Loose Change - Part III

[Brainster]

Mate, google 'David Icke'.

Okay, so that photo artifact lizards website is the second weirdest I've seen, after the reptilians.

I notice the tired old tact to debate Mr Roberts work is flood your post with 50 things you found wrong. Is it so hard to go into detail about just one of those things, slowly, easy to understand. What is it with people who post SO much. Its tiresome and whats the bet even more then half of the people in support of it would not read it. Its all about 'asking kwestions!'. Flood the other person with so much crap they cant be fugged.

He did get one point on the differing number of remote control takeoffs and landings, but I think we all saw that as an obvious boner in the film before we found out more. I think James put up a post on the blog about that and I kicked myself for not beating him to it as that was one of the obvious oddities that struck me the first time I saw the movie.

I had a post all queued up at one point about Hani Hanjour's 330-degree turn, pointing out that it would have been a lot easier to make a 30-degree turn the other way, before I found out more and realized that it was because Hanjour missed the Pentagon on the first try and had to circle around.

But he doesn't really address any of the obvious lies and mistakes in the film. It's mostly "let me give 10 examples of where Gravy just expressed scorn instead of providing evidence"--usually in places where there really was no evidence from Dylan either.

 

[JamesB]

He did get one point on the differing number of remote control takeoffs and landings, but I think we all saw that as an obvious boner in the film before we found out more. I think James put up a post on the blog about that and I kicked myself for not beating him to it as that was one of the obvious oddities that struck me the first time I saw the movie.

This was explained because they lifted part of a quote from an article, without giving enough of the quote, or adding enough of their own commentary to have it make sense. It is another perfect example of how they just google evidence on the web and piece it together with weird music, without giving any thought to the validity of the argument or the truth of the evidence.

 

[dubfan]

This was explained because they lifted part of a quote from an article, without giving enough of the quote, or adding enough of their own commentary to have it make sense. It is another perfect example of how they just google evidence on the web and piece it together with weird music, without giving any thought to the validity of the argument or the truth of the evidence.

I remember a thread over there when Gravy first released his paper. There were about 3 pages and 30+ posts on that stupid remote controlled airplane. There was a retired military aviation guy there who debated whether or not you actually count take-offs and landings in a plane's log book, and blah blah blah.

Eventually it came to light that those were the number of *automated* take-offs and landings, thus the discrepancy.

Someone then had a post that said something like, "Ok, we've resolved the remote-controlled plane issue. What's the next thing that Gravy got wrong?"

*crickets*

I think the thread died right there.

 

[Brainster]

Seriously, though, the CTers have some ad hoc excuse for why every incident on 9/11 happened: They had to fake the crash of United 93 so we would have the "Let's Roll" hero story to get us fired up. They had to destroy WTC7 so as to, um, get rid of some documents or something. It puts me in mind of the strong anthropic principle, or Martin Gardner's completely ridiculous anthropic principle (CRAP) -- "Everything had to happen the way it did, or else it wouldn't have happened the way it did!"

This is because the theory is reverse engineered. I talked about this on SLC once. If you look at Loose Change head on the conspiracy they propose doesn't make any sense at all. It's only when you start with the assumption that 9-11 was an inside job and work backwards from there that it seems coherent.

No planes, or robo drones and a missile? The planes are a huge problem for the conspiracy theorist. You can't come up with a rational reason for the airline pilots flying them into the buildings. You don't believe in the hijackers and even if they were Bushco commandos, would they go on a suicide mission?

Ergo it's either no planes or robo planes into the towers. Now, some argue that the hijacking commandos bailed out of the planes after setting the autopilots to crash into the WTC, but for the most part the CTers seem to like the robo drones, except for Killtown and Holmgren, who've gone with CGI.

Ditto with the cellphone/Airfone calls. This struck me as the nuttiest part of Loose Change, but it is crucial to their case. If the calls were made, then there really were hijackers and the drones' theory doesn't um, stack up.

Controlled Demolition? Necessary to cover up the drones. I'm not really sure what the position of the "Scholars" is on this issue; my assumption is that "Shock and Awe" would about cover it, since they apparently believe in the four hijackings. My guess is they're proposing LIHOP with CD?

Pentagon, same problem with the plane, so deny the plane; this time you have the advantage of no film to contradict you, just the testimony of eyewitnesses. You can usually count on a couple folks to get it wrong

Shanksville? This one puzzled me a bit, but if the government was doing the hits, there's no reason for it to crash (or more commonly in CT circles to be shot down). Besides, you've argued that three of the four planes never made it to their fate; why stop there?

