Envy and Admiration
I won’t say much about “Why Do They Hate Us?” — a really excellent piece by a man who is perhaps in the ideal position to answer that question — as I don’t want to bias your expectations. Just go read it, because sometimes the truth is simple.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:08 am
My favorite line is this:
I think that cuts to the quick. Our leaders (for many decades) have striven to play an active role in the world, often for good reason, while shielding Americans from the collateral damage inflicted in far-away places to avoid political backlash. But this does a great disservice to Americans who have lost a sense of perspective of their place in the world, and now cannot fathom why people from these far-away places would fly planes into our buildings.
Are our past actions an excuse for mass-murderer terrorists? Of course not, but they are a reason. Just like we had reason to arm jihadists in Afghanistan against the Soviets, but that reason — no matter how justified — cannot be taken as an excuse for the damage done to the lives of common people. When we do not even attempt to make amends for this damage, we will pay the price with interest later.
This is precisely why we cannot allow ourselves to violate American principles outside our borders, even when there may feel like good reason. I do believe that the world looks up to our stated and often demonstrated principles. But if we want this admiration to not turn to envy, we must treat the world as Americans, not as people who aren’t worthy of our respect.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:36 am
That was indeed a great article. His conclusion in the second to last paragraph is a bit of a false dilemma. The US can and for the most part does fulfill both his choices at the same time, an option he fails to give. The other component he misses is our need to protect our own interests. If we fail to protect those interests whether they be philosophical or concrete we will loose the respect of the people who find our freedoms so inviting. Our freedoms were won by war and they have been maintained by war, perhaps that will change someday, but it has been the same for over 4000 years, I wouldn’t hold your breath.
One last thing, did you notice that he isn’t so critical of what we have done in the past or the reasons we have done it but is critical of us leaving before we finish the job? Things that make you go hmmmmm.
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:09 am
I don’t believe it is a false dilemma. Here’s what the author writes:
You must pay attention to the two operative nouns there: “primacy” and “universality”. They are absolutes that are mutually exclusive. It is certanly possible for America to be a strong superpower and at the same time attempt to observe its values abroad. However, there will be situations where the two contradict and we are forced to make a choice. Choosing primacy means never allowing American values to stand in the way increasing (or avoiding the loss of) American power. Choosing universality means never allowing realpolitik to trump America’s moral obligations.
And be careful to not misinterpret his criticism. He says:
I don’t believe that is meant to downplay the mistakes of our past actions, nor meant to define what “walking away” means. Clearly the obligation we should have taken up in Pakistan, from the author’s point of view, was not military. It was humanitarian. Similarly, it seems clear to me that the effect of our military presence in Iraq is, at the least, ambiguous. Disengaging militarily may be the least bad of all the bad options available to us.
However, regardless of our military decisions, we do have an enormous humanitarian debt to pay in Iraq, that I hope we take seriously. We need to do our best to be seen as the benefactor of the Iraqi people. Wherever rebuilding or aid are possible, we must pursue it aggressively. When the Iraqi people ask for our help, we must provide it. And we must never, ever, be seen to value Iraqi lives as less valuable than those of Americans, if we truly believe that all men are created equal.
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:57 am
Thanks Matt for that measured response, I think you may be right looking at it from that perspective, but I need to digest it for a while. While I’m thinking about it let me deposit one more question. In his example of drug traffic taking over Pakistan after our departure, it seems the Pakistani’s had some responsibilities to stop this problem themselves. How much responsibility do you think they should have bore?
As he pointed out, I don’t have enough recollection or knowledge of the that timeframe to say one way or the other with any authority. The most I know of that war is that James Bond blew up a bridge with a five pound bomb he threw out of a speeding plane driven by a beautiful woman. It bounced less that a Tiger Woods chip shot.
If Afghanistan and Iraq are similar in that we have a responsibility to the aftermath, and I think we do, I prefer taking direct action like we are in Iraq than the indirect action of propping up a movement or leader like we did in Pakistan. It is hard to offer direct help to the populace in an indirect action. I know you don’t think we should be there in the first place making this argument moot, but I think we eventually would have been somewhere over there, probably after more attacks, maybe Syria, Lebanon, or the Sudan, but somewhere, and the aftermath would have looked the same.
I have always said we would be there 40 years, I don’t like that prediction, but I still think it.
July 22nd, 2007 at 12:46 pm
It is of course the responsibility of any nation to care for its people the best it can. However, in a global sense, the true responsibility there lay with the party who was to blame for the problem. Certainly I’m sure the people believed that much of the responsibility lay with the US, and that’s where it was up to us to make amends.
Similarly, I think the complaints that the Iraqi government isn’t moving fast enough to meet the benchmarks we’ve imposed on them are incredibly foolish. We are entirely responsible for the war and the destabilization that has occurred as a result. But the question is, how do we best fulfill that responsibility?
I simply do not believe we can fix the civil war in Iraq with our military. Attempting to do so is causing more resentment than good will, day by day. I believe the primary reason we remain in Iraq is so those who sent us there (both in the executive and legislative branches) can avoid admitting fault, and on a desperate hope that certain legacies can be salvaged.
No, the first step toward truly fulfilling our responsibilities is to admit our fault and demonstrate that the American system still works. This means holding those responsible to account as an act of international contrition. We must purge ourselves of the elements that prioritized primacy of power over universality of value. Only then will anyone be willing to believe that our help is anything but cynical self-service.
I know this is where you’ll prefer the “direct approach” of just shooting the bad guys until they’re dead, but you have to understand that this is a case where doing so forces us to choose primacy over universality, and that is doing us perhaps irreperable harm. Sadly, I think the internal hatred of the Iraqi civil war is giong to have to play itself out, which will lead to many problems for the US and our interests. But when it’s time to rebuild, we need to be leading the international community to lay the bricks and mortar, and we need to do it with our heads bowed.
That is the American way. Americans don’t just expect everybody else to do as their told, and when they screw up, they take their lumps and they do their best to make things right. Right now, people outisde the US hear our leaders saying that they have no regrets. That we need to stay the course. That 9-11 gives us the right to kidnap, torture, and kill whoever we need to to ensure our own security at whatever cost to the rest of the world. That is what they see. That’s what we need to take responsibility for.
