find the boeing?
Whisper2i
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
Stephan Lemonjello Jr.
According to the dictionary, ULs are "widely circulated as true." I doubt even
the creator of that website truly believes that a plane didn't hit the
Pentagon.
-Stephan Lemonjello Jr.
COPYRIGHT 2002, All Rights Reserved
Quentin David Jones
Its obvious the Pentagon was not hit by a jumbo-jet.
It puzzles me that anyone believes it.
QuentinJ
"Whisper2i" <whis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020612002759...@mb-md.aol.com...
GoBoSox514
>From: "Quentin David Jones
>Greetings all,
>
>Its obvious the Pentagon was not hit by a jumbo-jet.
>
>It puzzles me that anyone believes it.
>
>QuentinJ
It is? Really? I guess I'm just a lemming. I live less than 10 miles from
the Pentagon and drove by it numerous times after the crash (working the media
helps with those things). It's was a pretty damn big hole for it just have
been some minor explosion.
Bill "welcome to the party..you're late"
Karen J. Cravens
news:3d074f85$0$11...@echo-01.iinet.net.au:
> Its obvious the Pentagon was not hit by a jumbo-jet.
> It puzzles me that anyone believes it.
I agree, though if I'd said it I'd've been more sporting and posted a
license.
--
Karen J. Cravens
Lee Ayrton
> is this just another U.L???
Hardly. See:
http://www.urbanlegends.com/
"An urban legend:
* appears mysteriously and spreads spontaneously in varying forms
* contains elements of humor or horror (the horror often "punishes"
someone who flouts society's conventions).
* makes good storytelling.
* does NOT have to be false, although most are. ULs often have a
basis in fact, but it's their life after-the-fact (particularly in
reference to the second and third points) that gives them
particular interest."
It fails all four tests. Particularly the third.
> http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
Pierre Salinger? Is that you?
To refresh the memory:
3. SALON Daily Clicks: Media Circus
http://www.salon.com/media/media961112.html
--
"It astounds me that even with the incandescent light of cluefulness
pervading the porch of AFU that so many gormless moths are twatting
their empty little heads against it."
Paul Sweeney ponders the infinite in AFU.
Leo G Simonetta
> is this just another U.L???
>
> http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
No, its a loony conspiracy theory, but thanks for asking.
See: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm
And particularly:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14
Leo "Furrfu, vaqrrq" Simonetta
--
"If you send something to this group, it would be appreciated if
you were to give what you send a modicum of thought instead of
just hitting 'send' like a demented automaton."
Daniel Ucko explains another weird afu norm to a confused newcomer
Joe Yuska
"Stephan Lemonjello Jr." wrote:
> >is this just another U.L???
> >
> >http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
>
> According to the dictionary, ULs are "widely circulated as true." I doubt even
> the creator of that website truly believes that a plane didn't hit the
> Pentagon.
For some values of widely. The pthotographs and questions come from a book
popular in France, l'Effroyaple Imposture.
http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/ by Thierry Meyssan.
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins040902.asp
The National Review on Meyssan.
Joe Yuska
Paul Tomblin
>See: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm
One thing this doesn't mention, which is near and dear to my heart. The
US government is going around telling everybdy that general aviation
planes are a huge threat because terrorists could load them up with
explosives and crash them into nuclear power plants. That sort of
ignorance ignores a test that was done many years ago, when an F-4 Phantom
(a jet fighter considerably heavier than your typical Cessna 172 or Piper
Cherokee) was crashed into a concrete wall of the same thickness and
composition as a nuclear reactor containment building while travelling
500mph, which is considerably faster than the 150mph or so of a Piper
Dakota, the fastest plane that I fly. It made a hole 2 inches deep in the
two feet of concrete.
The Pentagon was built of extremely strong materials, much like a nuclear
reactor containment building. I'm not surprised that the plane didn't do
more damage. An Oklahoma City style truck bomb would have probably done
considerably less.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware
has limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing
machines are so poor at I/O.
Whisper2i
>been some minor explosion
did you see the plane there?? or parts of it?
Anthony McCafferty
(Whisper2i) writes:
I'm curious if you've ever seen a high-speed crash of a non-military plane.
"Smeared" isn't just a metaphor.
Anthony "Seriously." McCafferty
Whisper2i
>
> I'm curious if you've ever seen a high-speed crash of a non-military
>plane.
so,,,,,no plane.
Charles A Lieberman
<Xns922B5DE8...@130.133.1.4>
Since without one it might violate the BoP.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "[T]he targets of Jesus' exhortation are not so
Brooklyn, NY, USA | much moralizing as tossing bloody great stones at
calieber.tripod.com | a woman caught in adultery."
cali...@bigfoot.com | -- Sherilyn exegetes John 8:7
Leo G Simonetta
Here are some of the eyewitness accounts:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm
And here are some pieces of plane:
http://cfapp.rockymountainnews.com/slideshow/slideshow.cfm?ID=Pentagon1&NUM=8
So - plane!
Leo " " Simonetta
--
"You missed your true calling. You should work for the KGB
as an interrogation officer." Joe Bruno on the meanyheads
of afu
Tom Sevart
"Quentin David Jones" <quen...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:3d074f85$0$11...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
> Greetings all,
>
> Its obvious the Pentagon was not hit by a jumbo-jet.
