The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewLinh Dinh Archive
George Orwell and Mohammed Atta Were Here
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Monica Hotel in Cambriles, Spain, 2017
Monica Hotel in Cambriles, Spain, 2017

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In 1937, Orwell was shot in the neck during the Spanish Civil War. Known mostly as a political allegorist, Orwell was also a master at describing all that is see­n, heard and felt, so in Homage to Catalonia, you can read about his near death experience, “Roughly speaking it was the sensation of being at the center of an explosion. There seemed to be a loud bang and a blinding flash of light all around me, and I felt a tremendous shock—no pain, only a violent shock, such as you get from an electric terminal; with it a sense of utter weakness, a feeling of being stricken and shriveled up to nothing. The sandbags in front of me receded into immense distance. I fancy you would feel much the same if you were struck by lightning. I knew immediately that I was hit, but because of the seeming bang and flash I thought it was a rifle nearby that had gone off accidentally and shot me. All this happened in a space of time much less than a second.”

After spending several days in Lerida, where he was tended to by sweet, well meaning yet incompetent nurses, Orwell was sent to Tarragona by train. He recovered in a hospital two blocks from where I’m typing this.

Orwell, “I was three or four days at Tarragona. My strength was coming back, and one day, by going slowly, I managed to walk down as far as the beach. It was queer to see the seaside life going on almost as usual; the smart cafés along the promenade and the plump local bourgeoisie bathing and sunning themselves in deck-chairs as though there had not been a war within a thousand miles. Nevertheless, as it happened, I saw a bather drowned, which one would have thought impossible in that shallow and tepid sea.”

The day I arrived in Tarragona, a 25-year-old Russian drowned, so the seemingly impossible keeps on happening. Retracing Orwell’s path down the Rambla, the city’s wide promenade, I ended up at the edge of a cliff overlooking the Mediterranean. Among the handful of people milling about at this early hour, there was a portly Muslim lady in a head scarf. Ten percent of Tarragona are Muslims. Looking down a hundred feet, I noticed a large graffiti in Catalan, “el jovent construim alternatives.” The young build alternatives.

Often, the young also step on the same piles of manure and spout only a slightly different set of nonsense from previous generations. The young are also prone to be manipulated by their cynical and sinister elders. In short, there is rarely anything new in the jejune, just cute, at best, vanity. Artaud, “You are quite unnecessary, young man!”

As you could see, Catalan is at least half decipherable to Spanish, Portuguese, Italian or French speakers, unlike Euskera, the Basque language. Close enough to Castilians, Catalans still see themselves, quite naturally, as a distinct family, so all over Tarragona, there are Catalan flags hanging from balconies. Walking or riding for miles through just about every neighborhood, I have yet to spot a Spanish flag. Draped on any home, it would surely be perceived as a provocation. Shop and product signs are often in Catalan only, and bookstores carry volumes in both Spanish and Catalan, with the former still predominating, however, and the latter heavily subsidized.

On the block where I’m staying, there is a restaurant/bar, Apple, that’s run by a Chinese immigrant who’s been in Spain five years. From eight in the morning until eleven at night, there are always customers sitting at his tables, inside and out. A few feet away is the Tian An-Men restaurant, and around the corner, there is a kebab joint owned by Pakistani immigrants. As with most western European cities, Chinese and kebab eateries sprinkle Tarragona.

On the outskirt of town is City Wok, a huge Chinese-owned buffet that’s always packed with people stuffing their faces. Its employees are Chinese, Pakistanis and one Argentinian. Nearby is Merca China, a big box store selling made-in-China merchandises.

A seafood restaurant, Taller, is owned by a gay couple, with one of them a half Japanese Peruvian. The two waiters at Osteria del Lab are Ukrainian and a chatty dude from Torino. Italian run gelaterie and pizzerie are not uncommon, Pakistanis own many convenience stores and many of the venders at the weekly clothing flea market are Arabs. Nannies and caretakers for the elderly are often Latin Americans. My host, Jonathan Revusky, sometimes hires a Moroccan cleaning lady. Jon’s long-time girlfriend arrived in Spain with a Lithuanian passport, and his daughter’s best friend is Russian.

When Mimi asked Katia if she liked Putin, the 12-year-old answered, “Yes, I love chocolate pudding!”

Though quite cosmopolitan for a small city, Tarragona is still 80% Spanish, and Carlos, a 42-year-old high school math teacher, told me there are no problems with immigrants, for they are quickly assimilating. Many of his students are immigrants.

Carlos has only traveled to four nearby countries. More than Paris or London, his ultimate destination is New York.

Each Friday in Tarragona, there’s an English corner at a bar where expats and learners of English can chatter. At one, I got to know Leo, a middle-aged American who’s been in Tarragona for five years. Leo’s great-great-great grandfather came to America in 1615 from Reus, just 15 minutes from Tarragona, and his family never stopped speaking Castilian Spanish at home, so Leo grew up bilingual in Texas.

“So this is a home coming for you! How often do you return to the US?”

“I don’t want to go back there again!”

“Don’t you still have many relatives there?”

“They can come here to see me. Six of them already have. It’s so much nicer over here.”

“What was the last place you lived in the US?”

“Houston.”

“Oh man!” I laughed. “The freeways, the traffic, Houston sucks!”

“Yes, it does.”

“I like other places in Texas, though.”

“I love Austin. It is one of my favorite cities.”

“Since you’re Spanish, were you ever annoyed at being confused for a Mexican growing up?”

“But I am also Mexican. Texas was Mexican!”

ORDER IT NOW

We were sitting at an outside table, in the shadow of the hulking ruins of a Roman wall. The square was filled with people eating and drinking. Half a dozen small kids kicked around a couple of plastic soccer balls. A middle-aged Gypsy played the accordion for tips. It was cool, breezy and quiet enough to talk comfortably.

As a seaside resort, Tarragona has plenty of foreign tourists, but not too many to make the place tacky. Thanks to compounding ineptitudes by Delta Airlines, my plane was more than three hours late leaving Philadelphia, so I ended up being rerouted through Amsterdam. My flight into Barcelona, then, was filled with mostly blonde Dutch vacationers, including many small children. People were literally giddy with laughter, jokes and general goofiness at the promise of being on a Spanish beach in a few hours. A mother sang one verse to her toddler. A twelve-year-old turned around and said “Hola!” to the Spanish young lady next to me.

Increasingly, Russians are also vacationing in Spain. Moreover, the Spanish government have been targeting rich Russians and Chinese as immigrants. In 2012, anyone who bought a house for 160,000 Euros was given residency. A year later, this was bumped up to half a million. At the Barcelona airport’s arrival terminal, there is a large add in Chinese for Spanish real estate. With a birthrate of just 1.3 children per woman, Spain needs immigrants to sustain its economy.

Of the 19 Arab “terrorists” of 9/11, Mohammed Atta is the most recognized. Fingered as the suicide pilot of the first plane to hit the Twin Towers, Atta’s name and face have become famous. The Cairo-born Atta has been traced in the mainstream press to a Hamburg university, Brooklyn apartment, Maine public library, Oklahoma motel, Florida flight school, San Diego house, Kandahar house, Georgia payphone and Prague Casino. There is a video of a smiling and laughing Atta supposedly declaring his suicide will in Afghanistan, but with no sound, it can be him saying just about anything, and nothing in the short clip even indicates that it was filmed in Afghanistan.

Two months before 9/11, Atta flew to Spain from Miami. Landing in the late afternoon in Madrid, Atta met up with Iqbal Afzal Admat, an Arab with an Irish passport, and they stayed in adjacent rooms at a hotel near the airport. The next morning, they rented a car and drove to Tarragona, where they met four more buddies. After 9/11, the Spanish police conducted a ten-month investigation of these Arabs’ movements in Spain, and the result is a 700-page report that documents no crimes, just a few guys checking in and out of hotel rooms. Several made calls overseas. Two drank vodka. One visited a theme park.

With nothing to sensationalize, El Pais still managed to publish on June 30th, 2002 an article called “The Terrorist Summit Where 9/11 Was Prepared Took Place in Tarragona” [“La cumbre terrorista donde se preparó el 11-S se celebró en Tarragona”] Sprinkled throughout with pure inventions, it often reads like pulp fiction. A typical passage, “Atta, 33-years-old, born in Kafr el Shikh, showed his Egyptian passport to the customs control, and neither his glance nor pulse fluttered when the National Police agent looked him in the eyes and, with a faint gesture, ordered him forward. A man who two months later would trigger the worst attack against the United States since Pearl Harbor (1941) appeared quite a bit less than a suicide pilot. Dressed in a short-sleeved shirt, long pants and shoes, he held in his right hand an elegant leather wallet. Although his face was characteristically Arab, he appeared as a Western tourist.”

According to the official 9/11 version, there were supposed to be 20 suicide terrorists, but one man, the Yemeni Ramzi bin al-Shibh, could not gain entry to the US, so he stayed behind in Europe. Captured in Karachi, Pakistan on September 11th, 2002, al-Shibh languishes in Guantanamo at age 42.

Al-Shibh was also in Tarragona Province in July of 2001. One afternoon, Jonathan Revusky and I drove to the Hotel in Cambrils, where al-Shibh had stayed. Just a block from the beach, the five-story hotel has a private pool, bar and low couches, Arab styled, in the reception area, with a Turkish samovar set. Unlike Selou down the road, Cambrils is not overrun by British, German, Russian and French tourists. With a historical core and several fine restaurants, Cambrils still has character and charms. There aren’t Irish pubs all over, as in Selou. Al-Shibh, my man, you have taste, and it’s a shame they’ve locked you up for nothing.

Why nothing? Simply because commercial planes cannot fly over 500 miles an hour at such a low altitude, around a thousand feet, then disappear completely into steel skyscrapers, so the acts for which al-Shibh and the other 19 Arabs are accused of simply didn’t happen. They did not cause any building to implode and pancake into its own footprint on 9/11, nor did any of them fly into the Pentagon. The only proof of a violent hijacking that day is a farcically unconvincing recording of a purported air stewardess, one Betty Ong, who talked quite casually for 23 minutes about murder and mayhem on a plane, but without any sounds of panic in the background, as if people were quite OK with their fellow passengers being murdered, and terrorists running amok. Oh Lord, the guy next to me just had his throat slashed with a boxcutter. Let me finish this tiny cup of coffee.

Revusky, “There are facts, then there is story telling. What are presented as facts in the media these days are often just fic-tion, just bullshit. When I was in Marrakesh in 2001, I saw these professional story tellers mesmerizing crowds, and we have professional spinners of tales also, so a handful of Arabs hanging out on the Costa Daurada is spun into a terror summit. They can say that the notorious Vietnamese-American terror-ist Linh Dinh suddenly showed up in Tarragona, an Al Queda hotbed, to hash out some plots with the deranged subversive, Jonathan Revusky. Locals could observe them swimming at various beaches, as if looking for weak spots in the city’s de-fense. Occasionally, some Slavic broad was seen to carouse with them.”

ORDER IT NOW

So there you have it. Though I’m sitting in this sun bathed apartment, with palm trees just outside, dark plots are being hatched, apparently, for on the wall, there’s a Putin calendar, and the music is the Algerian Cheb Hasni belting out “My Way,” then “Saddam,” an homage to the late Iraqi leader. Not quite believing my eyes, I stare at a plate of potato frittata and blood sausage. Oh, the endless terrors! The Mossad! The C.I.A.!

Linh Dinh’s Postcards from the End of America has just been released by Seven Stories Press. He maintains an active photo blog.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: 9/11, American Media, Conspiracy Theories 
Hide 182 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. martino says:

    have a good time in tarragona-cataluña. you have good eyes to see. i ask my friends when they come from a travel from other country or city: ¿what have you seen? Noone has seen nothing. they travel but not can see nothing, apart monuments museums. I travel to other city, at 50 miles only, and i see at once the different way of life, character, etc.i write this from costa brava, girona

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tradecraft46
    According to Taleb, that is tourism in the bad sense.

    People don't talk, they don't care. They put themselves in a bubble.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /ldinh/george-orwell-and-mohammed-atta-were-here/#comment-1966755
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Angel Mas and ACOM can fly at low altitude and suppress BDS. Is Angel Mas real and is he protected by the Schlomin Shield?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. uslabor says:

    “Since you’re Spanish, were you ever annoyed at being confused for a Mexican growing up?”

    “But I am also Mexican. Texas was Mexican!”

    WHAT A STUPID QUESTION!!!!

    Lihn Dihn………..A lesson to YOU and your readers. Being Mexican isn’t an ethnicity, it is a nationality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    People on the lower rungs of ethnic/racial hierarchy (e.g. as the de facto existing in the US) are very much better attuned to the minutiae of racial and ethnic who-whom than people who are on the higher rungs. So Linh Dinh brining up Mexicans did not realize he was committing a gaffe.

    Linh Dinh's question perhaps revealed something. He seemed to want to suck up to the interlocutor by (1) pointing out that he was not a lowly Mexican but Catalonian, (2) commiserate with him that he undeservedly suffered the special treatment Mexicans are expected to get in Texas (which Catalonians do not deserve - or so he thought?).
    , @Wizard of Oz
    And so is "Spaniah" so what's your problem?
    , @Santoculto
    But some nationalities are more homogeneous than others, at least on phenotypical surface.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. utu says:
    @uslabor
    “Since you’re Spanish, were you ever annoyed at being confused for a Mexican growing up?”

    “But I am also Mexican. Texas was Mexican!”

    WHAT A STUPID QUESTION!!!!

    Lihn Dihn...........A lesson to YOU and your readers. Being Mexican isn't an ethnicity, it is a nationality.

    People on the lower rungs of ethnic/racial hierarchy (e.g. as the de facto existing in the US) are very much better attuned to the minutiae of racial and ethnic who-whom than people who are on the higher rungs. So Linh Dinh brining up Mexicans did not realize he was committing a gaffe.

    Linh Dinh’s question perhaps revealed something. He seemed to want to suck up to the interlocutor by (1) pointing out that he was not a lowly Mexican but Catalonian, (2) commiserate with him that he undeservedly suffered the special treatment Mexicans are expected to get in Texas (which Catalonians do not deserve – or so he thought?).

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    Mexicans are not considered "lowly" in Spain and Leo might well have considered such an insinuation to be insulting. Or at least worthy of a stupid American. The Spanish remember rather well that during Franco's dictatorship, a large number of Spanish intellectuals fled to Mexico.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. utu says:

    They can say that the notorious Vietnamese-American terror-ist Linh Dinh suddenly showed up in Tarragona, an Al Queda hotbed, to hash out some plots with the deranged subversive, Jonathan Revusky.

    What does it take to become a patsy? Just a bad luck? So anybody can be drafted of the street to “volunteer” the pasty job? Or you have to be involved somehow in the plot? So they can play you in parallel to the real plot and keep sending on errands that create hints and innuendos necessary for the cover story to be revealed at the end. This always requires money. So the first warning should be the money. And Atta had lots of money or so they say. In 2001 one would expect that people particularly who get involved in some clandestine activities should not be oblivious of the patsy alternative. Particularly if you were a Muslim. Or they don’t have conspiracy theorists in Muslim world? Perhaps Revusky should have his texts translated in to Arabic. Didn’t Mohamed Atta read The Little Drummer Girl? And what about L.H. Oswald? Wasn’t he aware that somebody was creating a legend for him in months and weeks prior to JFK’s assassination. He was involved in something. How soon after shooting did he realize that he was the designated patsy? Clearly he knew it when he was at the Dallas PD. He said it himself. He did to say it was a mistake or mistaken identity. No, he said he was a patsy. And patsy means only two things

    (1) a person who is easily swindled, deceived, coerced, persuaded, etc.; sucker

    (2) a person upon whom the blame for something falls; scapegoat; fall guy.

    And he was both if we want to believe him.

    Or in Texas 1963 patsy had another more innocuous meaning? If not, Oswald clearly implied a plot, a conspiracy in which we was casted in the role of a patsy.

    Should LD and JR should not worry? I hope they do not have to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Veritatis
    I'm not sure it is a stupid question. I have a friend in Houston, an 83 year old lady of Spanish extraction, named Carmen. She migrated to Texas as a small child, and has lived in Houston since she's 27, married a local fellow of German/English stock, integrated into local society. Accentless english, but naturally she speaks spanish. Anyway, she is dark haired, blue eyed with the very fair skin and chiselled features I associate with Santander, Spain. She tells this story about how every day she would go pick up her kids at school, and had the ritual tea with the standard Texan moms. And when anything related to Mexico or mexican things came up, they would ask her to explain. She thinks it is an american thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Veritatis says:
    @utu
    They can say that the notorious Vietnamese-American terror-ist Linh Dinh suddenly showed up in Tarragona, an Al Queda hotbed, to hash out some plots with the deranged subversive, Jonathan Revusky.

    What does it take to become a patsy? Just a bad luck? So anybody can be drafted of the street to "volunteer" the pasty job? Or you have to be involved somehow in the plot? So they can play you in parallel to the real plot and keep sending on errands that create hints and innuendos necessary for the cover story to be revealed at the end. This always requires money. So the first warning should be the money. And Atta had lots of money or so they say. In 2001 one would expect that people particularly who get involved in some clandestine activities should not be oblivious of the patsy alternative. Particularly if you were a Muslim. Or they don't have conspiracy theorists in Muslim world? Perhaps Revusky should have his texts translated in to Arabic. Didn't Mohamed Atta read The Little Drummer Girl? And what about L.H. Oswald? Wasn't he aware that somebody was creating a legend for him in months and weeks prior to JFK's assassination. He was involved in something. How soon after shooting did he realize that he was the designated patsy? Clearly he knew it when he was at the Dallas PD. He said it himself. He did to say it was a mistake or mistaken identity. No, he said he was a patsy. And patsy means only two things

    (1) a person who is easily swindled, deceived, coerced, persuaded, etc.; sucker

    (2) a person upon whom the blame for something falls; scapegoat; fall guy.

    And he was both if we want to believe him.

    Or in Texas 1963 patsy had another more innocuous meaning? If not, Oswald clearly implied a plot, a conspiracy in which we was casted in the role of a patsy.

    Should LD and JR should not worry? I hope they do not have to.

    I’m not sure it is a stupid question. I have a friend in Houston, an 83 year old lady of Spanish extraction, named Carmen. She migrated to Texas as a small child, and has lived in Houston since she’s 27, married a local fellow of German/English stock, integrated into local society. Accentless english, but naturally she speaks spanish. Anyway, she is dark haired, blue eyed with the very fair skin and chiselled features I associate with Santander, Spain. She tells this story about how every day she would go pick up her kids at school, and had the ritual tea with the standard Texan moms. And when anything related to Mexico or mexican things came up, they would ask her to explain. She thinks it is an american thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Veritatis
    Sorry, meant to reply to #3's shout.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Michelle says:

    I used to work with a woman from New Mexico. She was Spanish and Apache. She used to hate it when the diversity police would float by and ask everyone which language they spoke. My co-worker spoke Castilian Spanish and did not like being called, “Mexican”. “We were here before the Spanish,”, she would say. The diversity police would get very confused when she would do this. History is very difficult for the diversity police to understand. So much nuance!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Veritatis says:
    @Veritatis
    I'm not sure it is a stupid question. I have a friend in Houston, an 83 year old lady of Spanish extraction, named Carmen. She migrated to Texas as a small child, and has lived in Houston since she's 27, married a local fellow of German/English stock, integrated into local society. Accentless english, but naturally she speaks spanish. Anyway, she is dark haired, blue eyed with the very fair skin and chiselled features I associate with Santander, Spain. She tells this story about how every day she would go pick up her kids at school, and had the ritual tea with the standard Texan moms. And when anything related to Mexico or mexican things came up, they would ask her to explain. She thinks it is an american thing.

    Sorry, meant to reply to #3′s shout.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. I had an excellent view of the WTC from my big office windows on 14th St. and 8th Ave.

    I watched both planes fly into the WTC.

    I held the hand of one of my co-workers whose father was the maintenance supervisor of the TV towers. We watched as her father died.

    Airplanes were indeed flown into the Twin Towers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock
    I agree. Planes hit the Towers. We think they were hacked. The argument goes something like:

    You can't get a plane to go that fast. You run out of "stick."

    It's like having your pedal to the floor on your car, there is no more room to accelerate. If the planes were under computer control, it solves many problems.

    1. The engines are directly controlled so you don't run out of stick.

    2. Inhuman levels of precision in navigation.

    3. The terrorists don't get cold feet.

    and so forth.

    Oddly enough, this was known before 911.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjbQ-BDh4PU
    , @Sparkon
    I was just having a look at that Chelsea neighborhood using Google maps. and I was wondering how you saw United 175 hit the WTC, since from your location, it would appear that the airplane's approach -- and crash -- would have been blocked by the WTC itself, as well as other buildings.

    I see that 80 8th Ave. is a 20 story, 282-foot, neo-gothic high-rise built in 1929, according to Emporis. The building has some unusual architectural details near its top -- like some additional office space was tacked on up there -- and would also appear to include Art Deco and Streamline Moderne design elements.

    It seems to be the only tall building on the corner of 14th St. and 8th Ave. that could have offices and windows that look toward the WTC, so I'd be interested to learn what floor you were on when you saw both WTC crashes, and any further details you might care to share from this poignant 9/11 experience.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. A 767 is quite capable of doing 500 “mph” at sea level. The placarded limit is 360 KIAS, but placards are for wimps, and if you shove the levers to the stops and put it into a shallow dive, you will cross 500 whatever long before pieces of the structure start to rip off. Flying into a building the size of the WTC is not that difficult in controlled flight.

    So what were those things that thousands saw with their own eyes and millions saw hitting the buildings that day?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Hoax.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Shouting Thomas
    I had an excellent view of the WTC from my big office windows on 14th St. and 8th Ave.

    I watched both planes fly into the WTC.

    I held the hand of one of my co-workers whose father was the maintenance supervisor of the TV towers. We watched as her father died.

    Airplanes were indeed flown into the Twin Towers.

    I agree. Planes hit the Towers. We think they were hacked. The argument goes something like:

    You can’t get a plane to go that fast. You run out of “stick.”

    It’s like having your pedal to the floor on your car, there is no more room to accelerate. If the planes were under computer control, it solves many problems.

    1. The engines are directly controlled so you don’t run out of stick.

    2. Inhuman levels of precision in navigation.

    3. The terrorists don’t get cold feet.

    and so forth.

    Oddly enough, this was known before 911.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    The argument goes something like:
    You can’t get a plane to go that fast. You run out of “stick.”
     
    No, it goes something like the engines' turbofan's blades cavitate and the engines go boom! As of now, Boeing has not released its windtunnel data, so we can't know beyond reasonable doubt whether the flight characteristics of the planes become unmanageable, but we do have expert opinions.
    Boeing's spokesman, answering a reporter's query whether the planes could fly at 500kn at <1000', laughed and replied "Not a chance". A few other guys, at least as qualified as an anonymous entity on an obscure internet forum such as yourself, have publicly said the equivalent. To whit:

    Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
    30,000+ Total Flight Time
    707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, DC-8, L-1049, Learjet 24/25, L-188
    Ground Instructor, Advanced Ground Instructor, Instrument Instructor, Flight Engineer Turbojet,
    Aircraft Dispatcher
    Pan Am, United
    United States Air Force (ret)
    Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
    Command time in:
    - N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
    - N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

    Captain Ross Aimer
    United Airlines, Retired
    B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
    Command time in:
    - N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
    - N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
    Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
    23,000 hours
    27 years in the airlines
    B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
    20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
    civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
    Command time in:
    - N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
    - N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)

    John Lear
    Son of Bill Lear
    (Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation)
    More than 40 years of Flying
    19,000+ TT
    23 Type ratings
    Flight experience includes 707, DC-8, 727, L10-11

    Many more where those came from. If you're pretending to be an expert, at a minimum pretend to be an expert with qualifications greater than or equal to the above.

    So, let's have 'em.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. So what were those things that thousands saw with their own eyes and millions saw hitting the buildings that day?

    People can see damn near anything it seems. Especially if they’re true believers. They call ‘em “holy visions,” “mystical experiences,” and the like.

    They’re kind of related to a vision of John McCain or Hillary or “Bibi” which would be, in reality, more akin to grotesque nightmares.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Denial ... it ain't just a river. Suppose you're also going to affirm AGW.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @jacques sheete

    So what were those things that thousands saw with their own eyes and millions saw hitting the buildings that day?
     
    People can see damn near anything it seems. Especially if they're true believers. They call 'em "holy visions," "mystical experiences," and the like.

    They're kind of related to a vision of John McCain or Hillary or "Bibi" which would be, in reality, more akin to grotesque nightmares.

    Denial … it ain’t just a river. Suppose you’re also going to affirm AGW.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Suppose you’re also going to affirm AGW.
     
    Nah, it's just another corporatist conspiracy theory.

    Denial … it ain’t just a river
     
    .

    Gullibility...it ain't about birds.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Erebus says:
    @Si1ver1ock
    I agree. Planes hit the Towers. We think they were hacked. The argument goes something like:

    You can't get a plane to go that fast. You run out of "stick."

    It's like having your pedal to the floor on your car, there is no more room to accelerate. If the planes were under computer control, it solves many problems.

    1. The engines are directly controlled so you don't run out of stick.

    2. Inhuman levels of precision in navigation.

    3. The terrorists don't get cold feet.

    and so forth.

    Oddly enough, this was known before 911.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjbQ-BDh4PU

    The argument goes something like:
    You can’t get a plane to go that fast. You run out of “stick.”

    No, it goes something like the engines’ turbofan’s blades cavitate and the engines go boom! As of now, Boeing has not released its windtunnel data, so we can’t know beyond reasonable doubt whether the flight characteristics of the planes become unmanageable, but we do have expert opinions.
    Boeing’s spokesman, answering a reporter’s query whether the planes could fly at 500kn at <1000', laughed and replied "Not a chance". A few other guys, at least as qualified as an anonymous entity on an obscure internet forum such as yourself, have publicly said the equivalent. To whit:

    Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
    30,000+ Total Flight Time
    707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, DC-8, L-1049, Learjet 24/25, L-188
    Ground Instructor, Advanced Ground Instructor, Instrument Instructor, Flight Engineer Turbojet,
    Aircraft Dispatcher
    Pan Am, United
    United States Air Force (ret)
    Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
    Command time in:
    - N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
    - N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

    Captain Ross Aimer
    United Airlines, Retired
    B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
    Command time in:
    - N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
    - N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
    Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
    23,000 hours
    27 years in the airlines
    B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
    20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
    civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
    Command time in:
    - N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
    - N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)

    John Lear
    Son of Bill Lear
    (Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation)
    More than 40 years of Flying
    19,000+ TT
    23 Type ratings
    Flight experience includes 707, DC-8, 727, L10-11

    Many more where those came from. If you're pretending to be an expert, at a minimum pretend to be an expert with qualifications greater than or equal to the above.

    So, let's have 'em.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock
    I'm not pretending to be an expert. I'm giving you the argument as I understand it. Most industrial engines have governors on them to prevent them exceeding safety specs. A computer override might allow these safety measures to be exceeded.

    In this case, the we are looking at a one way trip lasting less than five minutes in what is essentially the flattened bottom curve of a power dive, it accelerates down, then levels out for the last sprint. Since these are commercial grade craft and well over spec'd I imagine they could hold together for the limited time necessary.

    Another thing that bothers me is steering at that speed. This can't be autopilot. A reflexive flinch or twitch of the hand or strong wind could push the craft off course fairly easily.

    A lot of questions could be answered if any of the "black boxes" had survived. Instead, all we are left with is the passport of the lead hijacker.

    But, since you seem knowledgeable, what do you make of the allegation that none of the pilots were able to press the panic button on any of the aircraft?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Naive question: could planes be aimed in some fairly uncontrolled descent at the Twin Towers or the Pentagon and hit their target without breaking up or having engines explode or similar catastrophes prior to the impact catastrophe?
    Since people saw the planes hit, and they were obviously flying pretty fast, how did they stay intact prior to impact?

    Read More
    • Replies: @whoever

    Naive question
     
    Not at all. Actually a very good question.
    VMO/MMO* on the B757/767 below 10,000 ft is 250 knots because the windshield isn't certified to withstand bird strike above 313 knots -- note the large safety margin. It's not because the airplane is physically incapable of operating at higher speeds at those altitudes. VNE/MNE** is higher.
    Exceeding VMO/MMO will sound the over-speed alarm, but that's about it. Even VNE/MNE is not a physical limit. It is the limit beyond which it is no longer known to be safe, not the limit beyond which it is known that the aircraft will be immediately destroyed. It is the speed beyond which, at some point, dynamic pressure will damage components and aeroelastic flutter will develop.
    I have exceeded VNE in light aircraft while learning aerobatics with no harm done, and there are countless stories of World War II pilots discovering for themselves Mach tuck in high speed dives, recovering by guess and by gosh and returning to base with wrinkled airplanes and white hair, but otherwise safe.
    An aeronautical engineer posts at this site, and I'm sure he could explain it all much more clearly and accurately than I have.

    *VMO/MMO refers to the Maximum Operational airspeed and Mach.
    **VNE/MNE refers to Never Exceed airspeed and Mach. At low altitudes the V numbers are reached first and at high altitudes the M numbers are.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. I also know Mohammed Atta was in New Jersey around the time of 9/11.

    How?

    A friend of mine rents rooms in a house near Teterboro Airport, where Atta was taking pilot lessons. Atta knocked on the door, and asked to see a room. My friend, a woman, was afraid of him and refused to allow him inside the house.

    This is one of your nuttier post, which is saying something but what else can we expect from an apologist for Hamas terrorism?

    Yes, I did live in Woodstock, home base to plenty of lefty Hamas supporters who harbor and provide material support to Jihadi terrorists.

    Also a long time bastion of commies. They were real fond of the Russia back during the days of Stalin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. whoever says: • Website
    @Off The Street
    Naive question: could planes be aimed in some fairly uncontrolled descent at the Twin Towers or the Pentagon and hit their target without breaking up or having engines explode or similar catastrophes prior to the impact catastrophe?
    Since people saw the planes hit, and they were obviously flying pretty fast, how did they stay intact prior to impact?

    Naive question

    Not at all. Actually a very good question.
    VMO/MMO* on the B757/767 below 10,000 ft is 250 knots because the windshield isn’t certified to withstand bird strike above 313 knots — note the large safety margin. It’s not because the airplane is physically incapable of operating at higher speeds at those altitudes. VNE/MNE** is higher.
    Exceeding VMO/MMO will sound the over-speed alarm, but that’s about it. Even VNE/MNE is not a physical limit. It is the limit beyond which it is no longer known to be safe, not the limit beyond which it is known that the aircraft will be immediately destroyed. It is the speed beyond which, at some point, dynamic pressure will damage components and aeroelastic flutter will develop.
    I have exceeded VNE in light aircraft while learning aerobatics with no harm done, and there are countless stories of World War II pilots discovering for themselves Mach tuck in high speed dives, recovering by guess and by gosh and returning to base with wrinkled airplanes and white hair, but otherwise safe.
    An aeronautical engineer posts at this site, and I’m sure he could explain it all much more clearly and accurately than I have.

    *VMO/MMO refers to the Maximum Operational airspeed and Mach.
    **VNE/MNE refers to Never Exceed airspeed and Mach. At low altitudes the V numbers are reached first and at high altitudes the M numbers are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thank you. It also never occurred to me from my limited experience piloting small planes (and just two aerobatics lessons) that there were physical limits imposed on dive speed. Presumably any pilot training for civil airliners would include instruction in how to turn off automatic default limitations on speed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Erebus

    The argument goes something like:
    You can’t get a plane to go that fast. You run out of “stick.”
     
    No, it goes something like the engines' turbofan's blades cavitate and the engines go boom! As of now, Boeing has not released its windtunnel data, so we can't know beyond reasonable doubt whether the flight characteristics of the planes become unmanageable, but we do have expert opinions.
    Boeing's spokesman, answering a reporter's query whether the planes could fly at 500kn at <1000', laughed and replied "Not a chance". A few other guys, at least as qualified as an anonymous entity on an obscure internet forum such as yourself, have publicly said the equivalent. To whit:

    Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
    30,000+ Total Flight Time
    707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, DC-8, L-1049, Learjet 24/25, L-188
    Ground Instructor, Advanced Ground Instructor, Instrument Instructor, Flight Engineer Turbojet,
    Aircraft Dispatcher
    Pan Am, United
    United States Air Force (ret)
    Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
    Command time in:
    - N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
    - N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

    Captain Ross Aimer
    United Airlines, Retired
    B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
    Command time in:
    - N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
    - N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
    Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
    23,000 hours
    27 years in the airlines
    B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
    20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
    civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
    Command time in:
    - N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
    - N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)

    John Lear
    Son of Bill Lear
    (Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation)
    More than 40 years of Flying
    19,000+ TT
    23 Type ratings
    Flight experience includes 707, DC-8, 727, L10-11

    Many more where those came from. If you're pretending to be an expert, at a minimum pretend to be an expert with qualifications greater than or equal to the above.

    So, let's have 'em.

    I’m not pretending to be an expert. I’m giving you the argument as I understand it. Most industrial engines have governors on them to prevent them exceeding safety specs. A computer override might allow these safety measures to be exceeded.

    In this case, the we are looking at a one way trip lasting less than five minutes in what is essentially the flattened bottom curve of a power dive, it accelerates down, then levels out for the last sprint. Since these are commercial grade craft and well over spec’d I imagine they could hold together for the limited time necessary.

    Another thing that bothers me is steering at that speed. This can’t be autopilot. A reflexive flinch or twitch of the hand or strong wind could push the craft off course fairly easily.

    A lot of questions could be answered if any of the “black boxes” had survived. Instead, all we are left with is the passport of the lead hijacker.

    But, since you seem knowledgeable, what do you make of the allegation that none of the pilots were able to press the panic button on any of the aircraft?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Truth says:
    @The Alarmist
    A 767 is quite capable of doing 500 "mph" at sea level. The placarded limit is 360 KIAS, but placards are for wimps, and if you shove the levers to the stops and put it into a shallow dive, you will cross 500 whatever long before pieces of the structure start to rip off. Flying into a building the size of the WTC is not that difficult in controlled flight.

    So what were those things that thousands saw with their own eyes and millions saw hitting the buildings that day?

    Hoax.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Erebus says:

    Since these are commercial grade craft and well over spec’d I imagine they could hold together for the limited time necessary.

    It isn’t just “holding together” that’s required. In addition to precision flying, especially with the 2nd plane in a hi-G turn, maintenance of speed would, according to the pilots I cited above, have been impossible. Parasitic drag would quickly slow the plane, and the engines wouldn’t have been able to overcome it due to cavitation.

    As we don’t have definitive data whether the airliners could physically do what the official narrative demands of them, we can’t definitively claim or exclude their use. At best, whatever argument marshals a preponderance of evidence on one side or the other may win a contingent, but not definitive victory.

    At this time, several highly qualified individuals have publicly stated that there’s “Not a chance”, and have given detailed explanations for their opinion. So far as I know, no similarly qualified individual has come forward on the other side.
    In addition to these experts, there are a myriad of technical anomalies associated with all 4 of the ostensible flights that day. On the other side are a few witnesses, and a few rather dodgy videos. Some of the witnesses are as dodgy as the videos.
    On balance, I’d say that the preponderance of evidence lies clearly on the side of No Planes Theory. The NPT, by the way, denies the use of commercially scheduled Boeing 7x7s, but does not preclude the use of other flying objects.

    Of course, should definitive data surface that precludes the use of airliners, the matter would be settled. Should said data indicate that they could have been flown in a manner consistent with the official narrative, that would indicate that they may have been, and we’re back to where we started. Namely, marshalling evidence. A real Inquiry with subpoena power could have answered this and a host of other questions. That such an Inquiry hasn’t been convened is itself astonishing.

    So, to speculate on why the pilots (if there were any) failed to press the panic button(s) (if there were any) becomes a rather idle exercise. That there was no sign of panic button pressing is a matter of fact. Of course, that fact explains itself if there weren’t any planes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eD
    "On the other side are a few witnesses, and a few rather dodgy videos."

    We don't even have that with the Pentagon.

    There weren't that many witnesses to the first plane hitting the Twin Towers because no one was expecting or looking for a plane to hit the Twin Towers until the first crash. The first reports were of a small plane, and its hard to tell from the videos that we have. People were watching when the second plane hit, so there are of course lots of eyewitness accounts, videos, and a live television news feed.

    Since the crash into the South Tower was live on TV, people assume there is a similar level of documentation for the North Tower and Pentagon attacks.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    If you were plotting to cause immense damage to the Twin Towers in a way that got Al Qaeda blamed why would you do it with cruise missiles and their launching planes or ground based launchers involving inevitably highly trained members of US armed forces (or just a few Russian mercenaries if you like)? Why wouldn't you do it with civil aircraft that weren't in danger of being reported missing from an armoury/aesenal and needed far less specialised skill to manoeuvre or could be simply programmed for a period starting only half an hour before impact if you don't like the idea of half trained pilots taking over? What precedent is there for terrorists using sophisticated missilea rather than improvising highjackings and/or suicide vehicles? Plotters wouldn't want to provide evidence (which might or might not be covered up successfully) that they had sophisticated military connections.
    , @utu
    At this time, several highly qualified individuals have publicly stated that there’s “Not a chance”, and have given detailed explanations for their opinion.

    No expert testimonies about plane performance abilities will have any impact on a jury which saw the footage of planes hitting the towers. You would have to convince them what they saw was not real. But if you could convince them it was not real you do not need the experts on plane performance limitations. Instead you need experts on video GCI real time composition to which opposite experts will be claiming that strange effects are just normal and not infrequent results of pixelization and data compression quirks. The jury will not be able to tell the difference between the two sets of experts so they will go with the original belief that stemmed for them from watching the video and believing it was real when they watched it first time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. unit472 says:

    I enjoy reading Linh Dinh’s vignettes of life on the seamy side but, like Group Captain Lionel Mandrake in the movie Dr. Strangelove upon hearing General Ripper digress into the ‘international communist conspiracy and its plan to sap our precious bodily fluids’, you realize you are listening to a madman! So it is here. Everything is normal with Mr. Linh Dinh when suddenly, out of nowhere, comes his fantastic claim that there were no airplanes on 9/11. His ‘conspiracy’ trumps your lying eyes!

    Read More
    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @republic
    9/11 was a production years in the making, what is important to remember
    Is the three major players in this complex drama: Israel, some elements of the
    US deep state and Saudi involvement.
    The exact details will never be know
    Atta was almost certainly a patsy, as was Oswald.
    , @Che Guava
    Linh wrote an article about a visit to Spain, then drifted into 911 conspiiracy theories.

    Not one of his best, sure to gain a response from the conspiracy theorIsts. Not that I am disagreeing that it may not have been.

    Saudi evacuation, Israeli 'art students', buildings subjcected to controlled demolition of buildings owned by Silberman and Loewy, massive insurance payouts to them, run on the stock market the night before (massive profits), the warning to Israelis and Israeli-American dual citizens not to go to work that day.

    All well-documented at the time. There was an investigation of the stock market games at the time, but it was cancelled.

    All to be flushed down the memory hole.

    Even in Japan, at the time just before, down on my luck, in a cheap flat, I always wonder whether the Israelis there were controllers of the Algergerian man who would disappear for long periods. Of course, pure conjecture. Always had the feeling there was some connection, though, and the Israelis certainly drugged and gang-raped a Japanese girl at the place. Too naive at the time, she wasn't screaming, so I wasn't running to the police, I didn't understand that they had clearly drugged her to rape her.

    One of the greater regrets in my life, not to run to the police for reporting, but I did not understand what was happening.

    Not long after 11th of September, 2001, immigration authorities started to cracking down on the habitual illegal work and illegal stalls of Israelis, now absent.

    When thinking about it, am thinking there is a connection, sure do not exactly know what it means, sure that National Police Agency and Immigration knew exactly what they were doing and why.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. republic says:
    @unit472
    I enjoy reading Linh Dinh's vignettes of life on the seamy side but, like Group Captain Lionel Mandrake in the movie Dr. Strangelove upon hearing General Ripper digress into the 'international communist conspiracy and its plan to sap our precious bodily fluids', you realize you are listening to a madman! So it is here. Everything is normal with Mr. Linh Dinh when suddenly, out of nowhere, comes his fantastic claim that there were no airplanes on 9/11. His 'conspiracy' trumps your lying eyes!

    9/11 was a production years in the making, what is important to remember
    Is the three major players in this complex drama: Israel, some elements of the
    US deep state and Saudi involvement.
    The exact details will never be know
    Atta was almost certainly a patsy, as was Oswald.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Don't you realise that there are crimes as bad as being wrong on diversity. You have just conceded that there were actual planes (the Atta reference) and that disqualifies you from the asylum where the hardline fantssists are confined.
    , @Si1ver1ock
    I agree. Here is one of the more disturbing things I found back when I was looking into 911. It's the cover from the 1998 FEMA Emergency Response To Terrorism Self-Study.

    https://tinyurl.com/yblseqcv
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Sparkon says:
    @Shouting Thomas
    I had an excellent view of the WTC from my big office windows on 14th St. and 8th Ave.

    I watched both planes fly into the WTC.

    I held the hand of one of my co-workers whose father was the maintenance supervisor of the TV towers. We watched as her father died.

