of the Pentagon for the entire day
of 9/11. It would take you months to view it all, and it would be
useless to you.
|6.19.07 @ 5:44PM|#
it seems to me you are assuming there is evidence--and
significant evidence--not yet seen by the 9/11 commission. Do any
of you have any evidence at all that leads you to believe this is
the case?
Once again, why not release the tape or even transcripts from
that black box?
Didn't one of the guys who had access to the tape actually
physically destroy it and throw it in a dumpster before anyone else
could have access to it. I don't remember it now, but I am pretty
sure I read a story about that and he had no good justification of
it.
THat was not a rational action
|6.19.07 @ 5:45PM|#
"If that thing has an autopilot worth a damn, it's also not
hard to pick a spot out on a huge, wide building to hit from
several miles out. Minor corrections would be needed, but the plane
could pretty much fly itself there."
Perhaps. Have we been told if the autopilot was on or not?
If we have not been told, is that not something we deserve to
know?
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
|6.19.07 @ 5:45PM|#
Releasing all the video footage (as opposed to individual
still frames) from the Pentagon's perimeter on the morning of 9/11
(no matter how poorly framed or poorly resolved they may be) would
certainly relieve Michael Moore (and you, and me, and everyone)
from having to make such guesses.
As I recall, those "individual still frames" were released that way
because they were most likely CONSECUTIVE frames - it WAS the
video, just in still form. This lends to the theory that the frame
rates weren't worth a shit.
|6.19.07 @ 5:46PM|#
hand of vecna,
wanting the government to release more footage does not make me or
anyone else a 'leftoid'. I am as conservative as they come. I'm not
saying that the footage they did release proves it wasn't a plane,
but you act as if that footage should put an end to the argument.
You really can't tell why that footage raises more questions than
it answers? Have some empathy here buddy, it's very easy to
understand why that footage lends credibility to the conspiracy
theorists.
|6.19.07 @ 5:46PM|#
I think this was
the story I remember reading:
At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the
hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording a few
hours later describing the events, but the tape was destroyed by a
supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to
it, the Transportation Department said Thursday.
|6.19.07 @ 5:49PM|#
Perhaps. Have we been told if the autopilot was on or
not?
If we have not been told, is that not something we deserve to
know?
The autopilot comment was simply a commentary on how fucking easy
it is to control a jetliner to hit a monstrous building at speed. I
don't know that the autopilot was on, and frankly it doesn't matter
one bit.
These guys were trained to fly airliners. Anyone with basic
training would be able to fly manually or automatically into such a
target. Much of one's training comes in learning to use the
autopilot and especially the avionics. Basic flying is easy.
Easy cheesy Japanesey.
|6.19.07 @ 5:54PM|#
"Now we get to the agenda. The Pentagon should release all
video of the perimeter for the day?"
Not for the whole day. For the morning of 9/11, say 10 minutes
prior to impact and 10 minutes following.
"Why the entire perimeter?"
Because it would relieve me (and many other Americans) of any
residual suspicion that my government is hiding the truth from
me.
"You may not want that information, but enemies of the country
would love that information bonanza. Sure, cameras can be moved,
personnel changed, patrols modified, but that's
expensive."
The Pentagon spends more than $500,000,000,000.00 per year. I
really believe that they can afford to move some cameras.
"You don't need the entire perimeter of the Pentagon for the
entire day of 9/11. It would take you months to view it all, and it
would be useless to you."
As an independent and free-thinking citizen, I'm not particularly
interested in your assessment of what information I do and don't
need.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
|6.19.07 @ 5:56PM|#
ecause, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane,
if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the
river. To hit a building [runway] that's only 5 stories high [a few
feet wide] that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in
that video tape and you should demand that that tape is
released
Commercial Aircraft:
1) Don't land at 500 mph
2) Can land on the runway plus or minus SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET and
still be okay
3) Are landed by pilots with hundreds of hours of training and not
by terrorists with no training in landing (or landing in ground
effect)
4) Have VASI lights, glide slope indicators, precision approach
aids, not to mention altimeters, gps, radar, etc.
Lots of military pilots have said that hitting the pentagon at that
speed and given the tight overhead spiral was pretty damned tricky
flying.
But I appreciate the commenters at ad hominem for schooling us all.
You guys are about as accurate as the folks at lgf and
freerepublic.
By the way, Michael Moore is fat.
Not impressed Wiegel, not impressed.
|6.19.07 @ 6:06PM|#
Commercial Aircraft:
1) Don't land at 500 mph
But they are one hell of a lot easier to maneuver at that speed,
thus, course corrections are a much, much more simple matter than
when your AOA is in the neighborhood of 15 degrees.
2) Can land on the runway plus or minus SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET
and still be okay
Yeah, so?
3) Are landed by pilots with hundreds of hours of training and
not by terrorists with no training in landing (or landing in ground
effect)
But we're not talking about landing, are we? We're also talking
about terrorists who, it was widely acknowledged, learned to fly
EXPLICITLY without learning to land.
Ground effect doesn't do much with a small AOA, nose level or low
and at speed.
4) Have VASI lights, glide slope indicators, precision approach
aids, not to mention altimeters, gps, radar, etc.
You mean the terrorists flew without altimeters and radar on board?
Wow.
The approach aids help the pilot maintain optimal glide slope in
the high AOA, low speed conditions of landing. They can still land
the thing without all that and anyone can certainly hit a massive
target like the Pentagon without VASI, PAPI or a localizer.
|6.19.07 @ 6:09PM|#
Everybody, copy and paste this:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
Then read. Then you can comment. Until then, STFU.
|6.19.07 @ 6:39PM|#
2) Can land on the runway plus or minus SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET
and still be okay
Yeah, so?
I was responding to the comment above that says if you can land on
a runway you can hit a 5 story building.
And nothing in the popular mechanics debunking addresses the issue
of how easy or hard it was to hit the pentagon or fly that
aircraft.
I am not arguing that the pentagon was not hit by a 757, I am
saying all you freepers and lgfers and weigel here at ad-hominem
don't have a shred of the authority you claim or even a reasonable
understanding of the situation.
You mean the terrorists flew without altimeters and radar on
board? Wow.
I am saying that terrorists that did not train in landings might
find it hard to land on a runway that has many landing aids much
less hit the broadside of a building that has no landing aids.
|6.19.07 @ 6:40PM|#
Patrick,
As an independent and free-thinking citizen, I'm not particularly
interested in your desire to spend taxpayers money for your pet
agenda.
Again, go spend your own $100 and learn something about flying. You
are independent, therefore I'm sure you can afford it.
|6.19.07 @ 6:43PM|#
I am not arguing that the pentagon was not hit by a 757, I
am saying all you freepers and lgfers and weigel here at ad-hominem
don't have a shred of the authority you claim or even a reasonable
understanding of the situation.