>
> It puzzles me that anyone believes it.
>
>
Obvious? Not obvious to me. One question I have for the conspiracy nuts
out there is, if the Pentagon wasn't hit by the hijacked jumbo jet, then
what became of it? Four planes were hijacked, yet if the Pentagon was
damaged by a truck bomb then only three are accounted for. And what's so
important about covering up a bombing by truck that they'd have to make up a
story about a jet crash? Either way, the damage is done.
Tom "maybe the jet was beamed up by aliens" Sevart
Tom Sevart
"Paul Tomblin" <ptom...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:ae7or0$2do$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
> That sort of
> ignorance ignores a test that was done many years ago, when an F-4 Phantom
> (a jet fighter considerably heavier than your typical Cessna 172 or Piper
> Cherokee) was crashed into a concrete wall of the same thickness and
> composition as a nuclear reactor containment building while travelling
> 500mph, which is considerably faster than the 150mph or so of a Piper
> Dakota, the fastest plane that I fly. It made a hole 2 inches deep in the
> two feet of concrete.
Not only that, but the plane entirely disintegrated. You could see in that
test footage that the plane literally turned into dust. Conspiracy
theorists should claim that the scientists running the test actually parked
a truck packed with explosives next to the wall and detonated it, because
you wouldn't be able to find parts of the plane.
Tom
Charles A Lieberman
"Tom Sevart" <n2uhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Four planes were hijacked, yet if the Pentagon was
> damaged by a truck bomb then only three are accounted for.
They Say four planes were hijacked. Did you actually *see* four planes
being hijacked? Or even one?
This thread has me thinking, what do people who tout conspiracy theories
expect me to *do* with this information? If all the political parties
are in the thrall of the Ill*m*n*ti, what *should* I do on Election Day?
If They control the media, whom and what *should* I believe?
Charles "I voted for Kodos" Lieberman
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "I guess you can't guarantee supernatural
Brooklyn, New York, USA | phenomena." --Rian from Newfoundland
http://calieber.tripod.com/index.html cali...@bigfoot.com
Joe Yuska
Charles A Lieberman wrote:
> In article <ae8c93$4sjuq$1...@ID-52518.news.dfncis.de>,
> <snip>
>
>
> This thread has me thinking, what do people who tout conspiracy theories
> expect me to *do* with this information? If all the political parties
> are in the thrall of the Ill*m*n*ti, what *should* I do on Election Day?
> If They control the media, whom and what *should* I believe?
First question: Are you the same Charles who BoPped someone earlier in this
thread?
Second question: Did you forget the Keywords header?
If not, I think the question addresses the distinction among a legend, a
story produced by some process which results from some "unusual" psychology,
and an out and out scam. I will defer to the folklorists and the psych
professionals here on the first two, but most of the scams are traceable
back to personal profit as I believe this one is. The simple message here
is "Buy my book!"
That being said, in some of the scams the distinctions become blurred. From
the few times I've heard Art Bell, he appears to be a professional vector.
However, I don't know enough to tell whether Von Danikin really believed his
stuff or not. More bizarre are the David Icke ilk.
In my particular case, I have an anecdotal, but to me significant example.
One of my wife's cousins has made a career of writing from a right-wing
position that would make Rush look like Ted. I've known him since we were
students, have spent many hours when we were young arguing with him both
over caffeine and wine, and respect his native intelligence immensely.
However, his books and articles lately espouse ideas that distort the facts
more than a washer with a shirtsleeve caught in the lid. I really can't
tell whether he has written this stuff so much that he now believes the
basics and argues to extreme, or he's just writing what the editors want,
much like older professions.
Whatever the answer to my personal question, I think the first avenue to
what to believe is to follow the money.
Joe Yuska
Whisper2i
>out there is, if the Pentagon wasn't hit by the hijacked jumbo jet, then
>what became of it?
id like to know why the military was so slow ,,they have the resources! maybe
'they' shot down our own plane, as an attempt to keep it from doing more
damage...just a thought.
Lindsey
otherwise we would have to *pretend* it didn't hit the pentagon
for fear of being accused of racial profiling since it would have
undoubtably been of middle eastern origin. Or am I being facetious?
In article <ae8c93$4sjuq$1...@ID-52518.news.dfncis.de>, "Tom Sevart"
<n2uhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
lerae
have better things to do with their time? There are real people who lost
loved ones that are being done a HUGE disservice by these nut jobs.
Next they'll be saying that our government is really being run by Aliens or
that the Twin Towers were really Alien Space craft that went back home and
the White House was bombed but it was covered up so well no one knew!
Thanks for the space.
Karen J. Cravens
news:auqegu45osnucjdj7...@4ax.com:
> Karen J. Cravens 12 Jun 2002 14:10:53 GMT
> <Xns922B5DE8...@130.133.1.4>
>>begin "Quentin David Jones" <quen...@iinet.net.au> quotation from
>>news:3d074f85$0$11...@echo-01.iinet.net.au:
>>
>>> Its obvious the Pentagon was not hit by a jumbo-jet.
>>> It puzzles me that anyone believes it.