    Airplanes were indeed flown into the Twin Towers.

    I was just having a look at that Chelsea neighborhood using Google maps. and I was wondering how you saw United 175 hit the WTC, since from your location, it would appear that the airplane’s approach — and crash — would have been blocked by the WTC itself, as well as other buildings.

    I see that 80 8th Ave. is a 20 story, 282-foot, neo-gothic high-rise built in 1929, according to Emporis. The building has some unusual architectural details near its top — like some additional office space was tacked on up there — and would also appear to include Art Deco and Streamline Moderne design elements.

    It seems to be the only tall building on the corner of 14th St. and 8th Ave. that could have offices and windows that look toward the WTC, so I’d be interested to learn what floor you were on when you saw both WTC crashes, and any further details you might care to share from this poignant 9/11 experience.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Shouting Thomas
    By God, you've got me!

    I'm one of thousands of conspirators living and working in Manhattan who were paid off by secret agents of the New World Order to pretend that I saw two jets deliberately crashed into the WTC.

    The Bushes paid me millions. I've retired in luxury to the Bahamas where they continue to pay for my daily intake of beautiful whores and coke.
    , @Erebus
    Good work.
    I'd bet my last chicken that Tom's 9/11 vignette @#9 has no more truth in it than his response to your question. The trouble is that pulp fiction vignettes can be generated far more quickly than they can be debunked.
    These accounts depend on a dearth of Sparkon types to gain emotional traction with the casual reader. Much more damaging are the HIQIs whose typically very large life investment in the common narrative compels them to defend it against all comers and in the face of all evidence.

    I have found this to true even of talented people I cajoled into doing some calculations for themselves. They would stare slack-jawed at the resulting numbers, then typically fell into 1 of 2 groups.
    The 1st recovered quickly with a variation on "That can't be right. There must be a variable you're missing...".
    The 2nd stand up and walk away in silence, never mentioning the conversation again. The more traumatized of these never speak to me again.
    There is a 3rd group, so small it barely registers. These react with a "H-o-l-y sh-i-i-t... That means..." and a Truther is born.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Sparkon
    I was just having a look at that Chelsea neighborhood using Google maps. and I was wondering how you saw United 175 hit the WTC, since from your location, it would appear that the airplane's approach -- and crash -- would have been blocked by the WTC itself, as well as other buildings.

    I see that 80 8th Ave. is a 20 story, 282-foot, neo-gothic high-rise built in 1929, according to Emporis. The building has some unusual architectural details near its top -- like some additional office space was tacked on up there -- and would also appear to include Art Deco and Streamline Moderne design elements.

    It seems to be the only tall building on the corner of 14th St. and 8th Ave. that could have offices and windows that look toward the WTC, so I'd be interested to learn what floor you were on when you saw both WTC crashes, and any further details you might care to share from this poignant 9/11 experience.

    By God, you’ve got me!

    I’m one of thousands of conspirators living and working in Manhattan who were paid off by secret agents of the New World Order to pretend that I saw two jets deliberately crashed into the WTC.

    The Bushes paid me millions. I’ve retired in luxury to the Bahamas where they continue to pay for my daily intake of beautiful whores and coke.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    It's a pity you do give the impression of having made up your evidence without taking the trouble to make it unfalsifiable (in fact). I suppose I ought to suspect that you are secretly trying to support Revusky's mad fantasies by discrediting reality. Amusing that the usually readable Linh Dinh appears to buy that crap. I wonder if it is his way of paying the rent to the mad Revusky.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. hyperbola says:
    @utu
    People on the lower rungs of ethnic/racial hierarchy (e.g. as the de facto existing in the US) are very much better attuned to the minutiae of racial and ethnic who-whom than people who are on the higher rungs. So Linh Dinh brining up Mexicans did not realize he was committing a gaffe.

    Linh Dinh's question perhaps revealed something. He seemed to want to suck up to the interlocutor by (1) pointing out that he was not a lowly Mexican but Catalonian, (2) commiserate with him that he undeservedly suffered the special treatment Mexicans are expected to get in Texas (which Catalonians do not deserve - or so he thought?).

    Mexicans are not considered “lowly” in Spain and Leo might well have considered such an insinuation to be insulting. Or at least worthy of a stupid American. The Spanish remember rather well that during Franco’s dictatorship, a large number of Spanish intellectuals fled to Mexico.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Still, you have yet to prove this specific claim–“Remember that ca. 90% of slave trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in the respective colonies.”

    Recall in a source you provided that Dutch Jews reportedly controlled 17% of the Caribbean trade. It was not noted that it was the slave trade or non-slave trade. Regardless, there is no reference to the 90% statistic YOU allege.

    Willie F. Page, professor of African American Studies at Brooklyn College, noted that in Dutch Brazil, the Jews operated less than 6% of the plantations.

    Seymour Drescher remarked in Immigrants And Minorities (July 1993) that Jews’ investment share in the Dutch West India Company “amounted to only 0.5 percent of the company’s capital”. Dutch historians Pieter Emmer and Johanes Postma have argued that “Jews had a very limited and subordinate roles even at the height of the Dutch slave trade in the 17th century.”

    Are you going to retract your statement, or are you going to keep peddling sophistry in hopes of not getting caught?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Erebus says:
    @Sparkon
    I was just having a look at that Chelsea neighborhood using Google maps. and I was wondering how you saw United 175 hit the WTC, since from your location, it would appear that the airplane's approach -- and crash -- would have been blocked by the WTC itself, as well as other buildings.

    I see that 80 8th Ave. is a 20 story, 282-foot, neo-gothic high-rise built in 1929, according to Emporis. The building has some unusual architectural details near its top -- like some additional office space was tacked on up there -- and would also appear to include Art Deco and Streamline Moderne design elements.

    It seems to be the only tall building on the corner of 14th St. and 8th Ave. that could have offices and windows that look toward the WTC, so I'd be interested to learn what floor you were on when you saw both WTC crashes, and any further details you might care to share from this poignant 9/11 experience.

    Good work.
    I’d bet my last chicken that Tom’s 9/11 vignette @#9 has no more truth in it than his response to your question. The trouble is that pulp fiction vignettes can be generated far more quickly than they can be debunked.
    These accounts depend on a dearth of Sparkon types to gain emotional traction with the casual reader. Much more damaging are the HIQIs whose typically very large life investment in the common narrative compels them to defend it against all comers and in the face of all evidence.

    I have found this to true even of talented people I cajoled into doing some calculations for themselves. They would stare slack-jawed at the resulting numbers, then typically fell into 1 of 2 groups.
    The 1st recovered quickly with a variation on “That can’t be right. There must be a variable you’re missing…”.
    The 2nd stand up and walk away in silence, never mentioning the conversation again. The more traumatized of these never speak to me again.
    There is a 3rd group, so small it barely registers. These react with a “H-o-l-y sh-i-i-t… That means…” and a Truther is born.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    So true! I used to chat with an old guy at the park while walking the dogs. He became so enraged over learning some truths about 9/11 that he screamed at me for even suggesting that elements within the US Gov't were involved in the killing of 3000 Americans and then he stormed off. I laughed at him but he's really quite lucky I didn't set my Bully brute onto his wimpy German Shepherd.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. This may be the dumbest post in the history of the internet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    The one I'm responding to? I agree that it says little of any value but I think there have been worse so don't be so hard on yourself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Erebus
    Good work.
    I'd bet my last chicken that Tom's 9/11 vignette @#9 has no more truth in it than his response to your question. The trouble is that pulp fiction vignettes can be generated far more quickly than they can be debunked.
    These accounts depend on a dearth of Sparkon types to gain emotional traction with the casual reader. Much more damaging are the HIQIs whose typically very large life investment in the common narrative compels them to defend it against all comers and in the face of all evidence.

    I have found this to true even of talented people I cajoled into doing some calculations for themselves. They would stare slack-jawed at the resulting numbers, then typically fell into 1 of 2 groups.
    The 1st recovered quickly with a variation on "That can't be right. There must be a variable you're missing...".
    The 2nd stand up and walk away in silence, never mentioning the conversation again. The more traumatized of these never speak to me again.
    There is a 3rd group, so small it barely registers. These react with a "H-o-l-y sh-i-i-t... That means..." and a Truther is born.

    So true! I used to chat with an old guy at the park while walking the dogs. He became so enraged over learning some truths about 9/11 that he screamed at me for even suggesting that elements within the US Gov’t were involved in the killing of 3000 Americans and then he stormed off. I laughed at him but he’s really quite lucky I didn’t set my Bully brute onto his wimpy German Shepherd.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Shouting Thomas
    This may be the dumbest post in the history of the internet.

    The one I’m responding to? I agree that it says little of any value but I think there have been worse so don’t be so hard on yourself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. eD says:
    @Erebus

    Since these are commercial grade craft and well over spec’d I imagine they could hold together for the limited time necessary.
     
    It isn't just "holding together" that's required. In addition to precision flying, especially with the 2nd plane in a hi-G turn, maintenance of speed would, according to the pilots I cited above, have been impossible. Parasitic drag would quickly slow the plane, and the engines wouldn't have been able to overcome it due to cavitation.

    As we don’t have definitive data whether the airliners could physically do what the official narrative demands of them, we can’t definitively claim or exclude their use. At best, whatever argument marshals a preponderance of evidence on one side or the other may win a contingent, but not definitive victory.

    At this time, several highly qualified individuals have publicly stated that there's "Not a chance", and have given detailed explanations for their opinion. So far as I know, no similarly qualified individual has come forward on the other side.
    In addition to these experts, there are a myriad of technical anomalies associated with all 4 of the ostensible flights that day. On the other side are a few witnesses, and a few rather dodgy videos. Some of the witnesses are as dodgy as the videos.
    On balance, I'd say that the preponderance of evidence lies clearly on the side of No Planes Theory. The NPT, by the way, denies the use of commercially scheduled Boeing 7x7s, but does not preclude the use of other flying objects.

    Of course, should definitive data surface that precludes the use of airliners, the matter would be settled. Should said data indicate that they could have been flown in a manner consistent with the official narrative, that would indicate that they may have been, and we’re back to where we started. Namely, marshalling evidence. A real Inquiry with subpoena power could have answered this and a host of other questions. That such an Inquiry hasn't been convened is itself astonishing.

    So, to speculate on why the pilots (if there were any) failed to press the panic button(s) (if there were any) becomes a rather idle exercise. That there was no sign of panic button pressing is a matter of fact. Of course, that fact explains itself if there weren't any planes.

    “On the other side are a few witnesses, and a few rather dodgy videos.”

    We don’t even have that with the Pentagon.

    There weren’t that many witnesses to the first plane hitting the Twin Towers because no one was expecting or looking for a plane to hit the Twin Towers until the first crash. The first reports were of a small plane, and its hard to tell from the videos that we have. People were watching when the second plane hit, so there are of course lots of eyewitness accounts, videos, and a live television news feed.

    Since the crash into the South Tower was live on TV, people assume there is a similar level of documentation for the North Tower and Pentagon attacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I hsve seen a video taken soon after the Pentagon was hit which shows on the lawn outside part of an aircraft's tail. On that part the American Airlines name and logo shows clearly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Erebus says:

    There weren’t that many witnesses to the first plane hitting the Twin Towers

    The first 3 I saw on TV, (not sure if it was before the 2nd tower was hit), didn’t see a plane. 1 heard the impact and looked up to see the fireball, 1 heard a “plane engine screaming by” and looked up to see an explosion, the 3rd was sure he saw and heard a missile. The radio report I was listening to said that “a small plane” had hit the 1st tower before I turned on the TV. After the towers came down, there were lots of plane witnesses.

    People were watching when the second plane hit, so there are of course lots of eyewitness accounts, videos, and a live television news feed.

    Surprisingly few videos actually. There were two live feeds, neither of which showed the actual impact, though one (from a helicopter) did feature the “nosecone” coming out the other side of the 2nd tower. The other, which I was watching, was from a rooftop vantage point some distance away and showed the plane coming in from off-screen right and disappear behind the towers as a large fireball blew out of the 2nd tower.

    Several videos came out in the days, weeks and months following, and a few of these showed the impact into the 2nd tower. I haven’t looked in a long time so more may have turned up, but in another thread Sparkon pointed out that the technology required to insert, remove or replace objects in live feeds was commercially available and in possession of at least one of the networks in 2001. If that is so, all of the video evidence is suspect and should be subjected to vigorous scrutiny before being accepted as any sort of evidence.

    With the quantity and quality of lies being pumped at us daily, the new default position for attentive citizens is to assume that whatever they are being told is bunkum, pending confirmation. That includes anything we took to be true in a more innocent time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    As you spend a fair amount of time on 9/11 matters and write of the need of "confirmation" I wonder what you have done to check the very uncertain story you seem to be stuck at. If you seriously wonder whether planes hit the WTC the most direct inquiry would be to try and make contact with a few of the people who ate quoted as seeing the planes, people who shot the videos or at least those who spoke to the latter and handled the videos.

    Then there is the question of actual flights and actual passengers. Can the "planes didn't hit the WTC" survive honest examination of the facts relating to flights and passengers?

    I note that you seem to believe some crap about the planes not being able fly fast enough at under 1000 feet (or for some reason the speed of 500 mph is taken to be critical) to do the observed damage. It seems to me such absurd nonsense that it is only your citing someone from Boeing that makes me ask for the link.
    , @Truth
    Hoax.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    I don’t know why 911 causes such confusion amongst people because the facts are quite straightforward. The redacted 28 pages show that Prince Bandar was paying two of the putative hijackers during their incubation period in the US. This proves beyond doubt that the Arabs were Saudi intelligence assets. Period. What is the likelihood of any of these assets committing suicide by plane crash? Nil. They are intended to only look like hijackers to the brain-dead media and public. That’s why their ‘flight training’ was hilariously bad and purely cosmetic in nature. That’s why Atta and his pal Jarrah don’t even pretend to be crazed Muslim suicidalists on their suicide video, they don’t have to. The media will always come up with some apparently plausible explanation that satisfies any slight incredulity on their part.

    What happens next? Well that’s when it gets complicated. The real planes are hijacked by some sort of special forces teams that look and speak like Arab terrorists. The passengers believe they are being hijacked by real terrorists and make the evidential phone calls. At some point during the flights the real planes are swapped by remote controlled look-alikes that do the actual crashes. This means that the radar systems were compromised and the DNA testing processes were compromised. That’s a big ask but I have no doubt that the MIC would have the ability to do that.

    Precisely how it was done may never be known. However the indisputable fact that the ‘hijackers’ were Saudi assets means that something like this must have happened. There is a lot of cognitive dissonance around this issue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. The interesting aspect for me of Homage to Catalonia is not how Orwell was seriously wounded, but how he lost any illusion about revolution and civil war.

    How illusions about Sept 11 still can exist, incomprehensible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    'How illusions about Sept 11 still can exist, incomprehensible.'

    No, not to the legions of lonely souls to whom t.v. is, literally, reality. I mean, they wouldn't actually LIE to us, would they?--the genuine feeling of those who feel the warm daily and nightly glow of Big Brother, who just feel in their hearts that He will take care of him, that He is on their side.
    Amen, and praise the Lord High Commissioner of Finance, as well as the Lord High Constable from the Ministry of Love.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @uslabor
    “Since you’re Spanish, were you ever annoyed at being confused for a Mexican growing up?”

    “But I am also Mexican. Texas was Mexican!”

    WHAT A STUPID QUESTION!!!!

    Lihn Dihn...........A lesson to YOU and your readers. Being Mexican isn't an ethnicity, it is a nationality.

    And so is “Spaniah” so what’s your problem?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Shouting Thomas
    By God, you've got me!

    I'm one of thousands of conspirators living and working in Manhattan who were paid off by secret agents of the New World Order to pretend that I saw two jets deliberately crashed into the WTC.

    The Bushes paid me millions. I've retired in luxury to the Bahamas where they continue to pay for my daily intake of beautiful whores and coke.

    It’s a pity you do give the impression of having made up your evidence without taking the trouble to make it unfalsifiable (in fact). I suppose I ought to suspect that you are secretly trying to support Revusky’s mad fantasies by discrediting reality. Amusing that the usually readable Linh Dinh appears to buy that crap. I wonder if it is his way of paying the rent to the mad Revusky.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Erebus

    There weren’t that many witnesses to the first plane hitting the Twin Towers
     
    The first 3 I saw on TV, (not sure if it was before the 2nd tower was hit), didn't see a plane. 1 heard the impact and looked up to see the fireball, 1 heard a "plane engine screaming by" and looked up to see an explosion, the 3rd was sure he saw and heard a missile. The radio report I was listening to said that "a small plane" had hit the 1st tower before I turned on the TV. After the towers came down, there were lots of plane witnesses.

    People were watching when the second plane hit, so there are of course lots of eyewitness accounts, videos, and a live television news feed.
     
    Surprisingly few videos actually. There were two live feeds, neither of which showed the actual impact, though one (from a helicopter) did feature the "nosecone" coming out the other side of the 2nd tower. The other, which I was watching, was from a rooftop vantage point some distance away and showed the plane coming in from off-screen right and disappear behind the towers as a large fireball blew out of the 2nd tower.

    Several videos came out in the days, weeks and months following, and a few of these showed the impact into the 2nd tower. I haven't looked in a long time so more may have turned up, but in another thread Sparkon pointed out that the technology required to insert, remove or replace objects in live feeds was commercially available and in possession of at least one of the networks in 2001. If that is so, all of the video evidence is suspect and should be subjected to vigorous scrutiny before being accepted as any sort of evidence.

    With the quantity and quality of lies being pumped at us daily, the new default position for attentive citizens is to assume that whatever they are being told is bunkum, pending confirmation. That includes anything we took to be true in a more innocent time.

    As you spend a fair amount of time on 9/11 matters and write of the need of “confirmation” I wonder what you have done to check the very uncertain story you seem to be stuck at. If you seriously wonder whether planes hit the WTC the most direct inquiry would be to try and make contact with a few of the people who ate quoted as seeing the planes, people who shot the videos or at least those who spoke to the latter and handled the videos.

    Then there is the question of actual flights and actual passengers. Can the “planes didn’t hit the WTC” survive honest examination of the facts relating to flights and passengers?

    I note that you seem to believe some crap about the planes not being able fly fast enough at under 1000 feet (or for some reason the speed of 500 mph is taken to be critical) to do the observed damage. It seems to me such absurd nonsense that it is only your citing someone from Boeing that makes me ask for the link.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    ... would be to try and make contact with a few of the people who ate quoted as seeing the planes, people who shot the videos or at least those who spoke to the latter and handled the videos.
     
    You can't be serious.

    Can the “planes didn’t hit the WTC” survive honest examination of the facts relating to flights and passengers?
     
    Educate yourself Wiz. Should you "seriously examine their flight histories, you'll find the inverse question the more salient one.

    I note that you seem to believe some crap about the planes not being able fly fast enough at under 1000 feet (or for some reason the speed of 500 mph is taken to be critical) to do the observed damage.
     
    I neither believe, nor said anything of the sort. 5-600 knots (knots, Wiz) is what the 4 or 5 radar stations cited by the official narrators show. 5-600kn is what the pilots I cited say is impossible. Pilots, by the way, who are amongst the most highly qualified pilots in America, and who have clocked command time in the very planes involved in 9/11. It's their "crap", not mine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @republic
    9/11 was a production years in the making, what is important to remember
    Is the three major players in this complex drama: Israel, some elements of the
    US deep state and Saudi involvement.
    The exact details will never be know
    Atta was almost certainly a patsy, as was Oswald.

    Don’t you realise that there are crimes as bad as being wrong on diversity. You have just conceded that there were actual planes (the Atta reference) and that disqualifies you from the asylum where the hardline fantssists are confined.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @eD
    "On the other side are a few witnesses, and a few rather dodgy videos."

    We don't even have that with the Pentagon.

    There weren't that many witnesses to the first plane hitting the Twin Towers because no one was expecting or looking for a plane to hit the Twin Towers until the first crash. The first reports were of a small plane, and its hard to tell from the videos that we have. People were watching when the second plane hit, so there are of course lots of eyewitness accounts, videos, and a live television news feed.

    Since the crash into the South Tower was live on TV, people assume there is a similar level of documentation for the North Tower and Pentagon attacks.

    I hsve seen a video taken soon after the Pentagon was hit which shows on the lawn outside part of an aircraft’s tail. On that part the American Airlines name and logo shows clearly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Erebus

    Since these are commercial grade craft and well over spec’d I imagine they could hold together for the limited time necessary.
     
    It isn't just "holding together" that's required. In addition to precision flying, especially with the 2nd plane in a hi-G turn, maintenance of speed would, according to the pilots I cited above, have been impossible. Parasitic drag would quickly slow the plane, and the engines wouldn't have been able to overcome it due to cavitation.

    As we don’t have definitive data whether the airliners could physically do what the official narrative demands of them, we can’t definitively claim or exclude their use. At best, whatever argument marshals a preponderance of evidence on one side or the other may win a contingent, but not definitive victory.

    At this time, several highly qualified individuals have publicly stated that there's "Not a chance", and have given detailed explanations for their opinion. So far as I know, no similarly qualified individual has come forward on the other side.
    In addition to these experts, there are a myriad of technical anomalies associated with all 4 of the ostensible flights that day. On the other side are a few witnesses, and a few rather dodgy videos. Some of the witnesses are as dodgy as the videos.
    On balance, I'd say that the preponderance of evidence lies clearly on the side of No Planes Theory. The NPT, by the way, denies the use of commercially scheduled Boeing 7x7s, but does not preclude the use of other flying objects.

    Of course, should definitive data surface that precludes the use of airliners, the matter would be settled. Should said data indicate that they could have been flown in a manner consistent with the official narrative, that would indicate that they may have been, and we’re back to where we started. Namely, marshalling evidence. A real Inquiry with subpoena power could have answered this and a host of other questions. That such an Inquiry hasn't been convened is itself astonishing.

    So, to speculate on why the pilots (if there were any) failed to press the panic button(s) (if there were any) becomes a rather idle exercise. That there was no sign of panic button pressing is a matter of fact. Of course, that fact explains itself if there weren't any planes.

    If you were plotting to cause immense damage to the Twin Towers in a way that got Al Qaeda blamed why would you do it with cruise missiles and their launching planes or ground based launchers involving inevitably highly trained members of US armed forces (or just a few Russian mercenaries if you like)? Why wouldn’t you do it with civil aircraft that weren’t in danger of being reported missing from an armoury/aesenal and needed far less specialised skill to manoeuvre or could be simply programmed for a period starting only half an hour before impact if you don’t like the idea of half trained pilots taking over? What precedent is there for terrorists using sophisticated missilea rather than improvising highjackings and/or suicide vehicles? Plotters wouldn’t want to provide evidence (which might or might not be covered up successfully) that they had sophisticated military connections.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Like usual, the Wiz hands one a soup featuring one of his random selections of bizarre ingredients, and blames the taster for the resulting flavour.

    Missiles would not need US nor Russian trained operators. Any trained operators would do. I can think of a country hat would have been pleased to supply them.
    They need not be listed as "missing from an armoury". Leaving aside the fact that the USM has several hundred currently "missing", they were a dime-a-dozen across the recently collapsed Soviet Empire, and available to whoever had the money to pay for them. Cash, no receipt. We recently learned that N. Korea got their most recent samples from Ukraine, when both countries are under intense scrutiny. In the mid '90s getting a few out of one of the 'stans, Romania, Ukraine, etc was a common occurence

    I wouldn't do it with civil aircraft if civil aircraft couldn't do it. If I didn't know it myself, I'd ask experts similar to what I cited above. After they tell me "Not a chance", I'd be a fool to go ahead. Would you go ahead under those circumstances?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @whoever

    Naive question
     
    Not at all. Actually a very good question.
    VMO/MMO* on the B757/767 below 10,000 ft is 250 knots because the windshield isn't certified to withstand bird strike above 313 knots -- note the large safety margin. It's not because the airplane is physically incapable of operating at higher speeds at those altitudes. VNE/MNE** is higher.
    Exceeding VMO/MMO will sound the over-speed alarm, but that's about it. Even VNE/MNE is not a physical limit. It is the limit beyond which it is no longer known to be safe, not the limit beyond which it is known that the aircraft will be immediately destroyed. It is the speed beyond which, at some point, dynamic pressure will damage components and aeroelastic flutter will develop.
    I have exceeded VNE in light aircraft while learning aerobatics with no harm done, and there are countless stories of World War II pilots discovering for themselves Mach tuck in high speed dives, recovering by guess and by gosh and returning to base with wrinkled airplanes and white hair, but otherwise safe.
    An aeronautical engineer posts at this site, and I'm sure he could explain it all much more clearly and accurately than I have.

    *VMO/MMO refers to the Maximum Operational airspeed and Mach.
    **VNE/MNE refers to Never Exceed airspeed and Mach. At low altitudes the V numbers are reached first and at high altitudes the M numbers are.

    Thank you. It also never occurred to me from my limited experience piloting small planes (and just two aerobatics lessons) that there were physical limits imposed on dive speed. Presumably any pilot training for civil airliners would include instruction in how to turn off automatic default limitations on speed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whoever
    (^_^)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. I’m going with the Two Planes Theory until I get better evidence. I strongly suspect they were hacked using something like Global Hawk Technology.

    1. I think there was a radar track of the planes hitting the Towers (but I’d have to check to be sure).

    2. The buildings shifted and began swaying in response to the impact of the planes.

    3. Numerous eyewitnesses reported airplanes hitting the building.

    4. Both events were caught on video camera.

    Furthermore, I believe that a plane hit the Pentagon. I look to David Chandler for guidance in some of these issues. He is a physics teacher and he has demonstrated integrity.

    I agree that a new investigation is needed. I support a real forensic/ criminal investigation of 911.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. @The Alarmist
    Denial ... it ain't just a river. Suppose you're also going to affirm AGW.

    Suppose you’re also going to affirm AGW.

    Nah, it’s just another corporatist conspiracy theory.

    Denial … it ain’t just a river

    .

    Gullibility…it ain’t about birds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @republic
    9/11 was a production years in the making, what is important to remember
    Is the three major players in this complex drama: Israel, some elements of the
    US deep state and Saudi involvement.
    The exact details will never be know
    Atta was almost certainly a patsy, as was Oswald.

    I agree. Here is one of the more disturbing things I found back when I was looking into 911. It’s the cover from the 1998 FEMA Emergency Response To Terrorism Self-Study.

    https://tinyurl.com/yblseqcv

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Truth says:
    @Erebus

    There weren’t that many witnesses to the first plane hitting the Twin Towers
     
    The first 3 I saw on TV, (not sure if it was before the 2nd tower was hit), didn't see a plane. 1 heard the impact and looked up to see the fireball, 1 heard a "plane engine screaming by" and looked up to see an explosion, the 3rd was sure he saw and heard a missile. The radio report I was listening to said that "a small plane" had hit the 1st tower before I turned on the TV. After the towers came down, there were lots of plane witnesses.

    People were watching when the second plane hit, so there are of course lots of eyewitness accounts, videos, and a live television news feed.
     
    Surprisingly few videos actually. There were two live feeds, neither of which showed the actual impact, though one (from a helicopter) did feature the "nosecone" coming out the other side of the 2nd tower. The other, which I was watching, was from a rooftop vantage point some distance away and showed the plane coming in from off-screen right and disappear behind the towers as a large fireball blew out of the 2nd tower.

    Several videos came out in the days, weeks and months following, and a few of these showed the impact into the 2nd tower. I haven't looked in a long time so more may have turned up, but in another thread Sparkon pointed out that the technology required to insert, remove or replace objects in live feeds was commercially available and in possession of at least one of the networks in 2001. If that is so, all of the video evidence is suspect and should be subjected to vigorous scrutiny before being accepted as any sort of evidence.

    With the quantity and quality of lies being pumped at us daily, the new default position for attentive citizens is to assume that whatever they are being told is bunkum, pending confirmation. That includes anything we took to be true in a more innocent time.

    Hoax.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Joe Hide says:

    Linh,
    Enjoyed Your article. It lends Balance to Your various takes on other of your travel writings. I appreciate your not getting stressed by some of the more disagreeable comments. Keep it up!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    If you were plotting to cause immense damage to the Twin Towers in a way that got Al Qaeda blamed why would you do it with cruise missiles and their launching planes or ground based launchers involving inevitably highly trained members of US armed forces (or just a few Russian mercenaries if you like)? Why wouldn't you do it with civil aircraft that weren't in danger of being reported missing from an armoury/aesenal and needed far less specialised skill to manoeuvre or could be simply programmed for a period starting only half an hour before impact if you don't like the idea of half trained pilots taking over? What precedent is there for terrorists using sophisticated missilea rather than improvising highjackings and/or suicide vehicles? Plotters wouldn't want to provide evidence (which might or might not be covered up successfully) that they had sophisticated military connections.

    Like usual, the Wiz hands one a soup featuring one of his random selections of bizarre ingredients, and blames the taster for the resulting flavour.

    Missiles would not need US nor Russian trained operators. Any trained operators would do. I can think of a country hat would have been pleased to supply them.
    They need not be listed as “missing from an armoury”. Leaving aside the fact that the USM has several hundred currently “missing”, they were a dime-a-dozen across the recently collapsed Soviet Empire, and available to whoever had the money to pay for them. Cash, no receipt. We recently learned that N. Korea got their most recent samples from Ukraine, when both countries are under intense scrutiny. In the mid ’90s getting a few out of one of the ‘stans, Romania, Ukraine, etc was a common occurence

    I wouldn’t do it with civil aircraft if civil aircraft couldn’t do it. If I didn’t know it myself, I’d ask experts similar to what I cited above. After they tell me “Not a chance”, I’d be a fool to go ahead. Would you go ahead under those circumstances?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Fair points about possible availability of some missiles from the Soviet Union but the weak pounts still to be covered, bearing in mind that we are positing plotters who are clever and careful and can't afford slip ups in performsnce, security or the credibility of their story, include

    1. Were there 10 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union missiles of the right kind which could be smuggled into America undetected?

    2. As to "right kind" were there large, highly manoeuvrable and sophisticated missiles available and in guaranteed working order that could be controlled or programmed to find their way to upper floors of the WTC?

    3. Where could they have been launched from without probable detection and therefore likely report? From planes? Large planes that no one has reported seeing?

    As to the last slender thread of your argument, which appears to be some vague memory of what some pilots said to prove no planes hit the towers - you have evaded my questioning of your sources by not giving links to audio or video or even transcripts. Since someone who cares as much about the issue must have taken scrupulous care in managing your evidentiary material there is one obvious inference to be drawn from your omission.
    , @daniel le mouche
    'Like usual, the Wiz hands one a soup featuring one of his random selections of bizarre ingredients, and blames the taster for the resulting flavour. '

    Finally a succinct summation of what the wisdom of Wiz was, (w)is, and will be. Amen, praise the Law-yers, the moneylenders, the secret agents.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    As you spend a fair amount of time on 9/11 matters and write of the need of "confirmation" I wonder what you have done to check the very uncertain story you seem to be stuck at. If you seriously wonder whether planes hit the WTC the most direct inquiry would be to try and make contact with a few of the people who ate quoted as seeing the planes, people who shot the videos or at least those who spoke to the latter and handled the videos.

    Then there is the question of actual flights and actual passengers. Can the "planes didn't hit the WTC" survive honest examination of the facts relating to flights and passengers?

    I note that you seem to believe some crap about the planes not being able fly fast enough at under 1000 feet (or for some reason the speed of 500 mph is taken to be critical) to do the observed damage. It seems to me such absurd nonsense that it is only your citing someone from Boeing that makes me ask for the link.

    … would be to try and make contact with a few of the people who ate quoted as seeing the planes, people who shot the videos or at least those who spoke to the latter and handled the videos.

    You can’t be serious.

    Can the “planes didn’t hit the WTC” survive honest examination of the facts relating to flights and passengers?

    Educate yourself Wiz. Should you “seriously examine their flight histories, you’ll find the inverse question the more salient one.

    I note that you seem to believe some crap about the planes not being able fly fast enough at under 1000 feet (or for some reason the speed of 500 mph is taken to be critical) to do the observed damage.

    I neither believe, nor said anything of the sort. 5-600 knots (knots, Wiz) is what the 4 or 5 radar stations cited by the official narrators show. 5-600kn is what the pilots I cited say is impossible. Pilots, by the way, who are amongst the most highly qualified pilots in America, and who have clocked command time in the very planes involved in 9/11. It’s their “crap”, not mine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    On your last point you are just coontiinuiig the evasions I have just complained about in my last reply to you.

    And your other two points are consistent with an insouciant approach to something you pretend to take seriously.

    As to contacting people by one who evidently has as much free time as you do I am indeed serious. Do what sn investigative journalist would do with the good old steam telephone. About 15 - 20 calls on most days for a couple of weeks and it should be just about wrapped up.

    Then, as to passenger lists and the fate of the flights I suspect that your obscure reply is just more evasion. If not please explain it and spell it out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. unit472 says:

    Whatever ‘credibility’ The UNZ REVIEW has is destroyed when these 9/11 lunatics make their appearance in support of the ridiculous conspiracies hatched in Mr. Linh Dinh’s deeply disturbed mind.

    It turns this website into a joke!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Has it occurred to you that the "credibility"perceived by minds such as yours is precisely what Unz and its readership is trying to avoid? That sort of "credibility" can be found stuck to the bottom of one's shoe whenever one inadvertently wanders into a place where the templates that lend form and a faux gravitas to the chatter of imbeciles are created.
    , @Rurik
    Hey Unit,

    I think you're sincere. We often disagree, but I hope you at least consider me sincere as well, (however perhaps deluded ; )

    have you ever wondered about some of the anomalies vis-a-vis 9/11?

    why didn't Bush want any kind of investigation?

    why did Bush actually want Henry Kissinger! to head the "investigation" when he was finally forced to have one?

    why did members of the 9/11 commission claim it was a fraud?

    where are all the 'black boxes'?

    where are all the video's from the Pentagon? There must have been hundreds of videos at perhaps the most surveilled real-estate on the planet, where are the videos?!

    the FIB is said to have gone to every gas station and convenience store around the area and confiscate all video recordings. Why?

    why were Israelis celebrating the plane hitting with video cameras set up?

    does any of that bother you in the slightest?

    when you watch building seven plop down, does that bother you at all?

    (I won't bother posting a video, we've all seen it)

    or do you trust your government and the media to always tell the truth about wars and the reasons we fight them?

    for the record, I consider the 'no planes theory' as patently absurd. Of course there were planes, but they had no passengers and were being flown remotely.

    people sometime become so alarmed at how successfully they've been duped, that they often let the gullibility pendulum swing too far in the other direction, and start doubting their very eyes.

    the planes were real. We've been over all of this before. They created massive scars in the towers as they blasted in

    here's a women standing in one of the scars

    http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/367504/images/911/Left%20wing%20cut%20through%20here.jpg

    which shows where a plan crashed in, and that the stories of the heat melting the steel are absurd.

    remote controlled jets crashed into the WTC buildings that were all pre-wired for demolition. The whole scheme was intended by the neocons to be used as a "Pearl Harbor like event' to catalyze the American people to go destroy countries that Israel considers inconvenient to her demonic agenda.

    if you think such a scenario is absurd, then how do you explain that it has happened and is happening right before our very eyes.

    America has borrowed and spent trillions it doesn't have to send its young people to kill and die in faraway lands, all based on obvious lies, with the full collaboration of the federal government and media.

    how much more proof do you need to see that America is being run by treasonous murderers who slavishly serve Israel no matter what?

    do you have to be conscripted yourself (or your children) and told to go kill people in Lebanon or Iran before you *finally* figure it out?

    , @Truth
    https://decryptedmatrix.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/William_Casey_CIA_Disinformation_Campaign.jpg
    , @daniel le mouche
    'ridiculous conspiracies hatched in Mr. Linh Dinh’s deeply disturbed mind'

    He has 'hatched' nothing, not a single idea related to 911. Like the rest of us, he has read the evidence and formed his beliefs on that evidence.
    Also, anyone withOUT a disturbed mind in these times is obviously watching a tad too much t.v., as in, any.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Libertarian view of the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    I only watched four minutes, but that was enough for me. Usual t.v. shite, usual talking head telling us what we should be thinking. And all the (few that I saw) points he raised are highly debatable: sexual freedom, free speech (his words were something like 'freedom to publish absolutely anything no matter how offensive'), blah blah. Usual defenses of a garbage, trashy, decadent worldwide 'society'. It's not society, it's barbarism as never seen before in world history. Contrast what he says with a moral society, a feeling society.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Erebus says:
    @unit472
    Whatever 'credibility' The UNZ REVIEW has is destroyed when these 9/11 lunatics make their appearance in support of the ridiculous conspiracies hatched in Mr. Linh Dinh's deeply disturbed mind.

    It turns this website into a joke!

    Has it occurred to you that the “credibility”perceived by minds such as yours is precisely what Unz and its readership is trying to avoid? That sort of “credibility” can be found stuck to the bottom of one’s shoe whenever one inadvertently wanders into a place where the templates that lend form and a faux gravitas to the chatter of imbeciles are created.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Rurik says:
    @unit472
    Whatever 'credibility' The UNZ REVIEW has is destroyed when these 9/11 lunatics make their appearance in support of the ridiculous conspiracies hatched in Mr. Linh Dinh's deeply disturbed mind.

    It turns this website into a joke!

    Hey Unit,

    I think you’re sincere. We often disagree, but I hope you at least consider me sincere as well, (however perhaps deluded ; )

    have you ever wondered about some of the anomalies vis-a-vis 9/11?

    why didn’t Bush want any kind of investigation?

    why did Bush actually want Henry Kissinger! to head the “investigation” when he was finally forced to have one?

    why did members of the 9/11 commission claim it was a fraud?

    where are all the ‘black boxes’?

    where are all the video’s from the Pentagon? There must have been hundreds of videos at perhaps the most surveilled real-estate on the planet, where are the videos?!

    the FIB is said to have gone to every gas station and convenience store around the area and confiscate all video recordings. Why?

    why were Israelis celebrating the plane hitting with video cameras set up?

    does any of that bother you in the slightest?

    when you watch building seven plop down, does that bother you at all?

    (I won’t bother posting a video, we’ve all seen it)

    or do you trust your government and the media to always tell the truth about wars and the reasons we fight them?

    for the record, I consider the ‘no planes theory’ as patently absurd. Of course there were planes, but they had no passengers and were being flown remotely.

    people sometime become so alarmed at how successfully they’ve been duped, that they often let the gullibility pendulum swing too far in the other direction, and start doubting their very eyes.

    the planes were real. We’ve been over all of this before. They created massive scars in the towers as they blasted in

    here’s a women standing in one of the scars

    which shows where a plan crashed in, and that the stories of the heat melting the steel are absurd.

    remote controlled jets crashed into the WTC buildings that were all pre-wired for demolition. The whole scheme was intended by the neocons to be used as a “Pearl Harbor like event’ to catalyze the American people to go destroy countries that Israel considers inconvenient to her demonic agenda.

    if you think such a scenario is absurd, then how do you explain that it has happened and is happening right before our very eyes.

    America has borrowed and spent trillions it doesn’t have to send its young people to kill and die in faraway lands, all based on obvious lies, with the full collaboration of the federal government and media.

    how much more proof do you need to see that America is being run by treasonous murderers who slavishly serve Israel no matter what?

    do you have to be conscripted yourself (or your children) and told to go kill people in Lebanon or Iran before you *finally* figure it out?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Sparkon says:

    the planes were real. We’ve been over all of this before. They created massive scars in the towers as they blasted in…

    We’ve been over it all before, and there is no credible evidence that any hijacked Boeing passenger jet aircraft crashed at the WTC, the Pentagon, or at Shanksville on 9/11/2001.

    I there were planes…
    Please show us the remains.
    photo by CNN videographer Michael Hezarkhani

    Fake airplane in action.

    As seen on TV, so it must be real.

    Yeah, right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Haven't you seen the picture of the detached American Airlines tail on the lawn amidst debris next to the hole in the Pentagon - showing name and logo?

    And if you wonder what happened to Flight 93 this may help (from memory it explains why the plane was turned into little bits by the impact)

    http://www.unitedflight93.com

    It certainly seems to contain a lot of genuine witness accounts.
    , @Erebus
    Thank you for bringing that photo to your posts. Anybody familiar with 3D CADD sees something similar on a daily basis.
    In the cyber-world of 3D CADD, multiple "solid objects" are able and often do occupy the same space at the same time by simply disabling the collision detection function. In the physical world, collision detection cannot be turned off. In minds unfamiliar with the boundary conditions imposed by the physical world, any number of solid objects can occupy the same space at the same time, so for them, anything is possible.

    What luck that the spoon that feeds them consistently stops at their mouth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Erebus
    Like usual, the Wiz hands one a soup featuring one of his random selections of bizarre ingredients, and blames the taster for the resulting flavour.

    Missiles would not need US nor Russian trained operators. Any trained operators would do. I can think of a country hat would have been pleased to supply them.
    They need not be listed as "missing from an armoury". Leaving aside the fact that the USM has several hundred currently "missing", they were a dime-a-dozen across the recently collapsed Soviet Empire, and available to whoever had the money to pay for them. Cash, no receipt. We recently learned that N. Korea got their most recent samples from Ukraine, when both countries are under intense scrutiny. In the mid '90s getting a few out of one of the 'stans, Romania, Ukraine, etc was a common occurence

    I wouldn't do it with civil aircraft if civil aircraft couldn't do it. If I didn't know it myself, I'd ask experts similar to what I cited above. After they tell me "Not a chance", I'd be a fool to go ahead. Would you go ahead under those circumstances?

