Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Len Colby]

Peter

Today I find myself very short of time. Apologies for that.

FWIW, I recommend the website physics911.net, especially articles therein by contributed by by its founder and leading inspiration, Kew Dewdney.

The website separates articles about 'What Did Not Happen' from articles speculating on 'What May Have Happened'. That's elementary - as Holmes might have said to Watson - but it's amazing how much these two approaches get mixed up in popular debate about 9-11.

Proving (or refuting) the proposition that 9-11 did not happen as per the official story is the first logical step.

If one then takes the view that the official story doesn't stack up, it would nevertheless be hard to argue that case persuasively without at least one plausible alternative scenario. That's the value of the speculative section.

I could make the list you request - not today, but perhaps another time. However, I don't consider myself an expert on 9-11. But if your interest is truly to consider the 9-11 critique in its strongest manifestation (as opposed to the intellectual dishonesty of those such as George Monbiot who chase only straw men), then I applaud you - and believe that Dewdney's articles will not disappoint.

When the story is eventually pieced together of the evolution of the '9-11 truth movement', the pivotal role of that brilliant man will become more evident.

Before Dewdney's work on cellphone calls, for example, one of the main (and seemingly irrefutable) pieces of 'evidence' in favour of the official story were the phone calls to ground allegedly made by Barbara Olsen and others. These were widely publicized in the mass media. They made it seem certain that Arab hijackers were responsible for what happened to the planes.

Dewdney punctured that bubble. Although there has never been an official retraction, babble about the cellphone calls (and Barbara Olsen) has greatly diminished since 2003. Dewdney had exposed the narrative's Achilles Heel.

Dewdney also showed how it was possible to account for the events of 9-11 without any 'real' hijackers at all. His scenario - written up in Operation Pearl - may not be correct, but it is, IMO, plausible.

These articles are several years old. They have stood the test of time. Much 9-11 disinformation and many false trails have come and gone since they were written. Dewdney's work remains, as far as I can see, unscathed.

Dewney’s cellphone research is crap.

He didn’t carryout his tests anywhere near the flight routes of the planes not even in the same country but rather over London, Ontatio. He didn’t perform them at the cruising altitudes of the involved planes but rather at much lower elevations and extrapolated lower success rates higher up. For reasons never explained he never went over 8000 feet though the plane he used could reach 13,000.

He also made some assumptions that seem to be false 1) He assumed that the newer cell phones and systems in use at the time of his ‘experiment’ would have longer range than ones in use in 2001 but evidence inicates the contrary.

2) He assumed coverage would be better in urban areas (like London) than rural ones but once again the opposite seems to be the case bases stations can only handle a set amount of traffic, in urban areas the radius in which that amount would be reach would obviously be much less than in a rural one.

Also many of the calls were made on AirPhones rather than cellphones and some where made while the planes were at well below cursing altitude.

For more:

http://911myths.com/html/the_9_11_calls_weren_t_real.html

His "Operation Pearl" is equally without merit. The possibility of remote controlled planes was already discussed in a another thread.

[Len Colby]

From the video footage on WTC 7, I only could observe the upper floors during the collapse, maybe the top two thirds of the building. The visible outline of the building showed no collapse of the roof periphery during the descent of the building.

Does this agree with your impressions?

Peter look closely at those videos again the 'penthouses' can be seen collapsing before the rest of the outside of the building. This suggests structural failure preceded the collapse of the facade.

[Len Colby]

I don’t know Sid Walter, but I do know Judy Wood. She is easily the most highly qualified scientist studying 9/11.

You mean “the most highly qualified” ‘inside jobber’ “scientist studying 9/11” since numerous structural engineers, fire engineers and metallurgists have looked into the collapses. Even this claim is rather dubious what about that structural engineer (the deep sea oil platform specialist) you interviewed? I guess since he rejects your ‘star wars’ theories you no longer consider him qualified.

She has degrees in civil engineering (with emphasis on structural), engineering mechanics (also known as applied physics), and in materials engineering science.

Please provide citations for these claims it doesn’t say that on her CV which indicates her area of specialty is dental fillings and other synthetic-natural hybrid structures.

These are the three disciplines most appropriate for the study of events at the World Trade Center.

Funny that’s what you said about the oil rig guy's expertise.

For someone to suggest she (or her theories) are “a few cards short of a full deck” displays massive ignorance, extreme prejudice, and sexual bias.