>>
>>I agree, though if I'd said it I'd've been more sporting and posted a
>>license.
>
> Since without one it might violate the BoP.
No, it was a perfectly factual statement even without the license. The
Pentagon *was not* hit by a jumbo-jet. It would puzzle me *if* anyone
believed it, but I don't think anyone really does. Certainly I've never
heard anyone claim it, though I suppose it wouldn't surprise me at all if
some overexcited newsdroid *said* it. But in that case, they weren't
really meaning to claim what they said, and if you pointed out that what
they said was wrong, they'd probably agree with it.
--
Karen J. Cravens
Karen J. Cravens
news:ae8c93$4sjuq$1...@ID-52518.news.dfncis.de:
> Obvious? Not obvious to me. One question I have for the conspiracy
> nuts out there is, if the Pentagon wasn't hit by the hijacked jumbo
> jet, then what became of it? Four planes were hijacked, yet if the
There *was* no hijacked jumbo jet, darnit.
--
Karen J. Cravens
Drew Lawson
I thought you were claiming that there wasn't a plane in the first place.
Please get your loon bait in a consistent form.
Drew "I want to know why the Alien Overlords didn't intervene" Lawson
--
Drew Lawson | Though it's just a memory,
dr...@furrfu.com | some memories last forever
Anthony McCafferty
(Whisper2i) writes:
No, child. There coulda been two or three planes crashed there, without too
many big, easily identifiable pieces that scream out "I AM AN AIRPLANE! LOOK
AT ME! I AM AN AIRPLANE!" in the way you seem to require.
Aircraft are built as light as they possibly can be, for obvious reasons.
They have very, very little reserve strength beyond that. In a powered
collision, they get smashed up in ways that are kinda frightening to think
about when you have a frequent flyer card with lots of miles. They crumple.
They tear. They can even burn and melt.
Hit a nice solid building like the Pentagon, and your wings are going to
jackknife out, or in, or snap off, or otherwise re-orient themselves. The
fluids in them will continue moving forward when the metal parts are slowed;
tanks are going to rupture like a filled, sealed milk jug hit by a .30-'06.
Heavier, solider, bits like engines will punch their way through the buildings
skin. No nice neat little package; more like tinfoil after the dog attacks it.
[1]
Seeing http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm might help you visualize
this.
Anthony "[1] Then it's all gonna catch on fire." McCafferty
Paul Tomblin
>And I suppose the Twin Towers was a hoax too? Please. Don't these people
>have better things to do with their time? There are real people who lost
>loved ones that are being done a HUGE disservice by these nut jobs.
There's been a nut job posting to the piloting newsgroups who claims that
the planes that hit the twin towers were empty and remotely piloted. Many
of his claims of "evidence" for this are, not surprisingly, directly
contradictory of other pieces of his "evidence". Even less surprisingly,
when pilots can be bothered to refute his so-called evidence, he pays no
heed to them.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
Q: Why do PCs have a reset button on the front?
A: Because they are expected to run Microsoft operating systems.
Bailey
>There's been a nut job posting to the piloting newsgroups who claims that
>the planes that hit the twin towers were empty and remotely piloted. Many
>of his claims of "evidence" for this are, not surprisingly, directly
>contradictory of other pieces of his "evidence". Even less surprisingly,
>when pilots can be bothered to refute his so-called evidence, he pays no
>heed to them.
Perhaps he had delusions of being one of "The Lone Gunman"
<http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=73&contentid=301>
--
Jeff Bailey
je...@baileyjs.com
www.baileyjs.com
"They'll be taxing my underpants next because they're
not white enough," grumbled Dublin, Ireland, resident
Brendan Quinn after the government slapped a
13-cent-per-bag surcharge on plastic shopping bags.
(March, 2002)
cms
<cali...@bigfoot.co.m> wrote:
>In article <ae8c93$4sjuq$1...@ID-52518.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Tom Sevart" <n2uhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Four planes were hijacked, yet if the Pentagon was
>> damaged by a truck bomb then only three are accounted for.
>
>They Say four planes were hijacked. Did you actually *see* four planes
>being hijacked? Or even one?
>
>This thread has me thinking, what do people who tout conspiracy theories
>expect me to *do* with this information? If all the political parties
>are in the thrall of the Ill*m*n*ti, what *should* I do on Election Day?
>If They control the media, whom and what *should* I believe?
>
<BOP and BOR off>
Well, you could help bring about the Apocalypse.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/readings/forcing.html
also,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/jerusalem.html
<BOP and BOR on>
The article and the website itself are both interesting. I cannot expand
further upon why I think they are interesting in the confines of this
news group, but it is one possible answer to your entirely rhetorical
question, and I thought you might be entertained and perhaps intrigued
by reading it.
cms --- <Mmmmph>
Scarecrow
No, but I saw the plane hit the building on 9/11. It was a plan. it
was big it was flying low, and it hit the pentagon. I saw it from the
front seat of my car on the highway that passes that side of the
pentagon. There are parts all over the place, they are all smaller
than a US nickle because of the force of the crash.
