Loose Change - Part IV

[Belz...]

Heck, I'm old enough to remember those hallowed days of the 1960s and early70s when the Canadian buck was worth 1.10+ American dollars. But I have never been one for cross border shopping, as an ex-merchant, I still believe in the "shop locally" mantra.

Well, as a consumer, I can only hope that the American dollar CONTINUES to drop, no offense to anyone here. It makes shopping on Amazon much more appealing

 

[Belz...]

1) The description of the attack mode, and that they hit the right point is evidence in support. (They could have hit anywhere, but they happen to hit there.)

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

2) Use a little imagination, perhaps with a little physics -- just a tiny bit off, especially when leveling out just above the ground, and he hits the ground. A tiny error in angle is hugely amplified.

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

3) It's obvious that terrorists would not attack to do minimal damage.

It is obvious. However, you're forgetting some very important elements; mainly that they might have wanted to inflict symbolic damage in this instance.

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

I can see reasoning isn't your forté. "In fewer words" doesn't mean simpler. In order to pull this off and keep it secret, the government would have had to expend an incredible amount of ressources, while Al-Qaeda would simply have to do what they usually do.

A second possible version is that a secretive cabal in the US did exactly the same thing as the upper-ranks in Afghanistan were supposed to have done. How many people would need to know? Very few.

An assertion that's easy to believe if you have "Superman: the movie" mentality; namely that Lex Luthor could have done all this with only two idiots for henchmen.

1) Al Qaeda paralyzed our air security.

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

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

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

3) Al Qaeda persuaded the Bush Administration to staunchly oppose investigation of the attacks, to stall and stonewall when investigation occured, to grossly underfund the 9/11 Commission, etc.

Personnal opinion. Not really powerful in a debate.

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

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

As I said before, it's only simple because it's incomplete. And one can give a US Government version that's just as simple -- they (or a small cabal) did whatever the high-ranking Al Qaeda persons did.

Hey, I got an even simpler one: "Satan did it". I mean, I'm he's supernatural, so all he has to do is clap his hands and it just happens, right ?

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

Merely stating something doesn't make it true.

shows an unscathed computer monitor on top of a file cabinet on the fifth floor and (an open book? a printer?) on top of a wooden podium or stool on the third floor. Things look overall randomly stacked up.

"Looks" ? I'm still not interested in your opinion.

thewebfairy DOT com SLASH killtown SLASH pentalawn DOT html has more interesting pictures. (I'd normally call them evidence, but apparently many folk here disagree.)

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

Somebody said that it was a simple 1 in 5 odds that they'd hit the right spot. First, that means 4 in 5 that they'd hit a different spot.

So, when someone wins the lottery, and there was 13.999.999 chances out of 14.000.000 that he didn't win, you call that suspect ? Wow. You really know your statistics.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What I am trying to emphasize here is what Hanjour achieved wasn't really that hard. Much is made about the difficulty of achieving what he did, but I don't think I've seen a single commercial airline pilot who was even remotely surprised or impressed (unless, of course, you include JohndoeX )

-Andrew

Part of that reason for that, in my estimation, is that he didn't over load his talent, and set an achievable target in the target planning process. I don't doubt that Airline Captains would expect a novice with some flight training to be able to meet the 'good enough' standard to glide a plane into the building. I agree with them. I may be giving Honjour too much credit for mission planning, however, I am of the belief that these lads did a great deal of planning. This was no rush job. Thus, it seems rational to me that the more difficult approach John insists on would have been, in the mission planning phase, been discarded in favor of a more achievable goal.

More on that in my last reply to John. You and I are quibbling over which type of aircraft would be easier to use to hit a building. The more maneuverable the aircraft, the more accurate you are likely to be, but we will both agree that a small fighter, or an airliner, are in the class of "easy enough to fly into a building" to achieve the mission.

DR

 

[kookbreaker]

Indeed.

And in many religions, especially ones in which women are to be protected, much sexual behavior, on the part of men, is excused.

Even if it isn't excused by the religion, since when the heck is that a deterrent?

Prominent Televangelists soliciting Crack Whores? Nope! Can't Happen! They're Too Devout!. COmmitting adultery? Can't happen, they're reverends!

And of course, by the same logic, no Catholic Priest ever molested boys since they are the representatives of Gawd, right?

 

[Hellbound]

Try this documentary from Discovery. They specifically talk about the pieces of wing found buried (the tip of the wing, IIRC). NOT the whole wing, as you are trying to strawman here. I also doubt the commission would specify the location of every piece of debris found.