I'm an aerospace engineer with flight time in multiple types and
simulators. What's your understanding of the flying characteristics
of airplanes, Jerry? Of was your comment just an adhominem attack
made by a hypocrit?
|6.19.07 @ 6:50PM|#
I was responding to the comment above that says if you can
land on a runway you can hit a 5 story building.
And my response to that is "no fucking duh". Because it's way
fucking easier to do the latter than the former to someone with no
landing training.
And nothing in the popular mechanics debunking addresses the
issue of how easy or hard it was to hit the pentagon or fly that
aircraft.
That's probably right. But I'm not the one putting it forth as
such. I'm not so sure anyone who HAS brought it up claimed it was
supporting the ease of flying a 757. I'm pretty sure it's to
address other points.
I am not arguing that the pentagon was not hit by a 757, I am
saying all you freepers and lgfers and weigel here at
ad-hominem...
I love the taste of Irony in the evening.
...don't have a shred of the authority you claim or even a
reasonable understanding of the situation.
I beg to differ. You, on the other hand...
I am saying that terrorists that did not train in landings
might find it hard to land on a runway that has many landing aids
much less hit the broadside of a building that has no landing
aids.
And I'm saying, from industry experience and knowledge, it's many,
many, many times easier to hit a relatively narrow office building
(never mind the colossal Pentagon) at speed than it is to land.
Landing takes a LOT of concentration and minor adjustments. Hitting
a point at or near the ground that you pick out miles away is much
easier when traveling twice or more landing speed.
|6.19.07 @ 7:00PM|#
C'mon, we all know it was the masons.
Or the Jews.
Or the Cubans
Or the CIA
Or the Trilateral Commission
Or the Vatican
Well, goddamit it must have been a conspiracy other than the
official explanation.
|6.19.07 @ 7:14PM|#
It would be stupid to release video of the plane hitting the
pentagon. Why not just hand out blue prints and engineering data on
the defenses of the building so the attackers can do a better job
next time. Why put them through all the trouble of analyzing
footage?
Some people match Gene Wilder's description of the people living in
Rockridge.
Francois Tremblay|6.19.07 @ 8:01PM|#
Innocent people do NOT hide all the evidence as fast as they
can.
Hundred-plus story buildings do NOT
"pancake fall" at the speed of gravity.
Air compression does NOT make squibs twenty floors below.
The melting of iron does NOT produce explosion sounds.
If anyone still believes the "official story" they have a few logic
modules missing in their brain.
|6.19.07 @ 8:17PM|#
There was a 270 degree turn. There was no miles and miles to
line up on building.
One analysis:
http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/steves-analysis.htm
Read it freepers.
|6.19.07 @ 8:27PM|#
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf
Here's the NTSB flight path study. Note the very steep descending
turn. Seems like a good pilot was at the controls that day.
|6.19.07 @ 8:29PM|#
cbs:
Top government officials have suggested that American Airlines
Flight 77 was originally headed for the White House and possibly
circled the Capitol building. CBS News Transportation Correspondent
Bob Orr reports that's not what the recorded flight path
shows.
Eight minutes before the crash, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, radar tracked the
plane as it closed to within 30 miles of Washington. Sources say
the hijacked jet continued east at a high speed toward the city,
but flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the
White House.
At 9:33 the plane crossed the Capitol Beltway and took aim on its
military target. But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too
fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The
hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed
descending turn.
Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a
complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half
minutes.
The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was
no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests
the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators
first believed.
The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute
later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the
Pentagon at 460 mph.
Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the
base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building.
Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash
experts say may well have saved some lives.
At the White House Friday, spokesman Ari Fleischer saw it a
different way.
"That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said,
adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House."
|6.19.07 @ 8:31PM|#
Moore, Franken, Sheehan, and celebrities Funny Girl, the guy
with the phone scalding of his 11 or 12yo daughter, Rosie are the
faces of the democratic party, and yuck.
A landing jet would have had much more trouble hitting the building
since a landing is a controlled fall and a slow plane loses
stability in flight. With wheels up and at speed, the jet remained
very stable until it hit the light poles, cars and other stuff on
the ground. The plane is about like a mobile home size object
hitting. 50 of them could hit a side of the Pentagon without
hitting the same hole. So many people saw the airliner go down
toward the pentagon, some saw it hit, that it would be a miracle to
hire that many actors. Where is the plane and people aboard if it
didn't hit the Pentagon? Did it rise up and fly away unseen after
the pass? I thought to myself that the plane was hitting the ground
as it hit the building. The pilot should have flown into the center
of the building, I thought, but then it wouldn't ahve looked so
good. If you've seen where jets have flown into mountains there is
nothing much left buy little pieces of the body and come big hunks
of landing gear. The videos shown back then really were just blurs.
They don't even pick up the gate of a walker at 5mph. I'm glad he
didn't hit the Capitol.
|6.19.07 @ 8:37PM|#
Hundred-plus story buildings do NOT
"pancake fall" at the speed of gravity.
Oh yeah, and at what fucking speed is something that is being
PULLED DOWN BY FUCKING GRAVITY going to fall at?
The melting of iron does NOT produce explosion
sounds.
For the last fucking time STRUCTURAL
STEEL DOES NOT HAVE TO MELT TO FAIL.
Holy Lord Jesus Christ on fucking toast!!! More fucking proof of
the ignorant JUST FUCKING KNOWING THE TRUTH. Now if only some of
them had some fucking clue about the laws of mechanics and the
properties of materials.
|6.19.07 @ 8:39PM|#
Last link for the Ad-Hominem crowd:
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
I don't know what happened at the Pentagon. All I am saying is that
you guys don't have a clue either.
Moore's statements seem quite reasonable and restrained.
|6.19.07 @ 9:36PM|#
the tone of some of this seems to put forth that no one of
intelligence could deny the evidence of a conpiracy unless they
were blindly dedicated to the Bushies and the evil American empire.
Noam Chomsky is the world's leading critic of American imperialism
and Bush. As a pioneering linguistics professor at MIT, he is also
considered one of the world's great intellects. Confronted with the
idea that the government had foreknowledge of the attacks, he
responded that this idea was "hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly
implausible I don't see any point in talking about it."
Is he stupid? Is the world's most rabid critic of Bush and American
imperialism lying... to defend Bush and America? Can any explain
why he said what he said?
|6.19.07 @ 10:50PM|#
Damn...forgot to close the tag the first time...
http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/steves-analysis.htm
Quote from the website itself:
"Of course, this is all speculation, not facts."
According to the NTSB flight path, there were about 5 miles to
re-acquire upon rolling back out from the turn. That's
plenty.