Scarecrow "Who still has nightmares about that day"
**********************************************
* _ *
* _/_\_ *
* __\"/__ *
* "--\_/--" Oh Joy! Rapture! I have a brain!*
* /_\ *
* //|\\ Scarecrow *
* "` | `" *
*jgs __|__ *
**********************************************
Nathan Tenny
>Charles A Lieberman wrote:
[...]
>> This thread has me thinking, what do people who tout conspiracy theories
>> expect me to *do* with this information? If all the political parties
>> are in the thrall of the Ill*m*n*ti, what *should* I do on Election Day?
>> If They control the media, whom and what *should* I believe?
>
>story produced by some process which results from some "unusual" psychology,
>and an out and out scam. I will defer to the folklorists and the psych
>professionals here on the first two, but most of the scams are traceable
>back to personal profit as I believe this one is. The simple message here
>is "Buy my book!"
While that seems to be significantly true for the "professional vector"
class you mentioned (in the part I snipped)---they're basically just using
conspiracy theories as a sales technique, irrespective of whether they
themselves believe them---it also seems to this reporter that there's a
significant population of thralls who believe, and propagate with a passion,
conspiracy theories from which they do not stand to gain in any direct
material sense. In a lot of cases these theories are highly BoPable
victimization stories about some group to which the vector belongs.
As an example, I've known people who consider themselves to be Jeffersonian
yeoman farmers, more or less, to claim that the USAn gummint has a secret
agenda to depopulate the rural sections of the country and force everyone
to live in cities. That's BoPable, I suppose, but I'm hoping it's
sufficiently nonvolatile to be a safe example for discussion of the
phenomenon.
Charles's question, then, might be rephrased as "What the heck motivates
*those* vectors, and what do they want me to do about it?"
Some, of course, are just Really Messed Up People; others seem to be
hobbyists of a kind (think presidential-assassination amateur historians),
driven perhaps by a sense of accomplishment about Getting To The Bottom
Of A Mystery. But there is, I think, a significant population of people
who vector these conspiracy theories very ULishly indeed---they believe
the stories without really having examined them rationally, perhaps
because the implied threat scratches some psychological itch, and pass
'em on because they're Important-Tell-All-Your-Friends stuff (and,
unacknowledgedly, because they make such damn good stories). In other
words, my self-consciously rural folks simply think they're spreading
the word about a serious threat to their lifestyle, trying to mobilize
one another to be ready for action, just as propagators of the Blue Star
Acid story think they're disseminating an important warning, just as
propagators of the Save Big Bird petition think they're mobilizing the
troops to defend a sacred cultural icon against an assault.
I've suggested before that the important difference between conspiracy
stories and ULs is that in the former case the argument for bunking is
intrinsically part of the story. You rarely if ever hear these things
presented as "dude, did you know...?" matters; they always have an urgency
that leads the teller to make *damn* sure you understand *all* the reasons
why this is *so* *obviously* true. But that trait is shared with a lot of
scarelore, like Blue Star Acid or email petitions, that skirts the UL
boundary; the stories are loaded in such a way that nobody tells them
dispassionately, and in fact if you discard the moral outrage there's
really nothing interesting about them. So as I write this I don't think
the distinction between conspiracy and UL is as clear as I've suggested
before; I think the real distinction may be between fax-scarelore and
ULs, and the reason that we in AFU have stuff to say about Blue Star
Acid and not about...um...some other things has to do with pragmatic
BoP issues---it's not because one is a UL and the other ain't.
Or that's what I think today. Ask me again tomorrow, but only if you want
to get hit with another braindump like this one.
NT
--
Nathan Tenny | A foolish consistency
Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA | recapitulates phylogeny.
<nten...@qualcomm.com> |
Charles A Lieberman
<Xns922BE761...@130.133.1.4>
>>>> Its obvious the Pentagon was not hit by a jumbo-jet.
>>>> It puzzles me that anyone believes it.
>>>
>>>I agree, though if I'd said it I'd've been more sporting and posted a
>>>license.
>>
>> Since without one it might violate the BoP.
>
>No, it was a perfectly factual statement even without the license.
Yes, the post my reply went out attache to wasn't the one I though i had
read. If fact, I think I was attempting to reply to something that
hadn't been posted at all.
Charles "I blame sunspots" Lieberman
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "Damned embarrassing, after that I've made a
Brooklyn, New York, USA | solemn promise not to help any schoolkids with
cali...@bigfoot.com | their homework." --HWM
http://calieber.tripod.com/
Charles A Lieberman
<3D07EBA2...@attbi.com>
>Charles A Lieberman wrote:
>
>> In article <ae8c93$4sjuq$1...@ID-52518.news.dfncis.de>,
>> <snip>
>
>>
>>
>> This thread has me thinking, what do people who tout conspiracy theories
>> expect me to *do* with this information? If all the political parties
>> are in the thrall of the Ill*m*n*ti, what *should* I do on Election Day?
>> If They control the media, whom and what *should* I believe?
>
>First question: Are you the same Charles who BoPped someone earlier in this
>thread?
Not the person I intended to. I was (trying to) BoP the subthread
discussing the accuracy of this particular conspiracy, although perhaps
a BoR would be more appropriate.
>That being said, in some of the scams the distinctions become blurred. From
>the few times I've heard Art Bell, he appears to be a professional vector.