I will withdraw the claim, however, as I can't find another source for it at the time. I'll see if I can look at the documentary again, and find their source.

IN any case, he very nearly did hit the ground, as he impacted the lower portion of the building.

 

[MikeW]

Just jumping back in the thread for a moment, re: Mark Bingham and the other passengers missing from the manifest... It might be worth pointing out that they're all included on a United Airlines release listing passenger names issued a few days after the attacks, see http://www.unitedespanol.com/press/pressroom/2001/us_0912c.html . Which suggests to me that they did appear on some list, somewhere, unless of course you want to argue that United are "in on it", too.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Welcome to the forum.

...Sarcasm noted...

My words were sincere. That you assumed something different with no supporting evidence might perhaps tell you something about your analytical process.

There is not time at the moment for me to rebut the remainder of your response to mine. I'll be back later.



(Edited for clarity.)

 

[Darth Rotor]

Just jumping back in the thread for a moment, re: Mark Bingham and the other passengers missing from the manifest... It might be worth pointing out that they're all included on a United Airlines release listing passenger names issued a few days after the attacks, see http://www.unitedespanol.com/press/pressroom/2001/us_0912c.html . Which suggests to me that they did appear on some list, somewhere, unless of course you want to argue that United are "in on it", too.

What you don't see on that link is the black helicopter, a Little Bird, hovering outside the office where the president of the company stood as he directed that information be posted to the United Airlines Web Site. The flight crew had the whisper mode on, and were using Top Secret stealth technology to reduce their visual and IR signature, in a recent kit supplied by Cyberdyne Systems (with patent pending.)


Blue Thunder was a documentary, right?

DR

 

[defaultdotxbe]

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

the explanation is not in the who, but the how, for al-qeada the "how" is

1) learn to fly planes
2) hijack planes
3) crash them into buildings

for the govt the how is much more complicated

1) "remotely" hijack planes
2) swap planes with drones, or use CGI planes (in LIVE video)
3) crash drones into targets (or fire missiles at targets and say it was planes)
4) blow up a field in PA for no reason
5) plant evidence to make it look like planes in all 3 locations
6) keep everyone involved quiet for 5+ years

A second possible version is that a secretive cabal in the US did exactly the same thing as the upper-ranks in Afghanistan were supposed to have done. How many people would need to know? Very few.

you see, the real complexity isnt in even in the plan itself, its in the coverup, those "cavemen" in afghanistan never tried to hide the fact that they did, nor do they try to hide the fact of HOW they did it, keeping the secret is the difficult part, and involes many more people than "planning"

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

martyrdom absolves ALL sins, it doesnt surprise me they wanted to live it up knowing they could still get into paradise

As I said before, it's only simple because it's incomplete. And one can give a US Government version that's just as simple -- they (or a small cabal) did whatever the high-ranking Al Qaeda persons did.

except the al-qeada people didnt keep the whole thing covered up for 5 years

Somebody said that it was a simple 1 in 5 odds that they'd hit the right spot. First, that means 4 in 5 that they'd hit a different spot. Second, that's a conditional probability. It assumes that they would attack in that mode, and that they would not hit the ground (or miss the Pentagon completely). Try 1 in 10 for each of those, the odds drop down to 1 in 500.

check your history, they did attack, and they did hit the pentagon, applying odds to individual elements of historical events is pointless

think about thiswhat are the odds that you would even be born?

1 million sperm
1-2 days per month fertility
you mother not having a "headache" that day

hell forget that, what are the odd that your parents would even meet? or that they would be born? or their parents be born? by your logic the odds any person on the planet even exists is astronomical beyond comprehension

 

[Kent1]

Some interesting new info has come out today
Government Releases Detailed
Information on 9/11 Crashes

Complete Air-Ground Transcripts of Hijacked
9/11 Flight Recordings Declassified


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm


At 9:23am, the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) shows a text message to Flight 93 reading: "BEWARE OF ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION [sic]. TWO AIRCRAFT IN NY, HIT TRADE CNTER BUILDS [sic]." Five minutes later at 9:28am Flight 93 was sending the message "***(mayday)*** (hey get out of here) ***" as it was being hijacked.

 

[MikeW]

Some interesting new info has come out today
Government Releases Detailed
Information on 9/11 Crashes

Complete Air-Ground Transcripts of Hijacked
9/11 Flight Recordings Declassified


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

You beat me to it! Everyone should at least look at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf , though, which finally shows the flight path of Flight 77. And it's interesting...

