aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Could THIS be why there aren't more pictures of the Pentagon crash?
Nah. Gotta be a conspiracy.
Loose Change
- Thread starter delphi_ote
- Start date
- Status
Could THIS be why there aren't more pictures of the Pentagon crash?
Nah. Gotta be a conspiracy.
senorpogo
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Messages
- 2,100
I have two other general lines of questioning to attack the WTC demolition theory. Hopefully someone here has some knowledge of the process of blowing up buildings to provide the answers or point me in direction of some source.
1.) What kind of resources would it take to blow up all three buildings? How many tons of explosives? How many trained people to plant these explosives? How much time would it all take to plant all the charges? Could these charges be hidden to go unnoticed by people working within the building?
2.) If both of the towers were wired to blow, wouldn't the planes crashing into the towers detonate the explosives on those levels? Wouldn't that cause an instantenous crash of those levels above? Or do demolition charges require some other type of reaction to go off?
1.) What kind of resources would it take to blow up all three buildings? How many tons of explosives? How many trained people to plant these explosives? How much time would it all take to plant all the charges? Could these charges be hidden to go unnoticed by people working within the building?
2.) If both of the towers were wired to blow, wouldn't the planes crashing into the towers detonate the explosives on those levels? Wouldn't that cause an instantenous crash of those levels above? Or do demolition charges require some other type of reaction to go off?
JPK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 1,870
Good afternoon.
I was having a hard time believing the CT but if Charlie Sheen believes in it, it must be so.
Sheen: What 9/11 Hijackers?
JPK
I was having a hard time believing the CT but if Charlie Sheen believes in it, it must be so.
Sheen: What 9/11 Hijackers?
JPK
azazal
Ninja Wave: Techno Ninja
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2005
- Messages
- 696
Excat amount for the WTC I don't have, but the Discovery Channel has a show on called "The Blasters" that cronicals several demo teams across the globe and what they run into on a job. Once of the number that jumps to mind, but I am fuzzy here, been a few weeks since I saw it.A team put in some 1300 charges to drop a convention center. The center was 3 storries tall, mostly open space with support columns, and I belive it was roughly 1000 feet by 1000 feet.
Euromutt
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,092
Sorry about the slow response, I've had a busy week. I'm going to have to address these points out of order.
Of course, Stinett and Irving likely have different agendas. Stinett probably believes the US should have stayed out of the war, and would have were it not for FDR's actions, whereas Irving, as a Holocaust denier, is seeking to downplay Nazi atrocities by inflating the supposed wrongdoings of the Allies.
First, even if the attack had not actually managed to achieve tactical surprise, it would still have been an act of war. The difference would have been akin to that between a succesful mugging and an unsuccesful one; either way, it's still a mugging, and the intended victim is going to be outraged.
Second, the late announcement of the breaking off of negotiations (intended to take place half an hour before the attack started, but actually delivered later due to complications decrypting the message at the Japanese embassy in DC) was also regarded at the time as perfidious.
As it was, Congress voted almost unanimously (one dissenting vote) in favor of declaring war; perhaps if the attack had been discovered and parried, the majority would have been smaller, but I suspect it would still have been a sizeable majority.
Now, if PBS, UPI or some pajamahadin can "uncover" that Saddam was "a CIA asset" during that time, it's a reasonable assumption that the KGB could have done so as well. Does it seem plausible that the Sovs would provide billions in weaponry, on credit, and details of their own counter-intelligence methods, to a government whose vice-president, later president, was a CIA asset? The notion is laughable. Or it would be, if so many credulous idiots didn't buy into the idea.