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:30 am
Yea, it sucks. As you said earlier, these are hard decisions. If you do nothing and half of Lisbon is incinerated by a bomb made in Iraq from yellow cake from Niger, the “world community” would be screaming, “why didn’t you do something, all your intel said he was buying uranium, even Joe Wilson said he was. You are the only superpower, it’s your responsibility to make sure these things don’t happen.” (I know the timing’s not right on Wilson, a little poetic license). If you go in and find nothing using that same intelligence those same people are screaming what they are now. Hell, if we would have found the mother load people like Knarly would say we snuck in months before the invasion and built that centrifuge under cover of darkness. You can’t win, you just do the best you can. It was a good article anyway, I’m nitpicking it way too much.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
You want to see nitpick? shcb says: “Our freedoms were won by war and they have been maintained by war, perhaps that will change someday, but it has been the same for over 4000 years, I wouldn’t hold your breath.”
FYI shcb, America is not 4000 years old.
And as long as the neo-cons are in charge of America no-one is expecting anything but continued and accelerated destruction and annihilation of any past hope or proegress towards peace on earth.
July 26th, 2007 at 5:12 am
History of the world moron, I use 4000 years because a decade or so ago a study was done where they looked at the history during that timeframe, they found there were only a little ove 250 years where there was no military action happening somewhere in the world.
If we stopped fighting today, do you think there would be peace on earth?
It takes two to tango.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:49 am
psssst! Babel sez teh wurld is jest 4000 yeerz old
no need ta read enee thing els
shbc jes speekin The Truth!
violins is our only opshin!
July 26th, 2007 at 8:53 am
And just to make the point absolutely clear: the world is bigger than wherever some folks are fighting today. The vast majority of human beings desire and work for peace (see wiki: Jesus et al) I wonder, even during WWI and WWII, what percentage of the world’s poulation were fighting or supporting fighters. I would bet a small percentage.
The wise man knows when to fight and when not to. rwnjs view violence as the only viable means of conflict resolution. The options aren’t fight or flight any more. (see wiki: 21st century, civilization)
July 26th, 2007 at 9:59 am
He means the history of the civilized world. Get the hell over yourself.
July 27th, 2007 at 10:53 am
The world used to believe in and do a lot of stupid and repulsive things 4000 years ago. Does that mean its right today? Haven’t we evolved?
Sorry, but I don’t subscribe to the notion that just because millions and millions of people have died in wars of the past that we need to perpetuate that practice until we destroy the whole planet. There has to be a better path to follow. And if there isn’t, we need to build a new path. All you need is a shovel and little bit of hope.
July 27th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I’m with you there.
July 27th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
And I wish I was taller and better looking
July 27th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I also am with you there.
July 27th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
July 22, 8:36 am shcb wrote:
“Our freedoms were won by war and they have been maintained by war, perhaps that will change someday, but it has been the same for over 4000 years, I wouldn’t hold your breath.”
Hate to nit-pic the SAME freakin point again, but it is clear that (a) the “it” in his sentence clearly refers to how “Our [your] freedoms” were “maintained” for “over 4000 years”; and, (b) if shcb can’t see that that is a nit-pic then rather it is he who is the moron.
NorthernLite – once again, thanks for adding some sanity. My angst is that the US has blown its chance to find a better way for the world and is taking us down the tried and FAILED path of Empires and petty tyrants over the last 4000 years.
July 28th, 2007 at 5:03 am
Which brings us back to the tried and true “blame it on the enemey or blame it on them to make them the enemy”:
http://digg.com/politics/Iraq_war_veteran_and_demolitions_expert_blows_the_cover_on_9_11_inside_job/who
July 29th, 2007 at 5:36 am
Knarly,
Thanks for bringing this up again. It’s a good illustration of what we are talking about in the contempt of congress thread above, making a mountain out of a molehill so Democrats don’t have to deal with the hard issues. To be clear, I’m not saying you are trying to dodge anything here, there is nothing to dodge really, but the tactics are similar.
Moving on to your nitpic. It is just a style thing, I combined the history of the world with the history of the US, I could have put that statement in several sentences making sure anyone who read it would know exactly what I was talking about, but by combining two thoughts into one sentence it makes the reader stop and think about it a bit, maybe even reread the sentence. You can do these things with the written word, can’t do them with the spoken word without being repetitive or annoying. It also has the advantage of giving the impression of the US as a sovereign nation while being part of the world community without beating you to death with it. And it still gets its original point across. Not a bad days work for a little sentence.
“Tried and FAILED path of Empires and petty tyrants over the last 4000 years.” war stopped Hitler didn’t it? Seems pretty successful to me.
July 29th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Funny you should make so much over a nit-pic, essentially to admit the point made in the first place.
As for Hitler, my WWII history is only fair, but I believe that he could be considered a tyrant whose dream of a third Reich (Empire) by way of war FAILED miserably.
The point is that had Hitler acted more responsibly and prepared the world for the Age of Aquarius – instead of engaging in warfare and genocide – he probably would have been a lot happier with the results (well maybe he did have a death wish so he might be happpy with his results.) Similarly, had the neo-cons – with their control over the overwhelming power of the USA (guberment, press, economy and military) and having near full support in 2001 of the global community – decided to take the world on a path of enlightenment
then
human consciousness would be in a far different place than that represented by Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay now (well maybe the neo-cons have a wish for the Rapture to whisk them all away so maybe you and they are happy with the way things have been going under their watch so far.)
The rest of us around the world want a better future than what can be achieved by fueling the military industrial complex.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Knarly,
Sometimes my bluster gets in the way of my common sense answers in these forums. Please let me be clear. I too hold your hopes and dreams of a war free world, I just think that human nature is what it is and there will always be people who will want to get what others have without working for it whether that be stuff or power or control. When these people reach an audience with similar motivations, military action will always be required. There is nothing wrong with dreaming of a time that will not be true, just as there is nothing wrong with my dreaming of a time I can cruise the oceans on my private yacht. But until that time comes it is only responsible to continue with what works. In the meantime keep your hopeful faith and try to change the world where it can be changed. Nixon’s vision of bringing China out of communism with blue jeans instead of bullets seems to be working. Reagan’s vision of out spending the Soviets seems to be working. The UN’s vision of disarming South Africa worked. Your vision of peaceful resolution works time after time, but there are times when it doesn’t. none of us are Solomon and there is no parallel universe where we can try two ideas and pick the outcome, we just have to do the best we can.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
gosh thanks matty!