>However, I don't know enough to tell whether Von Danikin really believed his
>stuff or not. More bizarre are the David Icke ilk.
But *if* Icke believes what he's saying, what does he think I should do
about it other than study herpetology?
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "French people are so weird."
Brooklyn, New York, USA | -Meredith Robbins
cali...@bigfoot.com
http://calieber.tripod.com/
Alan J Rosenthal
So, no plane _there_.
If you want to consider whether that photo is evidence against the
occurrence of a certain sequence of events, you first have to analyze
what the photographic result of that sequence of events would be.
Drew Lawson
Duh. The Pentagon should have a big hole in the side, a hole that
is the exact shape of a silhouette of an airplane.
Drew "haven't you watched *any* cartoons?" Lawson
Tom Sevart
"Karen J. Cravens" <silve...@phoenyx.net> wrote in message
news:Xns922BE7B7...@130.133.1.4...
I would like to see the conspiracy nuts try to explain this to the families
of everyone on board.
Tom
Rick Tyler
>
>"Karen J. Cravens" <silve...@phoenyx.net> wrote
>> > nuts out there is, if the Pentagon wasn't hit by the hijacked jumbo
>> > jet, then what became of it? Four planes were hijacked, yet if the
>>
>> There *was* no hijacked jumbo jet, darnit.
>
>I would like to see the conspiracy nuts try to explain this to the families
>of everyone on board.
>
Karen was being too clever by half. The jet that crashed the Pentagon
was a narrow-body, not a jumbo.
ObUSA: Think "Kobe Bryant" not "Shaquille O'Neal."
-- Rick "Did you all notice that the Lakers won their third NBA
championship in a row?" Tyler
__________________________________________________________________
"Ignorant voracity -- a wingless vulture -- can soar only into the
depths of ignominy." Patrick O'Brian
Lon Stowell
Sorry Mr. Rourke, it won't happen again.
Lon '....merging with the tattoo thread' Stowell
--
[Please add your own clever saying here]
Lon Stowell
Ahhh. I see. The giant hole in the side of the pentagon was actually
the muzzle blast from a giant top sekrit weapon under development
inside. Sadly, it was still located in an interior lab, but the
military, being the military, decided to just fire it right thru
the wall to bring down those pesky furriners and save amurrika for
motherhood and apple pie and honda motors.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Karen J. Cravens
news:peaigu4j1ofchesc1...@4ax.com:
> Karen was being too clever by half. The jet that crashed the Pentagon
> was a narrow-body, not a jumbo.
Oops. I think I called it a widebody elsewhere. 757 (we didn't fly
those, and I always confuse them with the 767) is classified as a "heavy"
but is, in fact, single-aisle. Even farther from being a jumbo.
--
Karen J. Cravens
Karen J. Cravens
news:aeb2ht$23ah$1...@home.eCynic.com:
> Duh. The Pentagon should have a big hole in the side, a hole that
> is the exact shape of a silhouette of an airplane.
>
> Drew "haven't you watched *any* cartoons?" Lawson
On a slightly less flippant note, that impression could be gotten from the
footage of the second plane colliding with the WTC. For a brief instant,
you *could* see the impression of the plane, wings and all, on the side of
the building, before all the smoke and dust obscured it.
(That's the image that has stuck with me the most, out of all of the Too
Much Information the media was dumping on us.)
Of course, those planes were traveling rather faster than the Pentagon
one, as I recall, and the WTC shell was rather thinner than the Pentagon
walls, and that "impression" wasn't necessarily a hole, and could just as
well have been aluminum rain splashed against unmarred concrete, and...
But still, it *did* look exactly like the cartoons make it look. Very
surreal.
--
Karen J. Cravens
Rick Tyler
<silve...@phoenyx.net> wrote:
I believe (entirely with a citable reference) that the 757 was
classified as a "heavy" because it makes nasty wake turbulence (as bad
as a 747 perhaps?). I seem to remember (motto contest) that Boeing
fought the classification (or at least whined about it) because it
meant greater aircraft-to-aircraft following distances in the air and
longer times between landings and takeoffs -- all of which makes the
757 slightly less attractive to airlines. Or something.
Rick "PAUL!" Tyler
Karen J. Cravens
> I believe (entirely with a citable reference) that the 757 was
> classified as a "heavy" because it makes nasty wake turbulence (as bad
> as a 747 perhaps?). I seem to remember (motto contest) that Boeing
Roight. I don't know about the "as bad as" part, but it's classed as a
heavy in air traffic calls. As bad as widebodies, but maybe not as bad as
a jumbo. (What, besides a 747, *is* a jumbo? L1011? I can never
remember, other than no other Boeings are.)
> fought the classification (or at least whined about it) because it
> meant greater aircraft-to-aircraft following distances in the air and
> longer times between landings and takeoffs -- all of which makes the
> 757 slightly less attractive to airlines. Or something.
I Don't Know If It's True, But It Sounds Possible(tm).