    Fair points about possible availability of some missiles from the Soviet Union but the weak pounts still to be covered, bearing in mind that we are positing plotters who are clever and careful and can’t afford slip ups in performsnce, security or the credibility of their story, include

    1. Were there 10 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union missiles of the right kind which could be smuggled into America undetected?

    2. As to “right kind” were there large, highly manoeuvrable and sophisticated missiles available and in guaranteed working order that could be controlled or programmed to find their way to upper floors of the WTC?

    3. Where could they have been launched from without probable detection and therefore likely report? From planes? Large planes that no one has reported seeing?

    As to the last slender thread of your argument, which appears to be some vague memory of what some pilots said to prove no planes hit the towers – you have evaded my questioning of your sources by not giving links to audio or video or even transcripts. Since someone who cares as much about the issue must have taken scrupulous care in managing your evidentiary material there is one obvious inference to be drawn from your omission.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    What's bred in the bone, will out in the flesh. Wiz raises yet another collection of straw men from his apparently bottomless source.

    ... you have evaded my questioning of your sources by not giving links to audio or video or even transcripts.
     
    It is a waste of one's time arguing with someone who has no data to hand, much less the fundamental education and intellectual skills to make up the deficit. Like my ex-wife, you proceed from a misconstruction of the argument to pontificate about matters obviously far beyond your understanding of how the physical world works. I want you to type those names into a search engine and find out for yourself. If you prefer to go to a one-stop shop on these matters, go to http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org. Spend a few hours there, or however long it takes you to grasp the fundamentals, and get back to me. Please don't get back to me, or to anyone else, before you do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Erebus

    ... would be to try and make contact with a few of the people who ate quoted as seeing the planes, people who shot the videos or at least those who spoke to the latter and handled the videos.
     
    You can't be serious.

    Can the “planes didn’t hit the WTC” survive honest examination of the facts relating to flights and passengers?
     
    Educate yourself Wiz. Should you "seriously examine their flight histories, you'll find the inverse question the more salient one.

    I note that you seem to believe some crap about the planes not being able fly fast enough at under 1000 feet (or for some reason the speed of 500 mph is taken to be critical) to do the observed damage.
     
    I neither believe, nor said anything of the sort. 5-600 knots (knots, Wiz) is what the 4 or 5 radar stations cited by the official narrators show. 5-600kn is what the pilots I cited say is impossible. Pilots, by the way, who are amongst the most highly qualified pilots in America, and who have clocked command time in the very planes involved in 9/11. It's their "crap", not mine.

    On your last point you are just coontiinuiig the evasions I have just complained about in my last reply to you.

    And your other two points are consistent with an insouciant approach to something you pretend to take seriously.

    As to contacting people by one who evidently has as much free time as you do I am indeed serious. Do what sn investigative journalist would do with the good old steam telephone. About 15 – 20 calls on most days for a couple of weeks and it should be just about wrapped up.

    Then, as to passenger lists and the fate of the flights I suspect that your obscure reply is just more evasion. If not please explain it and spell it out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Che Guava says:
    @unit472
    I enjoy reading Linh Dinh's vignettes of life on the seamy side but, like Group Captain Lionel Mandrake in the movie Dr. Strangelove upon hearing General Ripper digress into the 'international communist conspiracy and its plan to sap our precious bodily fluids', you realize you are listening to a madman! So it is here. Everything is normal with Mr. Linh Dinh when suddenly, out of nowhere, comes his fantastic claim that there were no airplanes on 9/11. His 'conspiracy' trumps your lying eyes!

    Linh wrote an article about a visit to Spain, then drifted into 911 conspiiracy theories.

    Not one of his best, sure to gain a response from the conspiracy theorIsts. Not that I am disagreeing that it may not have been.

    Saudi evacuation, Israeli ‘art students’, buildings subjcected to controlled demolition of buildings owned by Silberman and Loewy, massive insurance payouts to them, run on the stock market the night before (massive profits), the warning to Israelis and Israeli-American dual citizens not to go to work that day.

    All well-documented at the time. There was an investigation of the stock market games at the time, but it was cancelled.

    All to be flushed down the memory hole.

    Even in Japan, at the time just before, down on my luck, in a cheap flat, I always wonder whether the Israelis there were controllers of the Algergerian man who would disappear for long periods. Of course, pure conjecture. Always had the feeling there was some connection, though, and the Israelis certainly drugged and gang-raped a Japanese girl at the place. Too naive at the time, she wasn’t screaming, so I wasn’t running to the police, I didn’t understand that they had clearly drugged her to rape her.

    One of the greater regrets in my life, not to run to the police for reporting, but I did not understand what was happening.

    Not long after 11th of September, 2001, immigration authorities started to cracking down on the habitual illegal work and illegal stalls of Israelis, now absent.

    When thinking about it, am thinking there is a connection, sure do not exactly know what it means, sure that National Police Agency and Immigration knew exactly what they were doing and why.

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    I'm left confused by your words, Che. Were these Israeli rapists and the Algerian man in your vicinity in Japan? Could you please clarify the meaning of your post? Are you saying the Japanese govt was covering something up too?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Sparkon

    the planes were real. We’ve been over all of this before. They created massive scars in the towers as they blasted in...
     
    We've been over it all before, and there is no credible evidence that any hijacked Boeing passenger jet aircraft crashed at the WTC, the Pentagon, or at Shanksville on 9/11/2001.

    I there were planes...
    Please show us the remains.

    http://i53.tinypic.com/wa0k9e.jpg
    photo by CNN videographer Michael Hezarkhani

    Fake airplane in action.

    As seen on TV, so it must be real.

    Yeah, right.

    Haven’t you seen the picture of the detached American Airlines tail on the lawn amidst debris next to the hole in the Pentagon – showing name and logo?

    And if you wonder what happened to Flight 93 this may help (from memory it explains why the plane was turned into little bits by the impact)

    http://www.unitedflight93.com

    It certainly seems to contain a lot of genuine witness accounts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    Ever see pictures of a plane crash, imbecile/agent?
    , @Erebus

    Haven’t you seen the picture of the detached American Airlines tail on the lawn amidst debris next to the hole in the Pentagon – showing name and logo?
     
    Was it taken before this one, or after? (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/earlypent500.jpg)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. yeah says:

    Planes or no planes ain’t the right question; who dunnit is. Who, Why, and then How is the proper order in my view.

    The official answer to “Who” is pat and neat – a tad too pat, complete with passports conveniently left behind by the bad guys. Sure, when bad guys go out to create mayhem they always leave their passports, lest they miss out on fame and their place in history. The accepted answer to “Why” being “because they hate our freedoms” – which is or ought to be – an oxymoron to any thinking person. The “How” part is what is causing much merry and fulsome debate here. Beyond pointing out that there is lot of stuff on the web, said to be from scientists and structural engineers, saying that planes crashing in cannot explain the structural collapse, there is no further value that I can add here. But then, much debate, excitement and distraction is perhaps what had been intended by the powers that be. Float a bright, big balloon up in the air and empty the crowd’s pockets while all eyes are fixed upwards and bright minds preoccupied with debating the aerodynamics of balloons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    The obvious snswer to "why?" Is that Osama bin Laden and senior volleagues wanted to provoķe exactly what they got. Having enjoyed in retrospect America's Vietnam disaster and taken part in creating a similar one for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan his established and proven enmity for America could best ge given effect to by prompting Ametica to attack Afghanistan. Now that is all beyond argument so why demsnd a story that he got lucky because someone else got in first?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Priss Factor
    Libertarian view of the world.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW7jszRrI60

    I only watched four minutes, but that was enough for me. Usual t.v. shite, usual talking head telling us what we should be thinking. And all the (few that I saw) points he raised are highly debatable: sexual freedom, free speech (his words were something like ‘freedom to publish absolutely anything no matter how offensive’), blah blah. Usual defenses of a garbage, trashy, decadent worldwide ‘society’. It’s not society, it’s barbarism as never seen before in world history. Contrast what he says with a moral society, a feeling society.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Erebus
    Like usual, the Wiz hands one a soup featuring one of his random selections of bizarre ingredients, and blames the taster for the resulting flavour.

    Missiles would not need US nor Russian trained operators. Any trained operators would do. I can think of a country hat would have been pleased to supply them.
    They need not be listed as "missing from an armoury". Leaving aside the fact that the USM has several hundred currently "missing", they were a dime-a-dozen across the recently collapsed Soviet Empire, and available to whoever had the money to pay for them. Cash, no receipt. We recently learned that N. Korea got their most recent samples from Ukraine, when both countries are under intense scrutiny. In the mid '90s getting a few out of one of the 'stans, Romania, Ukraine, etc was a common occurence

    I wouldn't do it with civil aircraft if civil aircraft couldn't do it. If I didn't know it myself, I'd ask experts similar to what I cited above. After they tell me "Not a chance", I'd be a fool to go ahead. Would you go ahead under those circumstances?

    ‘Like usual, the Wiz hands one a soup featuring one of his random selections of bizarre ingredients, and blames the taster for the resulting flavour. ‘

    Finally a succinct summation of what the wisdom of Wiz was, (w)is, and will be. Amen, praise the Law-yers, the moneylenders, the secret agents.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Che Guava
    Linh wrote an article about a visit to Spain, then drifted into 911 conspiiracy theories.

    Not one of his best, sure to gain a response from the conspiracy theorIsts. Not that I am disagreeing that it may not have been.

    Saudi evacuation, Israeli 'art students', buildings subjcected to controlled demolition of buildings owned by Silberman and Loewy, massive insurance payouts to them, run on the stock market the night before (massive profits), the warning to Israelis and Israeli-American dual citizens not to go to work that day.

    All well-documented at the time. There was an investigation of the stock market games at the time, but it was cancelled.

    All to be flushed down the memory hole.

    Even in Japan, at the time just before, down on my luck, in a cheap flat, I always wonder whether the Israelis there were controllers of the Algergerian man who would disappear for long periods. Of course, pure conjecture. Always had the feeling there was some connection, though, and the Israelis certainly drugged and gang-raped a Japanese girl at the place. Too naive at the time, she wasn't screaming, so I wasn't running to the police, I didn't understand that they had clearly drugged her to rape her.

    One of the greater regrets in my life, not to run to the police for reporting, but I did not understand what was happening.

    Not long after 11th of September, 2001, immigration authorities started to cracking down on the habitual illegal work and illegal stalls of Israelis, now absent.

    When thinking about it, am thinking there is a connection, sure do not exactly know what it means, sure that National Police Agency and Immigration knew exactly what they were doing and why.

    I’m left confused by your words, Che. Were these Israeli rapists and the Algerian man in your vicinity in Japan? Could you please clarify the meaning of your post? Are you saying the Japanese govt was covering something up too?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    No to your last question. It was a place with tiny rooms, old student dwellings.

    Yes, in the vicinity, but when the gang rape occurred, the victim, clearly drugged, was delivered by others who went first.

    I have no idea if the three Israelis who lived there at the time had any connection with the Algerian, he had mysterious disappearances at times. Only make the association because of reading after 11th of September, 2001, not long after I was able to move to a better place.

    The government, soon after that, cracked down on the illegal trade (including drugs) and work of Israelis, so they can't do it now (it was tolerated for over twenty years).

    All that I am saying, is that it implies that the National Police Authority and immigration put a sudden stop to it for reasons that I would suppose to be good, but there was never, of course, a public announcement of the policy shift or reasons.

    Likely just drug importation. They certainly ran the MDMA trade, not that i took it, but it was obvious at the few rave events I attended in that timeframe.

    Some of the street traders also sold marijuana, I know that from the account of an English man who worked for them, he didn't do it himself (only soccer paraphernalia and junk jewellery), but he stated that people would ask him many times, on the assumption that he did, so by extension ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Wizard of Oz
    Haven't you seen the picture of the detached American Airlines tail on the lawn amidst debris next to the hole in the Pentagon - showing name and logo?

    And if you wonder what happened to Flight 93 this may help (from memory it explains why the plane was turned into little bits by the impact)

    http://www.unitedflight93.com

    It certainly seems to contain a lot of genuine witness accounts.

    Ever see pictures of a plane crash, imbecile/agent?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Yes to both interpretations of your ambiguous question. What's your point? As you seem to bè interested do you happen to recall that video showing the American Airlines tail?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @jilles dykstra
    The interesting aspect for me of Homage to Catalonia is not how Orwell was seriously wounded, but how he lost any illusion about revolution and civil war.

    How illusions about Sept 11 still can exist, incomprehensible.

    ‘How illusions about Sept 11 still can exist, incomprehensible.’

    No, not to the legions of lonely souls to whom t.v. is, literally, reality. I mean, they wouldn’t actually LIE to us, would they?–the genuine feeling of those who feel the warm daily and nightly glow of Big Brother, who just feel in their hearts that He will take care of him, that He is on their side.
    Amen, and praise the Lord High Commissioner of Finance, as well as the Lord High Constable from the Ministry of Love.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Truth says:
    @unit472
    Whatever 'credibility' The UNZ REVIEW has is destroyed when these 9/11 lunatics make their appearance in support of the ridiculous conspiracies hatched in Mr. Linh Dinh's deeply disturbed mind.

    It turns this website into a joke!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @unit472
    Whatever 'credibility' The UNZ REVIEW has is destroyed when these 9/11 lunatics make their appearance in support of the ridiculous conspiracies hatched in Mr. Linh Dinh's deeply disturbed mind.

    It turns this website into a joke!

    ‘ridiculous conspiracies hatched in Mr. Linh Dinh’s deeply disturbed mind’

    He has ‘hatched’ nothing, not a single idea related to 911. Like the rest of us, he has read the evidence and formed his beliefs on that evidence.
    Also, anyone withOUT a disturbed mind in these times is obviously watching a tad too much t.v., as in, any.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Nah, Linh Dinh, fine reporter and story teller that he is, has picked up the mad Revusky's version, possinly to pay the rent in Tarragona my cynical self suggests.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Fair points about possible availability of some missiles from the Soviet Union but the weak pounts still to be covered, bearing in mind that we are positing plotters who are clever and careful and can't afford slip ups in performsnce, security or the credibility of their story, include

    1. Were there 10 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union missiles of the right kind which could be smuggled into America undetected?

    2. As to "right kind" were there large, highly manoeuvrable and sophisticated missiles available and in guaranteed working order that could be controlled or programmed to find their way to upper floors of the WTC?

    3. Where could they have been launched from without probable detection and therefore likely report? From planes? Large planes that no one has reported seeing?

    As to the last slender thread of your argument, which appears to be some vague memory of what some pilots said to prove no planes hit the towers - you have evaded my questioning of your sources by not giving links to audio or video or even transcripts. Since someone who cares as much about the issue must have taken scrupulous care in managing your evidentiary material there is one obvious inference to be drawn from your omission.

    What’s bred in the bone, will out in the flesh. Wiz raises yet another collection of straw men from his apparently bottomless source.

    … you have evaded my questioning of your sources by not giving links to audio or video or even transcripts.

    It is a waste of one’s time arguing with someone who has no data to hand, much less the fundamental education and intellectual skills to make up the deficit. Like my ex-wife, you proceed from a misconstruction of the argument to pontificate about matters obviously far beyond your understanding of how the physical world works. I want you to type those names into a search engine and find out for yourself. If you prefer to go to a one-stop shop on these matters, go to http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org. Spend a few hours there, or however long it takes you to grasp the fundamentals, and get back to me. Please don’t get back to me, or to anyone else, before you do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Now we get down to the scriptural base of your religion like fundies emnarrassed these days to admit the slenderness of the underpinnings of their apparent certainties. I shall read it. Your lengthy bluster gives me a lot of sympathy for that ex wife whom you malign with emotional words that i suspect would be responded to by her friends with "talk about pots and kettles!".
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Having glanced at PilotsforTruth - and wondered how many hours you have spent on its surely hundreds of hours of evidence (of something) - I noted, as does the author of the Rational Wiki article on Pilots for Truth that they are unusual among conspiracy theorists in proposing no alternative theory to the "official" one they don't find satisfying. How come they haven't pointed to a massive CIA backed conspiracy? The answer appears to be in an honest recognition that all their technical data is potentislly inaccurate. E.g. records showing thd planes still in the air after the crashes could be wrong. Almost looks like start again time for those who believe some amazingly clever people confected it all for some reason very indirectly connected to the ME.

    May I suggest you assist the further development of your thoughts based on these puzzled pilots by reading

    http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/conspiracy-nation/

    Comment?

    The Rational Wiki piece is at

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pilots_for_9/11_Truth

    Then there is this sceptical discussion

    https://www.metabunk.org/pilots-for-9-11-truth-claim-wtc-airplanes-would-be-uncontrollable-at-observed-speeds.t2933/

    AND THIS ONE IS A RHETORICAL KING HIT ON THE CONSPIRACY MONGERS

    http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/07/pilots-for-911.html

    It has a devastatingly credible Comment knockout to the no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon story. It looks as though your Jeff Rense sponsored pic is definitely airbrushed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Instead of bitching and moaning and calling each other names, everyone should support a real investigation into 911.

    Let’s have a real investigation and let experts present evidence and witnesses give testimony. Call Cheney, Bush, Chertoff and the rest. Let the government defend its story if it wants to. While I disagree with some of the comments, I don’t have any animosity towards the people making them. I’m willing to have a real investigation and let the chips fall where they may.

    Are you?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. Erebus says:
    @Sparkon

    the planes were real. We’ve been over all of this before. They created massive scars in the towers as they blasted in...
     
    We've been over it all before, and there is no credible evidence that any hijacked Boeing passenger jet aircraft crashed at the WTC, the Pentagon, or at Shanksville on 9/11/2001.

    I there were planes...
    Please show us the remains.

    http://i53.tinypic.com/wa0k9e.jpg
    photo by CNN videographer Michael Hezarkhani

    Fake airplane in action.

    As seen on TV, so it must be real.

    Yeah, right.

    Thank you for bringing that photo to your posts. Anybody familiar with 3D CADD sees something similar on a daily basis.
    In the cyber-world of 3D CADD, multiple “solid objects” are able and often do occupy the same space at the same time by simply disabling the collision detection function. In the physical world, collision detection cannot be turned off. In minds unfamiliar with the boundary conditions imposed by the physical world, any number of solid objects can occupy the same space at the same time, so for them, anything is possible.

    What luck that the spoon that feeds them consistently stops at their mouth.

    Read More
    • LOL: Rurik
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    You're welcome Erebus. Thanks for the kind words, and especially for your efforts here to educate others. 'Good point about two objects trying to occupy the same space at the same time. 'Can't be done in the real world, but as you note, easily achieved with 3D graphics, or even with 2D graphics, and forced perspective.

    Now, let's have a look at that piece of wreckage photographed on the Pentagon lawn.
    http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/06/54cfc894a4b55_-_911-flight77-debris.jpg
    Army Times staff photographer, Mark D. Faram

    The first thing to notice is that this is a fragment of aluminum skin only, with no structural part of any aircraft showing. The second thing to notice is that the fragment of wreckage appears to be fairly pristine, having somehow escaped getting charred or burnt in the 757's ostensible collision with the Pentagon. The next thing to notice is that the fragment has come to rest on the Pentagon's lawn, without any apparent damage or disturbance to the lawn or grass growing there, but delicately, and rather precisely posed, as we shall see.

    Apparently, the photographer saw the wreckage, or was directed to it, and walked all the way out to it from the Pentagon without taking any pictures on the way -- at least, none that we know of -- and didn't take a picture until he had the wreckage between himself and the Pentagon, when finally he composed, and exposed his now-famous picture.

    So far so good, I guess.

    I found another picture of the wreckage, but it's taken from a different angle, and appears to have been moved. It does include part of a person, so we can get a sense of scale, and see that it's not a very big fragment. We have also the text on the yellow tape to see that the image hasn't been reversed. I can't orient myself between the two images very well, but something is not adding up. Anybody see it?
    http://static.dnaindia.com/sites/default/files/styles/half/public/2017/04/01/561607-9-11-flight-debris-afp.jpg

    Some researchers, James Hanson among others, have claimed that the fragment is really from AA 965, which crashed in Columbia in 1995.
    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/duffScreenHunter_283-May.-29-01.12-640x449.jpg

    Finally, I found this, which seems to settle the question of whether or not this fragment came from an American Airlines 757.

    http://www.rense.com/general31/fitfar.jpg
    http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/fitcloser.jpg
    Photo reconstruction by "Brian"

    http://www.rense.com/general31/confirm.htm

    It's a perfect fit, by Jove!

    So, it's quite an amazing coincidence, really, where the photographer walked out to a specific spot on 9/11 to take a photo of an aircraft wreckage fragment that would later line up exactly with existing photos of a 757 to prove the fragment's bona fides.

    Gosh, what a photographer!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Haven't you seen the picture of the detached American Airlines tail on the lawn amidst debris next to the hole in the Pentagon - showing name and logo?

    And if you wonder what happened to Flight 93 this may help (from memory it explains why the plane was turned into little bits by the impact)

    http://www.unitedflight93.com

    It certainly seems to contain a lot of genuine witness accounts.

    Haven’t you seen the picture of the detached American Airlines tail on the lawn amidst debris next to the hole in the Pentagon – showing name and logo?

    Was it taken before this one, or after? (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/earlypent500.jpg)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Dunno. Has that one been airbrushed?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Have you looked up rense.com, whence Jeff Rense, whence doubt about him as a source?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Hey Linh,

    I am thrilled to see this great article also appear at Veterans Today.

    The title instantly gripped me! The strangest & most unique things are very often (somehow?) by your extraordinary gift of observation.

    The speed of the bullet that hit Orwell and the low altitude planes which flew too slow to hit the towers and make a “pancake.” O.M.G.! A “pancake,” Linh Dinh said that.
    Ha, ha.

    Thanks Jon for hosting L.D. because we ZUSA-ans now have a homage to Aunt Jemima instead of having to do homage to Betty Ong’s balogna.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    What significance do you attach to whether the towers were struck at 500 knots or 300?

    Why do see a problem about a plane that can fly at 500 knots at high altitude picking up up speed in a dive and maintaining nearly all of it when it merely reduces the angle of the dive? After all if an aircraft flying at 500 knots at 30,000 feet went into a fully powered near vertical dive wouldn't you expect it to hit the ground at some much greater speed? Would 1000 knots surprise?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Oops, Linh. Sorry about the M.I.A. word “comnected” in the 2nd paragraph of comment # 70.

    Indeed, you manage to connect things that our Theater directors cunningly place “in front of our collective nose,” and laugh because the dumb goy can not see what’s in front of their noses.

    Pardon me? I struggle with finger tapping but I would love to land a school bus driving job in Spain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. @Erebus
    What's bred in the bone, will out in the flesh. Wiz raises yet another collection of straw men from his apparently bottomless source.

    ... you have evaded my questioning of your sources by not giving links to audio or video or even transcripts.
     
    It is a waste of one's time arguing with someone who has no data to hand, much less the fundamental education and intellectual skills to make up the deficit. Like my ex-wife, you proceed from a misconstruction of the argument to pontificate about matters obviously far beyond your understanding of how the physical world works. I want you to type those names into a search engine and find out for yourself. If you prefer to go to a one-stop shop on these matters, go to http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org. Spend a few hours there, or however long it takes you to grasp the fundamentals, and get back to me. Please don't get back to me, or to anyone else, before you do.

    Now we get down to the scriptural base of your religion like fundies emnarrassed these days to admit the slenderness of the underpinnings of their apparent certainties. I shall read it. Your lengthy bluster gives me a lot of sympathy for that ex wife whom you malign with emotional words that i suspect would be responded to by her friends with “talk about pots and kettles!”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Erebus

    Haven’t you seen the picture of the detached American Airlines tail on the lawn amidst debris next to the hole in the Pentagon – showing name and logo?
     
    Was it taken before this one, or after? (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/earlypent500.jpg)

    Dunno. Has that one been airbrushed?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Erebus

    Haven’t you seen the picture of the detached American Airlines tail on the lawn amidst debris next to the hole in the Pentagon – showing name and logo?
     
    Was it taken before this one, or after? (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/earlypent500.jpg)

    Have you looked up rense.com, whence Jeff Rense, whence doubt about him as a source?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Rense is not the "source" of that photo.
    That photo was one of a series of a half dozen or so made from (presumably) the same aircraft that day and was to be found on a few websites a decade+ ago along with others in the series. I just went with the first one that popped up on the image search.
    The entire series showed the Pentagon just after the hit, before the airspace was closed and any fires or first responders and equipment showed up. The pristine lawn was clearly visible in all of them, and the very small entry hole was particularly clear on a couple.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @daniel le mouche
    Ever see pictures of a plane crash, imbecile/agent?

    Yes to both interpretations of your ambiguous question. What’s your point? As you seem to bè interested do you happen to recall that video showing the American Airlines tail?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @daniel le mouche
    'ridiculous conspiracies hatched in Mr. Linh Dinh’s deeply disturbed mind'

    He has 'hatched' nothing, not a single idea related to 911. Like the rest of us, he has read the evidence and formed his beliefs on that evidence.
    Also, anyone withOUT a disturbed mind in these times is obviously watching a tad too much t.v., as in, any.

    Nah, Linh Dinh, fine reporter and story teller that he is, has picked up the mad Revusky’s version, possinly to pay the rent in Tarragona my cynical self suggests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Have you looked up rense.com, whence Jeff Rense, whence doubt about him as a source?

    Rense is not the “source” of that photo.
    That photo was one of a series of a half dozen or so made from (presumably) the same aircraft that day and was to be found on a few websites a decade+ ago along with others in the series. I just went with the first one that popped up on the image search.
    The entire series showed the Pentagon just after the hit, before the airspace was closed and any fires or first responders and equipment showed up. The pristine lawn was clearly visible in all of them, and the very small entry hole was particularly clear on a couple.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I will look with interest at your "srries of photographs just after the hit" but, in the meantime will have to make do with the first comment by tantor in
    http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/07/pilots-for-911.html

    and the fascinating linked YouTube reconstruction which includes actual video and still camera footage. I note with interest that an apparently actual picture shown just after "3rd light pole struck" (which of course is simulated) is similar to the picture I thought might be airbrushed. In reality it seems that it may be a matter of camera angle and the photographer's position when he took the pic.

    The light poles being hit successively seems to support the idea that the "missile" was a big plane with substantial wings doesn't it? Note that there are what are presented as photographs of the poles, not simulations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @ChuckOrloski
    Hey Linh,

    I am thrilled to see this great article also appear at Veterans Today.

    The title instantly gripped me! The strangest & most unique things are very often (somehow?) by your extraordinary gift of observation.

    The speed of the bullet that hit Orwell and the low altitude planes which flew too slow to hit the towers and make a "pancake." O.M.G.! A "pancake," Linh Dinh said that.
    Ha, ha.

    Thanks Jon for hosting L.D. because we ZUSA-ans now have a homage to Aunt Jemima instead of having to do homage to Betty Ong's balogna.

    What significance do you attach to whether the towers were struck at 500 knots or 300?

    Why do see a problem about a plane that can fly at 500 knots at high altitude picking up up speed in a dive and maintaining nearly all of it when it merely reduces the angle of the dive? After all if an aircraft flying at 500 knots at 30,000 feet went into a fully powered near vertical dive wouldn’t you expect it to hit the ground at some much greater speed? Would 1000 knots surprise?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
    I found significance in the unique way Linh Dinh's words have flown into Zelikow's knotty 9/11 report, and landed intact at Veterans Today!

    Don't go into a bloody tailspin, Oz! Even President Trump could not understand the towers having become "pancake," but of course such reasonable insight was grounded into the Zionist Memory Hole Hangar.

    Like Orwell, Linh Dinh wants to keep the Aspidistra flying in the right direction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Sparkon says:
    @Erebus
    Thank you for bringing that photo to your posts. Anybody familiar with 3D CADD sees something similar on a daily basis.
    In the cyber-world of 3D CADD, multiple "solid objects" are able and often do occupy the same space at the same time by simply disabling the collision detection function. In the physical world, collision detection cannot be turned off. In minds unfamiliar with the boundary conditions imposed by the physical world, any number of solid objects can occupy the same space at the same time, so for them, anything is possible.

    What luck that the spoon that feeds them consistently stops at their mouth.

    You’re welcome Erebus. Thanks for the kind words, and especially for your efforts here to educate others. ‘Good point about two objects trying to occupy the same space at the same time. ‘Can’t be done in the real world, but as you note, easily achieved with 3D graphics, or even with 2D graphics, and forced perspective.

    Now, let’s have a look at that piece of wreckage photographed on the Pentagon lawn.Army Times staff photographer, Mark D. Faram

    The first thing to notice is that this is a fragment of aluminum skin only, with no structural part of any aircraft showing. The second thing to notice is that the fragment of wreckage appears to be fairly pristine, having somehow escaped getting charred or burnt in the 757′s ostensible collision with the Pentagon. The next thing to notice is that the fragment has come to rest on the Pentagon’s lawn, without any apparent damage or disturbance to the lawn or grass growing there, but delicately, and rather precisely posed, as we shall see.

    Apparently, the photographer saw the wreckage, or was directed to it, and walked all the way out to it from the Pentagon without taking any pictures on the way — at least, none that we know of — and didn’t take a picture until he had the wreckage between himself and the Pentagon, when finally he composed, and exposed his now-famous picture.

    So far so good, I guess.

    I found another picture of the wreckage, but it’s taken from a different angle, and appears to have been moved. It does include part of a person, so we can get a sense of scale, and see that it’s not a very big fragment. We have also the text on the yellow tape to see that the image hasn’t been reversed. I can’t orient myself between the two images very well, but something is not adding up. Anybody see it?
    Some researchers, James Hanson among others, have claimed that the fragment is really from AA 965, which crashed in Columbia in 1995.
    Finally, I found this, which seems to settle the question of whether or not this fragment came from an American Airlines 757.
    http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/fitcloser.jpg
    Photo reconstruction by “Brian”

    http://www.rense.com/general31/confirm.htm

    It’s a perfect fit, by Jove!

    So, it’s quite an amazing coincidence, really, where the photographer walked out to a specific spot on 9/11 to take a photo of an aircraft wreckage fragment that would later line up exactly with existing photos of a 757 to prove the fragment’s bona fides.

    Gosh, what a photographer!

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    What is actually argument you are making expect for expressing your personal disbelief and derision:

    "walked all the way out to it from the Pentagon without taking any pictures on the way — at least, none that we know of — and didn’t take a picture until he had the wreckage between himself and the Pentagon, when finally he composed, and exposed his now-famous picture"
     

    "it’s quite an amazing coincidence"
     
    You may have a case somewhere there in the pile of photographic evidence but nobody now 16 years later will be able to sort it out. What is the chain of custody of photographs? Were they tampered? When? By whom? So all you got left is the disbelief and derision with which you will not convince the believers in the orthodox version. In the real world whoever comes with the story first and has the loudest megaphone and has power to control access to evidence wins. It is no longer about the evidence. It is about the power of beliefs. Nothing will change it. It simply will become irrelevant like whether Jesus walked on the water on not after 2000 years of decay of Christianity became pretty much irrelevant. Look at JFK. We will never know. And do not fool yourself that this time it will be different. No death bed confessions of alleged conspirators will anything. You and WoZ are very similar in one respect. Both of you are immodest believers who can't bring themselves to admit to themselves that you really do not know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Erebus
    What's bred in the bone, will out in the flesh. Wiz raises yet another collection of straw men from his apparently bottomless source.

    ... you have evaded my questioning of your sources by not giving links to audio or video or even transcripts.
     
    It is a waste of one's time arguing with someone who has no data to hand, much less the fundamental education and intellectual skills to make up the deficit. Like my ex-wife, you proceed from a misconstruction of the argument to pontificate about matters obviously far beyond your understanding of how the physical world works. I want you to type those names into a search engine and find out for yourself. If you prefer to go to a one-stop shop on these matters, go to http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org. Spend a few hours there, or however long it takes you to grasp the fundamentals, and get back to me. Please don't get back to me, or to anyone else, before you do.

    Having glanced at PilotsforTruth – and wondered how many hours you have spent on its surely hundreds of hours of evidence (of something) – I noted, as does the author of the Rational Wiki article on Pilots for Truth that they are unusual among conspiracy theorists in proposing no alternative theory to the “official” one they don’t find satisfying. How come they haven’t pointed to a massive CIA backed conspiracy? The answer appears to be in an honest recognition that all their technical data is potentislly inaccurate. E.g. records showing thd planes still in the air after the crashes could be wrong. Almost looks like start again time for those who believe some amazingly clever people confected it all for some reason very indirectly connected to the ME.

    May I suggest you assist the further development of your thoughts based on these puzzled pilots by reading

    http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/conspiracy-nation/

    Comment?

    The Rational Wiki piece is at

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pilots_for_9/11_Truth

    Then there is this sceptical discussion

    https://www.metabunk.org/pilots-for-9-11-truth-claim-wtc-airplanes-would-be-uncontrollable-at-observed-speeds.t2933/

    AND THIS ONE IS A RHETORICAL KING HIT ON THE CONSPIRACY MONGERS

    http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/07/pilots-for-911.html

    It has a devastatingly credible Comment knockout to the no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon story. It looks as though your Jeff Rense sponsored pic is definitely airbrushed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    How come they haven’t pointed to a massive CIA backed conspiracy?
     
    Their mission statement specifically precludes that. That aside, since when, and in what court, is the defence required to prove someone else guilty in order to show his own client innocent beyond reasonable doubt? That they seek to establish physical facts and offer no alternative "theory" is to their credit, imbecile.

    As for hours spent at PF911T, less than 1.

    I did have a look at your blackfive site for "a devastatingly credible comment knockout" but found nothing of the sort. As I've long suspected that your standard of evidence lies somewhere near that level of discourse, I'll continue to voice my opinions here, but only to prevent the casual reader from thinking you're at all serious.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Wizard of Oz
    What significance do you attach to whether the towers were struck at 500 knots or 300?

    Why do see a problem about a plane that can fly at 500 knots at high altitude picking up up speed in a dive and maintaining nearly all of it when it merely reduces the angle of the dive? After all if an aircraft flying at 500 knots at 30,000 feet went into a fully powered near vertical dive wouldn't you expect it to hit the ground at some much greater speed? Would 1000 knots surprise?

    I found significance in the unique way Linh Dinh’s words have flown into Zelikow’s knotty 9/11 report, and landed intact at Veterans Today!

    Don’t go into a bloody tailspin, Oz! Even President Trump could not understand the towers having become “pancake,” but of course such reasonable insight was grounded into the Zionist Memory Hole Hangar.

    Like Orwell, Linh Dinh wants to keep the Aspidistra flying in the right direction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I can see the perfectly ordinary resistance of UR commenters to changing entrenched views, but as I, a complete sceptic with no barrow to push, keep on finding the weaknesses in trufhers' beliefs I shall I hope, in the end, have a tiny cohort of UR monikers which I can honour as belinging to persons able go change their minds when the balance of evidence available to them shifts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Erebus
    Rense is not the "source" of that photo.
    That photo was one of a series of a half dozen or so made from (presumably) the same aircraft that day and was to be found on a few websites a decade+ ago along with others in the series. I just went with the first one that popped up on the image search.
    The entire series showed the Pentagon just after the hit, before the airspace was closed and any fires or first responders and equipment showed up. The pristine lawn was clearly visible in all of them, and the very small entry hole was particularly clear on a couple.

    I will look with interest at your “srries of photographs just after the hit” but, in the meantime will have to make do with the first comment by tantor in

    http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/07/pilots-for-911.html

    and the fascinating linked YouTube reconstruction which includes actual video and still camera footage. I note with interest that an apparently actual picture shown just after “3rd light pole struck” (which of course is simulated) is similar to the picture I thought might be airbrushed. In reality it seems that it may be a matter of camera angle and the photographer’s position when he took the pic.

    The light poles being hit successively seems to support the idea that the “missile” was a big plane with substantial wings doesn’t it? Note that there are what are presented as photographs of the poles, not simulations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @ChuckOrloski
    I found significance in the unique way Linh Dinh's words have flown into Zelikow's knotty 9/11 report, and landed intact at Veterans Today!

    Don't go into a bloody tailspin, Oz! Even President Trump could not understand the towers having become "pancake," but of course such reasonable insight was grounded into the Zionist Memory Hole Hangar.

    Like Orwell, Linh Dinh wants to keep the Aspidistra flying in the right direction.

    I can see the perfectly ordinary resistance of UR commenters to changing entrenched views, but as I, a complete sceptic with no barrow to push, keep on finding the weaknesses in trufhers’ beliefs I shall I hope, in the end, have a tiny cohort of UR monikers which I can honour as belinging to persons able go change their minds when the balance of evidence available to them shifts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
    Wiz,

    The balance of investigation work never shifted to detemining why Larry Silverstein issued a "pull" order for W.T.C. 7.

    Airplane crash and fire did not render the Towers into what L.D. creatively described as "pancake."

    Look less to the sky and look more at Silverstein's shadiness!
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Jonathan Revusky has asked you several times to post what you think is the most compelling evidence to support the official government narrative of what happened on 9/11 and to my knowledge you have yet to do so, but still you (mis)type endless inane questions like a two year old forever asking "why?".
    It's little wonder that you have become the resident (unfunny) joke here at The Unz Review.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    This article was so dumb I’m not sure if it makes your other articles worse or better.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. utu says:
    @Sparkon
    You're welcome Erebus. Thanks for the kind words, and especially for your efforts here to educate others. 'Good point about two objects trying to occupy the same space at the same time. 'Can't be done in the real world, but as you note, easily achieved with 3D graphics, or even with 2D graphics, and forced perspective.

    Now, let's have a look at that piece of wreckage photographed on the Pentagon lawn.
    http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/06/54cfc894a4b55_-_911-flight77-debris.jpg
    Army Times staff photographer, Mark D. Faram

    The first thing to notice is that this is a fragment of aluminum skin only, with no structural part of any aircraft showing. The second thing to notice is that the fragment of wreckage appears to be fairly pristine, having somehow escaped getting charred or burnt in the 757's ostensible collision with the Pentagon. The next thing to notice is that the fragment has come to rest on the Pentagon's lawn, without any apparent damage or disturbance to the lawn or grass growing there, but delicately, and rather precisely posed, as we shall see.

    Apparently, the photographer saw the wreckage, or was directed to it, and walked all the way out to it from the Pentagon without taking any pictures on the way -- at least, none that we know of -- and didn't take a picture until he had the wreckage between himself and the Pentagon, when finally he composed, and exposed his now-famous picture.

    So far so good, I guess.

    I found another picture of the wreckage, but it's taken from a different angle, and appears to have been moved. It does include part of a person, so we can get a sense of scale, and see that it's not a very big fragment. We have also the text on the yellow tape to see that the image hasn't been reversed. I can't orient myself between the two images very well, but something is not adding up. Anybody see it?
    http://static.dnaindia.com/sites/default/files/styles/half/public/2017/04/01/561607-9-11-flight-debris-afp.jpg

    Some researchers, James Hanson among others, have claimed that the fragment is really from AA 965, which crashed in Columbia in 1995.
    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/duffScreenHunter_283-May.-29-01.12-640x449.jpg

    Finally, I found this, which seems to settle the question of whether or not this fragment came from an American Airlines 757.

    http://www.rense.com/general31/fitfar.jpg
    http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/fitcloser.jpg
    Photo reconstruction by "Brian"

    http://www.rense.com/general31/confirm.htm

    It's a perfect fit, by Jove!

    So, it's quite an amazing coincidence, really, where the photographer walked out to a specific spot on 9/11 to take a photo of an aircraft wreckage fragment that would later line up exactly with existing photos of a 757 to prove the fragment's bona fides.

    Gosh, what a photographer!

    What is actually argument you are making expect for expressing your personal disbelief and derision:

    “walked all the way out to it from the Pentagon without taking any pictures on the way — at least, none that we know of — and didn’t take a picture until he had the wreckage between himself and the Pentagon, when finally he composed, and exposed his now-famous picture”

    “it’s quite an amazing coincidence”

    You may have a case somewhere there in the pile of photographic evidence but nobody now 16 years later will be able to sort it out. What is the chain of custody of photographs? Were they tampered? When? By whom? So all you got left is the disbelief and derision with which you will not convince the believers in the orthodox version. In the real world whoever comes with the story first and has the loudest megaphone and has power to control access to evidence wins. It is no longer about the evidence. It is about the power of beliefs. Nothing will change it. It simply will become irrelevant like whether Jesus walked on the water on not after 2000 years of decay of Christianity became pretty much irrelevant. Look at JFK. We will never know. And do not fool yourself that this time it will be different. No death bed confessions of alleged conspirators will anything. You and WoZ are very similar in one respect. Both of you are immodest believers who can’t bring themselves to admit to themselves that you really do not know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    It is no longer about the evidence. It is about the power of beliefs. Nothing will change it.
     