I followed your advice and got over myself
I feel SO much better now
look, if you want to ‘seriously’ ‘debate’ rwnj and his looney sidekick lefty, using reason, logic, etc etc more power to you. Me? I am just having some fun yanking the spittle-flecked beards of some radical rwnjs for a laugh or three. Note that I am not insisting you mock and deride wicked stoopid statements like rwnj’s classic “I am the master” lunacy (gee, why weren’t you jumping in there to tell him to get the hell over hissef?) or “we found teh WMDz!!!1!1!!”
To each their own, eh?
You use reason if you like, I’ll use mockery.
Have a nice day!
July 30th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
ok…. don’t know if I followed all that.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
The real shame of this is that Ymatt and Shcb were really trying to say something before everything went to shit, as it usually does around here. Maybe I am looney, but at least I had the decency to keep it to myself while someone was actually trying to accomplish something.
Enk – you’re stepping on my lines, buddy, and my shtick doesn’t fit you so well. Your “yanking the beards and having a laugh” bit is repeated almost verbatim from something I wrote to you months ago, only I meant it. You get your feelings hurt far too easy to fool anybody here with the cavalier stance you’re trying to adopt. You care too much and you’re actually trying to say something, you just don’t come across very well and get pissed off when everybody doesn’t fall to the floor at your blustering repartee. You resent Schb because he gets the best of you – even when he’s wrong, and you resent YMatt because he’s more or less on your side, but has eclipsed you in pretty much every way you could be eclipsed. You back Knarly up because he makes you feel smart, and you egg me on because you need a boogie man to argue with, otherwise your explosive hostility would seem even more misplaced than it already does.
The doctor is real in. 5 cents, please.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
http://www.lies.com/wp/2006/07/24/iraq-war-dead-for-june-2006/
scroll to (or read it all, it’s funny!)
enkidu Says:
September 1st, 2006 at 9:36 am
The Google says only one other use of “spittle flecked beard” predates my use
(doubt I read it back then, but…)
I am not angry at all buddy! I enjoy baiting rwnjs because it is hilarious how extremists just can’t see the truth that the majority of the Rethuggle™®© party has become a corrupt cancer upon the body of America. ymatt blew up at me because I don’t subscribe to his ‘let’s reason with extemists’ approach. I make fun of rwnjs – sure I sprinkle in facts and figures, I respond to the wing-nuttery and ask for facts and figures from rwnjs. Invariably you or tv or (to a much lesser extent) shbc will hurtle some rwnj invective that is just so far removed from reality that it is hilarious. I enjoy Stewart and Colbert because the humor these shows put out has kept me laughing instead of crying. Or getting angry. You never see Enk angry. You no want see Enk angry.
I don’t ‘back knarly up’ on his 9/11 claims because I am just not convinced these jokers are competent enough to make it all happen in some superduper conspiracy.
lefty, you have consistantly provided a source of mirth and head shaking non sequitors and for these reasons I salute you (guess which finger! ;-)
August 13th, 2007 at 12:09 am
“The doctor is real in. 5 cents please.”
leftbehind envisions himself as a “doctor”(?!) for providing a speculative tirade (aka temper tantrum) that aims to hurt? LOL at the fantasy world these rwnj’s create for themselves.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Yes Enk, that thread was a funny one. Too bad TeacherVet had to spoil all the laughs trying to be serious. Good job trying to distance yourself from Knarly, too. It’s goofs like him who take down the elevated tone you and I battle so hard to maintain around here.
Not to go all speculative again, but I’ll bet you’re really cute when you’re mad. Not that you’re not adorable under usual circumstances. you know, I’d really like to meet you someday – once this thing with Knarly succumbs to the inevitable, I mean. Maybe we could meet up somewhere – I guess my place would best, since we wouldn’t want to become a “topic” around your Dad’s compound. We could get a pizza and rent a movie. Have you seen “Jeffrey?”
August 17th, 2007 at 4:24 am
…and Knarly, the idea of you telling anyone else they live in a fantasy world is amusing. Tell us some more about how Starbucks blew up the World Trade Center. Or was it the Keebler Elves who sank the Titanic? Judging from Inky’s sudden change of heart on the matter, it looks like you’ll be flying solo this time.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Poor Leftbehind, he has stooped to mockery. Fact is, there remain many
reasons to doubt his FANTASY official story of Sept. 11, 2001:
August 17th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
WAIT A SECOND
, the 911 Commission debunked all that stuff, right?
No, it did not. Here is a list of the ommissions and distortions in that report as compiled by Dr. Griffin:
August 18th, 2007 at 5:40 am
Amazing what you can find on a simple Starbucks mug – but all of this is beside the point. The real issue here is this: Do you or do you not feel that, during the course of our previous, loooooong discussion of “911-Truth,” Enkidu was explicitly on your side in this matter, at least enough to state, in black and white, that it was plausible that a small group of sappers could have covertly wired explosives into the WTC complex? Do you feel that his dismissal of that idea, or this very thread, constitutes a contradiction of his previous statements, and that his refusal to further “back Knarly up” in what he calls a “superduper conspiracy” theory constitutes an about-face abandonment of the theories you have tried so passionately to communicate here?
I’m not mocking you, although I think you are a bit misguided. I just think Inky has used you and “9-11 Truth” as a springboard for his vitriol, and now seeks to distance himself from your ideas because he doesn’t want to look like a nut. It’s like that old saw about a fat girl and moped: they’re both a lot of fun to ride on, as long as your friends don’t see you.
Again, I’m not mocking you. I’ve had my heart broken by bad boys, too.
August 18th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Lefty,
Who knows what Ink is thinking. Maybe the heat got a little too hot for him, maybe he just realized you guys were so closed minded that it was a big waste of time, or anyone of a zillion other things. Can’t see how that affects me.
“In terms of accountability, I think this is one of the great mysteries of the last three or four years. Three thousand Americans died three years ago, and no one lost his or her job over it. A president who says that he is a strong president, and those around him say he is, did not fire anyone. Either he was misled, in which case, somebody should have been fired. Or he misled us, in which case he should be fired.”
— Gary Hart – Former Senator
I think your comments about me places you firmly into category 5, 6 and/or 7 at this link:
http://www.911proof.com/FactSheet.html
August 18th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Knarly,
You’re getting kind of comical.
I goggled “shcb lies.com” the other day, and was guided to your old 911blogger site. They said I CLAIMED to be a fifty something machine shop owner…. Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?