--
Karen J. Cravens
Paul Tomblin
>I believe (entirely with a citable reference) that the 757 was
>classified as a "heavy" because it makes nasty wake turbulence (as bad
>as a 747 perhaps?). I seem to remember (motto contest) that Boeing
http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Chap7/aim0703.html
7-3-9. Air Traffic Wake Turbulence Separations
a. Because of the possible effects of wake turbulence, controllers are
required to apply no less than specified minimum separation for aircraft
operating behind a heavy jet and, in certain instances, behind large
nonheavy aircraft (i.e., B757 aircraft).
1. Separation is applied to aircraft operating directly behind a
heavy/B757 jet at the same altitude or less than 1,000 feet below:
(a) Heavy jet behind heavy jet-4 miles.
(b) Large/heavy behind B757 - 4 miles.
(c) Small behind B757 - 5 miles.
(d) Small/large aircraft behind heavy jet - 5 miles.
2. Also, separation, measured at the time the preceding aircraft is over
the landing threshold, is provided to small aircraft:
(a) Small aircraft landing behind heavy jet - 6 miles.
(b) Small aircraft landing behind B757 - 5 miles.
(c) Small aircraft landing behind large aircraft- 4 miles."
etc.
You can see that while a 757 isn't a "heavy", it might as well be.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
Every program has two purposes -- one for which it was written and
another for which it wasn't.
Tom Sevart
"Rick Tyler" <rht...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:peaigu4j1ofchesc1...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> There *was* no hijacked jumbo jet, darnit.
> >
> >I would like to see the conspiracy nuts try to explain this to the
families
> >of everyone on board.
> >
> *sigh*
>
> Karen was being too clever by half. The jet that crashed the Pentagon
> was a narrow-body, not a jumbo.
I knew what she meant. But I would still like to see the conspiracy nuts
try to explain to the families of everyone on board that airliner how it was
a truck bomb that damaged the pentagon, and that they're mistaken if they
think their loved ones even existed, much less boarded that plane that day.
There were four jets hijacked that day. If a truck bomb hit the Pentagon,
that only leaves three jets accounted for.
But then again, facts never matter to conspiracy theorists.
Tom "conspiracy theorist = I am right, any evidence to the contrary was
manufactured in order to discredit me" Sevart
deacon b.
message that said, at least in part:
> Ahhh. I see. The giant hole in the side of the pentagon was actually
> the muzzle blast from a giant top sekrit weapon under development
> inside. Sadly, it was still located in an interior lab, but the
> military, being the military, decided to just fire it right thru
> the wall to bring down those pesky furriners and save amurrika for
> motherhood and apple pie and honda motors.
It was actually a weather control experiment gone wrong.
http://www.iowafarmer.com/corncam/hail.htm
deke
--
"We at the 'Daily Show' are as concerned about drugs
as the next show - which happens to be a 'Saturday
Night Live' rerun" -- Stephen Colbert
Simon Slavin
> I don't know enough to tell whether Von Danikin really believed his
> stuff or not.
EvD was interviewed by a female interviewer determined to tackle
him on one of the more obviously distorted facts in his books.
Interviewer: Did you now know that these marking were actually
made in the 20th century when you wrote the book ?
von Daniken: I could spend ten minutes answering your question
in great depth or we could get into one of my six
Rolls Royces and drive to my villa where I could
ask one of my two chefs to prepare a champagne
dinner for us. Which would you prefer ?
I've exaggerated the quote a little but you get the point.
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | [One] thing that worries me about Bush and
No junk email please. | Blair's "war on terrorism" is: how will they
| know when they've won it ? -- Terry Jones
THE FRENCH WAS THERE
Rick Tyler
>"Rick Tyler" <rht...@attbi.com> wrote
>> >>
>> >> There *was* no hijacked jumbo jet, darnit.
>> >
>> >I would like to see the conspiracy nuts try to explain this to the
>families
>> >of everyone on board.
>> >
>> Karen was being too clever by half. The jet that crashed the Pentagon
>> was a narrow-body, not a jumbo.
>
>I knew what she meant. But I would still like to see the conspiracy nuts
>try to explain to the families of everyone on board that airliner how it was
>a truck bomb that damaged the pentagon, and that they're mistaken if they
>think their loved ones even existed, much less boarded that plane that day.
Then why did you write, "I would like to see..."? Either Karen's
point was that it wasn't a jumbo jet, or it was that there was no
hijacking. Knowing Karen's Usenetpersona, I doubted that she was a
conspiracy kook, and went with the idea that she meant "not a jumbo"
and that you misunderstood.
If you *did* understand her, I don't have an idea in hell how your
response had anything to do with her post.
-- Rick "Exactly the sort of tedious, tortured thread I try to avoid,
but inexplicably did not this time" Tyler
Tom Sevart
> If you *did* understand her, I don't have an idea in hell how your
> response had anything to do with her post.
I was going back to the way the conspiracy kooks try to provide "proof" for
their theories, but ignore the proof in the bigger picture. In other words,
I've seen pleny of speculation that it was a truck bomb that damaged the
Pentagon, but I haven't seen any conspiracy kooks try to explain away the
evidence of the hijacked aircraft.
Tom "going to stop now, I'm sure the NSA's computers are going nuts with
these posts" Sevart
Lee Ayrton
> I knew what she meant. But I would still like to see the conspiracy nuts
> try to explain to the families of everyone on board that airliner how it was
> a truck bomb that damaged the pentagon, and that they're mistaken if they
Clearly the truck was _disguised_ as a jetliner....