Well, that link lists precisely where the Pacific Fleet's carriers were at the time of the attack. As it says, Lexington and Enterprise were off delivering aircraft to Midway and Wake, while Saratoga was at San Diego on the way back from undergoing an overhaul in drydock at Bremerton, WA. What the page doesn't mention, in addition, is that Enterprise had been due back at Pearl on the 6th; the only reason she wasn't present for the attack was because she'd been delayed by bad weather. It's hard to credit that the absence of Enterprise was anything but coincidence, and likewise with Saratoga, since the overhaul had probably been scheduled long before the Japanese strike force ever sailed. And it simply doesn't make sense to attribute Lexington's absence to nefarious intent when the other two were just coincidences. There's still the possibility that the whole thing was orchestrated, but for that to be the case, the conspiracy would have to have gone well outside FDR's inner circle, and included a large number of high-ranking officers within the Pacific Fleet, and arguably Yamamoto and Nagumo as well, for the whole confluence of events to be that well timed.
Said accounts put the cart before the horse. American naval tactics in the Pacific, especially during 1942, were adapted to become heavily reliant on carriers precisely because the battle line was at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. As the Dutch say, "you have to the row with the oars that you have," and that is precisely what the Pacific Fleet learned to do.
That's my point: neither of those facts were any longer secret by 1985. And as I noted previously, Spector states that authors like Beard, Tansill, etc. "claim that since the U.S. was reading the Japanese code, Washington must have known in advance about the attack"; those authors made these claims between 1948 and 1954, indicating that some knowledge of American cryptanalysis was already public at that time. The existence of contingency plan Rainbow 5 had been leaked and widely publicized in 1941, before the US even entered the war.
You're right, it doesn't reflect on Stinett. It does reflect on the Greek television program in question, and anyone else who might cite Irving in an effort to lend credibility to Stinett. Irving's agreement doesn't (necessarily) detract from Stinett's credibility, but it certainly doesn't add to it.
Of course, Stinett and Irving likely have different agendas. Stinett probably believes the US should have stayed out of the war, and would have were it not for FDR's actions, whereas Irving, as a Holocaust denier, is seeking to downplay Nazi atrocities by inflating the supposed wrongdoings of the Allies.
I disagree, for a number of reasons.
First, even if the attack had not actually managed to achieve tactical surprise, it would still have been an act of war. The difference would have been akin to that between a succesful mugging and an unsuccesful one; either way, it's still a mugging, and the intended victim is going to be outraged.
Second, the late announcement of the breaking off of negotiations (intended to take place half an hour before the attack started, but actually delivered later due to complications decrypting the message at the Japanese embassy in DC) was also regarded at the time as perfidious.
As it was, Congress voted almost unanimously (one dissenting vote) in favor of declaring war; perhaps if the attack had been discovered and parried, the majority would have been smaller, but I suspect it would still have been a sizeable majority.
If you use a "a cynical worldview" as "a starting point for historical review," you're assuming a priori that every action is undertaken out of base motives, which means you're working towards a predetermined conclusion. That being the case, I don't see how you can avoid manipulating the evidence to fit said outcome. Moreover, I don't see what dialectic has to do with this. Dialectic consists of thesis and antithesis resulting in synthesis; this is all very well for philosophical discussions, but its application is limited, because in real life (and in the scientific method), the evidence may come down on only side.
The constant factor there is the Pakistani Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Because the US intelligence community had few assets in Afghanistan even prior to the Soviet invasion, it had little knowledge of the country's internal politics, and routed much of its support through the ISI. Problem was, the ISI used the funds provided by the US to support the factions of its own choosing, which were not necessarily the factions the US would have chosen to back had it had all the requisite information. And yes, the ISI was also the primary backer of the Taliban.
Uh, no. After the 1968 coup, the Ba'athist regime fostered relations with the Soviet Union, culminating in the Iraqi-Soviet Friendship Treaty of April 1972. Subsequently, the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact member states sold the Iraqis all the weapons they wanted, from small arms through AFVs to fighter-bombers. In addition, the Ba'athists purchased training in surveillance and interrogation techniques for their security/intelligence services--the Estikhbarat (military intelligence), the Amn (state intelligence) and Mukhabarat (Ba'ath party intelligence)--from the Sovs and the East Germans in the 1970s. Many of those sales were on credit, too; by the time the Ba'athist government was toppled in 2003, it still owed billions of dollars to Russia.