To answer Mr Hart’s question, the reason no one was fired, is because they all did their jobs the best they could with what they had. We just plain got beat, we lost a battle, it happens in war and in life, the team you have assembled may be the best you can put together and still loose, doesn’t mean you fire them all, you just learn from your mistakes and move on. Since we haven’t had an attack since 911, they must have learned something. Living in Colorado, I have had to suffer Mr Hart a long time, he is a finger in the wind politician. He is also quite liberal and will latch onto anything anti American. Always has.
I love this “I’m a dissenter, so I must be a patriot since the constitution gives me the right to be a dissenter. Poppycock, having the right to dissent doesn’t mean you are right when you dissent.
August 19th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Yes Knarly, I think 5, 6 and 7 pretty much sum up my feelings on the 9-11 matter. I also consider having these views lampooned on a site like “911proof.com” a good sign I’m on the right track.
I see that Starbucks has opened locations in some of the Kroger stores around here. Do you think Alex Jones knows about this? And why are there three sixes on my Kroger plus card?
August 19th, 2007 at 6:51 am
I looked over the “911proof” list again, and 14, 15 and 18 also sound like me too. I think Inky’s at 14.
August 19th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Knarly,
Do you or any of you conspiracy nuts ever follow the links you post? So I go to your 18 point list, number 15 catches my attention since it just says “no, that is not true”. I follow the that link, again the thing that catches my eye is the power outage the week before 911, this seems like it would be easy to check out. We don’t have hundred story buildings in Denver but I would assume if all the power was going to be taken down in that large a building as this story implies, it would make local news for several days in advance. I know if a major highway is shut down for maintenance people are warned so they can make adjustments as needed.
The bottom line is an interview with a guy named Scott Forbes, a Brit that is an IT guy on the 97th floor, he occasionally has business on a few other floors, they tell him they will be cutting the power, he doesn’t know on how many floors. That’s it, that is all there is, so we make the conspiracy bigger, Scotland Yard or some European agency interviews him, he can’t understand why no one from the FBI interviews him, maybe the Brits interview their people and we interviewed ours, seems like a matter of efficiency to me. He had nothing to add of importance so end of story. But poor Scott is more important than that, so now he is the darling of these goofballs.
Which brings us to number 18. This list of 18 items and all the links attached to them have probably a hundred tentacles, no one is going to track them all down, so if someone points out a couple of them as hoaxes or lies or distortions, they just say, “well you found the only two points that can be disputed, everything else is true”.
So we have this, the Pentagon aircraft that could not have done what it did and the 10,000 deaths on the Highway of Death that I have squashed, if I had the time I bet I could squash 80 or 90 percent of your conspiracy nonsense.
August 21st, 2007 at 1:24 am
shcb, lefty – Your continued use of insults is a transparent attempt to discredit through mockery (e.g. “goofballs”) and the weakest of weak rebuttals.
With a disingenuous claim of being unable to address *all* the evidence, shcb goes to the peculiar extreme of picking one obscure item (shcb went all the way down the http://www.911proof.com list to item #15 before finding his example.)
Then from the evidence presented to support that one item, shcb picked one further item (a weekend power-down) and re-packaged it to imply: (a) it should have been as newspaper worthy as would have been a power-outage during the work-week and (b) that discrediting this item is somehow very relevant and that anyone suggesting otherwise is dealing in sleight-of-hand.
As for (a) please note that a weekend power-outage is not fundamental to central 911 theories, it would be of interest in a more detailed investigation if one wants to determine whether perpetrators had the means and opportunity to plant the charges, but this remains a peripheral issue and like so much of this crime it remains something yet to be properly investigated.
As for (b), I defer to another’s words that I found way down in the comments (of this link http://www.georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-could-they-plant-bombs-in-world.html ) :
Or even more to the point:
The point is that a conspiracy theory needs to adhere to all the evidence, not simply the evidence selected to fit the theory.
NIST chose to ignore the molten steel smouldering underground (smouldering at 2000 deg. F initially then between 600 and 1500 deg F apparently for weeks) which was inconsistant with their jet fuel/office building fire/collapse pre-supposition. NIST has yet to account for that, after initially denying it and then having to recant. (Just like NIST has yet to account for pushing the NIST half-baked pancake theory which was thoroughly debunked by real (independent) structural engineers.)
Here is another account of the NIST debacle:
The temperatures of molten metal at WTC collapse sites were simply not possible without high explosives (such as the enhanced thermate identified by Prof. Jones); jet fuel and burning buildings are hot when they burn but they have no known capability to melt steel in the conditions existing at the WTC. High explosives are quite capable of doing it.
The forensic evidence, and the NIST claims, are being analysed by independent (i.e. not on the administration’s payroll): physicist’s, structural engineers, architects and others such as Prof. Jones. Their forensic findings are available at:
http://www.journalof911studies.com
and here is another example of a good analysis:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityofControlledDemolitionHypothesisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdf
NIST also claimed they found “no evidence” of explosives (i.e. thermite) when there was no official search for such evidence. Again, no accounting by NIST for that leap into another deceptive abyss.
Independent researchers pouring over the remaining evidence have found some pictures taken before the steel was literally shipped away to China that show evidence of super-thermite cut I-beams (telltale angle cuts with slag characteristics of cutting charges.) NIST did not take into consideration that evidence and has not addressed it.
NIST relied on a sample of approx. 1% of the steel (the rest of the evidence was destroyed) and this 1% showed no heating beyond 475 deg. F . . . yet they claimed the steel reached much higher temperatures to weaken sufficiently to support their assumed 45 centimeter I-beam sagging that was required for their computer models to show a collapse. . . deducing possible conclusions from such NIST computer input manipulations is elementary, and damning for NIST.
Verifiability (i.e. the long established scientific method) is to provide your data and assumptions for review by other scientists. NIST has been less than forthcoming in providing the very relevant details of their work, to say the least about their racalcitrant stance. This is in contrast to the scholars and their studies posted on http://www.journalof911studies.com by the physicists, structural engineers, etc. at http://www.journalof911studies.com
On a related topic…
Shcb also takes issue with #18. For reference, here is #18 :
In attacking #18, shcb sets out a vacuous rationalization compared to the principle which supports #18.
That principle is this: a fundamental requirement of scientific reasoning, known as the requirement of total evidence states that scientific reasoning must be based upon all of the available relevant evidence. Evidence is relevant when its presence or absence, truth or falsity, makes a difference to (affects the support for) the truth or falsity of a conclusion.
shcb attempts to imply that lack of reliable evidence for an inconsequential power-down of a WTC tower in the weeks before the collapse makes a difference to whether the government fairy tale is supported by laws of physics. That is an absurdly vacuous position, even for shcb.