    Of course. In the psycho-social sphere in which humans actually live, it is always and everywhere about the power of beliefs. Physical law simply provides the boundary conditions limiting what can physically occur in that sphere. It is otherwise ignored, in the same way the stage is ignored during a play. Everyone looks and listens to the narrative playing itself out and the stage goes unnoticed unless it collapses or an actor falls off.

    Beliefs do change, however, and when they do big things often happen. If my read of the psycho-social sphere is right, beliefs are on the cusp of a great discontinuity.
    , @Sparkon
    I'll make it easy for you: it's all about law & order, truth & justice:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-sjvz6YKnQ
    Gene Pitney, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance


    Pitney's great song was not in the move -- a huge mistake -- and John Ford's B&W oater is an uneven classic. Lee Marvin's Liberty Valance is one of Hollywood's all time villains, but Jimmy Stewart's over-acting throughout detracts from the whole affair, and the entire premise is goofy anyway, that a guy can't learn to shoot a pistol. Many punks do it every day in the USA.

    So we know that law & order, truth & justice are not for everyone, and anyway, I don't remember anybody insisting that you take part in the discussion, but maybe a couple episodes of Columbo will get you in the mood, if John Wayne didn't.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. utu says:
    @Erebus

    Since these are commercial grade craft and well over spec’d I imagine they could hold together for the limited time necessary.
     
    It isn't just "holding together" that's required. In addition to precision flying, especially with the 2nd plane in a hi-G turn, maintenance of speed would, according to the pilots I cited above, have been impossible. Parasitic drag would quickly slow the plane, and the engines wouldn't have been able to overcome it due to cavitation.

    As we don’t have definitive data whether the airliners could physically do what the official narrative demands of them, we can’t definitively claim or exclude their use. At best, whatever argument marshals a preponderance of evidence on one side or the other may win a contingent, but not definitive victory.

    At this time, several highly qualified individuals have publicly stated that there's "Not a chance", and have given detailed explanations for their opinion. So far as I know, no similarly qualified individual has come forward on the other side.
    In addition to these experts, there are a myriad of technical anomalies associated with all 4 of the ostensible flights that day. On the other side are a few witnesses, and a few rather dodgy videos. Some of the witnesses are as dodgy as the videos.
    On balance, I'd say that the preponderance of evidence lies clearly on the side of No Planes Theory. The NPT, by the way, denies the use of commercially scheduled Boeing 7x7s, but does not preclude the use of other flying objects.

    Of course, should definitive data surface that precludes the use of airliners, the matter would be settled. Should said data indicate that they could have been flown in a manner consistent with the official narrative, that would indicate that they may have been, and we’re back to where we started. Namely, marshalling evidence. A real Inquiry with subpoena power could have answered this and a host of other questions. That such an Inquiry hasn't been convened is itself astonishing.

    So, to speculate on why the pilots (if there were any) failed to press the panic button(s) (if there were any) becomes a rather idle exercise. That there was no sign of panic button pressing is a matter of fact. Of course, that fact explains itself if there weren't any planes.

    At this time, several highly qualified individuals have publicly stated that there’s “Not a chance”, and have given detailed explanations for their opinion.

    No expert testimonies about plane performance abilities will have any impact on a jury which saw the footage of planes hitting the towers. You would have to convince them what they saw was not real. But if you could convince them it was not real you do not need the experts on plane performance limitations. Instead you need experts on video GCI real time composition to which opposite experts will be claiming that strange effects are just normal and not infrequent results of pixelization and data compression quirks. The jury will not be able to tell the difference between the two sets of experts so they will go with the original belief that stemmed for them from watching the video and believing it was real when they watched it first time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    The jury will not be able to tell the difference between the two sets of experts so they will go with the original belief that stemmed for them from watching the video and believing it was real when they watched it first time.
     
    Just like a politician feeding bullshit to their pet journalist, and then believing the resulting stories because they read them in the paper!

    Not sure what juries may have to do with an inquiry. Are you thinking of a lawsuit? Do juries sit on judicial inquiries in the US? More to the point, a real court or inquiry would be able to subpoena the data from Boeing's wind-tunnel tests, and engineering data from the engine manufacturers. That would settle the matter of aircraft performance in a variety of conditions, including those ostensibly holding on 9/11. If that data shows the planes becoming uncontrollable, or unable to maintain speed, the matter is settled. Whatever videos and eyewitness accounts are available, the court would have a very close look at them before deciding whether they can be entered into evidence. If there remained a reasonable doubt about their provenance, they simply wouldn't be entered into evidence and any jury wouldn't have the opportunity to consider them in their deliberations. Isn't that how it works?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Having glanced at PilotsforTruth - and wondered how many hours you have spent on its surely hundreds of hours of evidence (of something) - I noted, as does the author of the Rational Wiki article on Pilots for Truth that they are unusual among conspiracy theorists in proposing no alternative theory to the "official" one they don't find satisfying. How come they haven't pointed to a massive CIA backed conspiracy? The answer appears to be in an honest recognition that all their technical data is potentislly inaccurate. E.g. records showing thd planes still in the air after the crashes could be wrong. Almost looks like start again time for those who believe some amazingly clever people confected it all for some reason very indirectly connected to the ME.

    May I suggest you assist the further development of your thoughts based on these puzzled pilots by reading

    http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/conspiracy-nation/

    Comment?

    The Rational Wiki piece is at

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pilots_for_9/11_Truth

    Then there is this sceptical discussion

    https://www.metabunk.org/pilots-for-9-11-truth-claim-wtc-airplanes-would-be-uncontrollable-at-observed-speeds.t2933/

    AND THIS ONE IS A RHETORICAL KING HIT ON THE CONSPIRACY MONGERS

    http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/07/pilots-for-911.html

    It has a devastatingly credible Comment knockout to the no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon story. It looks as though your Jeff Rense sponsored pic is definitely airbrushed.

    How come they haven’t pointed to a massive CIA backed conspiracy?

    Their mission statement specifically precludes that. That aside, since when, and in what court, is the defence required to prove someone else guilty in order to show his own client innocent beyond reasonable doubt? That they seek to establish physical facts and offer no alternative “theory” is to their credit, imbecile.

    As for hours spent at PF911T, less than 1.

    I did have a look at your blackfive site for “a devastatingly credible comment knockout” but found nothing of the sort. As I’ve long suspected that your standard of evidence lies somewhere near that level of discourse, I’ll continue to voice my opinions here, but only to prevent the casual reader from thinking you’re at all serious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    In the clumsy language of typical 9/11 threads I would say you wrre a liar for saying Their mission statement specifically precludes that". But I put it down to the amateurish ways of someone who has never pracised law seriously (certainly not as counsel or judge) or had to defend scholarly work before peers. First there is no mention of a mission statement on their home page (or any other page that I can find and, indeed , on their home age there is a statement that contradicts your assertion by saying that they put forward no theiry "at this point in time".

    Èqually you shoe yourself to be out of your depth when trying to play the bush lawyer and asserting that it is a case of the onus not being on the defendant or some such irrelevant crap (since the Pilots for Truth are calling for snother inquiry they had better put forward a case for consideration).

    My point to which you responded with misleading irrelevance is that you can hardly get much support for your case that there were no planes, or even might have been no planes if those you rely on won't draw any such conclusions.

    Your indignant response that you have only spent a single hour on your PilotsforTruth source is laughable given that you are asking peoole to take you seriously when you say that hearsay evidence you proffer is good compelling stuff that you feel entitled to rely on. The critics of it that I have cited have obviously spent more time on it and their responses are analytic.

    Perhaps you have now actually read the Comment that I referred to by tantor and looked at the YouTube link. If you have then I would be interested to know how you could maintain a positive belief in the no plane theory.
    , @jacques sheete

    ...but only to prevent the casual reader from thinking you’re at all serious.
     
    I gave up on the Dizzard of Guffaws long ago. As windbags go, that one's particularly gassy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Erebus says:
    @utu
    What is actually argument you are making expect for expressing your personal disbelief and derision:

    "walked all the way out to it from the Pentagon without taking any pictures on the way — at least, none that we know of — and didn’t take a picture until he had the wreckage between himself and the Pentagon, when finally he composed, and exposed his now-famous picture"
     

    "it’s quite an amazing coincidence"
     
    You may have a case somewhere there in the pile of photographic evidence but nobody now 16 years later will be able to sort it out. What is the chain of custody of photographs? Were they tampered? When? By whom? So all you got left is the disbelief and derision with which you will not convince the believers in the orthodox version. In the real world whoever comes with the story first and has the loudest megaphone and has power to control access to evidence wins. It is no longer about the evidence. It is about the power of beliefs. Nothing will change it. It simply will become irrelevant like whether Jesus walked on the water on not after 2000 years of decay of Christianity became pretty much irrelevant. Look at JFK. We will never know. And do not fool yourself that this time it will be different. No death bed confessions of alleged conspirators will anything. You and WoZ are very similar in one respect. Both of you are immodest believers who can't bring themselves to admit to themselves that you really do not know.

    It is no longer about the evidence. It is about the power of beliefs. Nothing will change it.

    Of course. In the psycho-social sphere in which humans actually live, it is always and everywhere about the power of beliefs. Physical law simply provides the boundary conditions limiting what can physically occur in that sphere. It is otherwise ignored, in the same way the stage is ignored during a play. Everyone looks and listens to the narrative playing itself out and the stage goes unnoticed unless it collapses or an actor falls off.

    Beliefs do change, however, and when they do big things often happen. If my read of the psycho-social sphere is right, beliefs are on the cusp of a great discontinuity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Erebus says:
    @utu
    At this time, several highly qualified individuals have publicly stated that there’s “Not a chance”, and have given detailed explanations for their opinion.

    No expert testimonies about plane performance abilities will have any impact on a jury which saw the footage of planes hitting the towers. You would have to convince them what they saw was not real. But if you could convince them it was not real you do not need the experts on plane performance limitations. Instead you need experts on video GCI real time composition to which opposite experts will be claiming that strange effects are just normal and not infrequent results of pixelization and data compression quirks. The jury will not be able to tell the difference between the two sets of experts so they will go with the original belief that stemmed for them from watching the video and believing it was real when they watched it first time.

    The jury will not be able to tell the difference between the two sets of experts so they will go with the original belief that stemmed for them from watching the video and believing it was real when they watched it first time.

    Just like a politician feeding bullshit to their pet journalist, and then believing the resulting stories because they read them in the paper!

    Not sure what juries may have to do with an inquiry. Are you thinking of a lawsuit? Do juries sit on judicial inquiries in the US? More to the point, a real court or inquiry would be able to subpoena the data from Boeing’s wind-tunnel tests, and engineering data from the engine manufacturers. That would settle the matter of aircraft performance in a variety of conditions, including those ostensibly holding on 9/11. If that data shows the planes becoming uncontrollable, or unable to maintain speed, the matter is settled. Whatever videos and eyewitness accounts are available, the court would have a very close look at them before deciding whether they can be entered into evidence. If there remained a reasonable doubt about their provenance, they simply wouldn’t be entered into evidence and any jury wouldn’t have the opportunity to consider them in their deliberations. Isn’t that how it works?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Just like a politician feeding bullshit to their pet journalist, and then believing the resulting stories because they read them in the paper!

    This came from Karl Kraus originally, I think.

    A jury and trial process is a good illustration of how establishing of truth by layman may occur in the best of the possible circumstances. A judge is also a laymen or any member of some truth finding commission. And there is a bias. If you were on the commission you would believe any expert from Boing that confirms your belief but there will other experts from the same Boing who will be giving opposite testimony. And then there are lies. You are never in absolutely truth friendly environment.

    Personally I do not think any aerospace engineer would make a statement that at a particular speed and air pressure this will definitively happen with this plane. Because they do not know it for sure even if they have run many models and did some wind tunnel experiments. The latter are always very limited and require later scaling which is not an exact science. Yes there are some absolute limits that a particular man made device can't cross. But the range of the deterioration of performance that leads to gradual or catastrophic breakdown can be very large. The degree of deterioration will increase with particular parameter like speed in this case but it still can't be said that definitively this or that will happen. So basically I believe that no expert will say this speed is not possible. Furthermore think that the experts will not come from other galaxy. They all watched planes coming to towers many times and because of this they will have biases.

    My point is that the whole argument about pilots and potential aerospace engineers is not really that strong as you seem to make it to be.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. utu says:
    @Erebus

    The jury will not be able to tell the difference between the two sets of experts so they will go with the original belief that stemmed for them from watching the video and believing it was real when they watched it first time.
     
    Just like a politician feeding bullshit to their pet journalist, and then believing the resulting stories because they read them in the paper!

    Not sure what juries may have to do with an inquiry. Are you thinking of a lawsuit? Do juries sit on judicial inquiries in the US? More to the point, a real court or inquiry would be able to subpoena the data from Boeing's wind-tunnel tests, and engineering data from the engine manufacturers. That would settle the matter of aircraft performance in a variety of conditions, including those ostensibly holding on 9/11. If that data shows the planes becoming uncontrollable, or unable to maintain speed, the matter is settled. Whatever videos and eyewitness accounts are available, the court would have a very close look at them before deciding whether they can be entered into evidence. If there remained a reasonable doubt about their provenance, they simply wouldn't be entered into evidence and any jury wouldn't have the opportunity to consider them in their deliberations. Isn't that how it works?

    Just like a politician feeding bullshit to their pet journalist, and then believing the resulting stories because they read them in the paper!

    This came from Karl Kraus originally, I think.

    A jury and trial process is a good illustration of how establishing of truth by layman may occur in the best of the possible circumstances. A judge is also a laymen or any member of some truth finding commission. And there is a bias. If you were on the commission you would believe any expert from Boing that confirms your belief but there will other experts from the same Boing who will be giving opposite testimony. And then there are lies. You are never in absolutely truth friendly environment.

    Personally I do not think any aerospace engineer would make a statement that at a particular speed and air pressure this will definitively happen with this plane. Because they do not know it for sure even if they have run many models and did some wind tunnel experiments. The latter are always very limited and require later scaling which is not an exact science. Yes there are some absolute limits that a particular man made device can’t cross. But the range of the deterioration of performance that leads to gradual or catastrophic breakdown can be very large. The degree of deterioration will increase with particular parameter like speed in this case but it still can’t be said that definitively this or that will happen. So basically I believe that no expert will say this speed is not possible. Furthermore think that the experts will not come from other galaxy. They all watched planes coming to towers many times and because of this they will have biases.

    My point is that the whole argument about pilots and potential aerospace engineers is not really that strong as you seem to make it to be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Sparkon says:
    @utu
    What is actually argument you are making expect for expressing your personal disbelief and derision:

    "walked all the way out to it from the Pentagon without taking any pictures on the way — at least, none that we know of — and didn’t take a picture until he had the wreckage between himself and the Pentagon, when finally he composed, and exposed his now-famous picture"
     

    "it’s quite an amazing coincidence"
     
    You may have a case somewhere there in the pile of photographic evidence but nobody now 16 years later will be able to sort it out. What is the chain of custody of photographs? Were they tampered? When? By whom? So all you got left is the disbelief and derision with which you will not convince the believers in the orthodox version. In the real world whoever comes with the story first and has the loudest megaphone and has power to control access to evidence wins. It is no longer about the evidence. It is about the power of beliefs. Nothing will change it. It simply will become irrelevant like whether Jesus walked on the water on not after 2000 years of decay of Christianity became pretty much irrelevant. Look at JFK. We will never know. And do not fool yourself that this time it will be different. No death bed confessions of alleged conspirators will anything. You and WoZ are very similar in one respect. Both of you are immodest believers who can't bring themselves to admit to themselves that you really do not know.

    I‘ll make it easy for you: it’s all about law & order, truth & justice:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-sjvz6YKnQ

    Gene Pitney, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

    Pitney’s great song was not in the move — a huge mistake — and John Ford’s B&W oater is an uneven classic. Lee Marvin’s Liberty Valance is one of Hollywood’s all time villains, but Jimmy Stewart’s over-acting throughout detracts from the whole affair, and the entire premise is goofy anyway, that a guy can’t learn to shoot a pistol. Many punks do it every day in the USA.

    So we know that law & order, truth & justice are not for everyone, and anyway, I don’t remember anybody insisting that you take part in the discussion, but maybe a couple episodes of Columbo will get you in the mood, if John Wayne didn’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Erebus says:

    This came from Karl Kraus originally, I think.

    I don’t know who that is, but I have no reason to doubt it did. I’ve heard it a number of times, and kinda like it.

    There are a couple of things you’re missing regarding engineering data. Yes, some is a matter of professional opinion, but much is in the realm of physical law. The relationships obtaining between air density, parasitic drag, and power requirements are not a matter of opinion. They are boundary conditions. If the Boeings’ engines didn’t have the power to drive the aircraft at the speed and altitude required to match the radar track data, then it wasn’t Boeings the radars were tracking. No aeronautical engineer’s opinion, or even Newton’s, can gainsay that.

    Similarly, flow data from the engine manufacturers will tell the court whether the engines could process the incoming air at that speed and air density (>3x that at 35,000′), or whether they would begin to “reject” the incoming air flow and begin cavitating. This is not a matter of opinion either. The manufacturers will have done an exhaustive series of FEA and physical tests to determine the point at which the turbo-fans “loose traction” and begin cavitating.

    If the planes had to exceed those boundary conditions to do what they purportedly did, the Planes-or-Not case closes. These boundary conditions are absolute. If they were within those boundary conditions (and probably a host of others I’m not aware of), then opinion indeed enters the picture. Questions regarding aircraft stability, structural integrity, controllability, pilot skills, etc come into play and your scenarios indeed take over.

    My point is that the whole argument about pilots and potential aerospace engineers is not really that strong as you seem to make it to be.

    I completely concur that the argument is not strong, or at least nowhere near definitive. I’m simply saying that, in the absence of both the raw engineering data and any similarly qualified pilots/aeronautical engineers on the other side, the balance tips towards the NPT. There is a host of other anomalies surrounding those flights, of course, which at the very least make it all but impossible that any planes that may have hit the towers were actually those scheduled flights. These anomalies tip the balance further. Against that combination, the “Believers” have a few dodgy videos, some photos depicting the physically impossible, some bloggers calling people names, and a few witnesses that came out of the woodwork well after the event.

    How do you see the balance of evidence tilting? Is your point that, since we can’t change society’s beliefs surrounding 9/11, we shouldn’t bother? If it is, my rejoinder would be that whatever Americans’ beliefs are, the rest of the world has serious doubts about 9/11. So serious that America’s international political support is faltering, which in turn makes its dream of achieving Global Hegemony vastly more difficult. The failure to achieve that dream will write much of the history of the 21st century. There aren’t many things more interesting than that, are there?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Is your point that, since we can’t change society’s beliefs surrounding 9/11, we shouldn’t bother?

    One should bother for one's own sake. This was your argument you made to CanSpeccy several days ago when he rejected the NPL theory as detrimental in spreading the gospel about 9/11:

    I guess that’s important if your main purpose is trying to convince a public that “confuse and tire” easily, even when matters of such import are on the table. Sure, I understand that if you’re trying to convince your neighbour you’ve got to keep it simple, but not all of us have a dog in your fight.
     
    Obviously we all have a dog in the fight when it comes to what the world is going to be. But I do not have hope that we can affect the outcome. If I did, perhaps I would be even willing to lie for the sake of the higher good if I had a power to make a potent incontrovertible lie that would affect the outcome. But I do not have such a power, so it is better to stick to what I can affect which are my own personal beliefs in the process of rigorous search for truth. This process requires extreme skepticism, strict distinction between knowledge and belief and most importantly introspection to monitor the process of belief forming. In short, you got to know what you do not know.

    If the planes had to exceed those boundary conditions to do what they purportedly did, the Planes-or-Not case closes.

    Yes, there must be some boundary conditions. But neither you or I know them exactly. I think there were cases of passenger planes that went out of control and started diving reaching subsonic speeds crossing all specs w/o leaving some experts were dumbfounded that no major damage occurred. Neither you and I are in position to verify the statements of the self proclaimed experts that appear on the YT. I am returning to the main point that the boundary conditions determining the top speed of a given plane are not as definitive as say the boundary condition of the free fall acceleration of 9.81m/s^2. Do not get me wrong, I can imagine conditions when I could be swayed by expert opinions in this matter, so I am open to it but this conditions have not been met so far.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Che Guava says:
    @daniel le mouche
    I'm left confused by your words, Che. Were these Israeli rapists and the Algerian man in your vicinity in Japan? Could you please clarify the meaning of your post? Are you saying the Japanese govt was covering something up too?

    No to your last question. It was a place with tiny rooms, old student dwellings.

    Yes, in the vicinity, but when the gang rape occurred, the victim, clearly drugged, was delivered by others who went first.

    I have no idea if the three Israelis who lived there at the time had any connection with the Algerian, he had mysterious disappearances at times. Only make the association because of reading after 11th of September, 2001, not long after I was able to move to a better place.

    The government, soon after that, cracked down on the illegal trade (including drugs) and work of Israelis, so they can’t do it now (it was tolerated for over twenty years).

    All that I am saying, is that it implies that the National Police Authority and immigration put a sudden stop to it for reasons that I would suppose to be good, but there was never, of course, a public announcement of the policy shift or reasons.

    Likely just drug importation. They certainly ran the MDMA trade, not that i took it, but it was obvious at the few rave events I attended in that timeframe.

    Some of the street traders also sold marijuana, I know that from the account of an English man who worked for them, he didn’t do it himself (only soccer paraphernalia and junk jewellery), but he stated that people would ask him many times, on the assumption that he did, so by extension …

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    Quite a difference between Japan and Korea on drugs. When I lived in Korea 20 years ago I've been told you'd get life for selling drugs, even marijuana. No one took drugs there that I knew, and I knew and met tons of people, we partied the whole time, nearly every night for three years. Of course, they too had their mafia, corrupt police and military... Riot season was an exciting time of year (actually it seemed to occur a few times a year, over things like the US military presence and the Kwangju massacre).
    Thanks for clarifying.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @yeah
    Planes or no planes ain't the right question; who dunnit is. Who, Why, and then How is the proper order in my view.

    The official answer to "Who" is pat and neat - a tad too pat, complete with passports conveniently left behind by the bad guys. Sure, when bad guys go out to create mayhem they always leave their passports, lest they miss out on fame and their place in history. The accepted answer to "Why" being "because they hate our freedoms" - which is or ought to be - an oxymoron to any thinking person. The "How" part is what is causing much merry and fulsome debate here. Beyond pointing out that there is lot of stuff on the web, said to be from scientists and structural engineers, saying that planes crashing in cannot explain the structural collapse, there is no further value that I can add here. But then, much debate, excitement and distraction is perhaps what had been intended by the powers that be. Float a bright, big balloon up in the air and empty the crowd's pockets while all eyes are fixed upwards and bright minds preoccupied with debating the aerodynamics of balloons.

    The obvious snswer to “why?” Is that Osama bin Laden and senior volleagues wanted to provoķe exactly what they got. Having enjoyed in retrospect America’s Vietnam disaster and taken part in creating a similar one for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan his established and proven enmity for America could best ge given effect to by prompting Ametica to attack Afghanistan. Now that is all beyond argument so why demsnd a story that he got lucky because someone else got in first?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    In my comment above I referred to the redacted 28 pages and pointed out that they show that Prince Bandar provided financial support for two of the ‘hijackers’ while they were in the USA. This fact is not controversial and is widely accepted. The relatives of the 911 victims as a group for example take the view that this means that the Saudi Arabian government was responsible for 911 and are therefore now attempting to sue them. The US Congress even produced the JASTA law which ostensibly helps them to do this.

    I suppose the points I was trying to make are:

    1. If Prince Bandar was paying some of the hijackers this puts the official narrative of the event at the bottom of very large shithole. Look up who Prince Bandar is. This is what I mean by cognitive dissonance.

    2. Fact (1) above strongly implies that the putative ‘hijackers’ never got on the planes. This does not mean there were no planes. The NPT is surely the most stupid theory ever conceived by the brain-dead inmates of the American zombie farm. For this reason it is probably the theory backed the most strongly by the Deep State’s propaganda arm. Obviously the perpetrators would use planes, its just that fact (1) implies that the planes that hit the buildings were not the ones that took off with the passengers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. @Erebus

    How come they haven’t pointed to a massive CIA backed conspiracy?
     
    Their mission statement specifically precludes that. That aside, since when, and in what court, is the defence required to prove someone else guilty in order to show his own client innocent beyond reasonable doubt? That they seek to establish physical facts and offer no alternative "theory" is to their credit, imbecile.

    As for hours spent at PF911T, less than 1.

    I did have a look at your blackfive site for "a devastatingly credible comment knockout" but found nothing of the sort. As I've long suspected that your standard of evidence lies somewhere near that level of discourse, I'll continue to voice my opinions here, but only to prevent the casual reader from thinking you're at all serious.

    In the clumsy language of typical 9/11 threads I would say you wrre a liar for saying Their mission statement specifically precludes that”. But I put it down to the amateurish ways of someone who has never pracised law seriously (certainly not as counsel or judge) or had to defend scholarly work before peers. First there is no mention of a mission statement on their home page (or any other page that I can find and, indeed , on their home age there is a statement that contradicts your assertion by saying that they put forward no theiry “at this point in time”.

    Èqually you shoe yourself to be out of your depth when trying to play the bush lawyer and asserting that it is a case of the onus not being on the defendant or some such irrelevant crap (since the Pilots for Truth are calling for snother inquiry they had better put forward a case for consideration).

    My point to which you responded with misleading irrelevance is that you can hardly get much support for your case that there were no planes, or even might have been no planes if those you rely on won’t draw any such conclusions.

    Your indignant response that you have only spent a single hour on your PilotsforTruth source is laughable given that you are asking peoole to take you seriously when you say that hearsay evidence you proffer is good compelling stuff that you feel entitled to rely on. The critics of it that I have cited have obviously spent more time on it and their responses are analytic.

    Perhaps you have now actually read the Comment that I referred to by tantor and looked at the YouTube link. If you have then I would be interested to know how you could maintain a positive belief in the no plane theory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    'In the clumsy language of typical 9/11 threads I would say you wrre a liar for saying Their mission statement specifically precludes that”. But I put it down to the amateurish ways of someone who has never pracised law seriously (certainly not as counsel or judge) or had to defend scholarly work before peers. First there is no mention of a mission statement on their home page...' blech blech blech

    Hey Mr. Obnoxious! I still can't resist you, you know.
    For everyone else, how's the above for 'clumsy language' from the bigshot lawyer?

    Back to the doofass, try emptying your mind in deepest meditation. If that doesn't work, drug-induced lobotomy may help the suffering of those all around you as well as those you touch via this grand worldwide technology and instrumentation.
    And remember: steel buildings don't collapse from fire!
    Big Up to all Israeli moles.^^^^^^^(are those wink symbols?)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Erebus says:

    Lucky me. I return to see what’s new here, and the Fraud of Oz has challenged my scholarship. A mouse, scampering up an elephant’s leg with intentions of rape.

    In the clumsy language of typical 9/11 threads I would say you wrre a liar for saying Their mission statement specifically precludes that”.

    To which I respond with the first paragraph, on the first page, of the PF911T website. To whit:

    Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day based on solid data and facts – since 9/11/2001 is the catalyst for many of the events shaping our world today — and the United States Government does not seem to be very forthcoming with answers or facts.

    Do you see why your reputation as a sloppy fraud has become a matter of received wisdom here, Wiz? Where in the above introduction did your understanding fail you? Where does the above stray from the definition of “mission statement”? Seemed pretty straightforward to me, mate.

    (since the Pilots for Truth are calling for snother inquiry they had better put forward a case for consideration)

    Maybe that holds in the Southern Hemisphere (though I doubt it), but for the rest of the English common law world, there is no pre-requisite that presentation of an alternative theory catalyse a judicial inquiry. Rather, the public interest is the only criteria.

    As for the “Tantor link”, however much time they spent on it, if that passes as “analytic” in your kindergarten, it’s past time we left you in your gully. It is an undiluted diatribe of exactly zero persuasiveness. One could hope that the youtube link is better, but your praise condemns it in advance so I don’t expect to be viewing it soon, or holding my breath until I do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    #101 was for you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Che Guava
    No to your last question. It was a place with tiny rooms, old student dwellings.

    Yes, in the vicinity, but when the gang rape occurred, the victim, clearly drugged, was delivered by others who went first.

    I have no idea if the three Israelis who lived there at the time had any connection with the Algerian, he had mysterious disappearances at times. Only make the association because of reading after 11th of September, 2001, not long after I was able to move to a better place.

    The government, soon after that, cracked down on the illegal trade (including drugs) and work of Israelis, so they can't do it now (it was tolerated for over twenty years).

    All that I am saying, is that it implies that the National Police Authority and immigration put a sudden stop to it for reasons that I would suppose to be good, but there was never, of course, a public announcement of the policy shift or reasons.

    Likely just drug importation. They certainly ran the MDMA trade, not that i took it, but it was obvious at the few rave events I attended in that timeframe.

    Some of the street traders also sold marijuana, I know that from the account of an English man who worked for them, he didn't do it himself (only soccer paraphernalia and junk jewellery), but he stated that people would ask him many times, on the assumption that he did, so by extension ...

    Quite a difference between Japan and Korea on drugs. When I lived in Korea 20 years ago I’ve been told you’d get life for selling drugs, even marijuana. No one took drugs there that I knew, and I knew and met tons of people, we partied the whole time, nearly every night for three years. Of course, they too had their mafia, corrupt police and military… Riot season was an exciting time of year (actually it seemed to occur a few times a year, over things like the US military presence and the Kwangju massacre).
    Thanks for clarifying.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I'm not bothering withthe rest after your self conviction in your opening argument. Actually I suspect you have early stage dementia judged by the failure of your working or short term memory.

    Get help if necessary but do try and understand that "specifically ruled out by its [non-existent] mision statement" (or your words meaning exactly that) is logically inconsistent with the words you rely on, namely that "We do not offer theory or point blame *at this point in time*". That is no statement of a rule or a principle as you tried to represent it. It is a statement of present fact, which could change, and, it appears not actually true if they are also saying, as one of their critics says that there was no crash at Shankville. Whether I give them too much credit for openmindedness and honesty is another matter. I inferred that it was honest acknowledgment of the inconclusiveneas of much of their evidence that led to their putting out no theory. Unfortunately, if you have spent only one hour on something you take so seriously you won't be able to help take that question further.
    , @Che Guava
    Thank you, too. There is very little tolerance here, but people in a few areas have mob via police connections.

    Now much the same.

    OTOH, at punk rock events, in roughly the same time frame, and a little later, some fans were clearly on amphetamines, sometimes on trains, I would see a junky, the most spectacular was a very young man with huge black welts all over his arms. I thought

    Is he a mad S&M fan?

    Is he mob-connected and whipped by others?

    Clearly a junky, he was almost fallimg asleep on his feet, but not drunk, so I am thinking the latter.

    Of course, before overseas experience, I would never have recognised those things.

    Still, enjoyed some of the legal drugs while they were still legal, sure one was really bad, left me unable to move, at a rock show, some weak, I never tried 'bath salts', thank God, but snme were of the leaves, -nice and calming.

    Gone now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Wizard of Oz
    In the clumsy language of typical 9/11 threads I would say you wrre a liar for saying Their mission statement specifically precludes that". But I put it down to the amateurish ways of someone who has never pracised law seriously (certainly not as counsel or judge) or had to defend scholarly work before peers. First there is no mention of a mission statement on their home page (or any other page that I can find and, indeed , on their home age there is a statement that contradicts your assertion by saying that they put forward no theiry "at this point in time".

    Èqually you shoe yourself to be out of your depth when trying to play the bush lawyer and asserting that it is a case of the onus not being on the defendant or some such irrelevant crap (since the Pilots for Truth are calling for snother inquiry they had better put forward a case for consideration).

    My point to which you responded with misleading irrelevance is that you can hardly get much support for your case that there were no planes, or even might have been no planes if those you rely on won't draw any such conclusions.

    Your indignant response that you have only spent a single hour on your PilotsforTruth source is laughable given that you are asking peoole to take you seriously when you say that hearsay evidence you proffer is good compelling stuff that you feel entitled to rely on. The critics of it that I have cited have obviously spent more time on it and their responses are analytic.

    Perhaps you have now actually read the Comment that I referred to by tantor and looked at the YouTube link. If you have then I would be interested to know how you could maintain a positive belief in the no plane theory.

    ‘In the clumsy language of typical 9/11 threads I would say you wrre a liar for saying Their mission statement specifically precludes that”. But I put it down to the amateurish ways of someone who has never pracised law seriously (certainly not as counsel or judge) or had to defend scholarly work before peers. First there is no mention of a mission statement on their home page…’ blech blech blech

    Hey Mr. Obnoxious! I still can’t resist you, you know.
    For everyone else, how’s the above for ‘clumsy language’ from the bigshot lawyer?

    Back to the doofass, try emptying your mind in deepest meditation. If that doesn’t work, drug-induced lobotomy may help the suffering of those all around you as well as those you touch via this grand worldwide technology and instrumentation.
    And remember: steel buildings don’t collapse from fire!
    Big Up to all Israeli moles.^^^^^^^(are those wink symbols?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Please take your medication.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @daniel le mouche
    'In the clumsy language of typical 9/11 threads I would say you wrre a liar for saying Their mission statement specifically precludes that”. But I put it down to the amateurish ways of someone who has never pracised law seriously (certainly not as counsel or judge) or had to defend scholarly work before peers. First there is no mention of a mission statement on their home page...' blech blech blech

    Hey Mr. Obnoxious! I still can't resist you, you know.
    For everyone else, how's the above for 'clumsy language' from the bigshot lawyer?

    Back to the doofass, try emptying your mind in deepest meditation. If that doesn't work, drug-induced lobotomy may help the suffering of those all around you as well as those you touch via this grand worldwide technology and instrumentation.
    And remember: steel buildings don't collapse from fire!
    Big Up to all Israeli moles.^^^^^^^(are those wink symbols?)

    Please take your medication.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @daniel le mouche
    Quite a difference between Japan and Korea on drugs. When I lived in Korea 20 years ago I've been told you'd get life for selling drugs, even marijuana. No one took drugs there that I knew, and I knew and met tons of people, we partied the whole time, nearly every night for three years. Of course, they too had their mafia, corrupt police and military... Riot season was an exciting time of year (actually it seemed to occur a few times a year, over things like the US military presence and the Kwangju massacre).
    Thanks for clarifying.

    I’m not bothering withthe rest after your self conviction in your opening argument. Actually I suspect you have early stage dementia judged by the failure of your working or short term memory.

    Get help if necessary but do try and understand that “specifically ruled out by its [non-existent] mision statement” (or your words meaning exactly that) is logically inconsistent with the words you rely on, namely that “We do not offer theory or point blame *at this point in time*”. That is no statement of a rule or a principle as you tried to represent it. It is a statement of present fact, which could change, and, it appears not actually true if they are also saying, as one of their critics says that there was no crash at Shankville. Whether I give them too much credit for openmindedness and honesty is another matter. I inferred that it was honest acknowledgment of the inconclusiveneas of much of their evidence that led to their putting out no theory. Unfortunately, if you have spent only one hour on something you take so seriously you won’t be able to help take that question further.

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    Dear Wizard,
    You seem rather strangely to have responded to my message on Korea and Japan written to Che Guava. Ergo, I can't be sure as of yet just what my 'opening argument' and 'self conviction' might entail. Please expand, o wizened Wiz.
    For now I'll get more to the meat of my argument, regarding 911 of course and not drugs in the Orient. I proffer--nice lawyerish word of yours--but a few examples, which is not to say I've only 'spent only one hour' looking into this. Add about three zeros to the end there, to say nothing of the thankless hours of meetings of the minds with the likes of you and other wizened crabs. Here are my few points raised, with right hand, so help me God.
    1. Twin Towers fell at free fall speed, around 9-10 seconds each. Impossible with ANY resistence whatsoever.
    2.Building 7, not hit, falls straight into its footprint that same day. Impossible not to conclude it was a controlled demolition.
    3. The news reporter reports Building 7 coming down BEFORE IT HAPPENED--it came down seconds after her report, right behind her. I'm sure you've seen the video.
    4. Tiny hole in Pentagon, not from a large airplane.
    5. No video evidence of the supposed airplane at Pentagon.
    6. No airplane crash evidence at the Pentagon--wings, engines, crumpled sides with windows, dead bodies--NADA!

    That's it, Wiz, I'm stopping there. That is enough. Do you get that? Enough!
    But of course there are reams more.
    Cheerio now.
    , @Erebus

    “specifically ruled out by its [non-existent] mision statement” (or your words meaning exactly that) is logically inconsistent with the words you rely on
     
    You need a lesson or two in logic, but please don't take any.

    I don't need the pilots to be told what I can more reliably derive from Newton. I needed them for some details regarding commercial flight procedures and airport routines, though I noted that uninformed persons, especially yourself, could benefit from a visit. That is, unless the fear that a loss of some of their long-nurtured ignorance will hamper their ability to make stupid and/or vacuous comments on internet forums. I can understand that the loss of one's only skill can be traumatic, and so I don't insist they go there unless they annoy me too much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Rurik says:

    Barcelona is only a short drive from Tarragona

    perhaps JR can go there and give us all an update on this latest event, maybe even with a couple of interviews and some photos

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4799836/People-hurt-van-crashes-pedestrians-Barcelona.html

    is this a synthetic ‘terror’ attack, or is it for real?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    In Revusky's universe all attacks are synthetic until proven otherwise. In Revusky's universe the burden of proof rests on those who claim that an attack was organic. For this reason Revusky does not have to leave home to know that this attack was synthetic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Erebus says:

    It seems you’ve mixed 2 different comments, or correspondents, into 1 befuddled response. Whereof one cannot remain coherent, thereof one ought to remain silent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  104. utu says:
    @Erebus

    This came from Karl Kraus originally, I think.
     
    I don't know who that is, but I have no reason to doubt it did. I've heard it a number of times, and kinda like it.

    There are a couple of things you're missing regarding engineering data. Yes, some is a matter of professional opinion, but much is in the realm of physical law. The relationships obtaining between air density, parasitic drag, and power requirements are not a matter of opinion. They are boundary conditions. If the Boeings' engines didn't have the power to drive the aircraft at the speed and altitude required to match the radar track data, then it wasn't Boeings the radars were tracking. No aeronautical engineer's opinion, or even Newton's, can gainsay that.

    Similarly, flow data from the engine manufacturers will tell the court whether the engines could process the incoming air at that speed and air density (>3x that at 35,000'), or whether they would begin to "reject" the incoming air flow and begin cavitating. This is not a matter of opinion either. The manufacturers will have done an exhaustive series of FEA and physical tests to determine the point at which the turbo-fans "loose traction" and begin cavitating.

    If the planes had to exceed those boundary conditions to do what they purportedly did, the Planes-or-Not case closes. These boundary conditions are absolute. If they were within those boundary conditions (and probably a host of others I'm not aware of), then opinion indeed enters the picture. Questions regarding aircraft stability, structural integrity, controllability, pilot skills, etc come into play and your scenarios indeed take over.

    My point is that the whole argument about pilots and potential aerospace engineers is not really that strong as you seem to make it to be.
     
    I completely concur that the argument is not strong, or at least nowhere near definitive. I'm simply saying that, in the absence of both the raw engineering data and any similarly qualified pilots/aeronautical engineers on the other side, the balance tips towards the NPT. There is a host of other anomalies surrounding those flights, of course, which at the very least make it all but impossible that any planes that may have hit the towers were actually those scheduled flights. These anomalies tip the balance further. Against that combination, the "Believers" have a few dodgy videos, some photos depicting the physically impossible, some bloggers calling people names, and a few witnesses that came out of the woodwork well after the event.

    How do you see the balance of evidence tilting? Is your point that, since we can't change society's beliefs surrounding 9/11, we shouldn't bother? If it is, my rejoinder would be that whatever Americans' beliefs are, the rest of the world has serious doubts about 9/11. So serious that America's international political support is faltering, which in turn makes its dream of achieving Global Hegemony vastly more difficult. The failure to achieve that dream will write much of the history of the 21st century. There aren't many things more interesting than that, are there?

    Is your point that, since we can’t change society’s beliefs surrounding 9/11, we shouldn’t bother?

    One should bother for one’s own sake. This was your argument you made to CanSpeccy several days ago when he rejected the NPL theory as detrimental in spreading the gospel about 9/11:

    I guess that’s important if your main purpose is trying to convince a public that “confuse and tire” easily, even when matters of such import are on the table. Sure, I understand that if you’re trying to convince your neighbour you’ve got to keep it simple, but not all of us have a dog in your fight.

    Obviously we all have a dog in the fight when it comes to what the world is going to be. But I do not have hope that we can affect the outcome. If I did, perhaps I would be even willing to lie for the sake of the higher good if I had a power to make a potent incontrovertible lie that would affect the outcome. But I do not have such a power, so it is better to stick to what I can affect which are my own personal beliefs in the process of rigorous search for truth. This process requires extreme skepticism, strict distinction between knowledge and belief and most importantly introspection to monitor the process of belief forming. In short, you got to know what you do not know.

    If the planes had to exceed those boundary conditions to do what they purportedly did, the Planes-or-Not case closes.