Now, if PBS, UPI or some pajamahadin can "uncover" that Saddam was "a CIA asset" during that time, it's a reasonable assumption that the KGB could have done so as well. Does it seem plausible that the Sovs would provide billions in weaponry, on credit, and details of their own counter-intelligence methods, to a government whose vice-president, later president, was a CIA asset? The notion is laughable. Or it would be, if so many credulous idiots didn't buy into the idea.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
On the demo charges, I could give some figures on how big a charge you'd need to, say, cut a particular column, if I knew the column diameter and material (concreate, steel, reinforced concrete, etc). But I don't know how many columns would be needed to topple a floor or whatever. And the amount of charge depends on how it's placed, as well...whether it's a block on one side, blocks on both sides, wrap around, triangle, sheet charge, roll, shaped cutting charge, etc.
On the plane igniting the explosives, it would depend on what was used. Military grade C-4, for example, is amazingly stable. You can jump on it, chew it, throw it, drop it, shoot it, etc and it won't go off (shooting has a slight possibility of setting it off, but is unlikely...tracer rounds make it more likely). You can even burn C-4 without setting it off (makes a respectable incindiary, although more expensive than traditional ones).
Basically, the plane could have caused a few charges to go off, but most would have remained undetonated (although they would have burned).
Now, the problem comes in with the way the C-4 is wired. If an electrical ignition was used, the thin wires would have rather quickly broken apart and seperated in the fires, so a controlled demolition would have been impossible (wires running through the high fire areas would have been degraded/cut by the heat, at least have insulation melted away, shorting out and disrupting the circuit). So, you'd get a sparse and sporatic detonation...far from what's needed for a controlled demolition.
If you used non-electric, you're in for even more trouble. You can use blast cord or MDI. Blast cord is a primary explosive, not a secondary, and would have been set off by the fires. This, of course, would have set off all the charges along that cord, and ruined the controlled blast setup. MDI is a "shock wave" tube, and it would have melted (failing to provide the shock wave to detonate blasting caps), and impact could well have caused some of the charges to blow prematurely.
On rethinking this, though, the heat would have caused blasting caps to go, which in turn would have caused charges to detonate. So yeah, the impacts and subsequent fires should have set off some charges (as even electric systems, to my knowledge, still need volatile primary explosives in blasting caps to set off the secondary explosives such as C4).
On the plane igniting the explosives, it would depend on what was used. Military grade C-4, for example, is amazingly stable. You can jump on it, chew it, throw it, drop it, shoot it, etc and it won't go off (shooting has a slight possibility of setting it off, but is unlikely...tracer rounds make it more likely). You can even burn C-4 without setting it off (makes a respectable incindiary, although more expensive than traditional ones).
Basically, the plane could have caused a few charges to go off, but most would have remained undetonated (although they would have burned).
Now, the problem comes in with the way the C-4 is wired. If an electrical ignition was used, the thin wires would have rather quickly broken apart and seperated in the fires, so a controlled demolition would have been impossible (wires running through the high fire areas would have been degraded/cut by the heat, at least have insulation melted away, shorting out and disrupting the circuit). So, you'd get a sparse and sporatic detonation...far from what's needed for a controlled demolition.
If you used non-electric, you're in for even more trouble. You can use blast cord or MDI. Blast cord is a primary explosive, not a secondary, and would have been set off by the fires. This, of course, would have set off all the charges along that cord, and ruined the controlled blast setup. MDI is a "shock wave" tube, and it would have melted (failing to provide the shock wave to detonate blasting caps), and impact could well have caused some of the charges to blow prematurely.
On rethinking this, though, the heat would have caused blasting caps to go, which in turn would have caused charges to detonate. So yeah, the impacts and subsequent fires should have set off some charges (as even electric systems, to my knowledge, still need volatile primary explosives in blasting caps to set off the secondary explosives such as C4).