An example of a consequential piece of evidence is the presence of molten metal weeks later. It cannot be “irrelevant” to the NIST explanation of the collapse, since it was an effect of that event. If the NIST cannot explain it (they cannot), then the NIST’s account is incomplete and fails to satisfy the fundamental requirement of reeasoning with the total evidence, which, once again states that scientific reasoning must be based upon all of the available relevant evidence. Evidence is relevant when its presence or absence, truth or falsity, makes a difference to (affects the support for) the truth or falsity of a conclusion. NIST is evading the issue of the molten steel. It cannot account for important, relevant evidence. Unless it can do that, it does not matter how official or authoritative or well received by the adoring media NIST may be, their theory remains a magical fairy tale compared to the other explanations which fit the available evidence better.
I have mentioned but one of thirteen critical pieces of evidence that do not support the government fairy tale, based on the physical evidence (or lack thereof) alone. For the detail (ahem), see the Thirteen Reasons to Challenge Government-sponsored Reports and to Investigate the Controlled-demolition Hypothesis here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf
For now, one has to ignore too much evidence to believe the official conspiracy theory. In the highly unlikely event that NIST or Dr. Jones or anyone else arrives at a plausible explanation for the molten pools that fit with the official explanation for the collapse(s), the NIST explanation for the collapse(s) still remains a (scientifically) less favoured theory than others that fit all the relevant evidence better.
Sorry shcb if you do not like that and would prefer to debunk straw men and argue about less relevant details, but those are the rules. I did not make them up, they arrive at your feet courtesy of the scientific method and natural laws.
That goes both ways though – it applies equally to what shcb and lefty like to disparagingly call conspiracy theories.
Shcb and Lefty show a frustration that when evidence comes to light which debunks a faulty conspiracy theory and the theorists simply move on to another version of the theory. For folks like shcb it is maddening because they seem to think it shows a sneakiness or worse because they do not have the courage to defend one theory to its death and then admit they were wrong. Sorry shcb and lefty, but not everyone shares your dogmatism for pet theories.
Discarding a theory (or parts of a theory) that does not fit the evidence, and adoption of a better fitting model is a very healthy thing to do. The unhealthy truth is that Lefty and shcb have glued themselves to the governments conspiracy theory. That despite an enormous body of evidence that they claim to have looked at but from their erroneous arguments it is clear that they have not. At least, they have not been able to step outside their comfort zones and consider information on its own terms and merits rather than through the lens of some authority figure such as the New York Times, NIST or Popular Mechanics (all of which present fatally flawed explanations of 911).
So for a while yet, I will expect their same old tired attempts at put-downs, ridicule, overlooking of evidence and laughable arguments like the buildings could not have been demolished by explosives because we do not know who, how or when that could have been accomplished.
Well, if you do not investigate you will never know.
Maybe that is their goal after all.
August 21st, 2007 at 4:43 am
Investigations have been done, they just didn’t reach the conclusions you wanted. And probably never will. Because your theory doesn’t make sense. I simply picked the most obvious example I could use. The reason I did this is to show that someone just taking a little more than a glance at your “evidence” can pick out obvious holes. So why publish something that obvious? Two reasons come to mind, if you can’t impress with intellect, baffle ‘em with bullshit. Just throw so much stuff out there they can’t keep up with it all (number 18). I think this is your personal tactic whether you do it on purpose or not. The other possible reason is all you have is a bunch of easily debunkable tidbits which takes back to number one.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:13 am
shcb continues with his opinions and purposefully misses the point about relevant vs irrelevant details.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:45 pm
What point am I missing, I thought I was making a point. Forget about irrelevant points they are…irrelevant, give me one, just one relevant point.
Moreover, it doesn’t matter how many points you make if they don’t fit together. If you have three boxes of bicycle parts, it doesn’t matter if they are good or bad parts, if they all come from different bikes, you probably won’t get a working bicycle put together. If they are from the same bike they will all fit, and if a some minor parts are not good you may still have a functional bike, but you will never have a functional bike if the parts don’t fit.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Hey, I’m not mocking anyone. I never called anybody a goofball. In fact, I’ve tried to help you by asking questions, and giving you an opportunity to expand on your points. For instance, back on that thread that went on and on and on for literally hundreds of posts, you made a statement concerning “the Illuminati,” and I asked you to explain what you meant by that term, and whether or not it might relate to your man, Alex Jones and his investigative reporting on the Illuminati and their activities at Bohemian Grove and Starbucks. I thought that was a pretty interesting question, on-topic, and in keeping with the tone to which the conversation had sunk to that point. That’s just one example, among many, of me trying to be accomodating, constructive and give you an opportunity to express yourself. Just because Inky is a backstabber is no reason to go after me.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:07 pm
You two don’t sound very intelligent any more.
Who the hell are the Illuminati?
August 21st, 2007 at 7:09 pm
fnord.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Knarly
Oh?
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I don’t know who the Illuminati are, either Knarly, let’s see what infowars.com, one of your favorite websites, which you often use as a reference here has to say about them:
http://www.infowars.com/print/Secret_societies/in_your_face.htm
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Is this thing on?
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I don’t know much about the Illuminati either, Knarly, let’s see what Infowars.com, one of your favorites sites, and one you site as a source on several occasions here at Lies.com, has to say about them:
infowars.com/print/Secret_societies/in_your_face.htm
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
You’ll have to add the “www.” and paste the link yourself, guys. The Skull and Bones seems to have blocked my ability to post comments with links in them.
Here are some fascinating excerpts:
“Fascinated by symbolism and numerology, the globalists’ favorite tactic is to leave blueprints to their plans “hidden in plain view.” From messages delivered to the masses through the media and films to Time Warner’s all-seeing eye, we are repeatedly reminded by the illuminati themselves that they are controlling us and are omnipresent. World leaders from Clinton to Prince William have been photographed proudly flashing the sign of the devil. Architecture around the globe is laid out to represent their occult icons or structured based on occult numerology (like the pyramid Mitterand had constructed at the Louvre, which is made of 666 pieces of gold glass). The New World Order’s symbolism is everywhere and there are globalist fingerprints all over the September 11th attacks as well as the Madrid train bombing.”