 

[Gravy]

Thanks Kent & Mike

JohnM307, I apologize if I missed it, but can you state what you think happened to flight 77, and what you think hit the Pentagon?

 

[Gravy]

I would ask someone to post this on LC, but no doubt banishment would quickly follow. I'll email Mr. Rowe.

A message from Korey Rowe, producer of Loose Change

...What do you say to your Critics?
I say debate me on camera! Not Jason, not Dylan, me.

I suggest a moderated debate in a neutral location in New York City, since you'll be visiting shortly. Your 9/11 facts against mine. The only stipulation I have is that we both agree that the videotape must be unedited for distribution via Google Video, YouTube, etc.

By the way, a professor of visual arts in NYC has apparently been trying to set up such a meeting between me and the three of you, which I agreed to long ago. What's the holdup?

I also offered to sit down with the three of you on a non-adversarial basis and show in detail how your facts are wrong and your methods are flawed. I received no reply.

How do you explain the viewers guides?

I say, "have you read them?" These guides are fact-less, minus the errors that we publicly retracted and that have now been fixed in the second edition re-cut that we just put up on Google video, ONCE AGAIN FOR ****ING FREE! They attack our character. You know, fine, I’m not Jesus, I’m not perfect, no one is. I have made mistakes, I am human. My biggest mistake was not being able to see the truth before I went to Iraq and killed people for a lie. Human beings protecting there homes, their children and what little possessions they had managed to keep for their short existence in a place not one of you would ever go willingly. You disgust me Mark Roberts, you spineless worm. Go for it man, attack my military record, have a blast. Where's yours ********, and what’s your REAL NAME?

Let's suppose you're right and my Loose Change Viewer Guide contains no facts. How about my compilation Loose Change Creators Speak? Are you going to claim that voice-morphing technology was used to fake all those interviews I transcribed? Remember, those interviews are promoted on your website.

As for getting facts correct, I never attacked your military record. I thank you for your service to our country. I did recently comment that military service seemed to have made you decisive but not wise, as evidenced by your statement in this week's Albany Times-Union:

[Reporter] In a conspiracist's world, any piece of evidence can be dismissed as fabrication, disinformation or naivete. So what would convince the three Oneonta filmmakers their theories are flawed?

...Rowe, the Army veteran, merely shakes his head.
"There is not one thing that they can do that can dissuade me from what I think," Rowe said. "I know they did it. ... I'm more sure of it every day."

So, facts that contradict your beliefs won't change your mind? You've adopted a religion, not a cause.
Want some more? How about these quotes from an April 15 interview on Air America Phoenix?

Rowe: Well, supposedly those bombs weren't there. According to the official version, there was never any charges placed inside the World Trade Center. And it's a question of why they would they be in there, and why you would want to bring down the World Trade Center themselves. I mean, the World Trade Center was built in 1973 with asbestos and other dangerous materials that aren't allowed in today's building world. I mean, they received numerous citations to clean up the buildings. And to clean up those materials would have cost over a billion dollars. So, I mean, yes, running planes into the buildings would have been sufficient enough as an attack, but it wasn't the overall goal of Larry A. Silverstein, who owned WTC Building 7 and leased the rest of the buildings. It wasn't enough for him. I mean, now he's got prime real estate in downtown Manhattan, and after a 220 million investment turned into a two billion dollar profit.

***
Host: One thing that's interested me: all that gold. I'd never heard figures anything like that. So, no one knows where all that gold went.

Bermas?: No. Nobody has a clue.

Rowe: Actually, we heard recently that the amount of gold was so much higher, somewhere near over trillion dollars.

***
Rowe:[Getting the FBI's response to a FOIA request very wrong] The FBI said that there was actually 84 video cameras that would have captured flight 77 flying into the Pentagon. Not one of those videos has been released or shown to the public to prove that a plane hit the building when obviously it didn't.

***
Caller: The presumption is that a missile hit the Pentagon. It would have to come from either a ship or a plane.

Rowe: Or ground. Actually, it could have been a Javelin round, which is a two-man team. It costs up to around $750,000 to for the equipment for one round to actually have the piece that locks onto to whatever you're shooting from.

Caller: And it could cause the damage that was shown...

Rowe: Yes, it could do that, but it would have to be significantly modified. But I would lean closer to a missile being shot by an airplane.

***
Host: In the movie JFK, Kevin Costner was asked, you know, how can you keep a conspiracy of this magnitude alive? And he said, "Orders."

Rowe: Absolutely. In the military you sign away your rights. I mean, if you break your arm, you get arrested for destruction of government property, and you get fined.