Ace_of_Sevens
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 225
A lot of our civil rights haven't been taken. Why haven't "they" staged more attacks so they can take them?
bob_kark
Person of Hench
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,488
I'm currently watching the Loose Change 2nd Edition and noticed something kind of funny. At around 43 minutes into it, he mentions that there were two explosions reported after the first tower was hit. He even plays an audio tape that records the two explosions. The second one hits around 9.05 seconds after the first. What's funny about this is that at around 35 minutes into it, he states that for the top of the tower to reach the ground at free fall, it takes 9.2 seconds. If you take that into consideration, wouldn't it be more likely that the second "explosion" is actually debris falling from the tower rather than a second explosion?
This makes even more sense when you take into consideration that the first explosion on the tape is not as loud as the second. The tape was recorded on the 36th floor of One Liberty Plaza. He states that this is across the street. However, while it is across the street from the site, its actually a block and a half from Tower Two. The tower was hit between the 93rd and 99th floors. The recording was made closer to the ground than where the plane hit. In addition, due to the direction the plane hit Tower Two, some debris would have been projected towards One Liberty Plaza. It makes a little more sense to me that this second explosion is actually debris hitting One Liberty Plaza or the ground nearby. Maybe I'm over-thinking it though...
This makes even more sense when you take into consideration that the first explosion on the tape is not as loud as the second. The tape was recorded on the 36th floor of One Liberty Plaza. He states that this is across the street. However, while it is across the street from the site, its actually a block and a half from Tower Two. The tower was hit between the 93rd and 99th floors. The recording was made closer to the ground than where the plane hit. In addition, due to the direction the plane hit Tower Two, some debris would have been projected towards One Liberty Plaza. It makes a little more sense to me that this second explosion is actually debris hitting One Liberty Plaza or the ground nearby. Maybe I'm over-thinking it though...
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Well, I'm up through page 5 on the thread (but will continue on). Most notable has been the contributions of Alek. A clearly intelligent chap, no irony intended.
Looking at the modern era, considering the JFK assassination, the moon landing(s), and now 9/11, there does seem to be a predilection among our species for complexity over simplicity when it comes to certain event analysis and deconstruction. I wonder if this isn't a byproduct of our higher abilities to think/conceive in the first place. Put another way, as the saying goes, if what you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
Looking at the modern era, considering the JFK assassination, the moon landing(s), and now 9/11, there does seem to be a predilection among our species for complexity over simplicity when it comes to certain event analysis and deconstruction. I wonder if this isn't a byproduct of our higher abilities to think/conceive in the first place. Put another way, as the saying goes, if what you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Alek said:
Yes, I've noticed that numerous times as well.Belz... said:
"Yes, fascinating. The specimen thinks parody constitutes evidence."
[/zaayr]
[/zaayr]
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,934
Alek seems to have gotten very quiet in the face of the humiliation given to him by claimee. Hard to show up when you are proven liar I guess.
Mongrel
Begging for Scraps
Don't think that one's been on in the UK but I do remember a program that followed a a family demo team taking down an old sports stadium. The sheer amount of physical preparation involved, weakening columns, drilling holes, wiring, checking, rechecking and triple checking involved does make me think that the CTs get all their technical information from Arnie films.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
I think they're having problems with their server. As soon as they get it up and running, the attacks will commence!
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,934
Looks like Alek has fled his humilation and gone to the Loose Change forum for warm milk and cookies. Awwwwww.
emperorchaos
Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2005
- Messages
- 155
'Tis a shame too. He brought many a tear to my eye.
-=-=-=-
In other news, I emailed the guy that made the video. Well, sent him a MySpace message actually. He seems like a rational fellow.
He has yet to respond, but I can understand if he's busy. I just thought that I'd have a shot at talking to him about this considering we are around the same age and have many of the same interests, according to his MySpace profile anyway.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Funny, they won't post where they can't ban...