What does “sexual bias” have to do with what Peter said? That she doesn’t justify any of her questionable assumptions which were contradicted by several people actually qualified in structural engineering is a good indication she is a crackpot.

Those unfamiliar with her work would be wise to become acquainted with it, since, in my opinion, it forces us to face up to the manifest incapacity of conventional explosives to account for the explanandum. What occurred here has to have involved either mini-nukes (atomic or hydrogen of the 3rd or 4th generation kind), lasers, masers, plasmoids, anti-matter or other unconventional modes of causation, which is fascinating, since their use implicates the American military and the DoD, which control them. Those who resort to denigrating phrases like “space beams” and “death rays” are indulging residual junior-high-school attitudes to conceal their anxiety over coming to an understanding of the phenomena.

Funny that you say that because unless I’m mistaken she, Reynolds and you used such terminology.

As many observers of the devastation of the Twin Towers have remarked, some massive source of energy had to have been involved, which went far beyond what thermite/thermate, RDX, and such could provide.

How many of those “observers” were remotely qualified to do so? But I agree the pre-planted explosives/thermate theories are crap.

[Len Colby]

bump

[Sid Walker]

Peter

Today I find myself very short of time. Apologies for that.

FWIW, I recommend the website physics911.net, especially articles therein by contributed by by its founder and leading inspiration, Kew Dewdney.

The website separates articles about 'What Did Not Happen' from articles speculating on 'What May Have Happened'. That's elementary - as Holmes might have said to Watson - but it's amazing how much these two approaches get mixed up in popular debate about 9-11.

Proving (or refuting) the proposition that 9-11 did not happen as per the official story is the first logical step.

If one then takes the view that the official story doesn't stack up, it would nevertheless be hard to argue that case persuasively without at least one plausible alternative scenario. That's the value of the speculative section.

I could make the list you request - not today, but perhaps another time. However, I don't consider myself an expert on 9-11. But if your interest is truly to consider the 9-11 critique in its strongest manifestation (as opposed to the intellectual dishonesty of those such as George Monbiot who chase only straw men), then I applaud you - and believe that Dewdney's articles will not disappoint.

When the story is eventually pieced together of the evolution of the '9-11 truth movement', the pivotal role of that brilliant man will become more evident.

Before Dewdney's work on cellphone calls, for example, one of the main (and seemingly irrefutable) pieces of 'evidence' in favour of the official story were the phone calls to ground allegedly made by Barbara Olsen and others. These were widely publicized in the mass media. They made it seem certain that Arab hijackers were responsible for what happened to the planes.

Dewdney punctured that bubble. Although there has never been an official retraction, babble about the cellphone calls (and Barbara Olsen) has greatly diminished since 2003. Dewdney had exposed the narrative's Achilles Heel.

Dewdney also showed how it was possible to account for the events of 9-11 without any 'real' hijackers at all. His scenario - written up in Operation Pearl - may not be correct, but it is, IMO, plausible.

These articles are several years old. They have stood the test of time. Much 9-11 disinformation and many false trails have come and gone since they were written. Dewdney's work remains, as far as I can see, unscathed.

Dewney’s cellphone research is crap.

He didn’t carryout his tests anywhere near the flight routes of the planes not even in the same country but rather over London, Ontatio. He didn’t perform them at the cruising altitudes of the involved planes but rather at much lower elevations and extrapolated lower success rates higher up. For reasons never explained he never went over 8000 feet though the plane he used could reach 13,000.

He also made some assumptions that seem to be false 1) He assumed that the newer cell phones and systems in use at the time of his ‘experiment’ would have longer range than ones in use in 2001 but evidence inicates the contrary.

2) He assumed coverage would be better in urban areas (like London) than rural ones but once again the opposite seems to be the case bases stations can only handle a set amount of traffic, in urban areas the radius in which that amount would be reach would obviously be much less than in a rural one.

Also many of the calls were made on AirPhones rather than cellphones and some where made while the planes were at well below cursing altitude.

For more:

http://911myths.com/html/the_9_11_calls_weren_t_real.html

His "Operation Pearl" is equally without merit. The possibility of remote controlled planes was already discussed in a another thread.

The breadth of your expertise never ceases to amaze, Len. You offer (almost) instant opinion about practically anything and everything. Quite remarkable really.

Anyhow, people can make their own judgments. We don't have to take your opinions on trust, do we Len? (or did I miss a recent change in the law?)