“The New York lottery drew 9,1,1 as the winning pick-3 combination in their digit lottery on Sept. 11, 2002. Fascinated with the occult, the globalists believe in the power of numerology. This is just one example of the power elite leaving their numerological fingerprints and associating themselves with the Sept. 11th attacks.”
“Signaling out to their Illuminati overlords — both Clinton and Bush have been photographed making “the sign of the devil” at public events.”
And look Knarly…right there at the top of the page…it’s ALEX JONES!
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Yes, I was right. You two are not very intelligent at all.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
What’s not intelligent? I’ve simply done what you do most of the time around here. I went to Alex Jones’ website, and fashioned a posting by cutting and pasting items from his site onto this one. I admit that it was a little thick of me to identify my sources and use those stupid quotation marks but, just between you and me, I don’t want anyone to think I actually came up with any of this cack myself.
Maybe I am dumb, but thanks to Alex Jones, I’m learning all sorts of cool stuff about 9-11 an’ the Illuminati, an’ the North American Union, too. Before long, my superficial understanding of various occult concepts, along with my natural tendency to knuckle under to extreme personalities and susceptibility to wacked-out conspiracy theories will make me just about as smart as you are.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:24 pm
My little tiny brain hurts, I think I sprained it working all those difficult mathematical calculations to prove the plane that crashed into the Pentagon wasn’t doing anything all that special. Let’s see, I had to figure how long it would take a plane to travel a given distance at a given speed. By the way how are you and the other big brain guys at 911 blogger doing on the calculations that show it was an impossible feat? That’s right; they said it was impossible, case closed. Well, I need to but my tiny, insignificant brain to bed, when I get up tomorrow do the pointy part of the shoes go in or out?
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Thanks ymatt, “fnord” was new to me.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:56 pm
That’s because They have trained you to not see it.
Hail eris!
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:37 pm
ymatt- ha ha …
Leftbehind – What is not intelligent is your reliance and shcb’s reliance on only pre-approved “authoritative” news sources.
Your recent posts make it obvious that you have no ability to discern for yourself what is good information, suspicious information, or bad information.
In its place, you have accepted a list of “approved sources” from which you will accept virtually everything no matter how far fetched, and a list of “non-approved sources” from which you will refuse to even entertain the question that there might be some truth to their reports.
The world is not so black and white and your treating it as such (especially in regard to sources of information) displays an astounding lack of intelligence.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
My reliance on “consensus reality” is a big stumbling block as well. Were it that everyone were so encumbered. I think that somebody around here has a problem discerning what is good information from what isn’t, but it’s not me.
youtube.com/watch?v=zNBiVNNTk0c
You need to re-read JBC’s most recent posts very carefully, particularly the one about the UFO video. I think he might have had you in mind when he posted that one, anyway.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
But Knarly, those sources are “pre-approved” by me, because they have proven themselves over the years to be reliable, they aren’t pre-approved by the government, Kos and 911 blogger are still out there, no one from the government has had them blocked like this site was when I was in China, or Fox News was for so long in Canada (maybe it was just O’Reiley). I have proven the sites you quote to be inaccurate, and I’m being kind with that statement, but they are still there. Question: is “good” information a) accurate information or b) information that hurts this administration.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:18 pm
or c) information that upholds this administration.
This comment thread has turned into a fascinating study of selective realities. I think I tend to subscribe to leftbehind’s consensus reality (and that’s a fantastic phrase by the way).
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
These are strange days, what can I say?
Knarly – Here’s a question for you: How is it that you’ve spent so much time on Alex Jones’ website, but you’ve never heard of the Illuminati? Alex Jones goes on at length about the Illuminati on his site, and in his books. Most of his videos on Youtube deal with the Illuminati. And it’s not like “Illuminati” is an alien term on very many “9-11 Truth” sites and blogs (as a google of the terms “911” and “Illuminati” will show.) Do you just post this stuff to us and not read it yourself? Even if your reading is selective – glossing over the screwy parts to isolate the more plausible information – you’d still have to encounter the term a great deal. It would be like reading Moby Dick and never realizing the novel takes place on a boat. Could this be why you are so willing to believe these people, even when they go to such implausible extremes – you never really bother to read or analyze what they’re saying?
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Matt,
I believe it’s called a false dilemma? C) would be as bad as b) unless they are based on a). The problem With people like Knarly, and the right wing morons using the same tactics is they will sacrifice a) to save even the smallest aspect of their argument for or against c) or b). Honorable, rational people have preconceived notions and are arguing that point of view by enhancing the importance of certain aspects of a) that help their side and downplaying the aspects that don’t. But their points revolve around the gray areas of the a) when there is a grey area. You and I will agree that all the pieces of the puzzle need to eventually fit, one of us may want to start in the center of the puzzle and one of us may want to build the border first, but neither of us will get out the scissors to make the parts fit. These guys will mix “dogs playing poker” and the Mona Lisa if that’s what it takes to make the puzzle fit the card table.
I think LB’s last remark sums up Knarly and many like him perfectly, they don’t stop to even think what they are saying, it just never occurs to then, they hate Bush, Clinton, their boss, wife, whoever, whatever, as long as it fits the cause.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
It’s all over, we’ve lost. Here’s the proof.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I conceed.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Ouch!
August 26th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Leftbehind and shcb, most of your questions appeared rhetorical, off topic, or purposely silly! I’ll address a couple of issues that may remain and for any questions that I have overlooked please just let me know.
re: Alex Jones – his website is sometimes the source of first hand reports referenced by others and that is about the extent of my interest. Some of the evidence he provides to support his beliefs I find compelling (e.g. existence of state sponsored terror.) Other items he covers I have differences of opinion about, or have not seen a compelling reason to investigate further (e.g. illuminati). BTW, I note his slant and discount any claims he makes to some degree due to his obvious biases (just as I note the slant and discount to some degree the obvious bias of Pentagon reports e.g. of current events, or deaths, in Iraq.)
re: Information – Is “good” information a) accurate information or b) information that hurts this administration…or c) information that upholds this administration.
clearly, that must be rhetorical… shcb’s harsh criticisms apply best to his near unwavering support for the administration’s Iraqi quagmire,
but more importantly,
it applies to his wilful ignorance of specific facts, and his contorted efforts to denigrate – and then disregard – people who show him these facts by labelling them as anti-administration, liberals, conspiracy theorists, terrorist supporters, etc. and then puffing himself up as somehow being superior because he insults people with insulting labels.