A steep, descending turn (of radius ~1.5 miles) can be done by
someone who has learned how to fly a plane like these guys. It's
not recommended, but I don't think comfort and safety were top on
their list.
Last link for the Ad-Hominem crowd:
You do understand irony, don't you? Do you have a script that you
run to produce these posts, by the way? When have I dealt with your
posts like a "freeper" or launched any ad hominems?
At least you're playing the part very faithfully - posting links to
pre-ordained stuff and sniffing "take THAT government lackeys! All
will be revealed by my stable of links and videos!"
|6.19.07 @ 10:59PM|#
Hundred-plus story buildings do NOT
"pancake fall" at the speed of gravity.
1. Gravity isn't a speed.
2. How many 100-story buildings have fallen?
3. How many buildings of that construction and wounded in that way
have ever existed?
Air compression does NOT make squibs twenty floors
below.
It doesn't?
Squibs also travel/expel debris one hell of a lot faster than what
happened that day. How many buildings falling with associated
"squibs" have ever - EVER - fallen top down (with squibs going DOWN
the building)?
The melting of iron does NOT produce explosion
sounds.
I'm sure it doesn't. Structural steel melting probably doesn't
either. But then again, the steel didn't have to melt for the
building to fail. Not by a long shot.
What MIGHT make "explosion sounds" (your term, and a good one), is
the structural steel catastrophically failing, especially when the
concrete canyon effect is considered. What also might make
"explosion sounds" are small fires of any of a number of materials,
large/heavy things falling, gases, and a host of other things.
|6.19.07 @ 11:34PM|#
Leland said: "As an independent and free-thinking citizen,
I'm not particularly interested in your desire to spend taxpayers
money for your pet agenda."
And yet here we are, in a democratic republic, in which taxpayers'
money is spent all the time on agendas to which not every taxpayer
assents (Exhibit A: the war in Iraq, which costs orders of
magnitude greater than the cost of moving around some cameras at
the Pentagon). It all comes down to priorities.
Personally, I believe that full and free availability of public
information must be one of the very highest priorities in a
democratic republic, so its citizens can make informed choices when
determining the republic's course.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
miche|6.20.07 @ 12:05AM|#
Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. To hit a building [runway] that's only 5 stories high [a few feet wide] that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released.
Yea, that's a tough job...
I've not read through all the comments yet, but I wanted to say
that yes, it would be a tough job. I was nearly finished my
training for a private pilot's license when my husband pulled the
plug on it, so I'm by no means an expert. What I do know is that
the training the terrorists were
purported to have would not allow that type of precision and
speed. The little Piper that I flew wouldn't beat my 911 Turbo in a
street race and my husband reminded me of that little fact
everytime I went up.
According to the (9/11 commission.gov) doc linked, only one
terrorist had multi-engine training. Flying a plane ain't hard, but
I know how difficult it can be to fly a plane at a target (think
runway) with limited experience even at speeds far less than the
one quoted.
|6.20.07 @ 12:13AM|#
A Piper != A Boeing 757.
At higher speeds, it's pretty easy to fly to a target with a 757,
as it's a heavy, stable airframe.
Christie|6.20.07 @ 12:48AM|#
It was the guy at the end that made me dizzy with his idiocy.
Gee, when a huge aircraft with tons of fuel plows into a skyscraper
and produces temperatures hot enough to melt steel, (and by the way
Rosie, how is steel made?), then you can bet your sweet bippy that
when that structure comes down, all 100+ stories of it, that the
freakin concrete would be pulverized.
The only investigation that needs to be made is into the sanity of
the man at the podium and those who agree with him. A physics class
might help, but without common sense these people are doomed to
live in Psycho Town forever, no matter how many scientists they
allow themselves to listen to..
miche|6.20.07 @ 1:06AM|#
A Piper != A Boeing 757.
At higher speeds, it's pretty easy to fly to a target with a 757, as it's a heavy, stable airframe.
Don't be a jackass. I neither compared a 757 to a Piper, nor
claimed expert. My personal experience is that flying a small plane
is not difficult, but managing control of any craft can prove
difficult in current. (I say that because I've always likened small
plane to boat.) Nobody here can even speculate what that day was
like from a pilot's perspective- we were too glued to the tube. But
considering that nearly every pilot involved had, at most, a single
engine pilot's (and no instrument rating) perspective, this would
be overwhelming. The fucking cockpit would be overwhelming. I'm a
human and don't need to know the handling info on a 757, 777, or
S80 to know that.
|6.20.07 @ 3:33AM|#
YOU MOTHERFUCKING CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.
I want you to die. I want you to die in a fire. Why?
Because you market in fear. Oh, I hear that "teh evil BushCo uses
the threat of terrism to keep the population afraid," but it's YOU
who are the real fear-pushers making the world miserable.
What kind of fear? The fear that thousands upon thousands of your
fellow countrymen - soldiers, politicians, everyday folks - would
be so _evil_ to willingly partake in a massive conspiracy to
massacre their fellow civilians, and not one of them would feel
enough remorse to go public.
Oh, then you say that all the mainstream media and internet service
providers are in on the conspiracy and snuffing the story? If
you're willing to go down that route, join the line to have your
alien mind control removed.
I got a pair of links for you:
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000140.html
The first one pretty much explains why you're an asshole.
The second one goes into dramatic detail of why you're a GIGANTIC
ASSHOLE.
You are scum. You are a boil on the ass of mankind, so pathetic and
miserable that the only joy you have is a desperate attempt at
convincing others to craw down and wallow in your misery.
So keep "asking questions," fuckers.
|6.20.07 @ 4:34AM|#
According to the NTSB flight path, there were about 5 miles
to re-acquire upon rolling back out from the turn. That's
plenty.
Do the math Timon.
5 miles * 60 min / hour * 1 hour / 500 miles = 36 seconds to not
just re-acquire but to fly those 5 miles after the rollout into the
building.
Where's the ad-hominem? Read the posts where everyone is attacking
moore. Oh, and he's fat.
A steep, descending turn (of radius ~1.5 miles) can be done by
someone who has learned how to fly a plane like these
guys.
If your number for the radius is right, and it's at 500 mph, and my
excel fu is right at 1am, then that's a 1 minute turn. A standard
turn taught in a class would be a level turn that takes two minutes
in a small plane and four minutes in a large aircraft.
A steep descending one minute turn seems to be some pretty good
turn fu.
|6.20.07 @ 7:16AM|#
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a
thought without accepting it." Aristotle
fatmouse.
Your hatred, desire to kill and abusive language are not very good
examples of the psychological stability you think those of us who
can entertain difficult ideas are lacking.