Now all that remains is assembling the "evidence" and pretending your initial assumption (that it was Bush and Cheney) is a conclusion you've come to reluctantly after careful deduction.

 

[dubfan]

I had a post all queued up at one point about Hani Hanjour's 330-degree turn, pointing out that it would have been a lot easier to make a 30-degree turn the other way, before I found out more and realized that it was because Hanjour missed the Pentagon on the first try and had to circle around.

[nitpick]They have barely legible (but still readable) images of a hardcopy presentation given at the FAA that has screenshots from the radar track of Hani's impossible flight at one of the 911 sites. It might be Gravy's, I honestly can't remember. I personally think the flight path was intentional -- if you look at the track it's quite deliberate. No jinking or anything. I don't think he overshot. I think it was just ordinary energy management -- bleeding off altitude & trading some airspeed for the proper heading.[/nitpick]

If I run into them again I'll post a link.

 

[Gravy]

Some genius on the LC forum thinks he has Gravy debunked. Although I am not sure how he has managed this feat, since the Pentagon doesn't come into the picture until page 25.



http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6881

Cool! It's about time!

ETA: Oh, that's all?

 

[JamesB]

What happened is they condensed this:

The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled
Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14
flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs,
69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.

Into this:

December 1st, 1984.
A remote-controlled Boeing 720 takes off from Edwards Air Force Base, and is crash-landed by NASA for fuel research. Before its destruction, the plane flew a total of 16 hours and 22 minutes, including 10 takeoffs, 69 approaches, and 13 landings.

Without bothering to stop and think if their version made sense. This is the post I discussed it in. Not the most significant point, but amusing.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/new-math.html

 

[Regnad Kcin]

This is because the theory is reverse engineered...

Precisely!

I've long considered as much with the JFK assassination. If one starts with the idea that it was a catasrophic climactic occurrence, it then almost requires that the events leading up to it must've been sinister and far-reaching.

Gerald Posner mentions as much in "Case Closed" (from memory): If you place the Holocaust on one side and the Third Reich on the other, they roughly balance out -- worst crime / worst criminals. But do the same thing with JFK and Oswald and the equation comes up wanting. The young and charismatic leader of the free world brought down by... a two-bit punk? It doesn't balance.

Such is our need for neat and tidy storybook narratives. And if it doesn't exist, make it up. Like Great American Hero John Wayne. You know, the guy who stayed out of WWII so he could act in movies.

(Edited for grammar.)

 

[delphi_ote]

Precisely!

I've long considered as much with the JFK assassination. If one starts with the idea that it was a catasrophic climactic occurrence, it then almost requires that the events leading up to it must be sinister and far-reaching.

And isn't the story even better if you can write yourself as a hero in the middle of it fighting the evil?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

And isn't the story even better if you can write yourself as a hero in the middle of it fighting the evil?

Avery, Bermas, and Rowe. Our saviors!

 

[JamesB]

The three stooges?

 

[Brainster]

[nitpick]They have barely legible (but still readable) images of a hardcopy presentation given at the FAA that has screenshots from the radar track of Hani's impossible flight at one of the 911 sites. It might be Gravy's, I honestly can't remember. I personally think the flight path was intentional -- if you look at the track it's quite deliberate. No jinking or anything. I don't think he overshot. I think it was just ordinary energy management -- bleeding off altitude & trading some airspeed for the proper heading.[/nitpick]

If I run into them again I'll post a link.

I'd be happy to learn otherwise; I'm just going by the supposition that the jokers who hit the WTC found it by flying down the Hudson and that Hanjour picked out the Pentagon visually but couldn't quite hit it the first time around. I'll admit some bias here too because of the picture of the Capitol Dome in shown in the movie of "United 93" that the pilot on that hijacking was depicted as aiming for--that at least colors my impression that these guys were going on visual recognition of the target.

 

[Brainster]

And isn't the story even better if you can write yourself as a hero in the middle of it fighting the evil?

That's always been the point of the comparisons of Bush to Hitler. It's not that they want to diminish the evil of Hitler or even (entirely) that they want to elevate the supposed crimes of Bush to that level. It's that they want to see themselves in the role of the noble heroes fighting back against the fascists at great personal risk to themselves.

"Hey, babe, I'm on Bush's enemies list."
Dylan Avery's new pickup line.