Loose Change, where are you? Upchurch, expedite their posting priveleges here!
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
Are these 9/11 conspiracy theories still around? I thought they had all been debunked.
First, the conspiracy theories leave huge questions unanswered or would require conspiracies on such an unimagineably huge scale as to be impossible. The orignal conspiracy theory is generally attributed to Thierry Meyssan, a super-leftist government-hater, who I believe has said that he doesn't know how the conspiracies could have been pulled off and leaves the "big" questions (how the conspiracy was done, by whom, and for what purpose) unanswered.
Second, the conspiracy theories are based on "problems" with minor details rasied by unqualified theorists: I think the WTC should have not have fallen. There should be more debris. The hole in the Pentagon isn't as big as holes in other buildings hit by aircraft. The exact shade of blue on this piece of wreckage doesn't match the exact shade of blue on this other picture of an American Airlines plane. A witness said the plane "sounded like a missle." And so on.
Third, even these minor details have all been debunked by professionals in the appropriate fields. Even if we simply woke up the day after the attack and had to figure out what had happened, the overwhelming evidence would lead to the conclusion of planes hitting buildings. Any other conclusion could only be supported by evidence of some super-huge impossibly massive cover up.
A good short artical with some interesting links is at http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm
First, the conspiracy theories leave huge questions unanswered or would require conspiracies on such an unimagineably huge scale as to be impossible. The orignal conspiracy theory is generally attributed to Thierry Meyssan, a super-leftist government-hater, who I believe has said that he doesn't know how the conspiracies could have been pulled off and leaves the "big" questions (how the conspiracy was done, by whom, and for what purpose) unanswered.
Second, the conspiracy theories are based on "problems" with minor details rasied by unqualified theorists: I think the WTC should have not have fallen. There should be more debris. The hole in the Pentagon isn't as big as holes in other buildings hit by aircraft. The exact shade of blue on this piece of wreckage doesn't match the exact shade of blue on this other picture of an American Airlines plane. A witness said the plane "sounded like a missle." And so on.
Third, even these minor details have all been debunked by professionals in the appropriate fields. Even if we simply woke up the day after the attack and had to figure out what had happened, the overwhelming evidence would lead to the conclusion of planes hitting buildings. Any other conclusion could only be supported by evidence of some super-huge impossibly massive cover up.
A good short artical with some interesting links is at http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm
diggingdeeper
New Blood
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 23
my 2 cents
You know, I just spent a couple of hours reading through the entire thread.
First of all, while I do appreciate some of the conversations on the site, I was pretty disappointed with the majority of the debate between fellow skeptics.
I must say, I find the tone of many to be condescending. If not at first, it sure gets there pretty quickly. I understand that that is part of human nature but very few of the many who participate as such will admit it (I am not leaving myself out of that equation either).
Without going into agreement with Alex’s' views or not, I am going to observe that he apologized when he felt he was wrong, he admitted that he had been mistaken when he felt so and managed for the most part to not be drawn into what I considered to be baiting from some as well as some attempts to intellectually bully him.
I came across the thread while doing some researching of the film after viewing it in its entirety. Yes, I do think it was a bit disingenuous for the author of the thread not to admit up front that he had not seen the entire film. Yes, I do think it was not entirely appropriate for Alex to call him a liar.
Yes, it did degrade into a rather childish debate about if it was a lie or not. Kind of reminded me of the Clinton deposition where he says "..it depends on what the definition of is is.."
I understood his use of the Hitler quote to be saying the "big lie" philosophy is not only a philosophy but had in fact been turned into a way of life by Hitler and that one should be conscious of past evils, remember them, not deny that it is not possible for something similar to happen again. For those who wanted to paint him with the brush of an anti-Semite just for quoting Hitler I would suggest a bit more patience and understanding would go a long way for a more productive debate.