Aristotle also pointed out: "There never was a genius without a
tincture of insanity." Which probably fully applies to Noam
Chomsky.
The first link suggests that by tearing down Loose Change, all
other hypotheses about what caused the buildings to collapse are
thereby refuted.
The second is mostly a long rant with a few comments that pertain
to this discussion.
Rosie may have misstated the melting issue, or you may have
misquoted her.
The maximum heat of a hydrocarbon in a diffuse flame fire producing
black smoke is barely enough to soften structural steel, let alone
cause it to fail. Keep in mind the ambient air temperature does not
quickly (56 minutes for WTC 2, 102 for tower 1) become the steel
temperature - especially not when you have a heat sink as large as
the steel structures of the towers. The testing of actual steel
beams from the areas of impact and fires failed to produce one that
even reached that temperature. Pictures of the area of impact and
flames do not show any windows blown out by heat - also indicating
the fire temperatures were not hot enough.
The reality Rosie referred to is that in the century history of
steel frame buildings, many have had fires - the Empire State
Building was hit in the upper floors by a bomber and had a fire-
but none have collapsed like the WTC towers and WTC 7 (which was
not hit by a plane) did on 9/11. The towers were over designed to
withstand plane impacts and the fires that would inevitably
ensue.
From your own link:
"An airplane is a hollow, extremely light-weight tube of aluminum,
cunningly designed to lift not one ounce more than is necessary for
safe flight in rough weather. An airplane is as fragile as a
hollow-boned bird, and for the same reasons. The Pentagon, on the
other hand, is a fortress, ..."
The towers were also structurally engineered - a rather well
established field- as fortresses that could easily withstand the
impact of those 'hollow, extremely light weight tubes'.
The official NIST report was clarified with the following
comment:
"In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted
due to the fires."
The NIST report also did not address the large amount of molten
metal in the basements of all three buildings for weeks after 9/11.
Or the ground temperatures from 600 to 1500 degrees F for six
months after. Where did all the energy to create that heat come
from? Not from the energy of the falling mass and all other sources
combined - that can and has been calculated- it wasn't enough to
continue the collapse that the impact and fires were insufficient
to start to begin with, let alone the pulverization of everything
but the steel beams. (The NIST report is only one of the rebuttals
of the NOVA show and the pancake collapse hypothesis.) NIST only
addressed WTC 7 by admitting that they needed help, issuing an RFP
for someone else to study its collapse - but only floors 8 through
46 (WTC 7 had floors 1-7, sub basements and was 47 stories
total).
FEMA had this to say about WTC 7: "The best hypothesis has a very
low probability of occurring." Usually, that means you look for a
better hypothesis.
The Pop Mech article was published in 3/2005. One rebuttal is here
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html. There are
others at the links below.
The article does essentially what is done on your first link. It
refutes SOME of the alternative explanations of that time period.
Your implication is that all are refuted, even those that have come
out since the article was published. And you think I'm nuts and
have no ability to think scientifically?
Unfortunately for Popular Mechanics, the NIST report did not come
out until Sept/Oct of 2005. That report fails to support the
official hypothesis beyond the hijacking of 4 planes, of which
three were flown into three buildings. The total, rapid,
symmetrical collapses of the Towers and WTC 7 (not hit by a plane)
are still unexplained. This is partly because the NIST report is
actually only the official 'pre-collapse hypothesis'. The study did
not examine the ACTUAL collapse of the towers. As Dr Jones'
deadpans: "For 20 million dollars, one would think NIST could have
carried the collapse analysis 15 seconds further."
Another critique of the NIST report is in New Civil Engineer,
10/6/2005, from a structural engineer:
"the software used by NIST has been pushed to new limits. There
have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations, and judgement
calls." This particulary applies to extrapolating the UL test
results of the floor assemblies for warping, from 3 (THREE) inches
to 40 (FORTY) inches. Warping is not failure. Now there's an
example of the scientific work the Bush Administration has built a
reputation of.
Enter more very respectable scientists who have added analysis,
research, data, etc to some valuable work already done. You are
right, engineers are very smart. My daughter was fortunate enough
to take 8th grade science from Christa McAuliffe's back up for that
fatal flight. My uncle was a physicist on the John's Hopkins team
that developed the nuclear sub missiles. My father a PhD in
physical chemistry who developed the first fire retardant ceiling
tile, my ex an Environmental Engineer in hazardous waste (MS), his
father a wing commander for NORAD, his brother the civilian head of
the Elmendorf AFB fighter jet electronic repair shop, my son and
daughter majors in engineering (nuclear physics and mechanical).
Me, I'm an RN. I work with firefighters and have cared for burn
patients. And Veterans from WWI to the Gulf war. Aside from the
heavily scientific childhood, I took physics, chemistry and ethics,
in high school and college. It really bothers me that the EPA knew
full well how dangerous the air was (the dust had PH levels as high
as 12) when they told ground zero workers and residents it was safe
to return to the area.
For anyone who is not consumed with their emotional reaction and
interpretation of the events of 9/11, try these sites. If you are
struggling with the psychological barriers, they are very normal -
check out Manwell's paper on "Faulty Towers of Belief" at the
Journal of 911 Sudies. The second is links to other reputable,
scientific sites from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and
Justice.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://stj911.org/resources/index.html
I highly recommend the paper "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the
Scientific Method" by Stephen Jones PhD, at the first link . You
will get an understanding of the physicist Jones' contributions to
muon-catalyzed fusion, and an excellent refresher on how to
evaluate the scientific method of other papers and articles you
read.
It's a tough journey and there are many moments of "How can this be
true?" Feasible answers - even how the cutter charges for
detonation could have been placed WEEKS before 9/11- are out there.
(There are also many pictures of the steel core beams with totally
improbable, unexplained 45 degree cuts)
The final questions become:
If the Joint Chiefs and the CIA could seriously develop and present
"Operation Northwoods" (Google and read, its a declassified
official document) to Kennedy and McNamara in '63, would WTC in
2001 be a piece of cake, or a piece of pie?
If we don't find out what brought the buildings down, will it make
any difference if we stop hijackers in the future?
How much of the news you get from profit centered sources will you
continue to accept without more careful consideration, fact
checking and finding sources for the news you could use but they
won't give you?
|6.20.07 @ 7:48AM|#
Just because these accusations are based on such ridiculous
assumptions.
The perpetrators of whatever brought down the towers may well have
been as much outside the Government as inside. Very few people
inside may have been in the top loop of probably fewer than 10
people.
The idea that thousands of '..our fellow countrymen - soldiers,
politicians, everyday folks - would be so _evil_ ' is not
mine.
It would take fewer than a hundred who are:
Ideologists of the hijacker ilk - willing to die for their
cause.