    Yes, there must be some boundary conditions. But neither you or I know them exactly. I think there were cases of passenger planes that went out of control and started diving reaching subsonic speeds crossing all specs w/o leaving some experts were dumbfounded that no major damage occurred. Neither you and I are in position to verify the statements of the self proclaimed experts that appear on the YT. I am returning to the main point that the boundary conditions determining the top speed of a given plane are not as definitive as say the boundary condition of the free fall acceleration of 9.81m/s^2. Do not get me wrong, I can imagine conditions when I could be swayed by expert opinions in this matter, so I am open to it but this conditions have not been met so far.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    I am returning to the main point that the boundary conditions determining the top speed of a given plane are not as definitive as say the boundary condition of the free fall acceleration of 9.81m/s^2.
     
    Newton's 2nd Law is the more general statement from which the principle derives. That is F=ma. They hold as absolutes in an ideal state, but when they enter the physical world other equations enter the game.
    As 9/11 controversies revolve around falling and flying, the equations of principle interest are the drag equations. In air, parasitic drag increases linearly with density, and as the square of the velocity. In air, these principles are as absolute as F=ma is in a vacuum. Eventually, for all masses moving through air, drag rises to the point where the force accelerating it meets its match, and the mass stops accelerating. Continued application of the force can do no more than hold a steady velocity from that point onwards, and to, say double the velocity requires a quadrupling of the force.

    As air at sea level is 3x the density of air at 11,000M, flying at 500kn at sea level requires 3x the engine thrust required at 11,000M. So, the questions to be answered by the engine manufacturers would be:
    - Can the installed engines achieve the necessary power level at all?
    - If they can, can they do it while being "jammed" with the quantity of air that would be coming in at 500kn?
    Typically, jets take off at between 130-150kn, with engines at ~95% full power. As parasitic drag is low, most of the engine power goes to lift. At 500kn in level flight, effectively all drag is parasitic. With almost 4x the qty of air entering the engine, what happens to engine performance? I'd be very surprised if the engine manufacturers couldn't answer that, but if they couldn't some fairly routine wind-tunnel tests would put the issue to bed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Wizard of Oz
    I can see the perfectly ordinary resistance of UR commenters to changing entrenched views, but as I, a complete sceptic with no barrow to push, keep on finding the weaknesses in trufhers' beliefs I shall I hope, in the end, have a tiny cohort of UR monikers which I can honour as belinging to persons able go change their minds when the balance of evidence available to them shifts.

    Wiz,

    The balance of investigation work never shifted to detemining why Larry Silverstein issued a “pull” order for W.T.C. 7.

    Airplane crash and fire did not render the Towers into what L.D. creatively described as “pancake.”

    Look less to the sky and look more at Silverstein’s shadiness!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    “With a birthrate of just 1.3 children per woman, Spain needs immigrants to sustain its economy.”

    Yes, with the second highest unemployment rate in the EU, Spain certainly needs more low-skilled labor to prop up a consumer economy.

    Spain, like most of the Med, could probably subsist on tourism and food exports alone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  107. @Erebus

    How come they haven’t pointed to a massive CIA backed conspiracy?
     
    Their mission statement specifically precludes that. That aside, since when, and in what court, is the defence required to prove someone else guilty in order to show his own client innocent beyond reasonable doubt? That they seek to establish physical facts and offer no alternative "theory" is to their credit, imbecile.

    As for hours spent at PF911T, less than 1.

    I did have a look at your blackfive site for "a devastatingly credible comment knockout" but found nothing of the sort. As I've long suspected that your standard of evidence lies somewhere near that level of discourse, I'll continue to voice my opinions here, but only to prevent the casual reader from thinking you're at all serious.

    …but only to prevent the casual reader from thinking you’re at all serious.

    I gave up on the Dizzard of Guffaws long ago. As windbags go, that one’s particularly gassy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Reading some of the posts concerning the WTC is akin to reading Alice in Wonderland. For God’s sake, real people died in these aircraft, their obituaries are public record. Why demean their deaths by posting such garbage.

    Read More
    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Why demean their deaths by posting such garbage.
     
    quite the contrary

    we honor their lives and their deaths and their loved ones, by seeking to hold accountable the people who really are responsible for their heinous murders.

    and it wasn't 19 Arabs with box cutters and the evil mastermind in the Himalayan foothills with a laptop and cell phone who murdered them. No sir.

    we've all been lied to about that seminal event in human history. An event that's been cynically used by the murderers to murder and maim and displace millions of other innocent souls as well.

    so it behooves us all to look deeply into 9/11, and investigate what our government and media refuse to investigate. Because if those psychopaths are allowed to get away with such an unspeakably evil crime, then they're just going to do it again- the next time they need some pretext to remove our remaining civil and formerly Constitutionally guaranteed rights and bomb and drone and slaughter innocent people the world over.

    That's why we'd be fools to stick our heads in the sand and pretend all the lies they tell us are true.
    , @jacques sheete

    Reading some of the posts concerning the WTC is akin to reading Alice in Wonderland.
     
    We get it; yer simple. However, you must be confusing the events of 9/11 with "the" holocau$t. In any case, please pay close attention to Rurik's reply to you.

    Speaking of fairy tales, please explain Bldg 7 and the "Dancing Israelis."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Egads, will somebody shut the little turd from Oz up so we can now begin an earnest discussion of what immediately looks to be bullshit going on in Barcelona? They’ve already found a passport, I see. With Linh and Revusky on the scene, this has the makings of high drama!

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. @Wizard of Oz
    I'm not bothering withthe rest after your self conviction in your opening argument. Actually I suspect you have early stage dementia judged by the failure of your working or short term memory.

    Get help if necessary but do try and understand that "specifically ruled out by its [non-existent] mision statement" (or your words meaning exactly that) is logically inconsistent with the words you rely on, namely that "We do not offer theory or point blame *at this point in time*". That is no statement of a rule or a principle as you tried to represent it. It is a statement of present fact, which could change, and, it appears not actually true if they are also saying, as one of their critics says that there was no crash at Shankville. Whether I give them too much credit for openmindedness and honesty is another matter. I inferred that it was honest acknowledgment of the inconclusiveneas of much of their evidence that led to their putting out no theory. Unfortunately, if you have spent only one hour on something you take so seriously you won't be able to help take that question further.

    Dear Wizard,
    You seem rather strangely to have responded to my message on Korea and Japan written to Che Guava. Ergo, I can’t be sure as of yet just what my ‘opening argument’ and ‘self conviction’ might entail. Please expand, o wizened Wiz.
    For now I’ll get more to the meat of my argument, regarding 911 of course and not drugs in the Orient. I proffer–nice lawyerish word of yours–but a few examples, which is not to say I’ve only ‘spent only one hour’ looking into this. Add about three zeros to the end there, to say nothing of the thankless hours of meetings of the minds with the likes of you and other wizened crabs. Here are my few points raised, with right hand, so help me God.
    1. Twin Towers fell at free fall speed, around 9-10 seconds each. Impossible with ANY resistence whatsoever.
    2.Building 7, not hit, falls straight into its footprint that same day. Impossible not to conclude it was a controlled demolition.
    3. The news reporter reports Building 7 coming down BEFORE IT HAPPENED–it came down seconds after her report, right behind her. I’m sure you’ve seen the video.
    4. Tiny hole in Pentagon, not from a large airplane.
    5. No video evidence of the supposed airplane at Pentagon.
    6. No airplane crash evidence at the Pentagon–wings, engines, crumpled sides with windows, dead bodies–NADA!

    That’s it, Wiz, I’m stopping there. That is enough. Do you get that? Enough!
    But of course there are reams more.
    Cheerio now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Sorry. It was meant for Erebus.

    Your 4, 5 and 6 I do not accept, especially after looking at the real pics in the video construction I refer to and which is in the link I give #82.

    3. just shows you know nothing about working in the media and no imagination.

    1. and 2. require a lot more than your amateur (implied) "I believe things repeated often by people claiming expertise, or by people whose authority is even more remote from real science and engineering".

    Why do you think the WTC's structural engineer, Robinson, didn't express any such relevant doubts in his interview with the New Yorker - published in November 2001?
    , @Erebus

    3. The news reporter reports Building 7 coming down BEFORE IT HAPPENED–it came down seconds after her report, right behind her. I’m sure you’ve seen the video.
     
    Actually, it came down some 20 minutes later. Both BBC & CBS (iirc) announced it at approx the same time, so one may have been following the lead of the other.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Rurik says:
    @Simply Simon
    Reading some of the posts concerning the WTC is akin to reading Alice in Wonderland. For God's sake, real people died in these aircraft, their obituaries are public record. Why demean their deaths by posting such garbage.

    Why demean their deaths by posting such garbage.

    quite the contrary

    we honor their lives and their deaths and their loved ones, by seeking to hold accountable the people who really are responsible for their heinous murders.

    and it wasn’t 19 Arabs with box cutters and the evil mastermind in the Himalayan foothills with a laptop and cell phone who murdered them. No sir.

    we’ve all been lied to about that seminal event in human history. An event that’s been cynically used by the murderers to murder and maim and displace millions of other innocent souls as well.

    so it behooves us all to look deeply into 9/11, and investigate what our government and media refuse to investigate. Because if those psychopaths are allowed to get away with such an unspeakably evil crime, then they’re just going to do it again- the next time they need some pretext to remove our remaining civil and formerly Constitutionally guaranteed rights and bomb and drone and slaughter innocent people the world over.

    That’s why we’d be fools to stick our heads in the sand and pretend all the lies they tell us are true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Corvinus says:
    @hyperbola
    Mexicans are not considered "lowly" in Spain and Leo might well have considered such an insinuation to be insulting. Or at least worthy of a stupid American. The Spanish remember rather well that during Franco's dictatorship, a large number of Spanish intellectuals fled to Mexico.

    Still, you have yet to prove this specific claim–“Remember that ca. 90% of slave trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in the respective colonies.”

    Recall in a source you provided that Dutch Jews reportedly controlled 17% of the Caribbean trade. It was not noted that it was the slave trade or non-slave trade. Regardless, there is no reference to the 90% statistic YOU allege.

    Willie F. Page, professor of African American Studies at Brooklyn College, noted that in Dutch Brazil, the Jews operated less than 6% of the plantations.

    Seymour Drescher remarked in Immigrants And Minorities (July 1993) that Jews’ investment share in the Dutch West India Company “amounted to only 0.5 percent of the company’s capital”. Dutch historians Pieter Emmer and Johanes Postma have argued that “Jews had a very limited and subordinate roles even at the height of the Dutch slave trade in the 17th century.”

    Are you going to retract your statement, or are you going to keep peddling sophistry in hopes of not getting caught?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. As a starting point for Barcelona:
    Never forget 911. Never forget how it all got started. All these bullshit terror attacks. Look to the big daddy bullshit first. Perhaps the only one that was real–that is, where many real people (not on any airplanes) died.
    Next:
    Never forget our lying media. They are slick. They are scum. They haven’t the slightest scruple. They keep the farce up, 24 hours a day.
    Next:
    The CIA, Mossad, and other secret agencies. They did MK Ultra, what 40 years ago? What do you think they do now? Do they even need real people to carry out their dirty work? Couldn’t they very conceivably use clones? Be that as it may, they certainly know you’ve got to keep the pressure on all the time, keep the cookie cutter narrative coming. Buzzwords are big: passports, ISIS, freedom, united.
    Never forget what the people of the world are up against!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  114. @Simply Simon
    Reading some of the posts concerning the WTC is akin to reading Alice in Wonderland. For God's sake, real people died in these aircraft, their obituaries are public record. Why demean their deaths by posting such garbage.

    Reading some of the posts concerning the WTC is akin to reading Alice in Wonderland.

    We get it; yer simple. However, you must be confusing the events of 9/11 with “the” holocau$t. In any case, please pay close attention to Rurik’s reply to you.

    Speaking of fairy tales, please explain Bldg 7 and the “Dancing Israelis.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Erebus
    Lucky me. I return to see what's new here, and the Fraud of Oz has challenged my scholarship. A mouse, scampering up an elephant's leg with intentions of rape.

    In the clumsy language of typical 9/11 threads I would say you wrre a liar for saying Their mission statement specifically precludes that”.
     
    To which I respond with the first paragraph, on the first page, of the PF911T website. To whit:

    Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day based on solid data and facts -- since 9/11/2001 is the catalyst for many of the events shaping our world today -- and the United States Government does not seem to be very forthcoming with answers or facts.
     
    Do you see why your reputation as a sloppy fraud has become a matter of received wisdom here, Wiz? Where in the above introduction did your understanding fail you? Where does the above stray from the definition of "mission statement"? Seemed pretty straightforward to me, mate.

    (since the Pilots for Truth are calling for snother inquiry they had better put forward a case for consideration)
     
    Maybe that holds in the Southern Hemisphere (though I doubt it), but for the rest of the English common law world, there is no pre-requisite that presentation of an alternative theory catalyse a judicial inquiry. Rather, the public interest is the only criteria.

    As for the "Tantor link", however much time they spent on it, if that passes as "analytic" in your kindergarten, it's past time we left you in your gully. It is an undiluted diatribe of exactly zero persuasiveness. One could hope that the youtube link is better, but your praise condemns it in advance so I don't expect to be viewing it soon, or holding my breath until I do.

    #101 was for you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @daniel le mouche
    Dear Wizard,
    You seem rather strangely to have responded to my message on Korea and Japan written to Che Guava. Ergo, I can't be sure as of yet just what my 'opening argument' and 'self conviction' might entail. Please expand, o wizened Wiz.
    For now I'll get more to the meat of my argument, regarding 911 of course and not drugs in the Orient. I proffer--nice lawyerish word of yours--but a few examples, which is not to say I've only 'spent only one hour' looking into this. Add about three zeros to the end there, to say nothing of the thankless hours of meetings of the minds with the likes of you and other wizened crabs. Here are my few points raised, with right hand, so help me God.
    1. Twin Towers fell at free fall speed, around 9-10 seconds each. Impossible with ANY resistence whatsoever.
    2.Building 7, not hit, falls straight into its footprint that same day. Impossible not to conclude it was a controlled demolition.
    3. The news reporter reports Building 7 coming down BEFORE IT HAPPENED--it came down seconds after her report, right behind her. I'm sure you've seen the video.
    4. Tiny hole in Pentagon, not from a large airplane.
    5. No video evidence of the supposed airplane at Pentagon.
    6. No airplane crash evidence at the Pentagon--wings, engines, crumpled sides with windows, dead bodies--NADA!

    That's it, Wiz, I'm stopping there. That is enough. Do you get that? Enough!
    But of course there are reams more.
    Cheerio now.

    Sorry. It was meant for Erebus.

    Your 4, 5 and 6 I do not accept, especially after looking at the real pics in the video construction I refer to and which is in the link I give #82.

    3. just shows you know nothing about working in the media and no imagination.

    1. and 2. require a lot more than your amateur (implied) “I believe things repeated often by people claiming expertise, or by people whose authority is even more remote from real science and engineering”.

    Why do you think the WTC’s structural engineer, Robinson, didn’t express any such relevant doubts in his interview with the New Yorker – published in November 2001?

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    Of course, Wiz, a few upper stories burning for around an hour brought down two 110 story buildings, as a fifth floor fire did later that day on a 49 story building--granted, that ole fire had been burning for a good few hours. Sure thing, Wizzy.
    Your comment to 3. is typical, and I thank you for that.
    And I'm glad that on close examination you simply can't accept any wild theories re the Pentagon.

    Well done, Wiz! Well, I'm off to breakfast, cheerio now.
    Oh, I also liked your reasoning on Mr. (Jesus Loves You More Than You Will Know) Robinson, after all the New Yorker is such a bastion of free thought far removed from the corridors of power.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Another question: what leads people to believe conspiracy theories? There’s a psychological answer but I don’t know it.

    It’s probably different for different people of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    Answer: television.
    For you seem to be another wild conspiracy nut that believes a few crazed Muslims launched the greatest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. utu says:
    @Rurik
    Barcelona is only a short drive from Tarragona

    perhaps JR can go there and give us all an update on this latest event, maybe even with a couple of interviews and some photos

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4799836/People-hurt-van-crashes-pedestrians-Barcelona.html

    is this a synthetic 'terror' attack, or is it for real?

    In Revusky’s universe all attacks are synthetic until proven otherwise. In Revusky’s universe the burden of proof rests on those who claim that an attack was organic. For this reason Revusky does not have to leave home to know that this attack was synthetic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    In Revusky’s universe all attacks are synthetic until proven otherwise.
     
    I'm not sure that's a bad MO. It's emotionally economical, and one is probably right the vast majority of the time. What's wrong with that?
    The inverse, otoh, offers neither. What's good about that?

    In Revusky’s universe the burden of proof rests on those who claim that an attack was organic. 
     
    Who carries the burden of proof in your universe, if not those making the positive claim?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Erebus says:
    @utu
    Is your point that, since we can’t change society’s beliefs surrounding 9/11, we shouldn’t bother?

    One should bother for one's own sake. This was your argument you made to CanSpeccy several days ago when he rejected the NPL theory as detrimental in spreading the gospel about 9/11:

    I guess that’s important if your main purpose is trying to convince a public that “confuse and tire” easily, even when matters of such import are on the table. Sure, I understand that if you’re trying to convince your neighbour you’ve got to keep it simple, but not all of us have a dog in your fight.
     
    Obviously we all have a dog in the fight when it comes to what the world is going to be. But I do not have hope that we can affect the outcome. If I did, perhaps I would be even willing to lie for the sake of the higher good if I had a power to make a potent incontrovertible lie that would affect the outcome. But I do not have such a power, so it is better to stick to what I can affect which are my own personal beliefs in the process of rigorous search for truth. This process requires extreme skepticism, strict distinction between knowledge and belief and most importantly introspection to monitor the process of belief forming. In short, you got to know what you do not know.

    If the planes had to exceed those boundary conditions to do what they purportedly did, the Planes-or-Not case closes.

    Yes, there must be some boundary conditions. But neither you or I know them exactly. I think there were cases of passenger planes that went out of control and started diving reaching subsonic speeds crossing all specs w/o leaving some experts were dumbfounded that no major damage occurred. Neither you and I are in position to verify the statements of the self proclaimed experts that appear on the YT. I am returning to the main point that the boundary conditions determining the top speed of a given plane are not as definitive as say the boundary condition of the free fall acceleration of 9.81m/s^2. Do not get me wrong, I can imagine conditions when I could be swayed by expert opinions in this matter, so I am open to it but this conditions have not been met so far.

    I am returning to the main point that the boundary conditions determining the top speed of a given plane are not as definitive as say the boundary condition of the free fall acceleration of 9.81m/s^2.

    Newton’s 2nd Law is the more general statement from which the principle derives. That is F=ma. They hold as absolutes in an ideal state, but when they enter the physical world other equations enter the game.
    As 9/11 controversies revolve around falling and flying, the equations of principle interest are the drag equations. In air, parasitic drag increases linearly with density, and as the square of the velocity. In air, these principles are as absolute as F=ma is in a vacuum. Eventually, for all masses moving through air, drag rises to the point where the force accelerating it meets its match, and the mass stops accelerating. Continued application of the force can do no more than hold a steady velocity from that point onwards, and to, say double the velocity requires a quadrupling of the force.

    As air at sea level is 3x the density of air at 11,000M, flying at 500kn at sea level requires 3x the engine thrust required at 11,000M. So, the questions to be answered by the engine manufacturers would be:
    - Can the installed engines achieve the necessary power level at all?
    - If they can, can they do it while being “jammed” with the quantity of air that would be coming in at 500kn?
    Typically, jets take off at between 130-150kn, with engines at ~95% full power. As parasitic drag is low, most of the engine power goes to lift. At 500kn in level flight, effectively all drag is parasitic. With almost 4x the qty of air entering the engine, what happens to engine performance? I’d be very surprised if the engine manufacturers couldn’t answer that, but if they couldn’t some fairly routine wind-tunnel tests would put the issue to bed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    So here you are agreeing with utu that you just don't know and you can only speculate as to who does or might know what speed those airliners might have been able to travel at and were in fact travelling at at about 1000ft above sea level. But I don't really understand what the point or argument is supposed to be about anyway.

    The world land speed record in a motor vehicle at sea level, or maybe below is 763 mph. A DC8 is known to have been flown at above the speed of sound without structural failure etc. And where does 500 knots come from as somehow critical to 9/11 truth anyway?

    I don't understand anyone to be arguing that an airliner travelling at the legal 360 knots couldn't have done much the same damage. So I presume that the 500 knots is calculated either from radar images tracing the flight of the missile/airliner or from videos which captured the last few seconds of flight. If the latter is the case and you haven't found any of those Boeing people to give you answers then it is hardly surprising that you haven't persuaded many busy people to stop trusting their (and many direct witnesses') lyin' eyes.
    , @Rurik

    As air at sea level is 3x the density of air at 11,000M, flying at 500kn at sea level requires 3x the engine thrust required at 11,000M. So...
     
    I've resisted, but I have to tell you guys that these conversations on the minutia of airplane dynamics sounds eerily like this guy in the video at about 1:40 seconds in...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liIlW-ovx0Y

    it's all a distraction from the obvious fact that 9/11 was an Israeli / Mossad operation with elements of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Bush administration participating with a compliant ((media)).
    , @utu
    That is F=ma. They hold as absolutes in an ideal state, but when they enter the physical world other equations enter the game.

    I think no other equation enters the game. You just have to spell out what F is like by including the drag. The 2nd law of dynamic invokes the concept of force and inertial mass (w/o really defining them) to explain acceleration. In reality the 2nd law defines either force or mass if one of them is defined and permits to measure it by means of acceleration that is measurable by measuring time and distance. There are some subtle epistemological issues.

    I’d be very surprised if the engine manufacturers couldn’t answer that, but if they couldn’t some fairly routine wind-tunnel tests would put the issue to bed.

    Probably they can but they won't. Perhaps if you asked Rolls Royce or Pratt and Whitney before 9/11 they would be cooperative. But now all you can get are some talking heads on YT who in reality may know about the issue less than you do. This is the reason why I think that talking like yourself about the absolute top speed of planes quantitatively is not right and even might be dishonest. We do not know what is the top speed! If you managed to convince somebody that it was an inside job on the basis that the planes could not be real because real planes can't behave like that you were arguing from your beliefs not from your knowledge and your convert was de facto create by a deception. Unintentional but resulting from sloppy thinking on your part.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Erebus says:
    @daniel le mouche
    Dear Wizard,
    You seem rather strangely to have responded to my message on Korea and Japan written to Che Guava. Ergo, I can't be sure as of yet just what my 'opening argument' and 'self conviction' might entail. Please expand, o wizened Wiz.
    For now I'll get more to the meat of my argument, regarding 911 of course and not drugs in the Orient. I proffer--nice lawyerish word of yours--but a few examples, which is not to say I've only 'spent only one hour' looking into this. Add about three zeros to the end there, to say nothing of the thankless hours of meetings of the minds with the likes of you and other wizened crabs. Here are my few points raised, with right hand, so help me God.
    1. Twin Towers fell at free fall speed, around 9-10 seconds each. Impossible with ANY resistence whatsoever.
    2.Building 7, not hit, falls straight into its footprint that same day. Impossible not to conclude it was a controlled demolition.
    3. The news reporter reports Building 7 coming down BEFORE IT HAPPENED--it came down seconds after her report, right behind her. I'm sure you've seen the video.
    4. Tiny hole in Pentagon, not from a large airplane.
    5. No video evidence of the supposed airplane at Pentagon.
    6. No airplane crash evidence at the Pentagon--wings, engines, crumpled sides with windows, dead bodies--NADA!

    That's it, Wiz, I'm stopping there. That is enough. Do you get that? Enough!
    But of course there are reams more.
    Cheerio now.

    3. The news reporter reports Building 7 coming down BEFORE IT HAPPENED–it came down seconds after her report, right behind her. I’m sure you’ve seen the video.

    Actually, it came down some 20 minutes later. Both BBC & CBS (iirc) announced it at approx the same time, so one may have been following the lead of the other.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I'm not bothering withthe rest after your self conviction in your opening argument. Actually I suspect you have early stage dementia judged by the failure of your working or short term memory.

    Get help if necessary but do try and understand that "specifically ruled out by its [non-existent] mision statement" (or your words meaning exactly that) is logically inconsistent with the words you rely on, namely that "We do not offer theory or point blame *at this point in time*". That is no statement of a rule or a principle as you tried to represent it. It is a statement of present fact, which could change, and, it appears not actually true if they are also saying, as one of their critics says that there was no crash at Shankville. Whether I give them too much credit for openmindedness and honesty is another matter. I inferred that it was honest acknowledgment of the inconclusiveneas of much of their evidence that led to their putting out no theory. Unfortunately, if you have spent only one hour on something you take so seriously you won't be able to help take that question further.

    “specifically ruled out by its [non-existent] mision statement” (or your words meaning exactly that) is logically inconsistent with the words you rely on

    You need a lesson or two in logic, but please don’t take any.

    I don’t need the pilots to be told what I can more reliably derive from Newton. I needed them for some details regarding commercial flight procedures and airport routines, though I noted that uninformed persons, especially yourself, could benefit from a visit. That is, unless the fear that a loss of some of their long-nurtured ignorance will hamper their ability to make stupid and/or vacuous comments on internet forums. I can understand that the loss of one’s only skill can be traumatic, and so I don’t insist they go there unless they annoy me too much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    QED
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Erebus

    “specifically ruled out by its [non-existent] mision statement” (or your words meaning exactly that) is logically inconsistent with the words you rely on
     
    You need a lesson or two in logic, but please don't take any.

    I don't need the pilots to be told what I can more reliably derive from Newton. I needed them for some details regarding commercial flight procedures and airport routines, though I noted that uninformed persons, especially yourself, could benefit from a visit. That is, unless the fear that a loss of some of their long-nurtured ignorance will hamper their ability to make stupid and/or vacuous comments on internet forums. I can understand that the loss of one's only skill can be traumatic, and so I don't insist they go there unless they annoy me too much.

    QED

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Erebus

    I am returning to the main point that the boundary conditions determining the top speed of a given plane are not as definitive as say the boundary condition of the free fall acceleration of 9.81m/s^2.
     
    Newton's 2nd Law is the more general statement from which the principle derives. That is F=ma. They hold as absolutes in an ideal state, but when they enter the physical world other equations enter the game.
    As 9/11 controversies revolve around falling and flying, the equations of principle interest are the drag equations. In air, parasitic drag increases linearly with density, and as the square of the velocity. In air, these principles are as absolute as F=ma is in a vacuum. Eventually, for all masses moving through air, drag rises to the point where the force accelerating it meets its match, and the mass stops accelerating. Continued application of the force can do no more than hold a steady velocity from that point onwards, and to, say double the velocity requires a quadrupling of the force.

    As air at sea level is 3x the density of air at 11,000M, flying at 500kn at sea level requires 3x the engine thrust required at 11,000M. So, the questions to be answered by the engine manufacturers would be:
    - Can the installed engines achieve the necessary power level at all?
    - If they can, can they do it while being "jammed" with the quantity of air that would be coming in at 500kn?
    Typically, jets take off at between 130-150kn, with engines at ~95% full power. As parasitic drag is low, most of the engine power goes to lift. At 500kn in level flight, effectively all drag is parasitic. With almost 4x the qty of air entering the engine, what happens to engine performance? I'd be very surprised if the engine manufacturers couldn't answer that, but if they couldn't some fairly routine wind-tunnel tests would put the issue to bed.

    So here you are agreeing with utu that you just don’t know and you can only speculate as to who does or might know what speed those airliners might have been able to travel at and were in fact travelling at at about 1000ft above sea level. But I don’t really understand what the point or argument is supposed to be about anyway.

    The world land speed record in a motor vehicle at sea level, or maybe below is 763 mph. A DC8 is known to have been flown at above the speed of sound without structural failure etc. And where does 500 knots come from as somehow critical to 9/11 truth anyway?

    I don’t understand anyone to be arguing that an airliner travelling at the legal 360 knots couldn’t have done much the same damage. So I presume that the 500 knots is calculated either from radar images tracing the flight of the missile/airliner or from videos which captured the last few seconds of flight. If the latter is the case and you haven’t found any of those Boeing people to give you answers then it is hardly surprising that you haven’t persuaded many busy people to stop trusting their (and many direct witnesses’) lyin’ eyes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    you can only speculate as to who does or might know what speed those airliners might have been able to travel at and were in fact travelling at at about 1000ft above sea level.
     
    I'm not speculating, I specify who would know, where the information could be found, and how to get the information if it wasn't available.

    But I don’t really understand what the point or argument is supposed to be about anyway.
     
    Your lack of understanding, indeed, is the crux of our dispute, and the underlying foundation of my post #121. Be that as it may, this stands as the only statement you've made that commands my respect.

    And where does 500 knots come from as somehow critical to 9/11 truth anyway?
     
    An informed person would know that the "hijacked airliners" part of the official 9/11 narrative is founded on the publicly available radar tracks made by 4+1 radar stations in the NE USA. I say "4+1" because whereas 4 had the planes flying 500-550kn, the 5th tracked at least one of the planes at >600kn, and is therefore discounted, even by PF911T, as an outlier. The points where the flights turned off their transponders, made significant deviations from their filed flight plans, etc are noted with reference to those tracks.

    And where does 500 knots come from as somehow critical to 9/11 truth anyway?
     
    See above.

    I don’t understand anyone to be arguing that an airliner travelling at the legal 360 knots couldn’t have done much the same damage.
     
    Your utter lack of understanding how the physical world works is, alas, on full display in this statement. Energy rises as the square of velocity. Ergo, the energy of impact at 500kn would roughly equate to 2x the energy of impact at 350kn. 2x makes a difference, Wiz, and not just in a game of hand grenades.

    What was it, by the way, that you were such a wizard at?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Wizard of Oz
    Sorry. It was meant for Erebus.

    Your 4, 5 and 6 I do not accept, especially after looking at the real pics in the video construction I refer to and which is in the link I give #82.

    3. just shows you know nothing about working in the media and no imagination.

    1. and 2. require a lot more than your amateur (implied) "I believe things repeated often by people claiming expertise, or by people whose authority is even more remote from real science and engineering".

    Why do you think the WTC's structural engineer, Robinson, didn't express any such relevant doubts in his interview with the New Yorker - published in November 2001?

    Of course, Wiz, a few upper stories burning for around an hour brought down two 110 story buildings, as a fifth floor fire did later that day on a 49 story building–granted, that ole fire had been burning for a good few hours. Sure thing, Wizzy.
    Your comment to 3. is typical, and I thank you for that.
    And I’m glad that on close examination you simply can’t accept any wild theories re the Pentagon.

    Well done, Wiz! Well, I’m off to breakfast, cheerio now.
    Oh, I also liked your reasoning on Mr. (Jesus Loves You More Than You Will Know) Robinson, after all the New Yorker is such a bastion of free thought far removed from the corridors of power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    What do you make of the fact that WTC2 took so much less time after impact for it to start collapsing at about the floors of impact?

    I don't underatand what, if anything, you are saying or implying about Robinson but, in any event, unless you wish to add that the New Yorker writer
    misreported him, your comment on the New Yorker is not to the point - it being *his* knowledge and views which matter. It would be unfair I suppose to ask if you attributed the New Yorker's orientation
    you complain of to Harold Evans's English wife Tina Brown's dynamic reign as editor in the late 90s. But then it would probably be a bit mean and niggly to ask if you had read that November 2001 Mew Yorker article. Robinson was the one person with the strong motive to say that fires started by crashing planes hadn't weakened his structures so much that they collapsed, and he, the ultimate expert, didn't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Anon
    Another question: what leads people to believe conspiracy theories? There's a psychological answer but I don't know it.

    It's probably different for different people of course.

    Answer: television.
    For you seem to be another wild conspiracy nut that believes a few crazed Muslims launched the greatest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    That's a nice simple answer. Wrong though. I find it's not just stupidity but it might be in your case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Erebus says:
    @utu
    In Revusky's universe all attacks are synthetic until proven otherwise. In Revusky's universe the burden of proof rests on those who claim that an attack was organic. For this reason Revusky does not have to leave home to know that this attack was synthetic.

    In Revusky’s universe all attacks are synthetic until proven otherwise.

    I’m not sure that’s a bad MO. It’s emotionally economical, and one is probably right the vast majority of the time. What’s wrong with that?
    The inverse, otoh, offers neither. What’s good about that?

    In Revusky’s universe the burden of proof rests on those who claim that an attack was organic. 

    Who carries the burden of proof in your universe, if not those making the positive claim?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik


    In Revusky’s universe all attacks are synthetic until proven otherwise.
     
    I’m not sure that’s a bad MO.
     
    I agree

    I was watching some video last night on TV and I saw some "blood" that looked like some of the other faked 'terror' attacks.

    But at least I haven't heard they were running a drill for a terror attack right at the moment that it happened, (9/11, Boston "bombing", 7/7, Sandy Hook, etc..) which I consider a signature of one of their false flag attacks. And I suspect that some of these attacks are real nut-jobs who snap. Like the Times Square attack that they played down as 'an accident'.

    It's all about their agenda, but as of yet, I can't figure out how ISIS cells in Europe or America murdering Europeans or Americans fits into their agenda, when obviously they want as many Muslims (and everyone else) they can cram into the West as possible.

    in a word, these attacks only bolster the agendas of men like Trump, who they hate with a passion. Why create synthetic terror attacks that help your enemies (Trump, Nigel Farage, Le Pen and Europeans, etc..) and create hostility to your agenda (of flooding Europe and N. America with Muslims and Africans and Asians and everybody else)?

    So I'd really like to see what JR and Linh Dinh can determine if they're in the area.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @daniel le mouche
    Of course, Wiz, a few upper stories burning for around an hour brought down two 110 story buildings, as a fifth floor fire did later that day on a 49 story building--granted, that ole fire had been burning for a good few hours. Sure thing, Wizzy.
    Your comment to 3. is typical, and I thank you for that.
    And I'm glad that on close examination you simply can't accept any wild theories re the Pentagon.

    Well done, Wiz! Well, I'm off to breakfast, cheerio now.
    Oh, I also liked your reasoning on Mr. (Jesus Loves You More Than You Will Know) Robinson, after all the New Yorker is such a bastion of free thought far removed from the corridors of power.

    What do you make of the fact that WTC2 took so much less time after impact for it to start collapsing at about the floors of impact?

    I don’t underatand what, if anything, you are saying or implying about Robinson but, in any event, unless you wish to add that the New Yorker writer
    misreported him, your comment on the New Yorker is not to the point – it being *his* knowledge and views which matter. It would be unfair I suppose to ask if you attributed the New Yorker’s orientation
    you complain of to Harold Evans’s English wife Tina Brown’s dynamic reign as editor in the late 90s. But then it would probably be a bit mean and niggly to ask if you had read that November 2001 Mew Yorker article. Robinson was the one person with the strong motive to say that fires started by crashing planes hadn’t weakened his structures so much that they collapsed, and he, the ultimate expert, didn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    What do you make of the fact that WTC2 took so much less time after impact for it to start collapsing at about the floors of impact?
     
    I apologize for interrupting, but what I "make of the fact" is that the fires in WTC2 had, or were about to, go out. That was empirically evident from the colour and quantity of the smoke emanating from it. The tower could hardly be left standing with the fires extinguished, only to suddenly collapse for no apparent reason at all. Not even the BBC could spin that one.
    , @daniel le mouche
    Hello Wizard,
    I know nothing of Robinson, but a lot about the media, despite your thinking you are the resident expert because--well, I'm not sure why. Did you say you worked on a paper once, or have a friend at the BBC? And no, not only haven't I read that New Yorker issue, I am also not up on the latest insider editorial info there. I'll go further: I haven't read the New Yorker even once for a good ten years, and not in any way regularly for twenty. In this I see hope for you, Wiz. Okay, not really--so very few are able to at some point in life break out of the box that a lifetime of media exposure has put them in. I have--yes, I'm one of those few. Young people must be got to early; otherwise all hope is lost: media=truth. (This is all assuming you are sincere, which I think is dubious.) I once read all those interchangeable rags, e.g. New Yorker, GQ, Esquire, Rolling Stone--with their hard-boiled investigative reporting. Blech, I say!
    As to your first question, I have no doubt that a computerized, perfectly timed controlled demoliton was what made those gigantic buiilding explode, floor by floor, into a fine power--bone chip, very tiny, were found around three years later atop a nearby building. Oh!--but that passport survived.
    Looking forward to your next long, tangled post, Wiz.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    So here you are agreeing with utu that you just don't know and you can only speculate as to who does or might know what speed those airliners might have been able to travel at and were in fact travelling at at about 1000ft above sea level. But I don't really understand what the point or argument is supposed to be about anyway.

    The world land speed record in a motor vehicle at sea level, or maybe below is 763 mph. A DC8 is known to have been flown at above the speed of sound without structural failure etc. And where does 500 knots come from as somehow critical to 9/11 truth anyway?

    I don't understand anyone to be arguing that an airliner travelling at the legal 360 knots couldn't have done much the same damage. So I presume that the 500 knots is calculated either from radar images tracing the flight of the missile/airliner or from videos which captured the last few seconds of flight. If the latter is the case and you haven't found any of those Boeing people to give you answers then it is hardly surprising that you haven't persuaded many busy people to stop trusting their (and many direct witnesses') lyin' eyes.

    you can only speculate as to who does or might know what speed those airliners might have been able to travel at and were in fact travelling at at about 1000ft above sea level.

    I’m not speculating, I specify who would know, where the information could be found, and how to get the information if it wasn’t available.

    But I don’t really understand what the point or argument is supposed to be about anyway.

    Your lack of understanding, indeed, is the crux of our dispute, and the underlying foundation of my post #121. Be that as it may, this stands as the only statement you’ve made that commands my respect.

    And where does 500 knots come from as somehow critical to 9/11 truth anyway?

    An informed person would know that the “hijacked airliners” part of the official 9/11 narrative is founded on the publicly available radar tracks made by 4+1 radar stations in the NE USA. I say “4+1″ because whereas 4 had the planes flying 500-550kn, the 5th tracked at least one of the planes at >600kn, and is therefore discounted, even by PF911T, as an outlier. The points where the flights turned off their transponders, made significant deviations from their filed flight plans, etc are noted with reference to those tracks.

    And where does 500 knots come from as somehow critical to 9/11 truth anyway?

    See above.

    I don’t understand anyone to be arguing that an airliner travelling at the legal 360 knots couldn’t have done much the same damage.

    Your utter lack of understanding how the physical world works is, alas, on full display in this statement. Energy rises as the square of velocity. Ergo, the energy of impact at 500kn would roughly equate to 2x the energy of impact at 350kn. 2x makes a difference, Wiz, and not just in a game of hand grenades.

    What was it, by the way, that you were such a wizard at?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You are still evasive and leave it unclear whether you are saying the speeds recorded by radar are impossible for those aircraft despite your not having got the evidence or your hypothetical witnesses, or whether you are saying that at, say 360 knots, the relevant damage couldn't have been done?

    Again you tackle only the straw man. Of course the kinetic energy of a plane travelling at 360 knots is much less than of one travelling at 500 knots but are you being deliberately obtuse in avoiding the real issue of whether "much the same damage" could have been caused? "Much the same damage"means breach of the tubular upright steel supports snd sufficient penetration with its load of fuel to start fires which would weaken steel. It isn't ďifficult and the answer is pretty clear.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @daniel le mouche
    Answer: television.
    For you seem to be another wild conspiracy nut that believes a few crazed Muslims launched the greatest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

    That’s a nice simple answer. Wrong though. I find it’s not just stupidity but it might be in your case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    Take a deep breath and try to write things that are clear enough for people to understand. And make some tiny effort to prove your case. (No, 'Wrong though' isn't good enough.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Rurik says:
    @Erebus

    I am returning to the main point that the boundary conditions determining the top speed of a given plane are not as definitive as say the boundary condition of the free fall acceleration of 9.81m/s^2.
     
    Newton's 2nd Law is the more general statement from which the principle derives. That is F=ma. They hold as absolutes in an ideal state, but when they enter the physical world other equations enter the game.
    As 9/11 controversies revolve around falling and flying, the equations of principle interest are the drag equations. In air, parasitic drag increases linearly with density, and as the square of the velocity. In air, these principles are as absolute as F=ma is in a vacuum. Eventually, for all masses moving through air, drag rises to the point where the force accelerating it meets its match, and the mass stops accelerating. Continued application of the force can do no more than hold a steady velocity from that point onwards, and to, say double the velocity requires a quadrupling of the force.

    As air at sea level is 3x the density of air at 11,000M, flying at 500kn at sea level requires 3x the engine thrust required at 11,000M. So, the questions to be answered by the engine manufacturers would be:
    - Can the installed engines achieve the necessary power level at all?
    - If they can, can they do it while being "jammed" with the quantity of air that would be coming in at 500kn?
    Typically, jets take off at between 130-150kn, with engines at ~95% full power. As parasitic drag is low, most of the engine power goes to lift. At 500kn in level flight, effectively all drag is parasitic. With almost 4x the qty of air entering the engine, what happens to engine performance? I'd be very surprised if the engine manufacturers couldn't answer that, but if they couldn't some fairly routine wind-tunnel tests would put the issue to bed.