All that is a diversion so that he does not have to look at, and can use the diversion to persuade others from truly examining, the pieces of “good information” he finds disturbing or the questions that are disturbing.
For example this shcb sarcasm: My little tiny brain hurts, … I sprained it working all those difficult mathematical calculations to prove the plane that crashed into the Pentagon wasn’t doing anything all that special. Let’s see, I had to figure … By the way how are you and the other big brain guys at 911 blogger doing on the calculations that show it was an impossible feat? That’s right; they said it was impossible, case closed. Well, I need to but my tiny, insignificant brain to bed, when I get up tomorrow do the pointy part of the shoes go in or out?
First, the 911bloggers suspected that the calculations shcb provided was simply fuzzy math, but they also suggested that he submit it to http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org for review in case it might have merit! I told him to do so if he wanted to support the claims of the Bush administration about that flight. Apparently, shcb knows or suspects his figurings are foolish as he did not dare to submit them to these or any other expert pilots for comment. Second, the shcb description of Hanjours manoeuvres (with his impressive seat of the pants calculations) assumes that Hanjour’s supposed flight into the Pentagon was made possible by a joystick to be jerked back and forth, but Boeing controls are, to understate the point, far more complicated than that. Third, shcb mis-characterizes 911truth statements by saying the flight was claimed to be an impossible feat, when the actual claim is this: We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles. The pilots press release concerning their actual submission to the National Traffic and Safety Board concerning flight 77 into the Pentagon is here: http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease.html (try to find that press release anywhere in the mainstream media, despite the impeccable credentials of the pilots who signed it!)
Second, the molten metal which was indisputably present for weeks under the rubble of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7, and which by all evidence can only be primarily molten steel, is not accounted for by NIST. The NIST theories, both NIST recanted and current theories, about the collapse of WTC can not – repeat: CAN NOT – account for the presence of this molten metal. This is a MAJOR problem for the official theory of the collapse.
Third, …never mind, if you wanted “good” information rather than information that does not conflict with consensus reality or what the administration tells you to believe, then you would have found it by now by yourself anyway, or you would have given more than a disparaging dismissive brush off to the points and references previously provided.
By the way, there is a new admission by a respected journalist (Robert Fisk) that the government’s official conspiracy theory does not, without further explanations, hold water. His statement (in The Independent) and a letter of response follow in turn:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10854
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10878
August 26th, 2007 at 5:19 am
Robert Fisk is the guy they named “Fisking” after, not because he has done such a good job taking apart other people’s arguments point-by-point, but because he’s been such a worthy target of such treatment himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking
davidm.blogspot.com/2005/02/first-use-of-verb-to-fisk.html
August 26th, 2007 at 5:20 am
I see the links are working again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking
August 26th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Knarly,
You don’t seem to have a good recollection of what transpired with the 911 pilots. I was using their numbers, there is no fuzzy math, the only oddity in the numbers is that the time traveled in the turn is 3 minutes which is close enough to pi to make it hard to discern if they are saying the 5 miles traveled refers to the diameter or circumference of the circle. This was astutely picked up on by one of the 911bloggers, I re-ran the numbers using both scenarios with close to the same results, all well within the capabilities of a civilian plane. Don’t rely on them, do the math yourself. As I said back then, I have no responsibility to ask their opinion of my math, I was using their numbers that is all that matters. If my math is fuzzy, show me where. You don’t want to figure it yourself because if you do you may find they are wrong, and if they are wrong about something this simple, what else? By the way, there was a show on the History Chanel last night that was debunking you guys, I only watched a minute or two as I was flipping to the race, the bit I saw was the debunking of the small circular hole made by the plane. They showed it as an exit hole in the third tier, after the plane had disintegrated, I thought you guys said it was an entrance wound? Where did I get that idea?
August 27th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Leftbehind, re: Fisk – So that’s your reaction, attack whatever you can find to attack about the sheep that steps away from the herd, despite overall impressive credentials. Typical rwnj gut reaction.
shcb,
I got three hands.
On one hand, there is the 911 Commission Report that says Flight 77 took a certain flight path into the Pentagon and there is also recently released flight data that requires huge leaps of faith and highly improbable if not impossible piloting feats to even imagine that there is any consistency with the 911 Commission Report account of the flight path.
On the other hand, I have you – an anonymous poster to an obscure blog making claims that his fantastic mathematical reasoning for Flight 77 fully supports the official theory about the flight path (whatever that may be) yet refuses to submit his fuzzy math (I think the definition of that is rough reckoning) to any experts for collaboration or correction.
On the other hand, there are these experienced pilots (many fighter pilot veterans) who say something is seriously wrong with the official story or the flight data they have been provided and that the official story does not stand up to basic scrutiny:
I don’t have any problem supporting these pilots in their request for a proper investigation.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease.html
August 27th, 2007 at 1:52 am
shcb,
So, what exactly did the the History Channel piece say about the C ring entrance hole? Did they report that:
A. No explanation is offered for this hole in the Pentagon Building Performance Report (2.4 Mb PDF) or the official 9-11 Commission Report
B. The official “nose cone” theory – The initial explanation offered, that it was the nose cone/fuselage of the 757 aircraft punched all the way from the E-ring wall, to the C-ring wall, to create this exit hole,.
C. The “circle of energy” concept – Purdue University’s proposed explanation that fuel, airplane material, and momentum from the aircraft created this circular cut out by continuing into the building after the plane had been destroyed.
D. The shock wave theory first proposed on the National Geographic Channel explaining that secondary explosions from the impact and jet fuel, coupled with the geometry of the inside of the impacted Pentagon, allowed shock waves to cause this circular hole.
E. The Landing Gear theory that this is what caused hole in the wall, according to Popular Mechanics.
F. Silence by the American Society of Civil Engineers on the issue except to state that “The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft (91 m) into the structure.”
G. explosives – there is speculation that the higher level of damage around the hole compared to the preceding sections suggest a shaped charge might have been involved?
H. something about a missile?
Whatever conclusion they came to, I hope they did a good job supporting it, so it can be put to rest. If not, it does not reflect well on the history channel to raise such a disputed issue in a prominent manner when obviously other less disputable Pentagon issues would be paramount:
e.g.
1. when will all the webcam footages be released and why are they withheld,
2. why the path of Flight 77 as captured in recently released flight data records contradicts the flight path reported by the 911Commission,
3. why the hijackers were not on the flight manifest(s),
4. how in hell could the DNA remains of all the passengers be recovered and identified while the rest of the plane (including much of the titanium engines) were destroyed in a fireball…etc.