Mercenaries who have no national affiliation and are very likely
sociopaths - but smart enough to act like engineers and place
cutter charges in the towers while the security was down and
everyone had been told that electronic upgrade work was being done.
The charges could be placed in areas they would not be seen, have
been calculated as to how much weight, etc would be involved, and
are routinely set off by radio controlled detonation.
The more you check out the stories, the more whistleblowers you
will find. Ignored by the 9/11 comission, the media, NIST and
FEMA.
Another possibility to check out is a movie that doesn't go into
the alternative hypotheses.
9/11 Press for Truth is primarily about the family members who lost
loved ones and are still trying to get answers. It traces their
efforts to get the Comission, to get it to do its job and now to
get another investigation. The supporting information comes from
Paul Thompson's Terror Timeline which he developed entirely from
news articles with world wide sources, American standards (NYT,
WaPO, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN etc.) and web sites. The implications from
these stories still create the same conclusion:
We need a scientific, forensic investigation of the 9/11 events.
Miami CSI does a better job every week than was ever done at Ground
Zero.
|6.20.07 @ 8:02AM|#
Again, the MORONS with THE MELTING FUCKING STEEL.
Go read a fucking book on the subject.
Repeat, STEEL DOES NOT HAVE TO MELT IN A FIRE TO FAIL. It loses
almost all its strength at around 800F and begins to lose strength
well below that. Steel structures regularly fail in sustained
fires. Fortunately failures of highrises have been rare.
The serious compromise caused by knocking out enough columns in the
outside frame combined with a sustained fire on the relatively
light floor trusses were quite enough to cause catastrophic
failure.
Also the WTC did not have interior columns like the Empire State
and other conventionally framed buildings do. It was a unique
design - one that its designers were, rightfully, proud of.
|6.20.07 @ 9:24AM|#
Personally, I believe that full and free availability of
public information must be one of the very highest priorities in a
democratic republic, so its citizens can make informed choices when
determining the republic's course.
Hey you communist, it's not free!!! It costs money. Now I repeat,
go spend you own $100 and learn something about flying. Then you
will be a little more informed. Right now you are ignorant, and I
see no reason to continue to support you if you are unwilling to do
a little leg work on your own. Quit reading the freakin' Internet
and go get some real world experience. I realize $100 will cost you
3 months of WOW, but you will be infinitely better for it.
|6.20.07 @ 9:26AM|#
This thread may have depressed me more than anything Balko has
written yet about the SWAT assassinations.
So many new names have posted here; so many folks who have
obviously been lurking here for quite some time; and almost without
exception, they ALL believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
America is doomed. Drop the bomb.
CB
Dave W.|6.20.07 @ 9:54AM|#
So many new names have posted here; so many folks who have
obviously been lurking here for quite some time; and almost without
exception, they ALL believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
Actually, the division seems to be more between those who
passionately believe the Official Story, and those who are open to
the idea that there was a "conspiracy" without having a strong
affirmative belief on the matter.
Even my belief that Flight 93 was shot down is somewhat tentative,
but, still, I would like to repeat for the record:
Flight 93 was shot down.
I think its funny that people who get on my for unorthodox beliefs
about corn syrup (now discarded btw), and gently bumped guns having
a tendency to fire (never a belief of mine) never mention my
"wacky" belief that Flt 93 was shot down. I think it is because
deep in their hearts I think they suspect (lookin' at you,
Darkly)
|6.20.07 @ 10:17AM|#
36 seconds is plenty of time to reacquire and aim the plane.
It's a long damn time, actually.
But you assume that the turn was taken at a sustained 500 mph.
That's almost impossible. A turn like that will bleed a significant
amount of speed (guessing that he ended up around 300 mph at the
end of the turn). The 5 miles post-rollout was where the plane
gained the speed observed at impact (450-500 mph), easily
accomplished in a moderate dive with the throttle pushed up.
|6.20.07 @ 10:22AM|#
One last thing: I was asking where I had launched an ad hominem.
I was also pointing out where you had done the exact same fucking
thing.
This thread has truly gone down the shitter with members of both
sides engaging in ad hom warfare, and it's almost completely from
non-regulars. Big surprise on both counts.
I'm out.
just me|6.20.07 @ 10:33AM|#
It may, perhaps, be. But it is not the *tallest* office building
in the world, and was, purportedly, hit from the side, at 400-500
mph.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How do we know the target was the *SIDE*? Did the guy come back
from the dead and tell us it was the side? I do not think it would
be hard to hit a building that huge. The guy just nailed it on the
side.
|6.20.07 @ 11:22AM|#
If you understand that there is no conspiracy you don't need an
explanation, if you believe there is a conspiracy no explanation
will suffice.
Why not just forget it?
|6.20.07 @ 11:23AM|#
There is nothing in Moore's comments to indicate that he
believes the 9/11 attacks were an inside job.
"Right" is what you say when someone else pauses in the midst of
their harrangue to check and see if you are going to start a fight
with them, and you don't want to start a fight just then. It means,
"I gotcha."
|6.20.07 @ 11:24AM|#
"Repeat, STEEL DOES NOT HAVE TO MELT IN A FIRE TO FAIL. It loses
almost all its strength at around 800F and begins to lose strength
well below that. Steel structures regularly fail in sustained
fires. Fortunately failures of highrises have been rare."
That's right! Extreme heat changes the chemical composition of
metals and reduce their tensil and yield strenths which could aid
in the collapse of the building.
|6.20.07 @ 11:38AM|#
"Right" is what you say when someone else pauses in the
midst of their harrangue to check and see if you are going to start
a fight with them, and you don't want to start a fight just then.
It means, "I gotcha."
That's how I read it as well, joe. Though he does lend them a fair
bit of credibility with his wordier answers.
hmmmmmm|6.20.07 @ 12:11PM|#
RE: the flight being shot down.
When all this was going on the people at a forum I visit were
screaming "That fucking Bastard!!! Why did he not have the planes
shot down!"
Then, when the 'theory' that it was shot down started to get
popular it quickly turned to "That fucking bastard!!! He had the
planes shot down!!"
Amazing, huh?
One more thing.....|6.20.07 @ 12:14PM|#
A flight was shot down off the US coast to cover up for a missle
attack on the pentagon?
Could we have just solved one of the mysteries on Lost??
|6.20.07 @ 12:18PM|#
| June 20, 2007, 8:02am |
This peer reviewed paper discusses the fire and steel issues
thoroughly." Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings
Completely Collapse?" @ http://journalof911studies.com
Page 21 Covers the multiple quotes from reputable sources that no
previous steel frame high rise buildings have ever collapsed from
fire like the WTC buildings did on 9/11.
PP 6, 32 and 35 cover the temperatures needed to soften the steel,
and the temperatures determined by tests on beams from the area
showing those temperatures were not reached, and problems with the
NIST report on the steel temperatures and testing.