Lee "The miracle of deinstitutionalization, driving the aluminium foil
industry to record profits." Ayrton
--
"It astounds me that even with the incandescent light of cluefulness
pervading the porch of AFU that so many gormless moths are twatting
their empty little heads against it."
Paul Sweeney ponders the infinite in AFU.
Jim Cambias
<n2uhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Rick Tyler" <rht...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:tmhlguc6smonfubvf...@4ax.com...
>
> > If you *did* understand her, I don't have an idea in hell how your
> > response had anything to do with her post.
>
> I was going back to the way the conspiracy kooks try to provide "proof" for
> their theories, but ignore the proof in the bigger picture. In other words,
> I've seen pleny of speculation that it was a truck bomb that damaged the
> Pentagon, but I haven't seen any conspiracy kooks try to explain away the
> evidence of the hijacked aircraft.
>
The thing I don't get is WHY? WHY would the Bush administration want to
make it seem a plane hit the Pentagon if it was a truck bomb? WHY would
they waste time putting together this elaborate charade at a time when
they were rather busy with other things? I man, imagine this: Bush is in
the school in Texas and gets word of the attack -- would his first
reaction really be "Hey, let's organize some kind of massive deception
campaign, just for the hell of it!" It makes no sense.
I also don't understand why conspiracy theorists need to make something
like this up -- I mean, the attacks _really were_ the work of a sinister
secret cabal -- the Al Qaeda terrorists. What more do they want?
Cambias
Ulo Melton
(Jim Cambias) wrote:
>The thing I don't get is WHY? WHY would the Bush administration want to
>make it seem a plane hit the Pentagon if it was a truck bomb? WHY would
>they waste time putting together this elaborate charade at a time when
>they were rather busy with other things?
No no no no no. *Never* ask that question of a Conspiracy Kook, for
that way lies madness. The CK will give you an answer containing
several nutbar statements. Each time you try to argue against one of
the nutbar statements, you'll get an answer with several more
looney-binisms. Each time you try to argue against one of those, etc.
You'll soon find yourself awash and exhausted in a sea of nonsense,
and ready to grab the life preserver thrown you by the CK from the
deck of the SS Headfuck. Then you'll go sailing off into La-La Land,
where the aliens from Area 51 are plotting the assassination of
President Kennedy aboard TWA800.
>I man, imagine this: Bush is in
>the school in Texas and gets word of the attack -- would his first
>reaction really be "Hey, let's organize some kind of massive deception
>campaign, just for the hell of it!" It makes no sense.
Good. Hold that thought.
>I also don't understand why conspiracy theorists need to make something
>like this up -- I mean, the attacks _really were_ the work of a sinister
>secret cabal -- the Al Qaeda terrorists. What more do they want?
Circles within circles within squares within triangles, all of them
posing as manhole covers manufactured by the CIA. Don't ask me why.
--
Ulo Melton (melt...@sewergator.com)
http://www.sewergator.com - Your Pipeline To Adventure
David Lesher
>>Oops. I think I called it a widebody elsewhere. 757 (we didn't fly
>>those, and I always confuse them with the 767) is classified as a "heavy"
>>but is, in fact, single-aisle. Even farther from being a jumbo.
>I believe (entirely with a citable reference) that the 757 was
>classified as a "heavy" because it makes nasty wake turbulence (as bad
>as a 747 perhaps?). I seem to remember (motto contest) that Boeing
>fought the classification (or at least whined about it) because it
>meant greater aircraft-to-aircraft following distances in the air and
>longer times between landings and takeoffs -- all of which makes the
>757 slightly less attractive to airlines. Or something.
One difference between a "heavy" and not is hidden in the little
3-letter abbreviation: DCA.
If the 757 is now a heavy, count me surprised. I was educated as to
the above by my FAAfriend.
Mikko Peltoniemi
> a jumbo. (What, besides a 747, *is* a jumbo? L1011? I can never
777, DC-10, MD-11. At least these are Jumbo Jets. Of course the
A380 would be too, but there's none of those around, yet.
Tom Sevart
"Jim Cambias" <cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com> wrote in message
news:cambias-1606...@diakelly.ppp.mtholyoke.edu...
> The thing I don't get is WHY?
My thoughts exactly. Whether it was an aircraft crashing into the building
or a truck exploding, it was still a deadly attack.
> I also don't understand why conspiracy theorists need to make something
> like this up -- I mean, the attacks _really were_ the work of a sinister
> secret cabal -- the Al Qaeda terrorists. What more do they want?
My guess is that they're trying to find some way to make it look like the
government is lying about something, which anti-government conspiracy
theorists love. I think it's simply more "you can't trust the government"
rhetoric. If they can't find something tangible, they'll make something up.
On the other hand, never try to apply logic to conspiracy theories. They'll
always find conspiracies where none exist, and no amount of contrary
evidence will dissuade them from their beliefs. Sometimes fantasy is more
fun than reality.
Tom
Tom Sevart
"Ulo Melton" <melt...@sewergator.com> wrote in message
news:3d0d0376...@news.mindspring.com...