    As air at sea level is 3x the density of air at 11,000M, flying at 500kn at sea level requires 3x the engine thrust required at 11,000M. So…

    I’ve resisted, but I have to tell you guys that these conversations on the minutia of airplane dynamics sounds eerily like this guy in the video at about 1:40 seconds in…

    it’s all a distraction from the obvious fact that 9/11 was an Israeli / Mossad operation with elements of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Bush administration participating with a compliant ((media)).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Rurik, I like a lot of your posts, but I am striking at what I see is the root, rather than the branches of the conspiracy. From my vantage point, that root lies in the realm of Newton's Principia. Uninhabited by Mossad/CIA/FBI/NSA or indeed any humans at all, nevertheless, if it don't work there, it didn't happen in the "real world" with 99.9999...% certainty. At that point, but not before, we can bring in for examination the possible agencies responsible. You may well be right, and I ultimately believe (but will not assert) that combinations of agencies and people more complex than you suggest were ultimately responsible. But we ain't there yet, and whereof one cannot (yet) speak, thereof one must remain silent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Rurik says:
    @Erebus

    In Revusky’s universe all attacks are synthetic until proven otherwise.
     
    I'm not sure that's a bad MO. It's emotionally economical, and one is probably right the vast majority of the time. What's wrong with that?
    The inverse, otoh, offers neither. What's good about that?

    In Revusky’s universe the burden of proof rests on those who claim that an attack was organic. 
     
    Who carries the burden of proof in your universe, if not those making the positive claim?

    In Revusky’s universe all attacks are synthetic until proven otherwise.

    I’m not sure that’s a bad MO.

    I agree

    I was watching some video last night on TV and I saw some “blood” that looked like some of the other faked ‘terror’ attacks.

    But at least I haven’t heard they were running a drill for a terror attack right at the moment that it happened, (9/11, Boston “bombing”, 7/7, Sandy Hook, etc..) which I consider a signature of one of their false flag attacks. And I suspect that some of these attacks are real nut-jobs who snap. Like the Times Square attack that they played down as ‘an accident’.

    It’s all about their agenda, but as of yet, I can’t figure out how ISIS cells in Europe or America murdering Europeans or Americans fits into their agenda, when obviously they want as many Muslims (and everyone else) they can cram into the West as possible.

    in a word, these attacks only bolster the agendas of men like Trump, who they hate with a passion. Why create synthetic terror attacks that help your enemies (Trump, Nigel Farage, Le Pen and Europeans, etc..) and create hostility to your agenda (of flooding Europe and N. America with Muslims and Africans and Asians and everybody else)?

    So I’d really like to see what JR and Linh Dinh can determine if they’re in the area.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    What do you make of the fact that WTC2 took so much less time after impact for it to start collapsing at about the floors of impact?

    I don't underatand what, if anything, you are saying or implying about Robinson but, in any event, unless you wish to add that the New Yorker writer
    misreported him, your comment on the New Yorker is not to the point - it being *his* knowledge and views which matter. It would be unfair I suppose to ask if you attributed the New Yorker's orientation
    you complain of to Harold Evans's English wife Tina Brown's dynamic reign as editor in the late 90s. But then it would probably be a bit mean and niggly to ask if you had read that November 2001 Mew Yorker article. Robinson was the one person with the strong motive to say that fires started by crashing planes hadn't weakened his structures so much that they collapsed, and he, the ultimate expert, didn't.

    What do you make of the fact that WTC2 took so much less time after impact for it to start collapsing at about the floors of impact?

    I apologize for interrupting, but what I “make of the fact” is that the fires in WTC2 had, or were about to, go out. That was empirically evident from the colour and quantity of the smoke emanating from it. The tower could hardly be left standing with the fires extinguished, only to suddenly collapse for no apparent reason at all. Not even the BBC could spin that one.

    Read More
    • Troll: Wizard of Oz
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Erebus says:
    @Rurik

    As air at sea level is 3x the density of air at 11,000M, flying at 500kn at sea level requires 3x the engine thrust required at 11,000M. So...
     
    I've resisted, but I have to tell you guys that these conversations on the minutia of airplane dynamics sounds eerily like this guy in the video at about 1:40 seconds in...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liIlW-ovx0Y

    it's all a distraction from the obvious fact that 9/11 was an Israeli / Mossad operation with elements of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Bush administration participating with a compliant ((media)).

    Rurik, I like a lot of your posts, but I am striking at what I see is the root, rather than the branches of the conspiracy. From my vantage point, that root lies in the realm of Newton’s Principia. Uninhabited by Mossad/CIA/FBI/NSA or indeed any humans at all, nevertheless, if it don’t work there, it didn’t happen in the “real world” with 99.9999…% certainty. At that point, but not before, we can bring in for examination the possible agencies responsible. You may well be right, and I ultimately believe (but will not assert) that combinations of agencies and people more complex than you suggest were ultimately responsible. But we ain’t there yet, and whereof one cannot (yet) speak, thereof one must remain silent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Newton’s Principia.
     
    perhaps one of the most sublime works of the human mind to date

    https://iveehmc.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/worship.jpg

    if it don’t work there, it didn’t happen in the “real world” with 99.9999…%
     
    but we already know that with building seven, their explanation is virtually impossible- 100%

    so we already have the smoking gun for knowing that the official version is a crock

    especially when you consider that they reported it falling before it did!

    so we know that the official version is a lie, and we don't - IMHO - have to prove it on every metric, is all I'm saying.

    I respect that you're just doing your intellectual due diligence, and I'm sure your calculations are credible, but by concentrating too much on the minutia to the point that people's eyes glaze over from the formulations.., I feel you're inadvertently accommodating people like the wiz, who would like nothing more than to distract from the glaring fact; that 9/11 was an inside job.

    Other than that Erebus, I always take the time to read your often insightful and thoughtful comments

    cheers
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Wizard of Oz
    What do you make of the fact that WTC2 took so much less time after impact for it to start collapsing at about the floors of impact?

    I don't underatand what, if anything, you are saying or implying about Robinson but, in any event, unless you wish to add that the New Yorker writer
    misreported him, your comment on the New Yorker is not to the point - it being *his* knowledge and views which matter. It would be unfair I suppose to ask if you attributed the New Yorker's orientation
    you complain of to Harold Evans's English wife Tina Brown's dynamic reign as editor in the late 90s. But then it would probably be a bit mean and niggly to ask if you had read that November 2001 Mew Yorker article. Robinson was the one person with the strong motive to say that fires started by crashing planes hadn't weakened his structures so much that they collapsed, and he, the ultimate expert, didn't.

    Hello Wizard,
    I know nothing of Robinson, but a lot about the media, despite your thinking you are the resident expert because–well, I’m not sure why. Did you say you worked on a paper once, or have a friend at the BBC? And no, not only haven’t I read that New Yorker issue, I am also not up on the latest insider editorial info there. I’ll go further: I haven’t read the New Yorker even once for a good ten years, and not in any way regularly for twenty. In this I see hope for you, Wiz. Okay, not really–so very few are able to at some point in life break out of the box that a lifetime of media exposure has put them in. I have–yes, I’m one of those few. Young people must be got to early; otherwise all hope is lost: media=truth. (This is all assuming you are sincere, which I think is dubious.) I once read all those interchangeable rags, e.g. New Yorker, GQ, Esquire, Rolling Stone–with their hard-boiled investigative reporting. Blech, I say!
    As to your first question, I have no doubt that a computerized, perfectly timed controlled demoliton was what made those gigantic buiilding explode, floor by floor, into a fine power–bone chip, very tiny, were found around three years later atop a nearby building. Oh!–but that passport survived.
    Looking forward to your next long, tangled post, Wiz.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Anon
    That's a nice simple answer. Wrong though. I find it's not just stupidity but it might be in your case.

    Take a deep breath and try to write things that are clear enough for people to understand. And make some tiny effort to prove your case. (No, ‘Wrong though’ isn’t good enough.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Erebus

    you can only speculate as to who does or might know what speed those airliners might have been able to travel at and were in fact travelling at at about 1000ft above sea level.
     
    I'm not speculating, I specify who would know, where the information could be found, and how to get the information if it wasn't available.

    But I don’t really understand what the point or argument is supposed to be about anyway.
     
    Your lack of understanding, indeed, is the crux of our dispute, and the underlying foundation of my post #121. Be that as it may, this stands as the only statement you've made that commands my respect.

    And where does 500 knots come from as somehow critical to 9/11 truth anyway?
     
    An informed person would know that the "hijacked airliners" part of the official 9/11 narrative is founded on the publicly available radar tracks made by 4+1 radar stations in the NE USA. I say "4+1" because whereas 4 had the planes flying 500-550kn, the 5th tracked at least one of the planes at >600kn, and is therefore discounted, even by PF911T, as an outlier. The points where the flights turned off their transponders, made significant deviations from their filed flight plans, etc are noted with reference to those tracks.

    And where does 500 knots come from as somehow critical to 9/11 truth anyway?
     
    See above.

    I don’t understand anyone to be arguing that an airliner travelling at the legal 360 knots couldn’t have done much the same damage.
     
    Your utter lack of understanding how the physical world works is, alas, on full display in this statement. Energy rises as the square of velocity. Ergo, the energy of impact at 500kn would roughly equate to 2x the energy of impact at 350kn. 2x makes a difference, Wiz, and not just in a game of hand grenades.

    What was it, by the way, that you were such a wizard at?

    You are still evasive and leave it unclear whether you are saying the speeds recorded by radar are impossible for those aircraft despite your not having got the evidence or your hypothetical witnesses, or whether you are saying that at, say 360 knots, the relevant damage couldn’t have been done?

    Again you tackle only the straw man. Of course the kinetic energy of a plane travelling at 360 knots is much less than of one travelling at 500 knots but are you being deliberately obtuse in avoiding the real issue of whether “much the same damage” could have been caused? “Much the same damage”means breach of the tubular upright steel supports snd sufficient penetration with its load of fuel to start fires which would weaken steel. It isn’t ďifficult and the answer is pretty clear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    You are still evasive and leave it unclear whether you are saying the speeds recorded by radar are impossible for those aircraft despite your not having got the evidence or your hypothetical witnesses, or whether you are saying that at, say 360 knots, the relevant damage couldn’t have been done?
     
    Why would I say that "the speeds recorded by radar are impossible" if I didn't have the evidence? I wouldn't. What I would say, and did, is that it is highly unlikely given what the likes of men like Russ Wittenberg, John Lear, Ross Aimer et al think on the matter. They think it impossible, and everything I've been able to gather suggests they're right. However, without the "smoking gun" evidence of the engineering data, we can't state that those planes were fakes beyond reasonable doubt. So I don't.

    As for whether "much the same" damage could result from hypothetical planes travelling at different hypothetical speeds, your question is a diversion. In the first place, the hard data says that the objects that hit the towers were flying at >500kn. What damage they would do at some other speed is irrelevant because if planes couldn't physically fly at >500kn, then there weren't any, and something else hit the towers. The only possible rejoinder would be to claim that the radar tracks are either in error, or are themselves fake.
    Parenthetically, those that say "Nothing at all hit the towers" are in the same boat. They have to show that the provenance of those radar tracks was at least suspect. That is not impossible, of course, but if they were faked, the question arises why the perps made fake radar tracks of impossible events? Why choose >500kn when plotting the fake track? Why not choose 350kn and avoid all the downstream fuss?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Rurik says:
    @Erebus
    Rurik, I like a lot of your posts, but I am striking at what I see is the root, rather than the branches of the conspiracy. From my vantage point, that root lies in the realm of Newton's Principia. Uninhabited by Mossad/CIA/FBI/NSA or indeed any humans at all, nevertheless, if it don't work there, it didn't happen in the "real world" with 99.9999...% certainty. At that point, but not before, we can bring in for examination the possible agencies responsible. You may well be right, and I ultimately believe (but will not assert) that combinations of agencies and people more complex than you suggest were ultimately responsible. But we ain't there yet, and whereof one cannot (yet) speak, thereof one must remain silent.

    Newton’s Principia.

    perhaps one of the most sublime works of the human mind to date

    if it don’t work there, it didn’t happen in the “real world” with 99.9999…%

    but we already know that with building seven, their explanation is virtually impossible- 100%

    so we already have the smoking gun for knowing that the official version is a crock

    especially when you consider that they reported it falling before it did!

    so we know that the official version is a lie, and we don’t – IMHO – have to prove it on every metric, is all I’m saying.

    I respect that you’re just doing your intellectual due diligence, and I’m sure your calculations are credible, but by concentrating too much on the minutia to the point that people’s eyes glaze over from the formulations.., I feel you’re inadvertently accommodating people like the wiz, who would like nothing more than to distract from the glaring fact; that 9/11 was an inside job.

    Other than that Erebus, I always take the time to read your often insightful and thoughtful comments

    cheers

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
    Rurik,

    I am pondering what seems to be a criminal connection in the finding of the "Magic Bullet" which allegedly fell off the president's gurney & dropped to the floor of Parkland Hospital E.R. hallway, and the miraculous discovery of a passport belonging to a 9/11 hijacker.

    Having viewed photos of the "evidence" noted above, both items were in good condition and were used as fake evidence to fool very vulnerable & scared citizens.

    The Magic Bullet and the Magic Passport are presently demoted to being little, inconsequential, shady that helped sustain immoral war in Viet Nam and instigate endless ZUSA War o(f) Terror.

    Israelis made sure there was no Sherlock Holmes-type D.O.J. investigation activity during aftermath of both the JFK murder & 9/11 mass murder. The "little" findings at these traitorous crime scenes turned out to be infinitely the most important.

    Recently, P. Giraldi let on how U.S. (big) city police departments get Israeli training. It is so pitiful to know how susceptible are citizens to ZUSA's talent for planting evidence, creation of "patsys," and routine 24/7 presentation of False Flag-horror theater.

    Thanks, Rurik!

    Thanks Jon and Linh!
    , @Sparkon
    Until the guilty parties are brought to justice for 9/11, the investigation will continue. The citizens will carry the ball for as long as necessary, until the right people get some balls of their own.

    I think even inept detectives like Ace Ventura and Inspector Clouseau could find some likely suspects for 9/11, considering Bush sat, then fibbed; Rumsfeld hid, Cheney hunkered, Giuliani hauled, Myers stonewalled, Rice couldn't imagine, Keane and Hammond were "set up to fail."

    What a cast of characters! What a load of bologna!

    But please understand, not everyone's eyes glaze over from minutia. Some of us feast on it. That's why there is a division of labor -- even testing -- for skilled professions.

    Some have the chops; some don't.

    My purpose here is not to convince the likes of utu, Wiz. or even you, of anything. I write for the readers, not necessarily for those who comment here. Those with glazed eyes can go watch TV, or walk their dog.

    As in basketball, the idea is to get the ball inside to the big guys, if we have any.

    All readers are quite capable of reading what they want, ignoring the rest, or skimming over what they chose, without needing any guidance from reading monitors. Need I add that most writers will not take kindly to all these variations on the theme of why we shouldn't talk about the details of 9/11. Now it's glazed eyes.

    And it seems you want to have it both ways.

    You responded to Simon at #111 above:


    "...so it behooves us all to look deeply into 9/11.'
     
    But then complained about the "minutia" to Erebus in #137 when he was doing just that:

    "I respect that you’re just doing your intellectual due diligence, and I’m sure your calculations are credible, but by concentrating too much on the minutia to the point that people’s eyes glaze over from the formulations.., I feel you’re inadvertently accommodating people like the wiz,"
     
    Why not discuss the evidence, rather than suggest we shouldn't look at it, or talk about it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Che Guava says:
    @daniel le mouche
    Quite a difference between Japan and Korea on drugs. When I lived in Korea 20 years ago I've been told you'd get life for selling drugs, even marijuana. No one took drugs there that I knew, and I knew and met tons of people, we partied the whole time, nearly every night for three years. Of course, they too had their mafia, corrupt police and military... Riot season was an exciting time of year (actually it seemed to occur a few times a year, over things like the US military presence and the Kwangju massacre).
    Thanks for clarifying.

    Thank you, too. There is very little tolerance here, but people in a few areas have mob via police connections.

    Now much the same.

    OTOH, at punk rock events, in roughly the same time frame, and a little later, some fans were clearly on amphetamines, sometimes on trains, I would see a junky, the most spectacular was a very young man with huge black welts all over his arms. I thought

    Is he a mad S&M fan?

    Is he mob-connected and whipped by others?

    Clearly a junky, he was almost fallimg asleep on his feet, but not drunk, so I am thinking the latter.

    Of course, before overseas experience, I would never have recognised those things.

    Still, enjoyed some of the legal drugs while they were still legal, sure one was really bad, left me unable to move, at a rock show, some weak, I never tried ‘bath salts’, thank God, but snme were of the leaves, -nice and calming.

    Gone now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Thuy Dinh says:

    Hi Linh,

    Just check in to make sure you’re ok in light of the Barcelona attack. Stay safe and please let Unz readers know you’re alive and well!

    Thuy

    Read More
    • Replies: @Linh Dinh
    Hi Thuy,

    Jonathan Revusky and I were on Las Ramblas this morning. It was packed with people, including plenty of media. Nearly all the shops and restaurants were open. Jon and I talked to plenty of people. It's good to see everything just about back to normal on the "happiest street on earth."

    Lorca, "La calle más alegre del mundo, la calle donde viven juntas a la vez las cuatro estaciones del año, la única calle de la tierra que yo desearía que no se acabara nunca, rica en sonidos, abundante de brisas, hermosa de encuentros, antigua de sangre: Rambla de Barcelona."

    OK, I must get back to my new article.


    Linh

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Linh Dinh says: • Website
    @Thuy Dinh
    Hi Linh,

    Just check in to make sure you're ok in light of the Barcelona attack. Stay safe and please let Unz readers know you're alive and well!

    Thuy

    Hi Thuy,

    Jonathan Revusky and I were on Las Ramblas this morning. It was packed with people, including plenty of media. Nearly all the shops and restaurants were open. Jon and I talked to plenty of people. It’s good to see everything just about back to normal on the “happiest street on earth.”

    Lorca, “La calle más alegre del mundo, la calle donde viven juntas a la vez las cuatro estaciones del año, la única calle de la tierra que yo desearía que no se acabara nunca, rica en sonidos, abundante de brisas, hermosa de encuentros, antigua de sangre: Rambla de Barcelona.”

    OK, I must get back to my new article.

    Linh

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    My 17 year old niece was there, with four friends, stuck late at night with no money for the cab to take them to their emergency accommodation with old friend of family. Good Samaritan taxi driver took them anyway.... but to right address in wrong zip/postcode! Two or three were staying on Ramblas so all ended up on floor or in the hall of my niece's room trying to think of what to say to 80 year old landlady next morning. (Fortunately all are advanced Spanish speakers....).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. utu says:
    @Erebus

    I am returning to the main point that the boundary conditions determining the top speed of a given plane are not as definitive as say the boundary condition of the free fall acceleration of 9.81m/s^2.
     
    Newton's 2nd Law is the more general statement from which the principle derives. That is F=ma. They hold as absolutes in an ideal state, but when they enter the physical world other equations enter the game.
    As 9/11 controversies revolve around falling and flying, the equations of principle interest are the drag equations. In air, parasitic drag increases linearly with density, and as the square of the velocity. In air, these principles are as absolute as F=ma is in a vacuum. Eventually, for all masses moving through air, drag rises to the point where the force accelerating it meets its match, and the mass stops accelerating. Continued application of the force can do no more than hold a steady velocity from that point onwards, and to, say double the velocity requires a quadrupling of the force.

    As air at sea level is 3x the density of air at 11,000M, flying at 500kn at sea level requires 3x the engine thrust required at 11,000M. So, the questions to be answered by the engine manufacturers would be:
    - Can the installed engines achieve the necessary power level at all?
    - If they can, can they do it while being "jammed" with the quantity of air that would be coming in at 500kn?
    Typically, jets take off at between 130-150kn, with engines at ~95% full power. As parasitic drag is low, most of the engine power goes to lift. At 500kn in level flight, effectively all drag is parasitic. With almost 4x the qty of air entering the engine, what happens to engine performance? I'd be very surprised if the engine manufacturers couldn't answer that, but if they couldn't some fairly routine wind-tunnel tests would put the issue to bed.

    That is F=ma. They hold as absolutes in an ideal state, but when they enter the physical world other equations enter the game.

    I think no other equation enters the game. You just have to spell out what F is like by including the drag. The 2nd law of dynamic invokes the concept of force and inertial mass (w/o really defining them) to explain acceleration. In reality the 2nd law defines either force or mass if one of them is defined and permits to measure it by means of acceleration that is measurable by measuring time and distance. There are some subtle epistemological issues.

    I’d be very surprised if the engine manufacturers couldn’t answer that, but if they couldn’t some fairly routine wind-tunnel tests would put the issue to bed.

    Probably they can but they won’t. Perhaps if you asked Rolls Royce or Pratt and Whitney before 9/11 they would be cooperative. But now all you can get are some talking heads on YT who in reality may know about the issue less than you do. This is the reason why I think that talking like yourself about the absolute top speed of planes quantitatively is not right and even might be dishonest. We do not know what is the top speed! If you managed to convince somebody that it was an inside job on the basis that the planes could not be real because real planes can’t behave like that you were arguing from your beliefs not from your knowledge and your convert was de facto create by a deception. Unintentional but resulting from sloppy thinking on your part.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    I think no other equation enters the game
     
    You are completely right. I had your "acceleration of 9.81m/s^2" in mind and should have made it clearer that forces other than gravity come into the picture in physical reality.

    In reality the 2nd law defines either force or mass if one of them is defined and permits to measure it by means of acceleration that is measurable by measuring time and distance. There are some subtle epistemological issues.
     
    Your sentence is a little garbled, but it seems you've misunderstood something. The equation can be solved if any two of the three variables are known. Newton never wrote the equation in its current form, and the 2nd Law actually states that Force is defined by change in a mass's momentum.
    As for "subtle epistemological issues", what might they be?

    Perhaps if you asked Rolls Royce or Pratt and Whitney before 9/11 they would be cooperative. But now all you can get are some talking heads on YT
     
    Well, Erebus calling them up and asking for their data is unlikely to get even that. A real inquiry with subpoena power would have have much less trouble. That would require, at the least, a lot of Americans demanding it. The time for that has passed, and it's very unlikely.

    The rest of your post is inexplicable. I'm not arguing that ... it was an inside job on the basis that the planes could not be real. The issue of real/fake planes came up, and I'm simply discussing the issues surrounding that topic. I'm 1.5 decades past the point where I was trying to convince anyone that 9/11 was an inside job. That's long been settled in my mind. Since about noon on the day it happened, in fact. Teasing out some of the subtleties of that massive psych-op was a hobby for some time after because I also expected it to be an inflection point, and that things would be different from then on. Besides that, "How did they do that?" and/or "How would I do it?" are questions I ask myself many times a day on all manner of things.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    In essentials, spot on, now that Erebus (infra) has come out as "knowing it was an inside job" from day one.

    But I do note that there is no materially important suggested acceleration of the planes hitting the towers. The most applicable use foŕ F=ma might be in the sudden deceleration on impact though I am more interested in kinetic energy, and the potential. energy of upper floors' weight.

    I hope to find on this thread the most complacent citer of the "we were set up to fail" complaints so I can conclude my conscientious following of truthers' arguments by showing, as I suspected, that the complaints gave no support to truther nonsense. Of course the CIA, FBI, Bush Administration, NORAD, Air Force, even FAA, et al. didn't want proof of multiple errors to come out. It has to be born in mind that even a minor and irrelevant admission, e.g. that the radar printouts showed UA 93 in the air when it had already crashed or that no fighters ever got off the ground, was likèly to be fastened on to by the truly culpable to create a smoke screen. The Bush Administration's concern was 2004 Election 100 Truth Nil.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Rurik

    Newton’s Principia.
     
    perhaps one of the most sublime works of the human mind to date

    https://iveehmc.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/worship.jpg

    if it don’t work there, it didn’t happen in the “real world” with 99.9999…%
     
    but we already know that with building seven, their explanation is virtually impossible- 100%

    so we already have the smoking gun for knowing that the official version is a crock

    especially when you consider that they reported it falling before it did!

    so we know that the official version is a lie, and we don't - IMHO - have to prove it on every metric, is all I'm saying.

    I respect that you're just doing your intellectual due diligence, and I'm sure your calculations are credible, but by concentrating too much on the minutia to the point that people's eyes glaze over from the formulations.., I feel you're inadvertently accommodating people like the wiz, who would like nothing more than to distract from the glaring fact; that 9/11 was an inside job.

    Other than that Erebus, I always take the time to read your often insightful and thoughtful comments

    cheers

    Rurik,

    I am pondering what seems to be a criminal connection in the finding of the “Magic Bullet” which allegedly fell off the president’s gurney & dropped to the floor of Parkland Hospital E.R. hallway, and the miraculous discovery of a passport belonging to a 9/11 hijacker.

    Having viewed photos of the “evidence” noted above, both items were in good condition and were used as fake evidence to fool very vulnerable & scared citizens.

    The Magic Bullet and the Magic Passport are presently demoted to being little, inconsequential, shady that helped sustain immoral war in Viet Nam and instigate endless ZUSA War o(f) Terror.

    Israelis made sure there was no Sherlock Holmes-type D.O.J. investigation activity during aftermath of both the JFK murder & 9/11 mass murder. The “little” findings at these traitorous crime scenes turned out to be infinitely the most important.

    Recently, P. Giraldi let on how U.S. (big) city police departments get Israeli training. It is so pitiful to know how susceptible are citizens to ZUSA’s talent for planting evidence, creation of “patsys,” and routine 24/7 presentation of False Flag-horror theater.

    Thanks, Rurik!

    Thanks Jon and Linh!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Hey Chuck,

    both the JFK murder & 9/11 mass murder.
     
    two seminal (Biblical level) crimes committed by elements in the US government that altered history for all time. 9/11 is perhaps the most unprecedentedly evil act ever committed, and that's saying a lot- (no doubt to the sniggers of men like Silverstein)

    Michael Collins Piper in his book Final Judgment makes the case that the Mossad was behind the JFK murder, (something I've always considered likely since JFK was working to abolish the Fed)

    and we know the Mossad was behind 9/11

    one thing I don't understand is how so many people can know these things, (as they obviously must), like the attack on the USS Liberty, how can so many people know of the worst kind of murderous betrayal at the highest levels... and yet pretend like everything is just fine.

    How do you go home to your wife and kids, knowing that men and women in your government are stone-cold traitors and psychopathic killers?

    I remember when I found out that the FBI lied about starting the fires at Waco, and then seeing the footage of machine gun fire into the only exit of the burning compound/church, where stacks of bodies were later found. They weren't going to let any of those people escape the flames. Children and all.

    I guess that's why I call it the Fiend. There's something in the human id that's so blood-curdling evil it's incomprehensible to me. It's that human principle that Orwell was on about in his book 1984.

    it's why a woman tied up a little boy and tortured him to death with a blow torch

    and it seems like that is exactly the kind of people who seek power in this world

    the hatred-consumed, demonically twisted psychopaths

    and then look at all these men surrounding Bibi, when they all know that he was aware 9/11 was going to happen but didn't warn us, because it would be good for Israel, 'good for the Jews', to let it happen.

    http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/03/04/opinion/4wed1WEB/4wed1WEB-articleLarge.jpg

    there's a man who was complicit with the horrific slaughter of thousands of your fellow countrymen and women. And who saw them slaughtered so that he could use the crime to see even more of them slaughtered as they slaughtered and maimed and displaced millions more...

    A man who demands billions of dollars in aid from these very same countrymen and women. And then sits by and watches as his Mossad films them being consumed in fireballs - while dancing and cheering at their deaths.

    and yet look how our congress positively gush over him

    I wonder...

    if you went up to your average American, and said 'hey' how would you like to have power over your countrymen, and fabulous wealth and privileges and perks... but the only thing is you have to go along with destroying all their constitutional rights and force them to fund an invasion of their lands by often murderously hostile foreigners who will eventually destroy the fabric of this country, while working with their deadliest enemies to see them butchered in the most horrific ways imaginable, when you aren't doing it yourself at places like Waco?'

    who are these people that say 'sure, sounds good to me!'

    http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2014_37/655356/140908-clinton_bush_presidents-1119_bdb70e16158da33cd33be84501f2cd85.jpg

    https://maxcdn1.laprogressive.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/hillary-and-ryan-720.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Looks like the 9/11 trolls were quick in hijacking things.
    Unfortunately, none of us can resist.

    Social media itself is the best hijack there is. So, in Spain, what would be the first weapon to use on the population in addition to spectacular, deadly stunts?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Listening to Revusky for an hour before merciful death.
    , @ChuckOrloski
    It is ORCHESTRATED "stunts," bred and brought to you by those who operate according to the motto, " By deception we do war."

    ZUSA politicians, Corporate Media, D.C. bureacracy, and M.I.C.
    lords benefit mightily for playing key roles in the Zionist-orchestrated theater.

    Vladimir Lenin would be proud of the legion of "useful idiots" enlisted into the Deception War.

    Presently, Tom Corker of Arkansas is my favorite actor and Nikki Haley is my favorite actress!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Concerning 9/11, I’d like to get some input from people outside the United States. I looked for something from the Russian Academy of Science, but found nothing. How about China or India or Malaysia?

    I’d like to know what the rest of the world thinks about 911 and WTC building #7.

    Here is a guy, Danny Jowenko, from a Dutch Controlled Demolition Company in the Netherlands. It takes him about ten seconds to say it was a controlled demolition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    I'm an expat, living abroad for a long time. I've met lots and lots who think it's the US govt. Still, they're not so different as the average American schmuck, dutifully going to school, watching their tv, reading their papers--in short, being told what to think (obviously, it's much more in depth--the ways of Big Brother or the Deep State or simply the Corporate State with heavy Jewish/Israeli input, they're the real experts it seems to me--the endless individual and group psychological studies, the very sophisticated propaganda methods). In short, as is very well known, 'the bigger the lie'--frankly I forget how the saying goes... But a great lie repeated often enough will pass for truth. This may be what's called a trueism. Anyway, no, people in, say, Europe aren't quite as naive as Americans, but also they are. Look to the young, as our masters always do. They're impressionable, maleable, and in contemporary Europe, indistinguishable from American 'youfs', dumb as fuck (except those that aren't). In any country you'll find the same old shite broadcasting, properly called Programming. Vacuous talking heads, bimbos, teleprompters, and the SAME OLD NARRATIVE.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    You are still evasive and leave it unclear whether you are saying the speeds recorded by radar are impossible for those aircraft despite your not having got the evidence or your hypothetical witnesses, or whether you are saying that at, say 360 knots, the relevant damage couldn't have been done?

    Again you tackle only the straw man. Of course the kinetic energy of a plane travelling at 360 knots is much less than of one travelling at 500 knots but are you being deliberately obtuse in avoiding the real issue of whether "much the same damage" could have been caused? "Much the same damage"means breach of the tubular upright steel supports snd sufficient penetration with its load of fuel to start fires which would weaken steel. It isn't ďifficult and the answer is pretty clear.

    You are still evasive and leave it unclear whether you are saying the speeds recorded by radar are impossible for those aircraft despite your not having got the evidence or your hypothetical witnesses, or whether you are saying that at, say 360 knots, the relevant damage couldn’t have been done?

    Why would I say that “the speeds recorded by radar are impossible” if I didn’t have the evidence? I wouldn’t. What I would say, and did, is that it is highly unlikely given what the likes of men like Russ Wittenberg, John Lear, Ross Aimer et al think on the matter. They think it impossible, and everything I’ve been able to gather suggests they’re right. However, without the “smoking gun” evidence of the engineering data, we can’t state that those planes were fakes beyond reasonable doubt. So I don’t.

    As for whether “much the same” damage could result from hypothetical planes travelling at different hypothetical speeds, your question is a diversion. In the first place, the hard data says that the objects that hit the towers were flying at >500kn. What damage they would do at some other speed is irrelevant because if planes couldn’t physically fly at >500kn, then there weren’t any, and something else hit the towers. The only possible rejoinder would be to claim that the radar tracks are either in error, or are themselves fake.
    Parenthetically, those that say “Nothing at all hit the towers” are in the same boat. They have to show that the provenance of those radar tracks was at least suspect. That is not impossible, of course, but if they were faked, the question arises why the perps made fake radar tracks of impossible events? Why choose >500kn when plotting the fake track? Why not choose 350kn and avoid all the downstream fuss?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Erebus says:
    @utu
    That is F=ma. They hold as absolutes in an ideal state, but when they enter the physical world other equations enter the game.

    I think no other equation enters the game. You just have to spell out what F is like by including the drag. The 2nd law of dynamic invokes the concept of force and inertial mass (w/o really defining them) to explain acceleration. In reality the 2nd law defines either force or mass if one of them is defined and permits to measure it by means of acceleration that is measurable by measuring time and distance. There are some subtle epistemological issues.

    I’d be very surprised if the engine manufacturers couldn’t answer that, but if they couldn’t some fairly routine wind-tunnel tests would put the issue to bed.

    Probably they can but they won't. Perhaps if you asked Rolls Royce or Pratt and Whitney before 9/11 they would be cooperative. But now all you can get are some talking heads on YT who in reality may know about the issue less than you do. This is the reason why I think that talking like yourself about the absolute top speed of planes quantitatively is not right and even might be dishonest. We do not know what is the top speed! If you managed to convince somebody that it was an inside job on the basis that the planes could not be real because real planes can't behave like that you were arguing from your beliefs not from your knowledge and your convert was de facto create by a deception. Unintentional but resulting from sloppy thinking on your part.

    I think no other equation enters the game

    You are completely right. I had your “acceleration of 9.81m/s^2″ in mind and should have made it clearer that forces other than gravity come into the picture in physical reality.

    In reality the 2nd law defines either force or mass if one of them is defined and permits to measure it by means of acceleration that is measurable by measuring time and distance. There are some subtle epistemological issues.

    Your sentence is a little garbled, but it seems you’ve misunderstood something. The equation can be solved if any two of the three variables are known. Newton never wrote the equation in its current form, and the 2nd Law actually states that Force is defined by change in a mass’s momentum.
    As for “subtle epistemological issues”, what might they be?

    Perhaps if you asked Rolls Royce or Pratt and Whitney before 9/11 they would be cooperative. But now all you can get are some talking heads on YT

    Well, Erebus calling them up and asking for their data is unlikely to get even that. A real inquiry with subpoena power would have have much less trouble. That would require, at the least, a lot of Americans demanding it. The time for that has passed, and it’s very unlikely.

    The rest of your post is inexplicable. I’m not arguing that … it was an inside job on the basis that the planes could not be real. The issue of real/fake planes came up, and I’m simply discussing the issues surrounding that topic. I’m 1.5 decades past the point where I was trying to convince anyone that 9/11 was an inside job. That’s long been settled in my mind. Since about noon on the day it happened, in fact. Teasing out some of the subtleties of that massive psych-op was a hobby for some time after because I also expected it to be an inflection point, and that things would be different from then on. Besides that, “How did they do that?” and/or “How would I do it?” are questions I ask myself many times a day on all manner of things.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. whoever says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    Thank you. It also never occurred to me from my limited experience piloting small planes (and just two aerobatics lessons) that there were physical limits imposed on dive speed. Presumably any pilot training for civil airliners would include instruction in how to turn off automatic default limitations on speed.

    (^_^)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Si1ver1ock
    Concerning 9/11, I'd like to get some input from people outside the United States. I looked for something from the Russian Academy of Science, but found nothing. How about China or India or Malaysia?

    I'd like to know what the rest of the world thinks about 911 and WTC building #7.

    Here is a guy, Danny Jowenko, from a Dutch Controlled Demolition Company in the Netherlands. It takes him about ten seconds to say it was a controlled demolition.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k82vowo7doE

    I’m an expat, living abroad for a long time. I’ve met lots and lots who think it’s the US govt. Still, they’re not so different as the average American schmuck, dutifully going to school, watching their tv, reading their papers–in short, being told what to think (obviously, it’s much more in depth–the ways of Big Brother or the Deep State or simply the Corporate State with heavy Jewish/Israeli input, they’re the real experts it seems to me–the endless individual and group psychological studies, the very sophisticated propaganda methods). In short, as is very well known, ‘the bigger the lie’–frankly I forget how the saying goes… But a great lie repeated often enough will pass for truth. This may be what’s called a trueism. Anyway, no, people in, say, Europe aren’t quite as naive as Americans, but also they are. Look to the young, as our masters always do. They’re impressionable, maleable, and in contemporary Europe, indistinguishable from American ‘youfs’, dumb as fuck (except those that aren’t). In any country you’ll find the same old shite broadcasting, properly called Programming. Vacuous talking heads, bimbos, teleprompters, and the SAME OLD NARRATIVE.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. I urge any and all to visit Linh’s website for today’s entries–especially brilliant, they chronicle the vacuous media as it ‘covers’ this ‘event’. Showtime.
    The blog is called Postcards from the end of America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  150. @Anonymous
    Looks like the 9/11 trolls were quick in hijacking things.
    Unfortunately, none of us can resist.

    Social media itself is the best hijack there is. So, in Spain, what would be the first weapon to use on the population in addition to spectacular, deadly stunts?

    Listening to Revusky for an hour before merciful death.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Linh Dinh
    Hi Thuy,

    Jonathan Revusky and I were on Las Ramblas this morning. It was packed with people, including plenty of media. Nearly all the shops and restaurants were open. Jon and I talked to plenty of people. It's good to see everything just about back to normal on the "happiest street on earth."

    Lorca, "La calle más alegre del mundo, la calle donde viven juntas a la vez las cuatro estaciones del año, la única calle de la tierra que yo desearía que no se acabara nunca, rica en sonidos, abundante de brisas, hermosa de encuentros, antigua de sangre: Rambla de Barcelona."

    OK, I must get back to my new article.


    Linh

    My 17 year old niece was there, with four friends, stuck late at night with no money for the cab to take them to their emergency accommodation with old friend of family. Good Samaritan taxi driver took them anyway…. but to right address in wrong zip/postcode! Two or three were staying on Ramblas so all ended up on floor or in the hall of my niece’s room trying to think of what to say to 80 year old landlady next morning. (Fortunately all are advanced Spanish speakers….).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @utu
    That is F=ma. They hold as absolutes in an ideal state, but when they enter the physical world other equations enter the game.

    I think no other equation enters the game. You just have to spell out what F is like by including the drag. The 2nd law of dynamic invokes the concept of force and inertial mass (w/o really defining them) to explain acceleration. In reality the 2nd law defines either force or mass if one of them is defined and permits to measure it by means of acceleration that is measurable by measuring time and distance. There are some subtle epistemological issues.

    I’d be very surprised if the engine manufacturers couldn’t answer that, but if they couldn’t some fairly routine wind-tunnel tests would put the issue to bed.

    Probably they can but they won't. Perhaps if you asked Rolls Royce or Pratt and Whitney before 9/11 they would be cooperative. But now all you can get are some talking heads on YT who in reality may know about the issue less than you do. This is the reason why I think that talking like yourself about the absolute top speed of planes quantitatively is not right and even might be dishonest. We do not know what is the top speed! If you managed to convince somebody that it was an inside job on the basis that the planes could not be real because real planes can't behave like that you were arguing from your beliefs not from your knowledge and your convert was de facto create by a deception. Unintentional but resulting from sloppy thinking on your part.

    In essentials, spot on, now that Erebus (infra) has come out as “knowing it was an inside job” from day one.

    But I do note that there is no materially important suggested acceleration of the planes hitting the towers. The most applicable use foŕ F=ma might be in the sudden deceleration on impact though I am more interested in kinetic energy, and the potential. energy of upper floors’ weight.

    I hope to find on this thread the most complacent citer of the “we were set up to fail” complaints so I can conclude my conscientious following of truthers’ arguments by showing, as I suspected, that the complaints gave no support to truther nonsense. Of course the CIA, FBI, Bush Administration, NORAD, Air Force, even FAA, et al. didn’t want proof of multiple errors to come out. It has to be born in mind that even a minor and irrelevant admission, e.g. that the radar printouts showed UA 93 in the air when it had already crashed or that no fighters ever got off the ground, was likèly to be fastened on to by the truly culpable to create a smoke screen. The Bush Administration’s concern was 2004 Election 100 Truth Nil.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Erebus says:

    … now that Erebus (infra) has come out as “knowing it was an inside job” from day one.

    This is not the first time I’ve “come out” on Unz, and I make no secret of it.

    Watching the towers come down in real (TV) time, I immediately sensed something more than the planes and obviously weak fires was in play. Being intimately familiar with the strength redundancies engineers, esp civil engineers, build into things, seeing the amount of material being ejected horizontally and how quickly the towers came down in an systemically organized sequence, a big “WTF is going on here?” began ringing in my head before the 1st tower’s dust was settling. When the 2nd tower came down in exactly the same way, I “knew” that these were no ordinary collapses, they weren’t even ordinary demolitions.
    Colleagues started calling after the 1st tower went down, more after the 2nd, and by noon a few of us had concluded there were explosives and a crack team of unorthodox demolition experts involved. Some, to be sure, looked the other way. They couldn’t go there. Some of the “few of us” found themselves ostracised, or had to look for new employment so I didn’t really hold it against the ones who couldn’t go there.
    Within days, the grassy knollers had started turning up other anomalies that served to augment my already defensible thesis that the buildings were demolished and that the official story was a cover for some serious skulduggery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I am not sure whether you intended to give the impression that you were at odds with the "official story" from day one when you formed your initial and lasting impression about what happened. Most people are referring to the Commission report several years later as the official story. So am I right in inferring that your contrast is between your immediate conviction that there must have been demolitions with the almost immediate acceptance by government people that it was a terrorist attack????