According to NIST "The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at
most a few minutes." The office contents would have burned up in 15
to 20 minutes - not long enough to bring the steel temperature to
800 degrees. Structural steel has to sustain it's load for 2 hours
of sustained fire to meet NYC code. UL tested the steel at the time
of construction and it passed.
This paper at the same site also discusses the issue: NIST Data
Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire.
The ranter now claims:
"The serious compromise caused by knocking out enough columns in
the outside frame combined with a sustained fire on the relatively
light floor trusses were quite enough to cause catastrophic
failure."
Sorry dude. The 240 perimeter columns were overdesigned to take on
live load from other columns that failed. At 2000 x their load
each.
PP 37 of the paper "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings
Completely Collapse?" discusses the UL testing of the floor truss
models - that all sustained the maximum design load for 2 hours,
with 3 inches of warping that NIST extrapolated to 40 inches.
Finally, the most incredible piece of ignorance immaginable:
"Also the WTC did not have interior columns like the Empire State
and other conventionally framed buildings do. It was a unique
design - one that its designers were, rightfully, proud of."
http://stj911.com/press_releases/blueprints.html
"...the newly released blueprints show what analysis of independent
investigators have long held on the basis of construction
photographs and scattered reports in journals, such as the
Engineering News Record, from the era of the Towers' construction:
"The Towers contained 47 large core columns, more than a dozen of
which retained dimensions of 54 x 22 inches through the 66th floor,
and tapered in stages on higher floors. The core columns around the
South Tower's crash zone were about twice as heavy as those in the
North Tower's crash zone."
Those 47 core columns that were 54X 22 inch rectangles were
constructed of 4 inch thick steel. WTC 7 had 24 core columns and 57
perimeter columns.
So how the hell did THOSE columns ALL fail? If the smaller
perimeter columns did not get hot enough to soften and fail, how
did the these huge center ones? Did the ones with the 45 degree
angle cuts give a clue? Does the molten metal in the basements of
all three buildings hold information? Like the standard signature
chemicals and metal transformations arson experts normally look for
to see if thermite was used to set a building on fire?
I'm sorry to crash your site and impose this fact based, bunch of
information - some of which has been around for a long time. I made
the mistake of reviewing "9/11 Press for Truth" at the Dem Daily
awhile back and another blogger apparently attracted attention to
that post here. It's the first time I've been here. Not likely I'll
be back.
My daughter has had what most people would consider to be an awful
childhood. Illness, deformity, more illness, pain, disability. From
a wheel chair she keeps racking up 4 point GPAs on her way to a
mechanical engineering degree. Her motto:
Life sucks. Get over it.
Dave W.|6.20.07 @ 12:27PM|#
That's how I read it as well, joe. Though he does lend them
a fair bit of credibility with his wordier answers.
Back on the original topic of this thread:
I remember in 2002 (before the Iraq War, probably before Septemeber
2002 even) when Moore was first planning Fahrenheit 911, I saw some
kind of news or publicity story about it. I wish I had paid more
attention (I am not that much of a Moore fan). From what I can
remember:
- it was much more of a "conspiracy theory" movie back then
(although I am not sure they were as quick to use those words back
then), especially with no Iraq War;
- they had the stuff about the Bush family / Bin Laden
connection;
- don't think they had anything about the Patriot Act; and
[b]- they had this diagram of the flight paths and where the Air
Force bases were.[/b]
I put this last point in bold for a couple of reasons. One reason
is that I recall this as being the centerpiece of the promo --
maybe because Moore talked about it a lot -- can't remember, but I
remember it being prominent. Also, I never saw F911, so I don't
know if this diagram or discussion made it into the movie at all --
did it -- anyone know?
At the time, in 2002, my reaction was that it was ridiculous that
he was barking up this tree at all. I just assumed that the
standard Air response had happened and that if it had not, then we
would have heard about it -- I figured people must have been on
that. of course, this is funny because it was at some point later
in 2002 that I looked at how long Flight 93 was up after the first
plane hit and gradually started coming to the conclusion that Flt
93 was shot down based on the timeline.
I guess my point is that Moore has probably been much deeper into
these "conspiracy theories" for a much longer time. He probably
*gasp* even knows stuff we (and INFOWARS) don't. With all this as
background, I thought his comment about "seeking answers in his own
way" was interesting and cryptic. i also thought it was kind of
unfair that Doherty was taking him to task upon the release of F911
for [i]not[/i] making a conspiracy theory movie -- because I think
he was, and then changed directions in 2003 for whatever
reason.
hmmmmmmm|6.20.07 @ 12:30PM|#
Your daughter has WHAT to do with this discussion?
If I talked all about my disabilities and how sick I am, will that
give me 'extra credit' in my POV?
Life does suck, but what sucks more is people who use their
suffering like it makes them somehow more 'enlightened' than
everyone else.
Dave W.|6.20.07 @ 12:36PM|#
Then, when the 'theory' that it was shot down started to get
popular it quickly turned to "That fucking bastard!!! He had the
planes shot down!!"
Speaking as the only person on this thd who has come and and said
he believes a plane (specifically Flt 93) was shot down, let me
clue you in to my attitude about the shootdown.
1. I think they should have shot the plane down.
2. Even if the passengers had gotten control of the cockpit.
3. That fucking bastard didn't have the guts to level with the
public about it afterwards.
4. Sometimes it is better to ask "conspiracy theorists" what they
think instead of announcing to everybody what they think. Cause you
have a tendency to get my thoughts wrong.
|6.20.07 @ 12:40PM|#
The comment about my daughter's attitude had to do with the
comments about strangers to the blog coming by and bringing stuff
into the discussion that was so - not welcome. The intention was to
illustrate that not welcome stuff happens in life. We choose to
deal with it - or not.
This was one comment:
Cracker's Boy | June 20, 2007, 9:26am | #
Gotta go.
hmmmmmmmmmm|6.20.07 @ 1:06PM|#
Dave, my post was not about you, was it? Go back, reread. It was
about the 'flip flop' of the people on another forum I used to post
at.
One minute it was "why did he not shoot the planes down." then it
was "How dare he shoot it down."
It was an aside showing that no matter what hapens, people will not
be happy. I can't help you if you can't see that.
_|6.20.07 @ 1:16PM|#
From a wheel chair she keeps racking up 4 point GPAs on her
way to a mechanical engineering degree.
I hope she learns that steel fails at temperatures above about 800F
or she may have problems in her practice.
Or she can confine her efforts to "peer-reviewed" "journals" like
the one you referred to.
If your peers are all crackpots then your crackpot shit will pass
review.