More on The History Channel:
Here is a listing of a few of the grave problems from an admittedly “sour grapes” review of the History Channel’s show to which you refer:
More info here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10831 (don’t miss the first comment, one of many letters to the history channel)
Also,
August 27th, 2007 at 1:55 am
shcb,
So, what exactly did the History Channel say about the C ring entrance hole? Did they report that:
A. No explanation is offered for this hole in the Pentagon Building Performance Report (2.4 Mb PDF) or the official 9-11 Commission Report
B. The official “nose cone” theory – The initial explanation offered, that it was the nose cone/fuselage of the 757 aircraft punched all the way from the E-ring wall, to the C-ring wall, to create this exit hole,.
C. The “circle of energy” concept – Purdue University’s proposed explanation that fuel, airplane material, and momentum from the aircraft created this circular cut out by continuing into the building after the plane had been destroyed.
D. The shock wave theory first proposed on the National Geographic Channel explaining that secondary explosions from the impact and jet fuel, coupled with the geometry of the inside of the impacted Pentagon, allowed shock waves to cause this circular hole.
E. The Landing Gear theory that this is what caused hole in the wall, according to Popular Mechanics.
F. Silence by the American Society of Civil Engineers on the issue except to state that “The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft (91 m) into the structure.”
G. explosives – there is speculation that the higher level of damage around the hole compared to the preceding sections suggest a shaped charge might have been involved?
H. something about a missile?
Whatever conclusion they came to, I hope they did a good job supporting it, so it can be put to rest. If not, it does not reflect well on the history channel to raise such a disputed issue in a prominent manner when obviously other less disputable Pentagon issues would be paramount:
e.g.
1. when will all the webcam footages be released and why are they withheld,
2. why the path of Flight 77 as captured in recently released flight data records contradicts the flight path reported by the 911Commission,
3. why the hijackers were not on the flight manifest(s),
4. how in hell could the DNA remains of all the passengers be recovered and identified while the rest of the plane (including much of the titanium engines) were destroyed in a fireball…etc.
More on The History Channel:
Here is a listing of a few of the grave problems from an admittedly “sour grapes” review of the History Channel’s show to which you refer:
More info here:
www 911blogger com/node/10831 (don’t miss the first comment, one of many letters to the history channel)
Also,
August 27th, 2007 at 2:00 am
shcb:
re: Scott Forbes – a while ago you raised some questions about a reference to this person. I liked your criticism of the link and lack of back-up information, and will look further to see if this can come to light. For now, here is a tiny bit of more background: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHJHAp49Lh8&NR=1
shcb – why is it that you steadfastly defend something while more and more very, very smart people are questioning the government’s fairy tale that Osama bin Laden and his arab hijacker henchmen were solely responsible for 911, people like:
Lynn Margulis, AB, MS, PhD – Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts – Amherst. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983. Former Chair, National Academy of Science’s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. Recipient of the National Medal of Science, America’s highest honor for scientific achievement, in 1999, presented by President William J. Clinton. The Library of Congress, Washington, DC, announced in 1998 that it will permanently archive Dr. Margulis’ papers. President of Sigma Xi, the scientific research society, from 2005 – 2006. Recipient of the Proctor Prize for scientific achievement in 1999 from Sigma Xi. Prior to moving to the University of Massachusetts, Dr. Margulis was a faculty member at …etc.
Dr. Margulis has made this statement:
Full C.V. and statement here:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.
com/professors.html#Margulis
August 27th, 2007 at 4:43 am
Knarly,
Way to long and too long a post to read all of it now, maybe later. If you want to submit my numbers to the pilots site, feel free.
For your cutting and pasting pleasure
This is what I copied from their site:
[The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. That’s 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots] these numbers work no problem here.
[Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes]
This was my response
[See the problem? He traveled 33 miles in 5 minutes, and then went 5 miles in 3 without changing speed? So do the math he would be traveling about 120 MPH to travel 5 miles in 3 minutes. The takeoff speed of the 757 is 160 mph so I would think stall speed would be in the 120 range. 5 miles in 330 degrees is about a 7/8 mile radius plus the mile down. So we put this all into our nifty aircraft turn calculator and we get a 25 degree turn angle at 1.1 g’s not all that radical (this was at 180 mph so our inexperienced pilot can keep control of the plane. At 400 mph this would require a 70 degree turn at almost 3 g’s, still possible but not probable. The 400mph turn would also only take 41.8 seconds (360deg).]
This was my second calculation with the plane making a larger turn
[One of the guys at your other blog made the comment that the path of the plane made a much larger circle so the speed was higher, The article specifically said 5 miles, but I can see how they may have been meant the target was 5 miles away, 5 mile diameter, so I ran the numbers again with the plane maintaining 400mph through the turn. The numbers are a lot closer, 2.5 minutes to complete the turn plus the 5000 foot drop would bring it to about 3 minutes. The turn angle of the plane would increase to 38 deg instead of the 25 deg and the g’s would increase to 1.3 from 1.1. The calculator says a civilian craft should not exceed 70 degrees banking so the 38 is well within that range of a controllable flight, the dive angle would also be less. And remember Tex Johnson rolled a 707 twice in 1955 without incident in a 1 g barrel roll so the plane can take it. Most roller coasters generate 3-4 g’s with a couple in the 5-6 range. It wouldn’t have been a fun ride, but it is certainly possible. Even in a negative g situation you don’t start to “red out” until something over 2 g’s so this is either a tight, slow turn or a large fast turn either would be conceivable and fit the 5 miles and 3 minutes parameters.]
These pilots may be right that an inexperienced pilot can’t make that turn that is where their experience would be helpful, but to say it is an impossible turn doesn’t fit their numbers. And if they say an inexperienced pilot can’t make that turn, I guess we are off to the simulator with a handful of amatures. Remember to, these guys consider a crashed plane a failure, to our enemies it was a success.
I watched so little of the history channel show I can’t comment, if I get a chance to see it later, I’ll let you know. I saved your comments so I can look back then. Can you remind me who Scott Forbes is? I remember the name and us talking about him, I just don’t remember who he is.
August 27th, 2007 at 6:20 am
he was the IT guy who reported the power outage, I remember now. good luck on your research. Thanks for at least looking into some of these claims your guys are making.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:10 am
For your research here is some more commentary about the History Channel buffoonery:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10948