See:

Project Achilles Report Parts One, Two and Three

The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93

Operation Pearl

Note that if the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, the Pentagon attack falsified, the cellphone calls falsified etc... then as I said previously, the mass media (at the highest levels) must have colluded in this mass murder. They uncritically promulgated a false narrative from the initial moments of these atrocities. That's more than folly or laziness. It's a clear case of complicity.

We might therefore expect, over time, to notice occasional cracks in the media facade... anomalous stories that point to conspiracy, even if they can't be taken as proof without further bona fide investigation.

That has happened. The most blatant example was the recent discovery that the BBC reported the WTC-7's collapse before it took place.

True to form, the journalists directly responsible have gone to ground. Like so much else concerning 9-11, the issue rests unresolved, an unbelievable official narrative bolstered only by a stonewall of condescension and silence.

In 1963, an evil cryptocracy killed a popular US President, selecting a lone patsy to take the rap.

In 2001, an evil cryptocracy killed some 3,000 people, mainly Americans, selecting an entire religion (Islam) and an entire cultural group (Arabs) as patsies.

I guess it goes to show that successful criminals get greedier over time.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Sid Walker]

bump

I'm coming to agree with Mark, Len. You are bump crazy.

Anyhow, thanks for directing us back to Steve Rymer's post about the feasibility of 'hijacking' airliners by electronic means.

Well worth re-reading after all these months...

as a computer programmer - I can tell you this is not a particularly complicated thing to do. Autopilot control is created in software, autopilots control aircraft (by whatever means - electronic or phyisical), so replacing or intercepting the functionality of the software provides alternative control and ultimately the autopilot decides whether or not it relinquishes control to a human pilot. Under normal circumstances it yields priority to the pilot, it's child's play to alter this functionality. This could be achieved either by replacing the software - probably held in a ROM device or placing an electronic device between the autopilot and it's control console. Either way, the autopilots functions can be 'hijacked' - either by activating software which completely ignores pilot input whilst carrying out a series of instructions or transmitting a series of instructions via the electronic data lines connected to the command console of the autopilot. All this additional/revised/hijacked functionality could be activated at a specific time.

I notice Steve's succinct analysis stands unrefuted.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Kevin M. West]

I'm sorry, but like it or not, Judy's billiard ball analogy is complete nonsense. Please, tell me why I'm wrong if you think I am.

Her graphs show each ball start from 0 velocity and proceed to fall independantly, under the influence of gravity alone. There is absolutely 0 momentum transfer from the ball above to the ball below. By her logic, somehow each floor would have to pass right through the one below it as if it wasn't even there, without affecting it in any way other than releasing it from it's support. This doesn't match reality in any way whatsoever. In reality, the falling mass was accelerating due to gravity, and gaining mass with each additional floor it encountered. This gave it more momentum with each additional floor, and made each additional floor fail faster than the one before it, as it was stuck from above my more and faster moving debris.

[Kevin M. West]

Yes, but the electronic auto-pilot systems in the 757 and 767 are coupled to mechanical controls, not fly-by-wire systems. The pilot can physically grab the yolk and fly the plane even with the auto-pilot engaged, he'll just have to use more force to override it. No amount of reprogramming will allow the mechanically connected, non-fly-by-wire controls to be disabled. The plane's control systems would have to be completely rebuilt, and the mechanics who maintain the plane would have to be paid off to not notice it.

[Jack White]

NASA conducted experiments using remotely controlled 757s, flying them great

distances, and crashing them into structures in the desert. Videos of this are

widely available on the www, but I do not have the URL available at the moment.

The link is available on several 911 websites.

Now explain why NASA would have an interest in remotely flying and crashing

a 757 into a building.

Jack

[Kevin M. West]

I'm guessing because there weren't a lot of pilots ready to volunteer for the job.

[Len Colby]

NASA conducted experiments using remotely controlled 757s, flying them great

distances, and crashing them into structures in the desert. Videos of this are

widely available on the www, but I do not have the URL available at the moment.

The link is available on several 911 websites.

Now explain why NASA would have an interest in remotely flying and crashing

a 757 into a building.

Jack

See if you can actually provide a link backing these claims. I think Jack if conflating two different stories and mixing up the details. I've seen videos of a fighter (an F4 IIC) being "flown" on train tracks into a wall. This was IIRC to test the vulnerability of nuclear plants to plane crashes.