Dave W.|6.20.07 @ 1:29PM|#
It was an aside showing that no matter what hapens, people
will not be happy. I can't help you if you can't see
that.
It is an aside that you see all the time. "Conspiracy theorists
think this, conspiracy theorists think that." the Popular Mechanics
article (linked above) is probably the most egregious example of
this rhetorical technique of picking out the most ridiculous thing
any "conspiracy theorist" has ever said and then repeating it all
over the place like it is supposed to mean something.
I have met quite a few people who believed both: (i) the Official
Story; and (ii) that the world is only 6,000 years old. You don't
see me coming on the these kind of thds and saying that anyone who
believes the Official Story is probably a credulous creationist
though. It is better to take people as you find them, and not
carelessly lump them all together. especially when you have some
actual, sincere "conspiracy theorists" right there in the virtual
room and willing to answer your questions about their own attitudes
on the relevant questions.
Oh, yeah, and another technique tat really bugs me that has popped
up on this thread:
some anonymous poster is claiming to have seen Flight 77 crash into
the Pentagon. This means nothing. If you want to be a witness, then
go on record under your real name and say what you saw. Anonymously
telling all about what you saw (or a family member or whomever
saw), when there is a controversy about the true facts, is worse
than useless. I mean, it is good to speak about personal anecdotes
and thoughts anonymously -- there is never going to be a conspiracy
theory about whether your Cousin Ernie tried to kiss your Aunt
Mabel at your family reunion. When it comes to 9/11, though,
factual observations should be by non-anonymous witnesses. Another
example of this is where the Commission report reports "an
engineer" on the scene at the world trade center as predicting the
first tower would fall before it did. "An engineer"?!?!?!?!? You
mean Congress could not get this guy to go on record?!?!?!? it is
almost like they are trying to make people disbelieve the Official
Story with this reliance on nameless, faceless witnesses to
critical events.
|6.20.07 @ 1:30PM|#
You know, maybe these conspiracy theorists have
something...
Who has really gained, and stepped out of the shadows due to these
attacks? Who has made money and fame from these attacks, where
before they had nothing?
Yes, I'm postulating that Michael Moore and the Loose Change guys
are responsible for setting up the 9/11 attacks.
This theory is at least as plausible as blaming the Government, and
it has the benefit of targetting people I dislike (which seems to
be a driving criteria of the conspiracy theorists) so I think it's
good enough to run with.
Really, Haliburton didn't gain enough to cover the costs here,
neither did the Bush/Cheney Government of Neo-cons... but Michael
Moore went from a nobody to international stardom, and nobody had
heard of the Loose Change guys before. So who really gained?
Therefore who really had the motivation?
Hey this is fun, I don't even need proof; I can just attack people
with fiction. Wheeee
Seer|6.20.07 @ 2:03PM|#
The 9//1 Truth guys turn out to be useful after all, now we have proof that Moore is a crazy on top of stupid (and he's an MSU fan)!
|6.21.07 @ 6:31AM|#
June 20, 2007, 1:16pm | #
It's really interesting how folks will NOT focus on the issues and
facts. I KNOW steel has to reach 800 degrees to fail. And I have
enough guts to GO READ the peer reviewed journals I refer to so I
can make informed judgements on the work and the events. I have a
strong science background and medicine is heavily based on science
- in case that missed your microscopic brain. "EVIDENCE BASED
OUTCOMES" has been the driving force of health care for over five
years. Without statistical and other scientific support that the
treatment is, in fact, consistently giving the desired outcome, it
is modified or dropped.
The fact is there is a lot of evidence from 9/11 and ground zero
that can and has been tested, analysed, evaluated, etc by
scientists and others who can use their brains for what they are
designed for. The results of that testing - some of it by FEMA and
NIST- not only do not support the accepted answers that the fires
were hot enough to cause this, they completely fail to provide any
reason for the towers to have failed and fallen they way they did -
except for the controlled use of high tech explosives. Using
scientific method, there simply is no way to support the idea that
the terrorist's use of planes was sufficient to bring about that
much damage and destruction.
The temperatures in the areas of the fires did not reach 800
degrees nincompoop. No one who has studied this will make that
claim anymore. Only the dimwit fringe who are convinced that if
they scream loud enough with expletives and derogatory labels, they
have made a scientific fact disappear. Do tell us master metal
workers, how do you get the steel that hot, in that short a time,
when the ambient air temperature never reached 800 degrees? I want
to see it done, and be able to have the results reproduced over and
over - as required by scientific method to prove a hypothesis. And
if you can find a peer reviewed journal to publish your work, it
may be a bunch of crackpots in the group. The Conservative Think
Tanks (an oxymoron supreme) have been doing just that for
years.
There's a point here that some people don't get. Reality is not
forgiving. It makes no allowances for anything. Science is a means
of trying to figure out what the limits are. How to keep from
getting caught in a reality that is avoidable. Or to get out if you
do get caught. The Neocons were SO convinced they didn't have to
believe what the realists were telling them about Iraq they went
right ahead and did what they were convinced would work. It was a
University professor working for the CPA in Iraq who summed it up:
"I'm a Neocon who's been mugged by reality."
The big issue some of us have with their whole scheme is that they
aren't really the ones who have paid for their errors in reasoning.
Hundreds of thousands have lost their lives, been maimed, etc.
Millions have lost their homes, their country, and would trade the
future they had under Sadam for the one they have now in a
nanosecond.
You don't get the point of my daughter having enough guts to get
over her disability and make it in life because you don't have
enough guts to go to reputable sites and read something that might
actually break through your infantile view of the world and make
you GROW UP. If you can't go there, fine. It takes a tough person
with a lot of intestinal fortitude to deal with it. If you are
tough enough to defend your beliefs, GO READ THE PAPERS AND REFUTE
THEM - with REAL facts, not made up ones that suit your 'the USA is
just peachy' perspective.
If you can't do that, could you just explain why it is so important
to you to deny the firefighters and victims (the ones who were
there for months cleaning up and are now getting sick and dying) a
follow up forensic investigation? These are the people whose lives
were on the line then and still are.
If not, the reality of that choice may mug you or someone you love
someday: when there is no firefighter to get you out of a burning
building. Or another building fails around you for no reason you
would have expected or could have avoided/prevented.
Here's another thought. Go take a physics class. Or sit in on one.
Not to learn the physics per se. To listen to the physics teacher
go off on 9/11 like my daughter's does. His issue is the
pulverization piece. It's not the only one but it is his
field.
Try to convince the physics professor you understand it better than
they do. There are plenty of scientists who still have not been
able to look at this and are steering away from it because of what
it might do to their jobs, careers, reputations.
That is the course of science through out history. The folks that
fought Galileo, Newton and even the use of ether in surgery (for
400 years) have plenty of courage deficient counterparts
today.