    Rather than express more of the abusive incredulity which is the usual 9/11 internet discussion mode, let me try and follow your reasoning from that initial intuition on.

    Almost immediately you learn of the Pentagon attack and UA93. You can only have thought of them as part of the same plot. So, if there were, as your WTC observations told you, more to it than just highjacked planes being used to provide cover for the demolition of the WTC towers what could explain the total 4 plane picture and its motivation? What did you think at the time and how did that thinking progress??

    Once you doubt the simple story of Al Qaeda malice and suppose the WTC towers were brought down by demolitions rather than the steel weakening fires and weight of the upper storeys you have to concude that a well insured owner was part of the plot at the stage when demolition was prepared. A major reason for that is that provoking the US government to go to war with the people behind it clearly didn't require that the towers collapse on 9/11.)

    Are you with me?.Are we in step?

    Can we set aside the thought that Larry Silverstein might have been an initiator of the plot? Imagine he was grumbling about the cost of removing asbestos and of needed refurbishment and someone, even someone he knew and completely trusted, suggested a monster fire or explosion. Response would have to be "yeah, yeah, and it looks like a lot of trash got lit up by unstubbed cigarettes in both towers? Or the boilers blew or!!!! ????." But then:

    "OK boss, who would you trust? The CIA, FBI?" "Tell me Mossad and I'm just about listening, but why the hell?" "Well boss, what if I tell you that it could be kinda Mossad because I got the whisper that Mossad is on to some crazy Saudi backed terrorists".

    Is there any alternative to some such involvement of the WTC owndrs or managers at the highest level? No, I suggest. And I support that because there is no way that Rumsfeld & Co would have chosen this way to start on unfinished business in Iraq, whereas I will just concede the possible logic of Israel wanting just to get the US started on fighting against Muslims, especially Arab Muslims, so that America becomes stuck with Israel's proxy wars. Any serious alternative?

    Why is Larry Silverstein let in on the fact that Mossad is quietly helping the Al Qaeda plotters? Well he's a friend and ally and would be so outraged if he discovered that his buildings, while underinsured, had been attacked with the connivance of Israel. So he has to be squared. He won't know the details but they will take on the technical demolition job so as to leave no evidence.

    Still they have a problem. No one can be sure exactly where the plànes will hit. Worse, they can't even be sure that both will be hit. So where do the explosives get placed?

    Now imagination has to take liberties. Plotters decide that, in the confusion they will be able to extract explosives from a tower that isn't hit at all, so they will take the risk. But there is still the problem of having demolition explosions that are not too loud and are at the right height to coincide with where the planes will happen to hit.

    Maybe the answer - no more certain than the speed of the aircraft unfortunately - is that once the aircraft had shattered a few of the tubular steel uprights all that was needed was explosions which would cut light steel floor joists that stop the weakened and damaged uprights collapsing in on themselves so as to leave a non supporting near void of three floors or whatever had been calculated to ensure the weight above couldn't be supported. To that end hundreds of plastic packets of extremely powerful explosive would have been placed in the floor spaces from say the 55th floor to the hundredth together with separate wireless connected detonators on each floor so just the right explosives could be detonated (leaving a lot of thermite, if that was the explosive, unexploded and potentially a giveaway - but we assume they take the risk).

    That then has to be your prime alternative theory does it not? You don't need any explanation for the Administration's lack of support or enthusiasm for the Commission beyond avoidance of political embarrassment. Indeed the supposedly sinister destruction or loss of interrogation tapes is easily explained too. Two embarrassments likely to emerge would have been (a) evidence of torture: (b) repeated obvious attempts to connect 9/11 to Iraq - and not Saudi Arabia - and repeated plausible denials of any Iraqi connection by those interrogated.

    So, do you agree that the plausible version which fits your initial instinct is that there was a genuine plot by Al Qaeda to use its multiple simultaneous attack strategy with more attacks than ever before, that the CIA and FBI in particular stuffed up, that Mossad got to know about the plot and even assisted it in some relatively minoŕ ways, that Mossad alerted Larry Silverstein with the result that the plot tò add on complete destruction of WTCs 1 and 2 (and maybe WTC for reasons unexplained) came about.... and that the real scandal is not so much that the CIA and FBI were incompetent but that Israel was sufficiently ruthless in its aim to keep America militarily active in the Muslim world that it allowed ìt to happen, but prompted Larry Silverstein to risk at least the killing of a lot more people than needed to happen.

    Now, that has to your version doesn't it? What else? I note that it relieves you from having to rely on dodgy factual and technical evidence about aircraft speed because it works regardless of whether the speed was 300 or 500 knots and it also allows for a common sense view about the other two planes which doesn't deny their existence.

    *** *** *** ***

    You eventually gave me your PilotsforTruth link which you couldn't got anything much from that was really solid in the hour you spent on it. Having decided to track down the statements about the Commission being "set up to fail" which some lightweight commenters glibly put forward as support fòr their beliefs in conspiracy (which as I have elsewhere pointed out it clearly is not) i came across a Guardian article which left me surprised that you only cited one truther website as authority. See former British MP Peter Tatchell's article, which mentions four such organisations, at

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/sep/12/911thebigcoverup

    But what I would really invite you to consider if you attach any great weight to the inadequacies of the Commission inquiry is the Wikipedia article

    "Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report"

    It shows that there was a lot to criticize; indeed that "set up to fail" is not unfair. But it doesn't help the case for American conspiracy: only American covering of backsides after incompetence.

    Then there are other good Wiki articles like "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" to name just one which would make for clearer headed understanding than blog comments and disputes. Of course they are obviously the product of millions of Mossad empoloyed hasbara, and those of the highest calibre, who know just how to lead the ŕeader by the nose through embarrassing revelations so devastating that the naive reader doesn't notice the missing information about all the sinister people behind the conspiracies and their plots and motives.
    ;-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Sparkon says:
    @Rurik

    Newton’s Principia.
     
    perhaps one of the most sublime works of the human mind to date

    https://iveehmc.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/worship.jpg

    if it don’t work there, it didn’t happen in the “real world” with 99.9999…%
     
    but we already know that with building seven, their explanation is virtually impossible- 100%

    so we already have the smoking gun for knowing that the official version is a crock

    especially when you consider that they reported it falling before it did!

    so we know that the official version is a lie, and we don't - IMHO - have to prove it on every metric, is all I'm saying.

    I respect that you're just doing your intellectual due diligence, and I'm sure your calculations are credible, but by concentrating too much on the minutia to the point that people's eyes glaze over from the formulations.., I feel you're inadvertently accommodating people like the wiz, who would like nothing more than to distract from the glaring fact; that 9/11 was an inside job.

    Other than that Erebus, I always take the time to read your often insightful and thoughtful comments

    cheers

    Until the guilty parties are brought to justice for 9/11, the investigation will continue. The citizens will carry the ball for as long as necessary, until the right people get some balls of their own.

    I think even inept detectives like Ace Ventura and Inspector Clouseau could find some likely suspects for 9/11, considering Bush sat, then fibbed; Rumsfeld hid, Cheney hunkered, Giuliani hauled, Myers stonewalled, Rice couldn’t imagine, Keane and Hammond were “set up to fail.”

    What a cast of characters! What a load of bologna!

    But please understand, not everyone’s eyes glaze over from minutia. Some of us feast on it. That’s why there is a division of labor — even testing — for skilled professions.

    Some have the chops; some don’t.

    My purpose here is not to convince the likes of utu, Wiz. or even you, of anything. I write for the readers, not necessarily for those who comment here. Those with glazed eyes can go watch TV, or walk their dog.

    As in basketball, the idea is to get the ball inside to the big guys, if we have any.

    All readers are quite capable of reading what they want, ignoring the rest, or skimming over what they chose, without needing any guidance from reading monitors. Need I add that most writers will not take kindly to all these variations on the theme of why we shouldn’t talk about the details of 9/11. Now it’s glazed eyes.

    And it seems you want to have it both ways.

    You responded to Simon at #111 above:

    “…so it behooves us all to look deeply into 9/11.’

    But then complained about the “minutia” to Erebus in #137 when he was doing just that:

    “I respect that you’re just doing your intellectual due diligence, and I’m sure your calculations are credible, but by concentrating too much on the minutia to the point that people’s eyes glaze over from the formulations.., I feel you’re inadvertently accommodating people like the wiz,”

    Why not discuss the evidence, rather than suggest we shouldn’t look at it, or talk about it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
    Sparkon,

    As you know, Christopher Bollyn has supplied evidence in "Solving 9/11." The book demands a verdict.
    , @Rurik
    Hey Sparkon,

    I write for the readers, not necessarily for those who comment here. Those with glazed eyes can go watch TV, or walk their dog.
     
    but that's my point...

    most, if not almost all of the readers are not 'skilled professionals'. They're laymen.

    We're on the same side, we both want to expose the criminals behind 9/11, but I guess we all have our own ideas about what's the best way to do it. If you think endlessly debating the minutia is the most satisfying and fruitful, then fine. I'll leave you guys to it. I said my point, I won't belabor it, especially to others who're on my side.

    As much as my personal nemeses JR, fulminates towards me personally, (writing entire tomes based on my refusal to comprehend his 'razor'), I still have tones of respect for the effort he put into trying to open people's clenched minds vis-a-vis 9/11 and all the rest of the glaring synthetic, false flag crimes of our government and media. Some of his works are masterpieces of mental tenacity at wrenching open the iron hasps that people incase their minds inside.

    We don't always agree, but damn that guy did the work!

    So, as more and more of us awaken, and are gently guided to the red pill, I don't care what methods are used, we both want the truth. Hell, I even think the wiz is helpful by inadvertently acting as a trollish springboard for the conversation.

    Why not discuss the evidence, rather than suggest we shouldn’t look at it, or talk about it?
     
    only because I think it becomes a distraction. And takes away from readers out there getting at the gems. When the Monty Python guy is talking about the African unladen swallow, it specifically prevents the king from discussing the point of the visit.

    I'm thinking of the lurkers. There aren't too many places out there for us to reach a wide audience. I don't know what the readership is here at Unz, but I can tell you I came here with an agenda. I wanted (and want) to undo as much of the 9/11 zio-agenda as I could. I hate contrived wars for the fun and profit of the elites. So, when Fred Reed used to write about it, and seemed to follow the official narrative, I'd write emails to him asking him about building seven. It was the only time I ever wrote to Fred, whose prose and style and outlook I (usually) admired. But how could he be so damnably obtuse when it came to this literally existential question!

    So when I read something on Fred on Everything about the Unz Review, I saw an opportunity to red pill Fred (who I figured does have a wide audience of sorts). And that's what I've been trying to do. So Mr. Unz, if you want to blame someone for my being here, blame Fred.

    cheers
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Anonymous
    Looks like the 9/11 trolls were quick in hijacking things.
    Unfortunately, none of us can resist.

    Social media itself is the best hijack there is. So, in Spain, what would be the first weapon to use on the population in addition to spectacular, deadly stunts?

    It is ORCHESTRATED “stunts,” bred and brought to you by those who operate according to the motto, ” By deception we do war.”

    ZUSA politicians, Corporate Media, D.C. bureacracy, and M.I.C.
    lords benefit mightily for playing key roles in the Zionist-orchestrated theater.

    Vladimir Lenin would be proud of the legion of “useful idiots” enlisted into the Deception War.

    Presently, Tom Corker of Arkansas is my favorite actor and Nikki Haley is my favorite actress!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Erebus

    ... now that Erebus (infra) has come out as “knowing it was an inside job” from day one.
     
    This is not the first time I've "come out" on Unz, and I make no secret of it.

    Watching the towers come down in real (TV) time, I immediately sensed something more than the planes and obviously weak fires was in play. Being intimately familiar with the strength redundancies engineers, esp civil engineers, build into things, seeing the amount of material being ejected horizontally and how quickly the towers came down in an systemically organized sequence, a big "WTF is going on here?" began ringing in my head before the 1st tower's dust was settling. When the 2nd tower came down in exactly the same way, I "knew" that these were no ordinary collapses, they weren't even ordinary demolitions.
    Colleagues started calling after the 1st tower went down, more after the 2nd, and by noon a few of us had concluded there were explosives and a crack team of unorthodox demolition experts involved. Some, to be sure, looked the other way. They couldn't go there. Some of the "few of us" found themselves ostracised, or had to look for new employment so I didn't really hold it against the ones who couldn't go there.
    Within days, the grassy knollers had started turning up other anomalies that served to augment my already defensible thesis that the buildings were demolished and that the official story was a cover for some serious skulduggery.

    I am not sure whether you intended to give the impression that you were at odds with the “official story” from day one when you formed your initial and lasting impression about what happened. Most people are referring to the Commission report several years later as the official story. So am I right in inferring that your contrast is between your immediate conviction that there must have been demolitions with the almost immediate acceptance by government people that it was a terrorist attack????

    Rather than express more of the abusive incredulity which is the usual 9/11 internet discussion mode, let me try and follow your reasoning from that initial intuition on.

    Almost immediately you learn of the Pentagon attack and UA93. You can only have thought of them as part of the same plot. So, if there were, as your WTC observations told you, more to it than just highjacked planes being used to provide cover for the demolition of the WTC towers what could explain the total 4 plane picture and its motivation? What did you think at the time and how did that thinking progress??

    Once you doubt the simple story of Al Qaeda malice and suppose the WTC towers were brought down by demolitions rather than the steel weakening fires and weight of the upper storeys you have to concude that a well insured owner was part of the plot at the stage when demolition was prepared. A major reason for that is that provoking the US government to go to war with the people behind it clearly didn’t require that the towers collapse on 9/11.)

    Are you with me?.Are we in step?

    Can we set aside the thought that Larry Silverstein might have been an initiator of the plot? Imagine he was grumbling about the cost of removing asbestos and of needed refurbishment and someone, even someone he knew and completely trusted, suggested a monster fire or explosion. Response would have to be “yeah, yeah, and it looks like a lot of trash got lit up by unstubbed cigarettes in both towers? Or the boilers blew or!!!! ????.” But then:

    “OK boss, who would you trust? The CIA, FBI?” “Tell me Mossad and I’m just about listening, but why the hell?” “Well boss, what if I tell you that it could be kinda Mossad because I got the whisper that Mossad is on to some crazy Saudi backed terrorists”.

    Is there any alternative to some such involvement of the WTC owndrs or managers at the highest level? No, I suggest. And I support that because there is no way that Rumsfeld & Co would have chosen this way to start on unfinished business in Iraq, whereas I will just concede the possible logic of Israel wanting just to get the US started on fighting against Muslims, especially Arab Muslims, so that America becomes stuck with Israel’s proxy wars. Any serious alternative?

    Why is Larry Silverstein let in on the fact that Mossad is quietly helping the Al Qaeda plotters? Well he’s a friend and ally and would be so outraged if he discovered that his buildings, while underinsured, had been attacked with the connivance of Israel. So he has to be squared. He won’t know the details but they will take on the technical demolition job so as to leave no evidence.

    Still they have a problem. No one can be sure exactly where the plànes will hit. Worse, they can’t even be sure that both will be hit. So where do the explosives get placed?

    Now imagination has to take liberties. Plotters decide that, in the confusion they will be able to extract explosives from a tower that isn’t hit at all, so they will take the risk. But there is still the problem of having demolition explosions that are not too loud and are at the right height to coincide with where the planes will happen to hit.

    Maybe the answer – no more certain than the speed of the aircraft unfortunately – is that once the aircraft had shattered a few of the tubular steel uprights all that was needed was explosions which would cut light steel floor joists that stop the weakened and damaged uprights collapsing in on themselves so as to leave a non supporting near void of three floors or whatever had been calculated to ensure the weight above couldn’t be supported. To that end hundreds of plastic packets of extremely powerful explosive would have been placed in the floor spaces from say the 55th floor to the hundredth together with separate wireless connected detonators on each floor so just the right explosives could be detonated (leaving a lot of thermite, if that was the explosive, unexploded and potentially a giveaway – but we assume they take the risk).

    That then has to be your prime alternative theory does it not? You don’t need any explanation for the Administration’s lack of support or enthusiasm for the Commission beyond avoidance of political embarrassment. Indeed the supposedly sinister destruction or loss of interrogation tapes is easily explained too. Two embarrassments likely to emerge would have been (a) evidence of torture: (b) repeated obvious attempts to connect 9/11 to Iraq – and not Saudi Arabia – and repeated plausible denials of any Iraqi connection by those interrogated.

    So, do you agree that the plausible version which fits your initial instinct is that there was a genuine plot by Al Qaeda to use its multiple simultaneous attack strategy with more attacks than ever before, that the CIA and FBI in particular stuffed up, that Mossad got to know about the plot and even assisted it in some relatively minoŕ ways, that Mossad alerted Larry Silverstein with the result that the plot tò add on complete destruction of WTCs 1 and 2 (and maybe WTC for reasons unexplained) came about…. and that the real scandal is not so much that the CIA and FBI were incompetent but that Israel was sufficiently ruthless in its aim to keep America militarily active in the Muslim world that it allowed ìt to happen, but prompted Larry Silverstein to risk at least the killing of a lot more people than needed to happen.

    Now, that has to your version doesn’t it? What else? I note that it relieves you from having to rely on dodgy factual and technical evidence about aircraft speed because it works regardless of whether the speed was 300 or 500 knots and it also allows for a common sense view about the other two planes which doesn’t deny their existence.

    *** *** *** ***

    You eventually gave me your PilotsforTruth link which you couldn’t got anything much from that was really solid in the hour you spent on it. Having decided to track down the statements about the Commission being “set up to fail” which some lightweight commenters glibly put forward as support fòr their beliefs in conspiracy (which as I have elsewhere pointed out it clearly is not) i came across a Guardian article which left me surprised that you only cited one truther website as authority. See former British MP Peter Tatchell’s article, which mentions four such organisations, at

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/sep/12/911thebigcoverup

    But what I would really invite you to consider if you attach any great weight to the inadequacies of the Commission inquiry is the Wikipedia article

    “Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report”

    It shows that there was a lot to criticize; indeed that “set up to fail” is not unfair. But it doesn’t help the case for American conspiracy: only American covering of backsides after incompetence.

    Then there are other good Wiki articles like “9/11 Conspiracy Theories” to name just one which would make for clearer headed understanding than blog comments and disputes. Of course they are obviously the product of millions of Mossad empoloyed hasbara, and those of the highest calibre, who know just how to lead the ŕeader by the nose through embarrassing revelations so devastating that the naive reader doesn’t notice the missing information about all the sinister people behind the conspiracies and their plots and motives.
    ;-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    Most people are referring to the Commission report several years later as the official story.
     
    I could just as truthfully have written "what eventually became the Official story".

    Are you with me?.Are we in step?
     
    Nope, you're still on all fours.

    Once you doubt the simple story of Al Qaeda malice and suppose the WTC towers were brought down by demolitions rather than the steel weakening fires and weight of the upper storeys you have to concude that a well insured owner was part of the plot at the stage when demolition was prepared.
     
    No, that's not the way I think at all. I didn't think of personalities or motives until many months later, maybe as much as a year. In the early stages, that is to indulge in fantasy and speculation which interest me only after I know the facts.

    Now, that has to your version doesn’t it? What else?
     
    Not even close. Wildly off the mark. Sorry, but you're rummaging around far too low in the food chain. An event on the scale and audacity of 9/11 isn't about insurance, or stock puts, or "getting America to bomb Afghanistan". Think about what else was happening in the world, and the situation America was facing. It had a choice at the turn of the century, a giant Either/Or, and Or won. It's stilling winning, by the looks of it, much to America's disgrace and eventual humiliation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Sparkon
    Until the guilty parties are brought to justice for 9/11, the investigation will continue. The citizens will carry the ball for as long as necessary, until the right people get some balls of their own.

    I think even inept detectives like Ace Ventura and Inspector Clouseau could find some likely suspects for 9/11, considering Bush sat, then fibbed; Rumsfeld hid, Cheney hunkered, Giuliani hauled, Myers stonewalled, Rice couldn't imagine, Keane and Hammond were "set up to fail."

    What a cast of characters! What a load of bologna!

    But please understand, not everyone's eyes glaze over from minutia. Some of us feast on it. That's why there is a division of labor -- even testing -- for skilled professions.

    Some have the chops; some don't.

    My purpose here is not to convince the likes of utu, Wiz. or even you, of anything. I write for the readers, not necessarily for those who comment here. Those with glazed eyes can go watch TV, or walk their dog.

    As in basketball, the idea is to get the ball inside to the big guys, if we have any.

    All readers are quite capable of reading what they want, ignoring the rest, or skimming over what they chose, without needing any guidance from reading monitors. Need I add that most writers will not take kindly to all these variations on the theme of why we shouldn't talk about the details of 9/11. Now it's glazed eyes.

    And it seems you want to have it both ways.

    You responded to Simon at #111 above:


    "...so it behooves us all to look deeply into 9/11.'
     
    But then complained about the "minutia" to Erebus in #137 when he was doing just that:

    "I respect that you’re just doing your intellectual due diligence, and I’m sure your calculations are credible, but by concentrating too much on the minutia to the point that people’s eyes glaze over from the formulations.., I feel you’re inadvertently accommodating people like the wiz,"
     
    Why not discuss the evidence, rather than suggest we shouldn't look at it, or talk about it?

    Sparkon,

    As you know, Christopher Bollyn has supplied evidence in “Solving 9/11.” The book demands a verdict.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Bollyn's book can be downloaded here.: http://www.bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book/#article_12159
    It is comprehensive, and comes as close to an official inquiry as a private citizen can probably get. It should be read by everyone from Boise to Beijing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Rurik says:
    @ChuckOrloski
    Rurik,

    I am pondering what seems to be a criminal connection in the finding of the "Magic Bullet" which allegedly fell off the president's gurney & dropped to the floor of Parkland Hospital E.R. hallway, and the miraculous discovery of a passport belonging to a 9/11 hijacker.

    Having viewed photos of the "evidence" noted above, both items were in good condition and were used as fake evidence to fool very vulnerable & scared citizens.

    The Magic Bullet and the Magic Passport are presently demoted to being little, inconsequential, shady that helped sustain immoral war in Viet Nam and instigate endless ZUSA War o(f) Terror.

    Israelis made sure there was no Sherlock Holmes-type D.O.J. investigation activity during aftermath of both the JFK murder & 9/11 mass murder. The "little" findings at these traitorous crime scenes turned out to be infinitely the most important.

    Recently, P. Giraldi let on how U.S. (big) city police departments get Israeli training. It is so pitiful to know how susceptible are citizens to ZUSA's talent for planting evidence, creation of "patsys," and routine 24/7 presentation of False Flag-horror theater.

    Thanks, Rurik!

    Thanks Jon and Linh!

    Hey Chuck,

    both the JFK murder & 9/11 mass murder.

    two seminal (Biblical level) crimes committed by elements in the US government that altered history for all time. 9/11 is perhaps the most unprecedentedly evil act ever committed, and that’s saying a lot- (no doubt to the sniggers of men like Silverstein)

    Michael Collins Piper in his book Final Judgment makes the case that the Mossad was behind the JFK murder, (something I’ve always considered likely since JFK was working to abolish the Fed)

    and we know the Mossad was behind 9/11

    one thing I don’t understand is how so many people can know these things, (as they obviously must), like the attack on the USS Liberty, how can so many people know of the worst kind of murderous betrayal at the highest levels… and yet pretend like everything is just fine.

    How do you go home to your wife and kids, knowing that men and women in your government are stone-cold traitors and psychopathic killers?

    I remember when I found out that the FBI lied about starting the fires at Waco, and then seeing the footage of machine gun fire into the only exit of the burning compound/church, where stacks of bodies were later found. They weren’t going to let any of those people escape the flames. Children and all.

    I guess that’s why I call it the Fiend. There’s something in the human id that’s so blood-curdling evil it’s incomprehensible to me. It’s that human principle that Orwell was on about in his book 1984.

    it’s why a woman tied up a little boy and tortured him to death with a blow torch

    and it seems like that is exactly the kind of people who seek power in this world

    the hatred-consumed, demonically twisted psychopaths

    and then look at all these men surrounding Bibi, when they all know that he was aware 9/11 was going to happen but didn’t warn us, because it would be good for Israel, ‘good for the Jews’, to let it happen.

    there’s a man who was complicit with the horrific slaughter of thousands of your fellow countrymen and women. And who saw them slaughtered so that he could use the crime to see even more of them slaughtered as they slaughtered and maimed and displaced millions more…

    A man who demands billions of dollars in aid from these very same countrymen and women. And then sits by and watches as his Mossad films them being consumed in fireballs – while dancing and cheering at their deaths.

    and yet look how our congress positively gush over him

    I wonder…

    if you went up to your average American, and said ‘hey’ how would you like to have power over your countrymen, and fabulous wealth and privileges and perks… but the only thing is you have to go along with destroying all their constitutional rights and force them to fund an invasion of their lands by often murderously hostile foreigners who will eventually destroy the fabric of this country, while working with their deadliest enemies to see them butchered in the most horrific ways imaginable, when you aren’t doing it yourself at places like Waco?’

    who are these people that say ‘sure, sounds good to me!’

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
    Rurik,

    When we discuss the Fiend, I am coming from a spiritual level.

    Satanism.

    When the Manson Family went on a killing rampage, people had little problem with calling Charlie the Devil.

    When working members of the Mossad "Family" were caught celebrating the 9/11 attacks, the Dancing Israelis were released on good behavior and sent home to the Promised Spahn Ranch.

    When G.W. Bush led Shock & Awe and "non-combatant" torture became popular among the Neocons, very few Americans saw the Manson mystique and how soldiers burst into the "(mosque) bathroom window."

    So how did ZUSA-merican leaders and bureaucrats return home knowing that an A.G. fried Branch Davidians? How did they sleep when the Lion Bibi roared, "9/11 is good for Israel."

    During mid-1980's, Lyndon Larouche released an entire E.I.R. magazine article on the topic of the activities of international satanism in very high places. Here is what I think, Rurik: The "Trickle Down" effect of institutional satanism results in ZUSA legislators giving serial standing ovations for an Israeli P.M. who should have been arrested for (at minimum) embezzlement to the tune of $3
    8 billion/x's 10 years.

    Finally, C.S. Lewis wrote "The Screwtape Letters" which remind me of how Sam Shama and "iffen" used to carry on here at U.R. You may cotton to the late-Mr. Lewis' take on fiendish organizations more than mine, and I understand that.

    Thanks Rurik! We're probably in for some weird ritualistic event come the eclipse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Rurik says:
    @Sparkon
    Until the guilty parties are brought to justice for 9/11, the investigation will continue. The citizens will carry the ball for as long as necessary, until the right people get some balls of their own.

    I think even inept detectives like Ace Ventura and Inspector Clouseau could find some likely suspects for 9/11, considering Bush sat, then fibbed; Rumsfeld hid, Cheney hunkered, Giuliani hauled, Myers stonewalled, Rice couldn't imagine, Keane and Hammond were "set up to fail."

    What a cast of characters! What a load of bologna!

    But please understand, not everyone's eyes glaze over from minutia. Some of us feast on it. That's why there is a division of labor -- even testing -- for skilled professions.

    Some have the chops; some don't.

    My purpose here is not to convince the likes of utu, Wiz. or even you, of anything. I write for the readers, not necessarily for those who comment here. Those with glazed eyes can go watch TV, or walk their dog.

    As in basketball, the idea is to get the ball inside to the big guys, if we have any.

    All readers are quite capable of reading what they want, ignoring the rest, or skimming over what they chose, without needing any guidance from reading monitors. Need I add that most writers will not take kindly to all these variations on the theme of why we shouldn't talk about the details of 9/11. Now it's glazed eyes.

    And it seems you want to have it both ways.

    You responded to Simon at #111 above:


    "...so it behooves us all to look deeply into 9/11.'
     
    But then complained about the "minutia" to Erebus in #137 when he was doing just that:

    "I respect that you’re just doing your intellectual due diligence, and I’m sure your calculations are credible, but by concentrating too much on the minutia to the point that people’s eyes glaze over from the formulations.., I feel you’re inadvertently accommodating people like the wiz,"
     
    Why not discuss the evidence, rather than suggest we shouldn't look at it, or talk about it?

    Hey Sparkon,

    I write for the readers, not necessarily for those who comment here. Those with glazed eyes can go watch TV, or walk their dog.

    but that’s my point…

    most, if not almost all of the readers are not ‘skilled professionals’. They’re laymen.

    We’re on the same side, we both want to expose the criminals behind 9/11, but I guess we all have our own ideas about what’s the best way to do it. If you think endlessly debating the minutia is the most satisfying and fruitful, then fine. I’ll leave you guys to it. I said my point, I won’t belabor it, especially to others who’re on my side.

    As much as my personal nemeses JR, fulminates towards me personally, (writing entire tomes based on my refusal to comprehend his ‘razor’), I still have tones of respect for the effort he put into trying to open people’s clenched minds vis-a-vis 9/11 and all the rest of the glaring synthetic, false flag crimes of our government and media. Some of his works are masterpieces of mental tenacity at wrenching open the iron hasps that people incase their minds inside.

    We don’t always agree, but damn that guy did the work!

    So, as more and more of us awaken, and are gently guided to the red pill, I don’t care what methods are used, we both want the truth. Hell, I even think the wiz is helpful by inadvertently acting as a trollish springboard for the conversation.

    Why not discuss the evidence, rather than suggest we shouldn’t look at it, or talk about it?

    only because I think it becomes a distraction. And takes away from readers out there getting at the gems. When the Monty Python guy is talking about the African unladen swallow, it specifically prevents the king from discussing the point of the visit.

    I’m thinking of the lurkers. There aren’t too many places out there for us to reach a wide audience. I don’t know what the readership is here at Unz, but I can tell you I came here with an agenda. I wanted (and want) to undo as much of the 9/11 zio-agenda as I could. I hate contrived wars for the fun and profit of the elites. So, when Fred Reed used to write about it, and seemed to follow the official narrative, I’d write emails to him asking him about building seven. It was the only time I ever wrote to Fred, whose prose and style and outlook I (usually) admired. But how could he be so damnably obtuse when it came to this literally existential question!

    So when I read something on Fred on Everything about the Unz Review, I saw an opportunity to red pill Fred (who I figured does have a wide audience of sorts). And that’s what I’ve been trying to do. So Mr. Unz, if you want to blame someone for my being here, blame Fred.

    cheers

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    encase
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Rurik says:
    @Rurik
    Hey Sparkon,

    I write for the readers, not necessarily for those who comment here. Those with glazed eyes can go watch TV, or walk their dog.
     
    but that's my point...

    most, if not almost all of the readers are not 'skilled professionals'. They're laymen.

    We're on the same side, we both want to expose the criminals behind 9/11, but I guess we all have our own ideas about what's the best way to do it. If you think endlessly debating the minutia is the most satisfying and fruitful, then fine. I'll leave you guys to it. I said my point, I won't belabor it, especially to others who're on my side.

    As much as my personal nemeses JR, fulminates towards me personally, (writing entire tomes based on my refusal to comprehend his 'razor'), I still have tones of respect for the effort he put into trying to open people's clenched minds vis-a-vis 9/11 and all the rest of the glaring synthetic, false flag crimes of our government and media. Some of his works are masterpieces of mental tenacity at wrenching open the iron hasps that people incase their minds inside.

    We don't always agree, but damn that guy did the work!

    So, as more and more of us awaken, and are gently guided to the red pill, I don't care what methods are used, we both want the truth. Hell, I even think the wiz is helpful by inadvertently acting as a trollish springboard for the conversation.

    Why not discuss the evidence, rather than suggest we shouldn’t look at it, or talk about it?
     
    only because I think it becomes a distraction. And takes away from readers out there getting at the gems. When the Monty Python guy is talking about the African unladen swallow, it specifically prevents the king from discussing the point of the visit.

    I'm thinking of the lurkers. There aren't too many places out there for us to reach a wide audience. I don't know what the readership is here at Unz, but I can tell you I came here with an agenda. I wanted (and want) to undo as much of the 9/11 zio-agenda as I could. I hate contrived wars for the fun and profit of the elites. So, when Fred Reed used to write about it, and seemed to follow the official narrative, I'd write emails to him asking him about building seven. It was the only time I ever wrote to Fred, whose prose and style and outlook I (usually) admired. But how could he be so damnably obtuse when it came to this literally existential question!

    So when I read something on Fred on Everything about the Unz Review, I saw an opportunity to red pill Fred (who I figured does have a wide audience of sorts). And that's what I've been trying to do. So Mr. Unz, if you want to blame someone for my being here, blame Fred.

    cheers

    encase

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Rurik
    Hey Chuck,

    both the JFK murder & 9/11 mass murder.
     
    two seminal (Biblical level) crimes committed by elements in the US government that altered history for all time. 9/11 is perhaps the most unprecedentedly evil act ever committed, and that's saying a lot- (no doubt to the sniggers of men like Silverstein)

    Michael Collins Piper in his book Final Judgment makes the case that the Mossad was behind the JFK murder, (something I've always considered likely since JFK was working to abolish the Fed)

    and we know the Mossad was behind 9/11

    one thing I don't understand is how so many people can know these things, (as they obviously must), like the attack on the USS Liberty, how can so many people know of the worst kind of murderous betrayal at the highest levels... and yet pretend like everything is just fine.

    How do you go home to your wife and kids, knowing that men and women in your government are stone-cold traitors and psychopathic killers?

    I remember when I found out that the FBI lied about starting the fires at Waco, and then seeing the footage of machine gun fire into the only exit of the burning compound/church, where stacks of bodies were later found. They weren't going to let any of those people escape the flames. Children and all.

    I guess that's why I call it the Fiend. There's something in the human id that's so blood-curdling evil it's incomprehensible to me. It's that human principle that Orwell was on about in his book 1984.

    it's why a woman tied up a little boy and tortured him to death with a blow torch

    and it seems like that is exactly the kind of people who seek power in this world

    the hatred-consumed, demonically twisted psychopaths

    and then look at all these men surrounding Bibi, when they all know that he was aware 9/11 was going to happen but didn't warn us, because it would be good for Israel, 'good for the Jews', to let it happen.

    http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/03/04/opinion/4wed1WEB/4wed1WEB-articleLarge.jpg

    there's a man who was complicit with the horrific slaughter of thousands of your fellow countrymen and women. And who saw them slaughtered so that he could use the crime to see even more of them slaughtered as they slaughtered and maimed and displaced millions more...

    A man who demands billions of dollars in aid from these very same countrymen and women. And then sits by and watches as his Mossad films them being consumed in fireballs - while dancing and cheering at their deaths.

    and yet look how our congress positively gush over him

    I wonder...

    if you went up to your average American, and said 'hey' how would you like to have power over your countrymen, and fabulous wealth and privileges and perks... but the only thing is you have to go along with destroying all their constitutional rights and force them to fund an invasion of their lands by often murderously hostile foreigners who will eventually destroy the fabric of this country, while working with their deadliest enemies to see them butchered in the most horrific ways imaginable, when you aren't doing it yourself at places like Waco?'

    who are these people that say 'sure, sounds good to me!'

    http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2014_37/655356/140908-clinton_bush_presidents-1119_bdb70e16158da33cd33be84501f2cd85.jpg

    https://maxcdn1.laprogressive.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/hillary-and-ryan-720.jpg

    Rurik,

    When we discuss the Fiend, I am coming from a spiritual level.

    Satanism.

    When the Manson Family went on a killing rampage, people had little problem with calling Charlie the Devil.

    When working members of the Mossad “Family” were caught celebrating the 9/11 attacks, the Dancing Israelis were released on good behavior and sent home to the Promised Spahn Ranch.

    When G.W. Bush led Shock & Awe and “non-combatant” torture became popular among the Neocons, very few Americans saw the Manson mystique and how soldiers burst into the “(mosque) bathroom window.”

    So how did ZUSA-merican leaders and bureaucrats return home knowing that an A.G. fried Branch Davidians? How did they sleep when the Lion Bibi roared, “9/11 is good for Israel.”

    During mid-1980′s, Lyndon Larouche released an entire E.I.R. magazine article on the topic of the activities of international satanism in very high places. Here is what I think, Rurik: The “Trickle Down” effect of institutional satanism results in ZUSA legislators giving serial standing ovations for an Israeli P.M. who should have been arrested for (at minimum) embezzlement to the tune of $3
    8 billion/x’s 10 years.

    Finally, C.S. Lewis wrote “The Screwtape Letters” which remind me of how Sam Shama and “iffen” used to carry on here at U.R. You may cotton to the late-Mr. Lewis’ take on fiendish organizations more than mine, and I understand that.

    Thanks Rurik! We’re probably in for some weird ritualistic event come the eclipse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Rurik says:

    the Fiend, I am coming from a spiritual level.

    Satanism.

    I certainly have no problem with that Chuck. I was raised Christian, and still hold precious many of the things the Christ said and stood for.

    But I see the Fiend as more of a throwback to our less civilized, less ‘divine’ natures. It’s like a part of our ids from the days of slime that has become ascendant in some people’s personalities, or collective souls. And due to the tragedy of fiat money, has been empowered to manifest all its base, reptile-like impulses on the world. For me it’s ironic that they sit there pouring over their Talmud, as if it were the very voice of God, when for me, it couldn’t possibly be more primordial, as if out of the slime itself ~

    “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord: … Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

    more suited to crocodiles than humans, and yet it’s the basis of a major religion

    So I have my issues with religion, especially as I see the length and breath of the Christian religion demanding open borders and homo-weddings (Ireland especially) and groveling fealty to all things Zion.

    Most of the people in my life are Christian, including my family and friends and associates, to one degree or another, and I consider them and the people of Christendom the best there are. (even if I’m a little biased ; )

    But then I look on with angst and alarm as it seems that ironically. it will be the leadership of Christianity that will be the death of Christendom, through their infinite venality and slavish servility to all things Zion, and in the case of the Vatican, serial pederasty.

    But many in my family are Catholics, and I’d sacrifice my life for them.

    The Catholic church in its present form, not so much.

    Thanks Chuck!

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
    Rurik,

    The Vatican Bank laundered money in support for Operation Gladio. Business partners included CIA and the mafia. I have no solid clue about the role of Mossad ancestors.

    At any rate, Pope Francis supported Muslim refugees, who fled immoral ZUSA wars, and helped cheerlead their immigration & welcome into western European countries.

    We just witnessed another False Flag attack, this time in Spain. After a lay off period, the Islamic State followed script & took credit for the murders.

    I am very suspicious, Rurik, and I smell sulfur.

    At present, is the world being entertained by watching an Operation Gladio revival where Anglo-Zionist E.U. criminals support opening doors to immigrant Muslims and then set them up for a broader kill?

    As a life long Byzantine Catholic, I hope the Vatican is clean and has no linkage with a demonic Neo Operation Gladio.

    Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Erebus says:
    @ChuckOrloski
    Sparkon,

    As you know, Christopher Bollyn has supplied evidence in "Solving 9/11." The book demands a verdict.

    Bollyn’s book can be downloaded here.: http://www.bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book/#article_12159
    It is comprehensive, and comes as close to an official inquiry as a private citizen can probably get. It should be read by everyone from Boise to Beijing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
    Thanks, Erebus!

    Great comment about the book's value "from Boise to Beijing."

    I am in hope that some Asian students, matriculating here in ZUSA, will read "Solving 9/11" and discuss the book upon return home.

    Awareness happens at a hardy pace of one brain at a time.

    Thanks again!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Rurik

    the Fiend, I am coming from a spiritual level.

    Satanism.
     

    I certainly have no problem with that Chuck. I was raised Christian, and still hold precious many of the things the Christ said and stood for.

    But I see the Fiend as more of a throwback to our less civilized, less 'divine' natures. It's like a part of our ids from the days of slime that has become ascendant in some people's personalities, or collective souls. And due to the tragedy of fiat money, has been empowered to manifest all its base, reptile-like impulses on the world. For me it's ironic that they sit there pouring over their Talmud, as if it were the very voice of God, when for me, it couldn't possibly be more primordial, as if out of the slime itself ~

    “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord: ... Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

    more suited to crocodiles than humans, and yet it's the basis of a major religion

    So I have my issues with religion, especially as I see the length and breath of the Christian religion demanding open borders and homo-weddings (Ireland especially) and groveling fealty to all things Zion.

    Most of the people in my life are Christian, including my family and friends and associates, to one degree or another, and I consider them and the people of Christendom the best there are. (even if I'm a little biased ; )

    But then I look on with angst and alarm as it seems that ironically. it will be the leadership of Christianity that will be the death of Christendom, through their infinite venality and slavish servility to all things Zion, and in the case of the Vatican, serial pederasty.

    But many in my family are Catholics, and I'd sacrifice my life for them.

    The Catholic church in its present form, not so much.

    Thanks Chuck!

    Rurik,

    The Vatican Bank laundered money in support for Operation Gladio. Business partners included CIA and the mafia. I have no solid clue about the role of Mossad ancestors.

    At any rate, Pope Francis supported Muslim refugees, who fled immoral ZUSA wars, and helped cheerlead their immigration & welcome into western European countries.