I get what Alex was feeling for the most part though I do not necessarily agree with all of it but why should it be unthinkable that our, or any other government should lie to us when we know for a fact it has happened in the past?
What has happened that would dissuade them from that practice? His idea that it might be a Psy-op is not totally out of hand especially since it is a military principle that wars should be fought using these types of methods more and more in the future.
If 911 is truly an extraordinary event in world history, does it not deserve exploring honestly the extraordinary context and possible beginnings it might have had? if not, why not?
Do any of you think that my impression that the discussion became polarized between the 'kooks" and the rationalists is flawed?? If so why?
For myself I would have liked the discussion to have focused on the effect of a film like this, the cottage industry that surrounds events such as 911 and how all of that keeps us distracted from the main issues which I believe Alex was attempting to discuss like the dissolution of our freedoms, the possible explanations for that, and the current and continuing move towards globalization and a discussion of its pitfalls and positive possibilities.
A few words for Alex if you are listening. While I hear what you are saying and understand your concerns, you might want to consider that films like "loose Change" may be playing to your emotions which can sometimes be detrimental to ones reasoning. It is not that some things in the film might not have validity; just that the film may have its own separate agenda and it may not be what you think. It seems like films which do this are currently popular '"what the bleep do we know" would be a good example.
Facts do not indicate reasons in all cases. I will give you my personal experience that is relevant in this case.
Originally, I was going to be on flight 11, the first one to hit the towers. I changed my reservation to a later flight so I wouldn't have to get my mom up so early. When I finally was able to get back out, I took the same flight back to LA.
I was removed from the airplane after boarding by state police and some of the suit guys with ear pieces (I have a dark complection and was particularly suntanned as well as unshaven). I was held for some minutes outside of the aircraft and finally moved back to the gate. When I questioned why I had been removed, I was told that I had had an altercation at the check-in counter as well as at the security check point. I explained that I found that strange since I had originated from Long Island and was connecting through Boston and did not go through the check in , nor, security at Logan airport.
This was the excuse the airline had used to call the police to get me off the plane. When I confronted the airline personnel and demanded to know the reason I was removed I was told that some of the passengers, flight attendants were "..Intimidated by me." The trooper said the pilot told him that I was suspicious because I looked him right in the eye when I boarded.
I also personally knew someone on flight 11. I know they are not around anymore.
I mention all of this to give an example of what fear can do. How authority in their fear can overstep their boundaries and affect the liberties of another. How as a nation we are not all we are cracked up to be.
When I was not allowed to continue my flight (I was put in a hotel and allowed to fly the following day). I explained that while I found my situation completely understandable, I did not find it excusable. I filed a discrimination complaint with the DOT and several years later, the airlines was fined and had to take some sort of corrective action.
Another thing is, if one were to just look at the facts: I changed my reservation, then when I traveled again I was removed from the plane, I guess you can see the possibility of someone turning that into me being some sort of player in a nefarious plot when in fact, I had just been concerned about getting my mom up too early (thank goodness for moms!).
I appreciated your input and hope in the future that persons who are willing to come to this site and are serious in thier discussions will be treated with a bit more dignity.
You know, I just spent a couple of hours reading through the entire thread.
First of all, while I do appreciate some of the conversations on the site, I was pretty disappointed with the majority of the debate between fellow skeptics.
I must say, I find the tone of many to be condescending. If not at first, it sure gets there pretty quickly. I understand that that is part of human nature but very few of the many who participate as such will admit it (I am not leaving myself out of that equation either).
Without going into agreement with Alex’s' views or not, I am going to observe that he apologized when he felt he was wrong, he admitted that he had been mistaken when he felt so and managed for the most part to not be drawn into what I considered to be baiting from some as well as some attempts to intellectually bully him.
I came across the thread while doing some researching of the film after viewing it in its entirety. Yes, I do think it was a bit disingenuous for the author of the thread not to admit up front that he had not seen the entire film. Yes, I do think it was not entirely appropriate for Alex to call him a liar.