They honestly have you in whatever way they want you. They will twist the things, they will compile evidence, to support their story, no matter what. They own you the moment you sign that line.

***
Caller: I was just wondering about, there was a man on flight 93 in Pennsylvania, and he was talking to his wife –

Rowe: That's not true, ma'am. You're referring to Todd Beamer. Todd Beamer never talked to his wife. In fact, he only talked to a Verizon operator for what, 19 minutes, Dylan?

Avery: Yeah. [Wrong. It was 13 minutes.]

Rowe: And she actually offered to patch him through to his wife, and he didn't really want to talk to his wife, 'cause, I guess it wasn't all that important.

Your facts about the events of 9/11 against mine, Mr. Rowe. Agreed?

Sincerely,
Kram Strebor, vertebrate, planet Earth.
(Code name used for security reasons)

 

[Darth Rotor]

You beat me to it! Everyone should at least look at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf , though, which finally shows the flight path of Flight 77. And it's interesting...

Wow, thanks.

The plot confirms the right turn, and my belief that they flew it down by hand. Not sure how much faster than 460 knots a 757 can go at Sea Level-1000 feet MSL.

A look at the Jepson charts of the Standard arrivals to Reagan, as well as various instrument approach procedures, and see if any of them match that flight path. My hunch is that none of them do.

With the hijackers having turned off the IFF, they probably weren't all that worried at pretending to be masquerading as a plane going into Reagan. Inside inside the TCA (about 50 NM around DC) they'd have to be talking to approach/center and be squawking to carry on any masquerade of "innocent flight." For some miles before impact, their blip would be a contact (typically classified as "VFR, not squawking, altitude unkown" by a controller) if the radar contact was being tracked.

At 7,000 feet, they should have been showing up on ATC's scopes.

Not sure what reported visibility was that day. Was it CAVU? If it was hazy, he might have had some trouble picking out the pentagon visually, then once having acquired the target, his four mile straight in was a bit short, but his stick and rudder skills sufficed to aim the plane accurately enough to hit his target.

DR

EDIT: At 400- 460 knots(he accelerated) a 3-4 NM final from 2000' to about 100' above sea level. (Reagan is at 15' above sea level, Pentagon a bit higher up IIRC.) So, at roughly 7 miles a minute, go 4 nm and descend 1900 feet, you need to descend between 3000 and 4000 fpm. At that airspeed, nose down, and with a descent already begun, very doable.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Rowe: Absolutely. In the military you sign away your rights. I mean, if you break your arm, you get arrested for destruction of government property, and you get fined.

That lying sack of feces. If you inflict a "self inflicted wound" on your own person, you can be charged, and fined, at an Article 15 proceeding or a court martial. If you break your arm in the line of duty, you are treated, not fined, not arrested.

What an embarassment to the word "veteran." If you meet him is there a chance you can punch him in his lying mouth, or would that prejudice your position? On second thought, I guess you probably shouldn't go into the mud and wrestle with the pig.

DR

 

[Abbyas]

You disgust me Mark Roberts, you spineless worm. Go for it man, attack my military record, have a blast. Where's yours ********, and what’s your REAL NAME?

Does anyone besides me think it's hilarious that Loose Change Enemy #1 is not Bush or Cheney but our very own Gravy?

With all the attention these guys are giving their debunkers, I think that the Maddox piece, his linking to Gravy's Viewers Guide and Maddox's minions are really, really getting to them.

 

[MarkyX]

Damnit, I want a **** you from Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Does anyone besides me think it's hilarious that Loose Change Enemy #1 is not Bush or Cheney but our very own Gravy?

With all the attention these guys are giving their debunkers, I think that the Maddox piece, his linking to Gravy's Viewers Guide and Maddox's minions are really, really getting to them.

T-Shirt Idea

"Dylan Avery Cooked in Gravy!"

There have to be better ones.

Here's one:
"Loose Change"
*Pic of three morons in a bowl of gravy in the act of drowning*
"Drowned in Gravy"

DR

 

[Gravy]

While we're on the subject of Mr. Rowe, let's not forget this post on Screw Loose Change: Korey Rowe Supports Threatening Lawyers, Exaggerates War Record.
It's quite a read.

Your response, Mr. Rowe? Feel free to sign up here. Unlike on your forum, you won't be banned here for disagreeing.

"Camp Freedom," indeed.

 

[Gravy]

Damnit, I want a **** you from Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe.

Oh, I bet they'd hate you even more than me if they thought we weren't the same person.