When we all get mugged by reality again, some of us are going to be
well past "hell hath no fury".
|6.21.07 @ 12:18PM|#
I would like to congratulate the world. A 9/11 truth thread
didn't even break 200 posts.
Ginny... skepticism is an important piece of science. However, you
are not doing a very good job of making the case for the skeptics.
I have also read the peer reviewed articles. When taken together
they make a strong case that the combination of impact from a heavy
liquid filled jet at high speeds (which weakened the structures)
followed by a fire further weakening the structures led to the
collapses.
I was also an eyewitness and can tell you that no controlled
explosions occurred. Standing on the streets of NYC, I discussed
the unfolding events with a man who was a steel worker. He
explained (before the events occurred) that the towers were likely
to fail completely due to the combination of damage and heat (I was
skeptical) . After the first tower fell (remember the second hit,
but hit at a lower point and across a corner), from our vantage, we
were able to predict within a minute or two when the second was
going to fall. It was not the result of some mysterious other
cause.
No explosions. Sorry. There just weren't. Trauma can result in very
strong need to have a satisfactory explanation. If that explanation
doesn't resonate emotionally, it is easy to reject it and look for
something more satisfying. This need can seriously skew judgment.
There is plenty of data for years of study, but the basic
explanation fits the data well. At this point the need to include
extraordinary causes is past. It is really something you need to
get over at this point. I have moved on. I hope you can soon.
|6.21.07 @ 12:23PM|#
And for Dave W.
Neu Mejican is my legal name, and here is my face(^_^).
I am going on record.
I don't know the name of the steel worker whom I was talking to
that predicted the collapse. I am sure he would go on record is
someone asked him...
|6.21.07 @ 12:50PM|#
Lawzy me.
ah giss ah jest wasted all that time taking all o' them there
enjimifeerin' classes. ah could o' jest axed a high school fizzicz
teechur
|6.21.07 @ 1:38PM|#
"We need a scientific, forensic investigation of the 9/11
events. Miami CSI does a better job every week than was ever done
at Ground Zero."
Oh My God. Did I just read that.
You want someone to do as good a job as the writers of a
fictional TV series?
|6.21.07 @ 2:32PM|#
We need a scientific, forensic investigation of the 9/11
events. Miami CSI does a better job every week than was ever done
at Ground Zero.
I bet this is a true desire. A fictional forensic team
investigating a fictional plot were the faux evidence leads to an
obvious conclusion.
Otherwise stated: I want a witch hunt to investigate the
President's conspiring with terrorists to destroy the WTC and hit
the Pentagon, so that BusHilter wouldn't have to use the old
"Saddam violated UN security council resolution" meme as an excuse
to invade Iraq. The witch hunt should follow the prescribed
script and come up with the
logical conclusion. That would make for great TV during a
Presidential campaign cycle.
chris|6.22.07 @ 1:44AM|#
Oh my God! You people need to wake up. The evidence that 9-11 was an inside job is conclusive. I can't believe there are people who haven't bothered to look at the evidence. There is no doubt about it. Google "building 7 bbc" and after watching that video start your investigating.
chris|6.22.07 @ 1:49AM|#
"Repeat, STEEL DOES NOT HAVE TO MELT IN A FIRE TO FAIL. It loses
almost all its strength at around 800F and begins to lose strength
well below that. Steel structures regularly fail in sustained
fires. Fortunately failures of highrises have been rare."
That's right! Extreme heat changes the chemical composition of
metals and reduce their tensil and yield strenths which could aid
in the collapse of the building.
BUT THE POINT IS THERE WERE POOLS OF MOLTEN METAL FOUND AT THE BASE
OF ALL 3 BUILDINGS AND THEY FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED IN SPITE OF THE
40 + CENTRAL COLUMS.
|6.22.07 @ 10:49AM|#
40 + CENTRAL COLUMS
There were no central colums or columns in the WTC towers. Pardon
me for discounting your crediblity when you obviously don't know
the facts.
|6.23.07 @ 9:50PM|#
Pinette,
To borrow from one of Al Pacino's characters, "Empathy was
yesterday. Today, you're wasting my motherf&*%ing time!"
I'm sorry, but that video pretty much does remove doubt about a
missile or drone, or even the "remote fighter jet" theory. The
profile of the object in the video is too big for any of those. It
is about the size you'd expect for a passenger airliner, in this
case a 757. Besides that, no missile, unless fired from right
across the lawn could hit the Pentagon at that trajectory. So,
though you can't read the writing on the fueslage, that video,
coupled with the fact airliner debris were found at the site by
MANY non-government witnesses, and that there were plenty of
witnesses who saw a low plane heading in the direction of the
Pentagon that morning pretty much removes reasonable doubt about
alternatives.
CNN has a better video to go with their story here: First
video of Pentagon 9/11 attack released
And I won't get into wack-a-mole right now. But I love this:
"I have a strong science background ... I want to see it done, and
be able to have the results reproduced over and over - as required
by scientific method to prove a hypothesis."
(Emphasis mine) Anyone with a "strong science background" should
know you do not prove a hypothesis using the scientific method. You
can falsify it, but you can't prove it.
GeoK|6.26.07 @ 12:05AM|#
Its awful , but not as bad as u think, its worse, i.e.
If you want to understand the ongoing manipulation of the "9/11
Truth" movement , watch this video and read the information slides
(PRESS PAUSE IF THEY GO BY TOO FAST), It shows how Robert Baer, who
claims fore knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, made different
contradictory explanations of 9/11 on famous left wing shows like
Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, and Air America, as well as on various
MSM shows, as part of an evolving set of lies to conceal the real
conspiracy covered up by the President, and the 9/11 Truth movement
itself. Decoding the lies points the investigation not at the
Pentagon, but at a private transnational criminal syndicate, allied
with the Gulf States, and located in London, true heirs of the
Saudi funded Iran-Contra Terrorist group.
WATCH THE VIDEO:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6714641053340946546
|6.27.07 @ 4:43AM|#
I happened to be at UL's Northbrook Il facility, on business, a
few months after 9/11. Their fire lab was doing all sorts of fire
testing on insulated steel collumns - thermocouples everywhere. It
was pretty cool, but sad.
One thing I recall around that same time was someone talking about,
and unfortunately I can't remember if it was at UL or from other
source at the time, how the insulation would protect the building
steel from fire - unless it was physically damaged, such as by a
fully load commercial aircraft ramming into it. Somehow I don't
think the doubters have run sophisticated analysis on this.
Daniel Bland|10.20.09 @ 9:44PM|#
Want to wake up American's to the truth of 9/11? Here's how......
Make it go viral! Thanks!
Daniel Bland
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245