Yes, it did degrade into a rather childish debate about if it was a lie or not. Kind of reminded me of the Clinton deposition where he says "..it depends on what the definition of is is.."
I understood his use of the Hitler quote to be saying the "big lie" philosophy is not only a philosophy but had in fact been turned into a way of life by Hitler and that one should be conscious of past evils, remember them, not deny that it is not possible for something similar to happen again. For those who wanted to paint him with the brush of an anti-Semite just for quoting Hitler I would suggest a bit more patience and understanding would go a long way for a more productive debate.
I get what Alex was feeling for the most part though I do not necessarily agree with all of it but why should it be unthinkable that our, or any other government should lie to us when we know for a fact it has happened in the past?
What has happened that would dissuade them from that practice? His idea that it might be a Psy-op is not totally out of hand especially since it is a military principle that wars should be fought using these types of methods more and more in the future.
If 911 is truly an extraordinary event in world history, does it not deserve exploring honestly the extraordinary context and possible beginnings it might have had? if not, why not?
Do any of you think that my impression that the discussion became polarized between the 'kooks" and the rationalists is flawed?? If so why?
For myself I would have liked the discussion to have focused on the effect of a film like this, the cottage industry that surrounds events such as 911 and how all of that keeps us distracted from the main issues which I believe Alex was attempting to discuss like the dissolution of our freedoms, the possible explanations for that, and the current and continuing move towards globalization and a discussion of its pitfalls and positive possibilities.
A few words for Alex if you are listening. While I hear what you are saying and understand your concerns, you might want to consider that films like "loose Change" may be playing to your emotions which can sometimes be detrimental to ones reasoning. It is not that some things in the film might not have validity; just that the film may have its own separate agenda and it may not be what you think. It seems like films which do this are currently popular '"what the bleep do we know" would be a good example.
Facts do not indicate reasons in all cases. I will give you my personal experience that is relevant in this case.
Originally, I was going to be on flight 11, the first one to hit the towers. I changed my reservation to a later flight so I wouldn't have to get my mom up so early. When I finally was able to get back out, I took the same flight back to LA.
I was removed from the airplane after boarding by state police and some of the suit guys with ear pieces (I have a dark complection and was particularly suntanned as well as unshaven). I was held for some minutes outside of the aircraft and finally moved back to the gate. When I questioned why I had been removed, I was told that I had had an altercation at the check-in counter as well as at the security check point. I explained that I found that strange since I had originated from Long Island and was connecting through Boston and did not go through the check in , nor, security at Logan airport.
This was the excuse the airline had used to call the police to get me off the plane. When I confronted the airline personnel and demanded to know the reason I was removed I was told that some of the passengers, flight attendants were "..Intimidated by me." The trooper said the pilot told him that I was suspicious because I looked him right in the eye when I boarded.
I also personally knew someone on flight 11. I know they are not around anymore.
I mention all of this to give an example of what fear can do. How authority in their fear can overstep their boundaries and affect the liberties of another. How as a nation we are not all we are cracked up to be.
When I was not allowed to continue my flight (I was put in a hotel and allowed to fly the following day). I explained that while I found my situation completely understandable, I did not find it excusable. I filed a discrimination complaint with the DOT and several years later, the airlines was fined and had to take some sort of corrective action.
Another thing is, if one were to just look at the facts: I changed my reservation, then when I traveled again I was removed from the plane, I guess you can see the possibility of someone turning that into me being some sort of player in a nefarious plot when in fact, I had just been concerned about getting my mom up too early (thank goodness for moms!).
I appreciated your input and hope in the future that persons who are willing to come to this site and are serious in thier discussions will be treated with a bit more dignity.
pipelineaudio
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
I brought this up at LC as well, just how much of the bible or a cartoon do you have to read or watch to know its utter make believe?
He may well have found it BS in 30 seconds.
I didnt, but I dont know much
- Status