Very Interesting Analysis of 911

[bloodhound]

http://physics911.org/net/index.php

 

the panel "Claims" to consist of professional scientists.

the articles are very scientific indeed, but reads more like a conspiracy theory.

 

Even if it maybe biased, still makes a good read.

 

tell me what u think

[5614]

its possible i suppose, with the ground explosions, this just makes me wonder more, how could the whole world have missed this.... years of training and planning, someone must have been suspicious. chances are they didnt say anything in case the were sued for being anti-ethnic minority people [cant remember the right word ]

[Phi for All]

Haven't read it all, but I remember reading something about the Pentagon crash and how it couldn't have been a big jet because of the lack of damage from the wings.

 

On the whole, I'm not really into conspiracy theories, but having been in business all my life, I know that people who make billions from war and death and troubled times would stoop to any level to keep peace from undermining their market base. And of course the sound byte "conspiracy theory" has been spun to be synonymous with "crackpot", which doesn't help matters.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

These people are doing research, but ignoring the important parts.

Think: The lack of wing damage could be caused by the wings coming off of the plane as it hits the ground. Wings with no tail are not airodynamic and will slow down, thus causing less damage.

Why do columns in the WTC have to be hit with thermite? Isn't jet fuel a good enough way to melt steel? These planes carry hundreds of TONS of the stuff. It'll burn pretty bad.

[Phi for All]

Here's a link that budullewraagh posted in the Why did you vote for Kerry thread in Politics. Along the same line, but it's a movie!

[john5746]

Planes didn't fly into the Trade Centers. They were timed holograms. Jews set off explosives.

 

Give me a break.

[bloodhound]

lol. that last post was funny

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

..things were really piling up.

 

Planes didn't fly into the Trade Centers. They were timed holograms. Jews set off explosives.

 

Give me a break.

 

25 Rules of Disinformation

 

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it-especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

 

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

 

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

 

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

 

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

 

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to -the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning-simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

 

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

 

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

 

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

 

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues-so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

 

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made-but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

 

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

 

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

 

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

 

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

 

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

 

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

 

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

 

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

 

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

 

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

 

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

 

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

 

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

 

25 Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

 

[john5746]

I did all of that? Damn! I thought I was just being sarcastic. I'm actually pretty smart!

 

Thanks

[Dave]

I'm not into all the conspiracy theory stuff, but the pentagon crash does make me wonder quite a lot to be honest. Where did the actual engines themselves go, and why didn't we see them? The lack of damage from the wings also shocked me quite a bit.

[swansont]

The lack of damage from the wings also shocked me quite a bit.

 

I only scanned the article, but they don't appear to have considered the possibility that the plane wasn't level at impact. All of the drawings show, and calculations seem to assume, a level plane.

 

In their "(Don't) Try this at home" section, I didn't see an answer to their challenge. But I've had campfires into which aluminum cans were crumpled and dropped, with no evidence of them to be found the next day.

[Phi for All]

I only scanned the article, but they don't appear to have considered the possibility that the plane wasn't level at impact. All of the drawings show, and calculations seem to assume, a level plane.

Most of the eyewitness accounts put the plane anywhere from 25 feet to a couple hundred yards in altitude shortly before impact. You're right, there could have been a considerable angle on the plane when it went in. But your campfire cans were all of one piece, not shattered like a plane would have been. There should have been something that survived.

 

The part that bothers me most is, after all the questions and doubt, why hasn't the FBI released the video camera footage from the various sources where they confiscated surveillance tapes? A highway cam, a gas station and a hotel were mentioned as having cameras positioned that would have caught the jet going in, even if the Pentagon's own security cams somehow missed it. If it was AA F77, why don't they just cough up the tapes that show it?

[atinymonkey]

I think people forget just how few plane crashes they have seen. The problem is people imagine they know what a 747 slamming into a reinforced building at 500Kph looks like.

 

Brazil, plane crashes into an apartment block (not a reinforced building):-

 

 

Cargo plane hit flats in Amsterdam:-

 

 

The wreckage is small on building impacts because a plane is mostly just aluminium around a skeleton. It's not a flying tank.

 

 

[NavajoEverclear]

Hold on, that cell phone concept is the most important--- how can you explain that? If you need some evidence, i was on a plane a few weeks ago, and after they said it was ok to use electronic devices, my dad tried his wireless internet on his laptop. Not surprisingly, it didn't work. So i'm pretty sure those cellphone calls were impossible. Cell phones can be really difficult to use inside certain buildings. Its really easy to get disconnected from service down here on the ground. So how the hell did they get such good service in a speeding plane? Also why the hell didn't they make a bigger deal about this. Its so obvious i feel stupid not to have noticed and questioned it myself.

[5614]

well the speed wouldnt have made a difference

the height would have given better reception [for a phone]

but being inside a pressurized alluminium tube [a.k.a. a plane] is where the ? comes into it, im not sure to be honest, the signal mucks up the navigation equipment [proved, its not just "safety talk" saw it on TV] and the pilots use a radio to communicate, so i'd say that they probably could get good reception on the plane.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

Here's a link [/url'] that budullewraagh posted in the Why did you vote for Kerry thread in Politics. Along the same line, but it's a movie!

 

Here are some videos that discuss the anomalies of 9/11 in greater depth:

 

http://www.thegreatillusion.com/

 

http://www.infowars.com/tyranny.htm

 

http://www.erichufschmid.net/ThePainfulDeceptionsVideo.html

 

http://www.911inplanesite.com/

 

If you have a bittorrent client, you can find copies of all of these titles with a quick search, some are also available to view online.

 

Though that pentagon flash presentation makes a good infomercial drawing attention to the inconsistencies of the Official Story.

[Thales]

Any electronic device that sends and recieves information wirelessly can severly reak havoc with planes avonic equipment by inducing noise into vital wiring in the shell of the aircraft. My father is an avionics engineer and explained it to me. Many people don't think its a problem but the risk is there so it'd be unwise, to say the least, to be gambling on it regularly by letting Joe Blow use his equipment on every flight.

 

As for the whole consipracy theory, its a maybe but an incredibly unlikely maybe at that. Sure there is the debate that it has done alot to aid the Bush administration but can you imagine the implications if a paper trail led to even one member of the government? Even the best covert operations people in the world would find that hard to cover up.

[Dave]

For all you conspiracy theorists out there, Sky One has a documentary about it at 9pm on Monday. Don't know how scientific it is, though,