    We just witnessed another False Flag attack, this time in Spain. After a lay off period, the Islamic State followed script & took credit for the murders.

    I am very suspicious, Rurik, and I smell sulfur.

    At present, is the world being entertained by watching an Operation Gladio revival where Anglo-Zionist E.U. criminals support opening doors to immigrant Muslims and then set them up for a broader kill?

    As a life long Byzantine Catholic, I hope the Vatican is clean and has no linkage with a demonic Neo Operation Gladio.

    Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Hey Chuck,

    At any rate, Pope Francis supported Muslim refugees, who fled immoral ZUSA wars,
     
    I don't see them as refugees Chuck. They look to me to be 'military age', single young men for the most part. Millions of them. And most from nations that are not at war.

    If they were old men and women with young children coming from places like Syria or elsewhere where the zio-Fiend has been using my nation to slaughter and maim and displace, then I'd have no problem giving them succor here in the states.

    I am very suspicious, Rurik, and I smell sulfur.
     
    that's my default temperament, and Hugo Chaves could not have said it better about what preceded him at the UN lectern

    As a life long Byzantine Catholic, I hope the Vatican is clean and has no linkage with a demonic Neo Operation Gladio.
     
    I fear your hopes are misplaced Chuck.

    Consider for just a moment the Catholic church of Byzantium, vs. today...

    what are the chances that the Byzantium Pope would have advocated:

    allowing (hell, facilitating and paying for!) armies of millions of military age Muslim men to march on Christendom, demanding accommodation for their ways, and respect for their religious and cultural traditions, and even for the authorities to allow them to set up, with local financing, Muslim-only hamlets in previously Christian villages and cities, violently in opposition to the local laws and customs. Where the local police are not allowed access. Known as 'no-go' areas for the local white citizens.

    a repudiation of Constantinople as a bastion of Christian beliefs and people, and a submissive, sanguine acceptance of the city as Muslim for all eternity?

    an explosion of Mosques (and even nascent sharia law) all over Europe and the West ("Christendom")

    a groveling, spiritually emasculated acceptance of Christian school girls being gang raped and terrorized into abject sex-slavery for the middle aged Muslim men in their villages.

    and Christian boys too, of course

    https://www.rt.com/news/363890-iraqi-refugee-rape-austria/

    can you imagine a Byzantium Pope demanding that Muslim invaders be allowed to rape ten year old Christian boys, being as Christians are soulless 'racists' with guilty hands and Muslims (like all brown and black men) are sacrosanct and holy victims of evil Christian crusaders and racists?, to the point that they can take at will the children of Christian households for their violent sexual amusements?

    all while demanding that Europe is not doing enough to accommodate *more* Muslims...(and everyone else)

    all while demanding that Europe is not doing enough to accommodate radical homosexuals and their lifestyles? When the Irish were voting on gay marriage, the Pope was silent. Can you imagine the same from the Catholic Church and Pope of Byzantium? From the Catholic people?

    There doesn't seem to be one moral, cultural, criminal or spiritual outrage against Christian values or the people who've held them for centuries, that today's Pope and Vatican don't hardily advocate. And I confess I can't help but wonder what semblances, if any, exist between the Catholic Church of Byzantium, vs. the pedophiles and zio-whores and overt, genocidal and spiritual enemies of Christendom who occupy the Vatican today.

    Normally I wouldn't burden the Catholics I know with such uncomfortable observations, but you seem so thoughtful and open minded, that I figure you'll see I'm not being heretical or antagonistic, at least not on purpose.

    as Christendom is dying a humiliating death, it seems that from the Christians in Minnesota, who're facilitating an invasion of Somali Muslims, to the Catholic church, who demands Europe open its gates to all non-Christians everywhere on the planet, that there is a festering soul-rot in Christianity that is going to be the death of us all. Certainly a cause for our children to curse us in our graves.

    I guess I'm just a little put off that the (spiritually emasculated, racially castrated) Christian people tolerate it all (hell, welcome it and pay for it!). Even to the point of Muslims from Africa being given uniforms and guns who then shoot and murder an (obviously unarmed) Christian women in her pajamas (three times!) who came out to report a rape.

    I wonder if the Minnesota Christians are holding candle light vigils for Mohamed Noor. Hiring lawyers and calling anyone who wants more details into the murder "racists"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Erebus
    Bollyn's book can be downloaded here.: http://www.bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book/#article_12159
    It is comprehensive, and comes as close to an official inquiry as a private citizen can probably get. It should be read by everyone from Boise to Beijing.

    Thanks, Erebus!

    Great comment about the book’s value “from Boise to Beijing.”

    I am in hope that some Asian students, matriculating here in ZUSA, will read “Solving 9/11″ and discuss the book upon return home.

    Awareness happens at a hardy pace of one brain at a time.

    Thanks again!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Wizard of Oz
    I can see the perfectly ordinary resistance of UR commenters to changing entrenched views, but as I, a complete sceptic with no barrow to push, keep on finding the weaknesses in trufhers' beliefs I shall I hope, in the end, have a tiny cohort of UR monikers which I can honour as belinging to persons able go change their minds when the balance of evidence available to them shifts.

    Jonathan Revusky has asked you several times to post what you think is the most compelling evidence to support the official government narrative of what happened on 9/11 and to my knowledge you have yet to do so, but still you (mis)type endless inane questions like a two year old forever asking “why?”.
    It’s little wonder that you have become the resident (unfunny) joke here at The Unz Review.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Being a low reader as well as a slow thinker you evidently are not up with my repeated implicit answers any more than you have absorbed that answering anything from the mad Revusky is not on my agenda.

    See my recent attempt to extrapolate from Erebus’s immediate, on 9/11, instinct to feel certain that it wasn’t just the consequence of fuelled up planes hitting the towers and consequent fires and steel weakening that brought the towers down.

    Of course there was cover up and obfuscation, not least because of the 2004 election coming up. The CIA, FBI, NORAD, FAA, the Air Force all had reason to fear embarrassment even if only by others defecting blame, and not the least of the Bush Administration’s concerns would be disclosures which (further) delegitimized the Iraq war.

    I see absolutely no reason to doubt that Al Qaeda was planning a multipronged suicide attack with highjacked aircraft and am almost equally sure that a main motive was to prompt America to attack Afghanistan. I am willing to entertain as not impossible the taking advantage of this by some with foreknowledge but I wouldn’t bet on it at even 5 to 1 against whereas I would bet a small fortune on the first proposition at 6 to 4 on or even 2 to 1 on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    I see absolutely no reason to doubt that Al Qaeda was planning a multipronged suicide attack with highjacked aircraft and am almost equally sure that a main motive was to prompt America to attack Afghanistan.
     
    And/or Saudi Arabia, thereby unifying the entire Muslim world around the need to fund the resistance to American invasion. Uncle Sam only invaded Afghanistan, and he rallied Muslim countries to, if not support the invasion, at least limit the amount of financial and material support for the Taliban. The kid glove approach towards striking the Taliban, involving extreme care vis-a-vis the possibility of collateral damage, may be aimed at keeping the global faithful out of the conflict.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Erebus says:

    I see absolutely no reason to doubt that Al Qaeda was planning a multipronged suicide attack with highjacked aircraft and am almost equally sure that a main motive was to prompt America to attack Afghanistan. I am willing to entertain as not impossible the taking advantage of this by some with foreknowledge but I wouldn’t bet on it at even 5 to 1 against whereas I would bet a small fortune on the first proposition at 6 to 4 on or even 2 to 1 on.

    You’re on! Ah, how large is that “small fortune”, exactly? Are you prepared to put it in an escrow account (not that I don’t trust you)?
    Any other bets you want to make? I heard you believe in the Holocaust…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  169. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I am not sure whether you intended to give the impression that you were at odds with the "official story" from day one when you formed your initial and lasting impression about what happened. Most people are referring to the Commission report several years later as the official story. So am I right in inferring that your contrast is between your immediate conviction that there must have been demolitions with the almost immediate acceptance by government people that it was a terrorist attack????

    Rather than express more of the abusive incredulity which is the usual 9/11 internet discussion mode, let me try and follow your reasoning from that initial intuition on.

    Almost immediately you learn of the Pentagon attack and UA93. You can only have thought of them as part of the same plot. So, if there were, as your WTC observations told you, more to it than just highjacked planes being used to provide cover for the demolition of the WTC towers what could explain the total 4 plane picture and its motivation? What did you think at the time and how did that thinking progress??

    Once you doubt the simple story of Al Qaeda malice and suppose the WTC towers were brought down by demolitions rather than the steel weakening fires and weight of the upper storeys you have to concude that a well insured owner was part of the plot at the stage when demolition was prepared. A major reason for that is that provoking the US government to go to war with the people behind it clearly didn't require that the towers collapse on 9/11.)

    Are you with me?.Are we in step?

    Can we set aside the thought that Larry Silverstein might have been an initiator of the plot? Imagine he was grumbling about the cost of removing asbestos and of needed refurbishment and someone, even someone he knew and completely trusted, suggested a monster fire or explosion. Response would have to be "yeah, yeah, and it looks like a lot of trash got lit up by unstubbed cigarettes in both towers? Or the boilers blew or!!!! ????." But then:

    "OK boss, who would you trust? The CIA, FBI?" "Tell me Mossad and I'm just about listening, but why the hell?" "Well boss, what if I tell you that it could be kinda Mossad because I got the whisper that Mossad is on to some crazy Saudi backed terrorists".

    Is there any alternative to some such involvement of the WTC owndrs or managers at the highest level? No, I suggest. And I support that because there is no way that Rumsfeld & Co would have chosen this way to start on unfinished business in Iraq, whereas I will just concede the possible logic of Israel wanting just to get the US started on fighting against Muslims, especially Arab Muslims, so that America becomes stuck with Israel's proxy wars. Any serious alternative?

    Why is Larry Silverstein let in on the fact that Mossad is quietly helping the Al Qaeda plotters? Well he's a friend and ally and would be so outraged if he discovered that his buildings, while underinsured, had been attacked with the connivance of Israel. So he has to be squared. He won't know the details but they will take on the technical demolition job so as to leave no evidence.

    Still they have a problem. No one can be sure exactly where the plànes will hit. Worse, they can't even be sure that both will be hit. So where do the explosives get placed?

    Now imagination has to take liberties. Plotters decide that, in the confusion they will be able to extract explosives from a tower that isn't hit at all, so they will take the risk. But there is still the problem of having demolition explosions that are not too loud and are at the right height to coincide with where the planes will happen to hit.

    Maybe the answer - no more certain than the speed of the aircraft unfortunately - is that once the aircraft had shattered a few of the tubular steel uprights all that was needed was explosions which would cut light steel floor joists that stop the weakened and damaged uprights collapsing in on themselves so as to leave a non supporting near void of three floors or whatever had been calculated to ensure the weight above couldn't be supported. To that end hundreds of plastic packets of extremely powerful explosive would have been placed in the floor spaces from say the 55th floor to the hundredth together with separate wireless connected detonators on each floor so just the right explosives could be detonated (leaving a lot of thermite, if that was the explosive, unexploded and potentially a giveaway - but we assume they take the risk).

    That then has to be your prime alternative theory does it not? You don't need any explanation for the Administration's lack of support or enthusiasm for the Commission beyond avoidance of political embarrassment. Indeed the supposedly sinister destruction or loss of interrogation tapes is easily explained too. Two embarrassments likely to emerge would have been (a) evidence of torture: (b) repeated obvious attempts to connect 9/11 to Iraq - and not Saudi Arabia - and repeated plausible denials of any Iraqi connection by those interrogated.

    So, do you agree that the plausible version which fits your initial instinct is that there was a genuine plot by Al Qaeda to use its multiple simultaneous attack strategy with more attacks than ever before, that the CIA and FBI in particular stuffed up, that Mossad got to know about the plot and even assisted it in some relatively minoŕ ways, that Mossad alerted Larry Silverstein with the result that the plot tò add on complete destruction of WTCs 1 and 2 (and maybe WTC for reasons unexplained) came about.... and that the real scandal is not so much that the CIA and FBI were incompetent but that Israel was sufficiently ruthless in its aim to keep America militarily active in the Muslim world that it allowed ìt to happen, but prompted Larry Silverstein to risk at least the killing of a lot more people than needed to happen.

    Now, that has to your version doesn't it? What else? I note that it relieves you from having to rely on dodgy factual and technical evidence about aircraft speed because it works regardless of whether the speed was 300 or 500 knots and it also allows for a common sense view about the other two planes which doesn't deny their existence.

    *** *** *** ***

    You eventually gave me your PilotsforTruth link which you couldn't got anything much from that was really solid in the hour you spent on it. Having decided to track down the statements about the Commission being "set up to fail" which some lightweight commenters glibly put forward as support fòr their beliefs in conspiracy (which as I have elsewhere pointed out it clearly is not) i came across a Guardian article which left me surprised that you only cited one truther website as authority. See former British MP Peter Tatchell's article, which mentions four such organisations, at

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/sep/12/911thebigcoverup

    But what I would really invite you to consider if you attach any great weight to the inadequacies of the Commission inquiry is the Wikipedia article

    "Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report"

    It shows that there was a lot to criticize; indeed that "set up to fail" is not unfair. But it doesn't help the case for American conspiracy: only American covering of backsides after incompetence.

    Then there are other good Wiki articles like "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" to name just one which would make for clearer headed understanding than blog comments and disputes. Of course they are obviously the product of millions of Mossad empoloyed hasbara, and those of the highest calibre, who know just how to lead the ŕeader by the nose through embarrassing revelations so devastating that the naive reader doesn't notice the missing information about all the sinister people behind the conspiracies and their plots and motives.
    ;-)

    Most people are referring to the Commission report several years later as the official story.

    I could just as truthfully have written “what eventually became the Official story”.

    Are you with me?.Are we in step?

    Nope, you’re still on all fours.

    Once you doubt the simple story of Al Qaeda malice and suppose the WTC towers were brought down by demolitions rather than the steel weakening fires and weight of the upper storeys you have to concude that a well insured owner was part of the plot at the stage when demolition was prepared.

    No, that’s not the way I think at all. I didn’t think of personalities or motives until many months later, maybe as much as a year. In the early stages, that is to indulge in fantasy and speculation which interest me only after I know the facts.

    Now, that has to your version doesn’t it? What else?

    Not even close. Wildly off the mark. Sorry, but you’re rummaging around far too low in the food chain. An event on the scale and audacity of 9/11 isn’t about insurance, or stock puts, or “getting America to bomb Afghanistan”. Think about what else was happening in the world, and the situation America was facing. It had a choice at the turn of the century, a giant Either/Or, and Or won. It’s stilling winning, by the looks of it, much to America’s disgrace and eventual humiliation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    I admire your tenacity, but you'll get nowhere with the Gizzard of Flaws or any of the other True Believers. Apparently the basic concept of "cui bono" escapes the type, and there's no reasoning with them either. Following the Yellow Brick Road would undoubtedly tax them severely as well.

    Probably never heard of the neocon agenda or the PNAC document and it's expressed wish for a new Pearl Harbor, but if they did, they'd no doubt rationalize it in some twisted manner.

    Funny, too, how "al Queda" has pretty much evaporated as the enemy du jour, but they wouldn't know it. It apparently takes a while for some to catch up.

    Funny how Dumsfeld was squaking about the Pentagon's unaccounted for trillions the day before 9/11, but nary another peep was ever heard again.


    Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon
    “The adversary is closer to home; it’s the Pentagon bureaucracy…”

    - Donald Rumsfeld on Sept. 10, 2001
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?165947-1/defense-business-practices
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Erebus

    Most people are referring to the Commission report several years later as the official story.
     
    I could just as truthfully have written "what eventually became the Official story".

    Are you with me?.Are we in step?
     
    Nope, you're still on all fours.

    Once you doubt the simple story of Al Qaeda malice and suppose the WTC towers were brought down by demolitions rather than the steel weakening fires and weight of the upper storeys you have to concude that a well insured owner was part of the plot at the stage when demolition was prepared.
     
    No, that's not the way I think at all. I didn't think of personalities or motives until many months later, maybe as much as a year. In the early stages, that is to indulge in fantasy and speculation which interest me only after I know the facts.

    Now, that has to your version doesn’t it? What else?
     
    Not even close. Wildly off the mark. Sorry, but you're rummaging around far too low in the food chain. An event on the scale and audacity of 9/11 isn't about insurance, or stock puts, or "getting America to bomb Afghanistan". Think about what else was happening in the world, and the situation America was facing. It had a choice at the turn of the century, a giant Either/Or, and Or won. It's stilling winning, by the looks of it, much to America's disgrace and eventual humiliation.

    I admire your tenacity, but you’ll get nowhere with the Gizzard of Flaws or any of the other True Believers. Apparently the basic concept of “cui bono” escapes the type, and there’s no reasoning with them either. Following the Yellow Brick Road would undoubtedly tax them severely as well.

    Probably never heard of the neocon agenda or the PNAC document and it’s expressed wish for a new Pearl Harbor, but if they did, they’d no doubt rationalize it in some twisted manner.

    Funny, too, how “al Queda” has pretty much evaporated as the enemy du jour, but they wouldn’t know it. It apparently takes a while for some to catch up.

    Funny how Dumsfeld was squaking about the Pentagon’s unaccounted for trillions the day before 9/11, but nary another peep was ever heard again.

    Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon
    “The adversary is closer to home; it’s the Pentagon bureaucracy…”

    - Donald Rumsfeld on Sept. 10, 2001

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?165947-1/defense-business-practices

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Erebus says:

    … you’ll get nowhere with the Gizzard of Flaws or any of the other True Believers.

    I know that an invested narrative in the mind of the True Believer is all but impossible to break with argument. It usually takes a cathartic exogenous event to do that.

    As for WoO, I get the sense that his goal is but to strut and preen on this little stage. If he didn’t exist, Truthers would be well advised to invent him.
    He claims to be “a complete sceptic with no barrow to push” (#83), apparently oblivious to the fact that the attentive reader sees the barrow WoO struts and preens behind quite plainly, and that the barrow goes round and round one spot, without advancing a single step. Blithely unaware of the mockery he makes of the narratives he’s ostensibly defending, he’s the best foil one could hope for.

    There’s 2 reasons for my “tenacity”:
    - the primary reason is to see if anything new has come out of the woodwork that may force me to update my rather old views, and,
    - on the odd chance, and in probably vain hope, that the discussion will crystallize the views of some random reader that can, in Sparkon’s words “get the ball inside to the big guys”. Everybody knows 250 people, so…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  172. Cranky says:

    Once again, wasted time talking about a conspiracy for 9/11.

    Instead, take the actors at their word.

    Rumsfeld stopped fighting the pentagon waste machine, because his power group of neocons were going to swing for the fences with the giant opportunity that landed on the Pentagon.

    And Cheney was the visionary who seized the opportunity and spun it into war upon war that made him and his former company vast amounts of wealth.

    Evil opportunists who used the dead as a shield against anything opposing their war plans.

    Iraq is the sign they went for everything they thought they could get- and if it had gone well they would have taken on Iran, but Iraq utterly failed.

    Effing morons, the conspiracy was getting rid of Saddam to serve Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    We pulled troops out of Afpak to start the invasion bullshit and didn’t finish off the Taliban or OBL.

    They are the true war criminals- they should be tried for all of the dead, our own first and foremost.

    And Bremer is the best example of incompetence that I could conceive of as proof they were and are idiots in the service of our allies and their wealth.

    Haliburton alone should be enough evidence of all of my comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  173. Rurik says:
    @ChuckOrloski
    Rurik,

    The Vatican Bank laundered money in support for Operation Gladio. Business partners included CIA and the mafia. I have no solid clue about the role of Mossad ancestors.

    At any rate, Pope Francis supported Muslim refugees, who fled immoral ZUSA wars, and helped cheerlead their immigration & welcome into western European countries.

    We just witnessed another False Flag attack, this time in Spain. After a lay off period, the Islamic State followed script & took credit for the murders.

    I am very suspicious, Rurik, and I smell sulfur.

    At present, is the world being entertained by watching an Operation Gladio revival where Anglo-Zionist E.U. criminals support opening doors to immigrant Muslims and then set them up for a broader kill?

    As a life long Byzantine Catholic, I hope the Vatican is clean and has no linkage with a demonic Neo Operation Gladio.

    Thanks.

    Hey Chuck,

    At any rate, Pope Francis supported Muslim refugees, who fled immoral ZUSA wars,

    I don’t see them as refugees Chuck. They look to me to be ‘military age’, single young men for the most part. Millions of them. And most from nations that are not at war.

    If they were old men and women with young children coming from places like Syria or elsewhere where the zio-Fiend has been using my nation to slaughter and maim and displace, then I’d have no problem giving them succor here in the states.

    I am very suspicious, Rurik, and I smell sulfur.

    that’s my default temperament, and Hugo Chaves could not have said it better about what preceded him at the UN lectern

    As a life long Byzantine Catholic, I hope the Vatican is clean and has no linkage with a demonic Neo Operation Gladio.

    I fear your hopes are misplaced Chuck.

    Consider for just a moment the Catholic church of Byzantium, vs. today…

    what are the chances that the Byzantium Pope would have advocated:

    allowing (hell, facilitating and paying for!) armies of millions of military age Muslim men to march on Christendom, demanding accommodation for their ways, and respect for their religious and cultural traditions, and even for the authorities to allow them to set up, with local financing, Muslim-only hamlets in previously Christian villages and cities, violently in opposition to the local laws and customs. Where the local police are not allowed access. Known as ‘no-go’ areas for the local white citizens.

    a repudiation of Constantinople as a bastion of Christian beliefs and people, and a submissive, sanguine acceptance of the city as Muslim for all eternity?

    an explosion of Mosques (and even nascent sharia law) all over Europe and the West (“Christendom”)

    a groveling, spiritually emasculated acceptance of Christian school girls being gang raped and terrorized into abject sex-slavery for the middle aged Muslim men in their villages.

    and Christian boys too, of course

    https://www.rt.com/news/363890-iraqi-refugee-rape-austria/

    can you imagine a Byzantium Pope demanding that Muslim invaders be allowed to rape ten year old Christian boys, being as Christians are soulless ‘racists’ with guilty hands and Muslims (like all brown and black men) are sacrosanct and holy victims of evil Christian crusaders and racists?, to the point that they can take at will the children of Christian households for their violent sexual amusements?

    all while demanding that Europe is not doing enough to accommodate *more* Muslims…(and everyone else)

    all while demanding that Europe is not doing enough to accommodate radical homosexuals and their lifestyles? When the Irish were voting on gay marriage, the Pope was silent. Can you imagine the same from the Catholic Church and Pope of Byzantium? From the Catholic people?

    There doesn’t seem to be one moral, cultural, criminal or spiritual outrage against Christian values or the people who’ve held them for centuries, that today’s Pope and Vatican don’t hardily advocate. And I confess I can’t help but wonder what semblances, if any, exist between the Catholic Church of Byzantium, vs. the pedophiles and zio-whores and overt, genocidal and spiritual enemies of Christendom who occupy the Vatican today.

    Normally I wouldn’t burden the Catholics I know with such uncomfortable observations, but you seem so thoughtful and open minded, that I figure you’ll see I’m not being heretical or antagonistic, at least not on purpose.

    as Christendom is dying a humiliating death, it seems that from the Christians in Minnesota, who’re facilitating an invasion of Somali Muslims, to the Catholic church, who demands Europe open its gates to all non-Christians everywhere on the planet, that there is a festering soul-rot in Christianity that is going to be the death of us all. Certainly a cause for our children to curse us in our graves.

    I guess I’m just a little put off that the (spiritually emasculated, racially castrated) Christian people tolerate it all (hell, welcome it and pay for it!). Even to the point of Muslims from Africa being given uniforms and guns who then shoot and murder an (obviously unarmed) Christian women in her pajamas (three times!) who came out to report a rape.

    I wonder if the Minnesota Christians are holding candle light vigils for Mohamed Noor. Hiring lawyers and calling anyone who wants more details into the murder “racists”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    the pungent stench of sulfur

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_REL_VATICAN_REFUGEES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-08-21-06-26-22
    , @ChuckOrloski
    Rurik,

    I am remote from getting zinged by your thought, self summarized as "uncomfortable observations."

    Every institution is subject to corruption and that's one reason why Niebuhr wrote the book "Moral Man and Immoral Society."

    As you can guess, my favorite Roman Catholic is Kathy Kelly.

    Thanks and please strive to enhance AWARENESS which is undet lethal siege.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Rurik says:
    @Rurik
    Hey Chuck,

    At any rate, Pope Francis supported Muslim refugees, who fled immoral ZUSA wars,
     
    I don't see them as refugees Chuck. They look to me to be 'military age', single young men for the most part. Millions of them. And most from nations that are not at war.

    If they were old men and women with young children coming from places like Syria or elsewhere where the zio-Fiend has been using my nation to slaughter and maim and displace, then I'd have no problem giving them succor here in the states.

    I am very suspicious, Rurik, and I smell sulfur.
     
    that's my default temperament, and Hugo Chaves could not have said it better about what preceded him at the UN lectern

    As a life long Byzantine Catholic, I hope the Vatican is clean and has no linkage with a demonic Neo Operation Gladio.
     
    I fear your hopes are misplaced Chuck.

    Consider for just a moment the Catholic church of Byzantium, vs. today...

    what are the chances that the Byzantium Pope would have advocated:

    allowing (hell, facilitating and paying for!) armies of millions of military age Muslim men to march on Christendom, demanding accommodation for their ways, and respect for their religious and cultural traditions, and even for the authorities to allow them to set up, with local financing, Muslim-only hamlets in previously Christian villages and cities, violently in opposition to the local laws and customs. Where the local police are not allowed access. Known as 'no-go' areas for the local white citizens.

    a repudiation of Constantinople as a bastion of Christian beliefs and people, and a submissive, sanguine acceptance of the city as Muslim for all eternity?

    an explosion of Mosques (and even nascent sharia law) all over Europe and the West ("Christendom")

    a groveling, spiritually emasculated acceptance of Christian school girls being gang raped and terrorized into abject sex-slavery for the middle aged Muslim men in their villages.

    and Christian boys too, of course

    https://www.rt.com/news/363890-iraqi-refugee-rape-austria/

    can you imagine a Byzantium Pope demanding that Muslim invaders be allowed to rape ten year old Christian boys, being as Christians are soulless 'racists' with guilty hands and Muslims (like all brown and black men) are sacrosanct and holy victims of evil Christian crusaders and racists?, to the point that they can take at will the children of Christian households for their violent sexual amusements?

    all while demanding that Europe is not doing enough to accommodate *more* Muslims...(and everyone else)

    all while demanding that Europe is not doing enough to accommodate radical homosexuals and their lifestyles? When the Irish were voting on gay marriage, the Pope was silent. Can you imagine the same from the Catholic Church and Pope of Byzantium? From the Catholic people?

    There doesn't seem to be one moral, cultural, criminal or spiritual outrage against Christian values or the people who've held them for centuries, that today's Pope and Vatican don't hardily advocate. And I confess I can't help but wonder what semblances, if any, exist between the Catholic Church of Byzantium, vs. the pedophiles and zio-whores and overt, genocidal and spiritual enemies of Christendom who occupy the Vatican today.

    Normally I wouldn't burden the Catholics I know with such uncomfortable observations, but you seem so thoughtful and open minded, that I figure you'll see I'm not being heretical or antagonistic, at least not on purpose.

    as Christendom is dying a humiliating death, it seems that from the Christians in Minnesota, who're facilitating an invasion of Somali Muslims, to the Catholic church, who demands Europe open its gates to all non-Christians everywhere on the planet, that there is a festering soul-rot in Christianity that is going to be the death of us all. Certainly a cause for our children to curse us in our graves.

    I guess I'm just a little put off that the (spiritually emasculated, racially castrated) Christian people tolerate it all (hell, welcome it and pay for it!). Even to the point of Muslims from Africa being given uniforms and guns who then shoot and murder an (obviously unarmed) Christian women in her pajamas (three times!) who came out to report a rape.

    I wonder if the Minnesota Christians are holding candle light vigils for Mohamed Noor. Hiring lawyers and calling anyone who wants more details into the murder "racists"?
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Rurik
    Hey Chuck,

    At any rate, Pope Francis supported Muslim refugees, who fled immoral ZUSA wars,
     
    I don't see them as refugees Chuck. They look to me to be 'military age', single young men for the most part. Millions of them. And most from nations that are not at war.

    If they were old men and women with young children coming from places like Syria or elsewhere where the zio-Fiend has been using my nation to slaughter and maim and displace, then I'd have no problem giving them succor here in the states.

    I am very suspicious, Rurik, and I smell sulfur.
     
    that's my default temperament, and Hugo Chaves could not have said it better about what preceded him at the UN lectern

    As a life long Byzantine Catholic, I hope the Vatican is clean and has no linkage with a demonic Neo Operation Gladio.
     
    I fear your hopes are misplaced Chuck.

    Consider for just a moment the Catholic church of Byzantium, vs. today...

    what are the chances that the Byzantium Pope would have advocated:

    allowing (hell, facilitating and paying for!) armies of millions of military age Muslim men to march on Christendom, demanding accommodation for their ways, and respect for their religious and cultural traditions, and even for the authorities to allow them to set up, with local financing, Muslim-only hamlets in previously Christian villages and cities, violently in opposition to the local laws and customs. Where the local police are not allowed access. Known as 'no-go' areas for the local white citizens.

    a repudiation of Constantinople as a bastion of Christian beliefs and people, and a submissive, sanguine acceptance of the city as Muslim for all eternity?

    an explosion of Mosques (and even nascent sharia law) all over Europe and the West ("Christendom")

    a groveling, spiritually emasculated acceptance of Christian school girls being gang raped and terrorized into abject sex-slavery for the middle aged Muslim men in their villages.

    and Christian boys too, of course

    https://www.rt.com/news/363890-iraqi-refugee-rape-austria/

    can you imagine a Byzantium Pope demanding that Muslim invaders be allowed to rape ten year old Christian boys, being as Christians are soulless 'racists' with guilty hands and Muslims (like all brown and black men) are sacrosanct and holy victims of evil Christian crusaders and racists?, to the point that they can take at will the children of Christian households for their violent sexual amusements?

    all while demanding that Europe is not doing enough to accommodate *more* Muslims...(and everyone else)

    all while demanding that Europe is not doing enough to accommodate radical homosexuals and their lifestyles? When the Irish were voting on gay marriage, the Pope was silent. Can you imagine the same from the Catholic Church and Pope of Byzantium? From the Catholic people?

    There doesn't seem to be one moral, cultural, criminal or spiritual outrage against Christian values or the people who've held them for centuries, that today's Pope and Vatican don't hardily advocate. And I confess I can't help but wonder what semblances, if any, exist between the Catholic Church of Byzantium, vs. the pedophiles and zio-whores and overt, genocidal and spiritual enemies of Christendom who occupy the Vatican today.

    Normally I wouldn't burden the Catholics I know with such uncomfortable observations, but you seem so thoughtful and open minded, that I figure you'll see I'm not being heretical or antagonistic, at least not on purpose.

    as Christendom is dying a humiliating death, it seems that from the Christians in Minnesota, who're facilitating an invasion of Somali Muslims, to the Catholic church, who demands Europe open its gates to all non-Christians everywhere on the planet, that there is a festering soul-rot in Christianity that is going to be the death of us all. Certainly a cause for our children to curse us in our graves.

    I guess I'm just a little put off that the (spiritually emasculated, racially castrated) Christian people tolerate it all (hell, welcome it and pay for it!). Even to the point of Muslims from Africa being given uniforms and guns who then shoot and murder an (obviously unarmed) Christian women in her pajamas (three times!) who came out to report a rape.

    I wonder if the Minnesota Christians are holding candle light vigils for Mohamed Noor. Hiring lawyers and calling anyone who wants more details into the murder "racists"?

    Rurik,

    I am remote from getting zinged by your thought, self summarized as “uncomfortable observations.”

    Every institution is subject to corruption and that’s one reason why Niebuhr wrote the book “Moral Man and Immoral Society.”

    As you can guess, my favorite Roman Catholic is Kathy Kelly.

    Thanks and please strive to enhance AWARENESS which is undet lethal siege.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @uslabor
    “Since you’re Spanish, were you ever annoyed at being confused for a Mexican growing up?”

    “But I am also Mexican. Texas was Mexican!”

    WHAT A STUPID QUESTION!!!!

    Lihn Dihn...........A lesson to YOU and your readers. Being Mexican isn't an ethnicity, it is a nationality.

    But some nationalities are more homogeneous than others, at least on phenotypical surface.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @martino
    have a good time in tarragona-cataluña. you have good eyes to see. i ask my friends when they come from a travel from other country or city: ¿what have you seen? Noone has seen nothing. they travel but not can see nothing, apart monuments museums. I travel to other city, at 50 miles only, and i see at once the different way of life, character, etc.i write this from costa brava, girona

    According to Taleb, that is tourism in the bad sense.

    People don’t talk, they don’t care. They put themselves in a bubble…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Wizard of Oz
    Being a low reader as well as a slow thinker you evidently are not up with my repeated implicit answers any more than you have absorbed that answering anything from the mad Revusky is not on my agenda.

    See my recent attempt to extrapolate from Erebus's immediate, on 9/11, instinct to feel certain that it wasn't just the consequence of fuelled up planes hitting the towers and consequent fires and steel weakening that brought the towers down.

    Of course there was cover up and obfuscation, not least because of the 2004 election coming up. The CIA, FBI, NORAD, FAA, the Air Force all had reason to fear embarrassment even if only by others defecting blame, and not the least of the Bush Administration's concerns would be disclosures which (further) delegitimized the Iraq war.

    I see absolutely no reason to doubt that Al Qaeda was planning a multipronged suicide attack with highjacked aircraft and am almost equally sure that a main motive was to prompt America to attack Afghanistan. I am willing to entertain as not impossible the taking advantage of this by some with foreknowledge but I wouldn't bet on it at even 5 to 1 against whereas I would bet a small fortune on the first proposition at 6 to 4 on or even 2 to 1 on.

    I see absolutely no reason to doubt that Al Qaeda was planning a multipronged suicide attack with highjacked aircraft and am almost equally sure that a main motive was to prompt America to attack Afghanistan.

    And/or Saudi Arabia, thereby unifying the entire Muslim world around the need to fund the resistance to American invasion. Uncle Sam only invaded Afghanistan, and he rallied Muslim countries to, if not support the invasion, at least limit the amount of financial and material support for the Taliban. The kid glove approach towards striking the Taliban, involving extreme care vis-a-vis the possibility of collateral damage, may be aimed at keeping the global faithful out of the conflict.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Wow! What a change in these threads to read even qualified approval for US official thought processes!

    Yes, plausible about restrained violence in Afghanistan, though perhaps hard to reconcile with Rumsfeld's reckless charge to Iraq.

    I have just seen a French doco on the CIA's hopelessly incompetent work on the ME leading up to the overthrow of the Shah and embassy takeover. It is a reminder to be deeply sceptical of conspiracy theories which require many very bright and near omniscient people and perfect execution of complex plans. I sometimes think the Deep State runs by a handbook provided by Milo Minderbinder to Yossarian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @Johann Ricke

    I see absolutely no reason to doubt that Al Qaeda was planning a multipronged suicide attack with highjacked aircraft and am almost equally sure that a main motive was to prompt America to attack Afghanistan.
     
    And/or Saudi Arabia, thereby unifying the entire Muslim world around the need to fund the resistance to American invasion. Uncle Sam only invaded Afghanistan, and he rallied Muslim countries to, if not support the invasion, at least limit the amount of financial and material support for the Taliban. The kid glove approach towards striking the Taliban, involving extreme care vis-a-vis the possibility of collateral damage, may be aimed at keeping the global faithful out of the conflict.

    Wow! What a change in these threads to read even qualified approval for US official thought processes!

    Yes, plausible about restrained violence in Afghanistan, though perhaps hard to reconcile with Rumsfeld’s reckless charge to Iraq.

    I have just seen a French doco on the CIA’s hopelessly incompetent work on the ME leading up to the overthrow of the Shah and embassy takeover. It is a reminder to be deeply sceptical of conspiracy theories which require many very bright and near omniscient people and perfect execution of complex plans. I sometimes think the Deep State runs by a handbook provided by Milo Minderbinder to Yossarian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Wow! What a change in these threads to read even qualified approval for US official thought processes!

    Yes, plausible about restrained violence in Afghanistan, though perhaps hard to reconcile with Rumsfeld’s reckless charge to Iraq.
     

    I expect there's a lot of implicit stuff Western officials can't talk about publicly (and/or explicitly) or even during cabinet discussions (given the fact that everything is recorded for posterity) because it conflicts with other objectives. Iraq was probably undertaken partly to settle accounts with Saddam once and for all over his invasion of Kuwait, and partly to point out to Arab countries that Uncle Sam was not averse to toppling them if they funded or otherwise cooperated with terrorists. Gaddafi's defenestration was partly a reminder that Western leaders have long memories (Lockerbie, various other Libyan terror attacks and Libyan sponsorship of the IRA) and remain ready and able to topple Arab leaders over past attacks against Western countries. Now, it would be gauche to tell the people we're using as cannon fodder (even as they're using us as their sugar daddy), Iraqis and Libyans, that we're supporting them in order to settle accounts with their leaders, so we say we're interested in liberating them.

    Sometimes, the West's high-flown rhetoric and cover story overwhelm the underlying rationale. And that is how we ended up spending a trillion dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we had withdrawn after installing US-aligned strongmen, we could have saved ourselves thousands of American lives and a king's ransom in spending on Afghanistan and Iraq. But it was not to be.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Wizard of Oz
    Wow! What a change in these threads to read even qualified approval for US official thought processes!

    Yes, plausible about restrained violence in Afghanistan, though perhaps hard to reconcile with Rumsfeld's reckless charge to Iraq.

    I have just seen a French doco on the CIA's hopelessly incompetent work on the ME leading up to the overthrow of the Shah and embassy takeover. It is a reminder to be deeply sceptical of conspiracy theories which require many very bright and near omniscient people and perfect execution of complex plans. I sometimes think the Deep State runs by a handbook provided by Milo Minderbinder to Yossarian.

    Wow! What a change in these threads to read even qualified approval for US official thought processes!

    Yes, plausible about restrained violence in Afghanistan, though perhaps hard to reconcile with Rumsfeld’s reckless charge to Iraq.

    I expect there’s a lot of implicit stuff Western officials can’t talk about publicly (and/or explicitly) or even during cabinet discussions (given the fact that everything is recorded for posterity) because it conflicts with other objectives. Iraq was probably undertaken partly to settle accounts with Saddam once and for all over his invasion of Kuwait, and partly to point out to Arab countries that Uncle Sam was not averse to toppling them if they funded or otherwise cooperated with terrorists. Gaddafi’s defenestration was partly a reminder that Western leaders have long memories (Lockerbie, various other Libyan terror attacks and Libyan sponsorship of the IRA) and remain ready and able to topple Arab leaders over past attacks against Western countries. Now, it would be gauche to tell the people we’re using as cannon fodder (even as they’re using us as their sugar daddy), Iraqis and Libyans, that we’re supporting them in order to settle accounts with their leaders, so we say we’re interested in liberating them.

    Sometimes, the West’s high-flown rhetoric and cover story overwhelm the underlying rationale. And that is how we ended up spending a trillion dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we had withdrawn after installing US-aligned strongmen, we could have saved ourselves thousands of American lives and a king’s ransom in spending on Afghanistan and Iraq. But it was not to be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Polymath says:

    I hate 9/11 truth threads.

    Not because I’m not suspicious. Most conspiracy theories are bullshit, but some of them are true.

    It’s because almost everyone talking has no grasp of logic and probability.

    Sure, there’s plenty of room for conspiracies to be true about people other than Bin Laden and the 19 “hijackers” being behind the attacks. But

    Four commercial flights full of people disappeared.

    Four. Commercial. Flights.

    The hundreds of people who boarded those four airplanes, who included people whom I personally had heard of before 9/11/01 and who were never seen again, were not fake identities. They had families who can be easily found.

    Why the hell would the people behind the conspiracy engage in such a Rube Goldbergish scheme as making the planes and people totally vanish WITHOUT crashing them into the buildings, while instead bombing the buildings in SOME OTHER WAY? It’s not as if “giant jetliner hits landmark building” wouldn’t be guaranteed to kill hundreds of people and provide a sufficient pretext for any desired geopolitical actions. Why would no one have spilled the beans by now?

    Sure, it mighta been an inside job. But the planes actually hitting the buildings is so much simpler an explanation than any other theory of what happened to the planes and their crews and passengers that only a religious fanatic or a moron would deny the evidence. Yeah, you can manufacture dozens of videos super quick that fit the facts well enough to peddle an alternative story, and pay a few people to say they saw something they didn’t see, but that’s so likely to fail or leak that it can’t compete with the straightforward theory that the planes crashed into the buildings.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  182. ‘I have just seen a French doco on the CIA’s hopelessly incompetent work on the ME leading up to the overthrow of the Shah and embassy takeover. It is a reminder to be deeply sceptical of conspiracy theories which require many very bright and near omniscient people and perfect execution of complex plans.’

    Can you say ‘propaganda’, Wiz? Come on, I know you’re smart enough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Linh Dinh Comments via RSS