 

[JamesB]

I'd be happy to learn otherwise; I'm just going by the supposition that the jokers who hit the WTC found it by flying down the Hudson and that Hanjour picked out the Pentagon visually but couldn't quite hit it the first time around. I'll admit some bias here too because of the picture of the Capitol Dome in shown in the movie of "United 93" that the pilot on that hijacking was depicted as aiming for--that at least colors my impression that these guys were going on visual recognition of the target.

I thought the cruise missile used that white line painted on the lawn of the pentagon for directions...

 

[gumboot]

UA93 has always bugged me from the CT point of view. Firstly, the issue of it being shot down came up. Somehow the idea that the government shot the plane down proved that it was all a government conspiracy. This made no sense to me. At the time (before I had really looked deeply into it) my first reaction was

"So the government shot it down and then discovered the passengers were about to take over the plane...no wonder they tried to cover up the shooting down... I would"

It ran much like the famous story of New Zealand soldiers at Gallipolli finally taking the much-needed Chunik Bair only to be shelled by a British ship.

Of course now I've looked into it I'm convinced it wasn't shot down at all.

So then we get to the debris scatter - which most CTers claim is "evidence" it was shot down (I'm still waiting to hear how being shot down proves CT). Apparantly the wreckage was spread over 8 square miles.

Even without disputing this statistic (and there seems to be good grounds to dispute the 8 sq mi figure)... just bear in mind *this* statistic.


After a bomb went off inside the aircraft, Pan Am Flight 103 broke up in mid air at 31,000ft over Lockerbie, Scotland. The wreckage covered 845 sq mi.

Even taking into account the different wind conditions and size of the aircraft...

UA93 - 8 sq mi
PA103 - 845 sq mi

Anyone see a problem here?

-Andrew

P.S. note that figure for Pan Am 103 is for the significant debris. Some debris was much further away.

 

[Gravy]

I'd be happy to learn otherwise; I'm just going by the supposition that the jokers who hit the WTC found it by flying down the Hudson and that Hanjour picked out the Pentagon visually but couldn't quite hit it the first time around. I'll admit some bias here too because of the picture of the Capitol Dome in shown in the movie of "United 93" that the pilot on that hijacking was depicted as aiming for--that at least colors my impression that these guys were going on visual recognition of the target.

One error in LC that I didn't catch but that was pointed out to me by a German guy recently is that Hanjour didn't overfly the Pentagon at 7,000 feet. He was at that altitude at abour 40 miles out. He was at about 2,200 feet when he made he wide turn, according to ATC.

 

[Brainster]

UA93 - 8 sq mi
PA103 - 845 sq mi

Anyone see a problem here?

-Andrew

P.S. note that figure for Pan Am 103 is for the significant debris. Some debris was much further away.

Interesting. My first reaction was that the difference in altitude was too great, but I suspect it's a relatively trivial physics problem to adjust for that. Say Flight 93 was shot down at 8,000 feet at, say 600 MPH; what is the expected dispersal pattern? I don't think there's much doubt it would cover a much larger area. Perhaps Professor Jones would care to run the numbers for us?

 

[Gravy]

So then we get to the debris scatter - which most CTers claim is "evidence" it was shot down (I'm still waiting to hear how being shot down proves CT). Apparantly the wreckage was spread over 8 square miles.

Even without disputing this statistic (and there seems to be good grounds to dispute the 8 sq mi figure)... just bear in mind *this* statistic.
.

Oh, this is easy to dispute, though. The CT contention is not that debris was spread over 8 square miles, but that debris was found 8 miles away from the crash scene. What they NEVER tell you is what that debris consisted of. It was a couple of pieces of paper. That's all. Investigators say the paper was carried in the breeze after being blasted a few hundred feet in the air, as we can see in the "mushroom cloud" photo.

Notice that you'll never see a CT get specific about that. They bring it up all the time, and it's important to challenge them on it.

 

[Harlequin]

So I finally registered at the LC forum to discuss this "debunk" of Gravy.

Unfortunately, I now don't seem to be able to access any of the threads that I could clearly view before I registered!

Is there some reason they are preventing me from viewing certain threads?

Perhaps I should not have used the same name as here, but I didn't really want to be an UndercoverNinja. I figure I have nothing to hide, as I've really not been very vocal in the discussions so far.

Still, it's irritating that when I finally decide to jump in over there, I can't.

Did anyone else have this problem?

 

[Johnny Pixels]

I think you must be still waiting for approval. For some reason, before you register, and after you're approved you can see everything, but while you're waiting for approval, you can't.