NASA and others did a test of a 727 or 737 that had been extensively retrofitted

Kevin wrote:

"Yes, but the electronic auto-pilot systems in the 757 and 767 are coupled to mechanical controls, not fly-by-wire systems. The pilot can physically grab the yolk and fly the plane even with the auto-pilot engaged, he'll just have to use more force to override it. No amount of reprogramming will allow the mechanically connected, non-fly-by-wire controls to be disabled. The plane's control systems would have to be completely rebuilt, and the mechanics who maintain the plane would have to be paid off to not notice it"

A point I made in my penultimate post which Steve either didn't understand or chose to ignore. Let's not forget that it would have been two pilots against the solenoid motors. If only the planes were Airbuses the theory might be semi-plausible.

Also presumably the pilots could have shut off the autopilot by removing its fuse(s) or cutting its wires. Though the attacks happened in 2001 the technology for a HAL like computer that can prevent itself from being shut off didn't exist yet (and still doesn't). In 1996 a 767 had numerous problems due to "a loose main battery shunt connection" http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=2...05844&key=1

According to Dr VERNON GROSE formerly of the National Transportation Safety Board: If, for example, let’s say that the auto pilot fails and the aeroplane has to come down early. If it comes down and the reason the auto pilot failed may well be a wiring problem but it will never be designated that way. It’ll be called an auto pilot failure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/ev...pt_12_07_99.txt

So an unintentional wiring problem can cause the autopilot to fail imagine if the pilots intentionally disconnected its wires

Steve's theory also can't explain the airphones being made inoperable. There would be no reason for the flight computer to control them

[Len Colby]

I'm guessing because there weren't a lot of pilots ready to volunteer for the job.

:lol: :ice :ice

[Kathleen Collins]

Without sounding too paranoid, I think our government is at work flying planes via remote control. I saw a strange UFO which I felt was flying a small plane by remote control. I am not given to hallucinations. Sleepwalking, yes. Hallucinating, no.

The account of this UFO and small plane is on the blog:

thecloakofdarkness.blogspot.com Wed., July 26, 2006

I didn't think it came from outer space. I believe that in "Area 51," which I understand is deserted now, having moved somewhere else in the desert, they crafted this technology. And it does seem paranormal, especially how the UFO faded from my view. But I say it is our govt and in 9/11 this technology was deployed.

Kathy

[Michael Hogan]

DEBUNKING 9/11 DEBUNKING

An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders

of the Official Conspiracy Theory

by David Ray Griffin

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechani...7313&sr=1-1

David Ray Griffin's latest book will undoubtedly be of interest to those that feel that the real story of the events of September 11, 2001 do not always coincide with the United States government's official story. In addition to the substantial introduction and conclusion, Debunking 9/11 Debunking contains four lengthy chapters:

1) 9/11 Live or Distorted: Do the Norad Tapes Verify The 9/11 Commission Report?

2) The Real 9/11 Conspiracy: A Critique of Kean and Hamilton's

Without Precedent

3) The Disintegration of the World Trade Center: Has NIST Debunked the Theory of Controlled Demolition?

4) Debunking 9/11 Myths: A Failed Attempt by Popular Mechanics.

I have just finished reading Griffin's book. Rather than review it myself, I would direct interested readers to check out the reviews on Amazon.com. This book is well worth the time and money in my opinion, regardless of one's preconceived notions. Griffin's book begins with these two quotes:

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self sustained. -- Ghandi

Conspiracy theories are like mushrooms; they grow where there is no light. -- Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton,

Without Precedent

and ends with this:

Although the effort to expose the truth about 9/11, which has been going on now for over five years, will remain an uphill battle in the United States, the Democratic control of the House and the Senate provides at least a ground for hope. This is the time for the 9/11 movement to make its biggest effort. We have, after all, a world to save.

If after 40 years, the murder of President Kennedy is still largely a mystery despite the efforts of so many, it indicates that even Griffin's tempered optimism may be unrealized in our lifetimes.

[Michael Hogan]

And just what is this venue for the proper questioning of the VP under oath?

Certainly not a Congressional hearing. Certainly not another Commission? Where would Cheney be required to go to answer questions under oath?

A grand jury?

If impeached, he would have to testify before the Senate.....

Dennis Kucinich sure is trying:

http://kucinich.house.gov/spotlightissues/documents.htm