> The CK will give you an answer containing
> several nutbar statements. Each time you try to argue against one of
> the nutbar statements, you'll get an answer with several more
> looney-binisms. Each time you try to argue against one of those, etc.
> You'll soon find yourself awash and exhausted in a sea of nonsense,
And if you try too hard to refute their claims, then you become part of the
conspiracy. On conspiracy internet message boards, anyone claiming that a
conspiracy theory is false is usually labeled a "government disinformation
agent."
Tom
Richard Fitzpatrick
>
> What, besides a 747, *is* a jumbo? L1011? I can never
> remember, other than no other Boeings are.
Some time ago, one occasionally might have heard a DC-10 referred to
as a "jumbo". ISTR that to specify a 747, the term was a "Jumbo Jet".
But it was only occasionally.
Richard "you could hear the capitals" Fitzpatrick.
Stephen Shepherd
IIRC, it originally referred to any "wide-bodied" airliner.
Simon Slavin
cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Jim Cambias) wrote:
> WHY would the Bush administration
BOP BOP BOP de BOP.
Nathan Tenny
Simon Slavin <sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost> wrote:
>In article <cambias-1606...@diakelly.ppp.mtholyoke.edu>,
>cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Jim Cambias) wrote:
>
>> WHY would the Bush administration
>
>BOP BOP BOP de BOP.
No, I don't think so; not unless you want to BoP the whole conspiracy-theory
genre. I think "WHY would the Bush administration [fake some portion of a
terrorist attack]" is a perfectly sensible line of inquiry through which to
approach the reasoning and motivation of the story.
Lots of possible *answers* to the question would be perfectly BoPable, but
I don't see those answers coming out of the woodwork here, and from where
I sit someone's already offered a politically unloaded answer.
NT
--
Nathan Tenny | A foolish consistency
Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA | recapitulates phylogeny.
<nten...@qualcomm.com> |
Paul Tomblin
>In article <B9341F47...@10.0.1.3>,
>Simon Slavin <sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost> wrote:
>>In article <cambias-1606...@diakelly.ppp.mtholyoke.edu>,
>>cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Jim Cambias) wrote:
>>> WHY would the Bush administration
>>BOP BOP BOP de BOP.
>No, I don't think so; not unless you want to BoP the whole conspiracy-theory
>genre. I think "WHY would the Bush administration [fake some portion of a
>terrorist attack]" is a perfectly sensible line of inquiry through which to
>approach the reasoning and motivation of the story.
No, "WHY would *any* government or government agency want..." is a
legitimate question. Saying "Bush administration" invites BOPpable
responses.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
"What we obtain too cheap we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that
gives everything its value." - Thomas Paine.
Jim Cambias
sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) wrote:
> In article <cambias-1606...@diakelly.ppp.mtholyoke.edu>,
> cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Jim Cambias) wrote:
>
> > WHY would the Bush administration
>
> BOP BOP BOP de BOP.
>
Wop bop a loo bop a lop bam boom, yourself. This isn't politics; I'm
wondering about the psychology of conspiracy theorists -- in particular
why they prefer an imaginary conspiracy to the very real one responsible.
The usual explanation is that conspiracy theories make big complex issues
easily solved -- if AIDS is caused by a secret CIA project, then to cure
it all we need to do is make the CIA cough up the miracle anti-AIDS
serum. Et cetera. They are, in a weird way, comforting.
But in this case, the conspiracy theory is, if anything, less comforting
than the truth. So why the appeal?
Cambias
Tom Sevart
"Paul Tomblin" <ptom...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:aelsil$5ia$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
> No, "WHY would *any* government or government agency want..." is a
> legitimate question. Saying "Bush administration" invites BOPpable
> responses.
Well, they are in the White House right now.
Tom
Jim Cambias
<n2uhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And they're the ones specifically being blamed. Nobody's accusing Tom
Daschle and the Congressional Budget Office of planning this. Your
high-quality conspiracies all have to come out of the Executive Branch.
Incidentally, as conspiracy theorists go, Americans are rank amateurs. I
was reading a book recently called _The Hidden Hand_ about conspiracy
beliefs in the Muslim middle east. Living in a society with no free
press, rigged or nonexistent elections, and with a legacy of colonial rule
apparently makes EVERYONE into conspiracy theorists. The book was written
pre-September 2001, but if anything recent events only confirmed the
author's points. His most depressing point was that he couldn't see any
cure short of forcible social engineering -- any public
relations/propaganda by the West to defuse conspiracy theories only helps
them.
Cambias
Charles A Lieberman
<cambias-1706...@diakelly.ppp.mtholyoke.edu>
>I'm
>wondering about the psychology of conspiracy theorists -- in particular
>why they prefer an imaginary conspiracy to the very real one responsible.
The BoP wasn't (or, at least, if I'd done it it wouldn't have been) on
you, it was on the phrasing of your post. Specifying the Bush
administration invites responses detailing the perfidy of the dastardly
Republicans. Were Gore president at the time, the same thing, mutatis
mutandi, would apply. If your question was "Why would the government
...?" you should have put it like that. If you really were asking
specifically about the Bush administration, the BoP applies. I imagine
that conspiracy theory types don't regard the parties as substantially
different in terms of evil.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "If you hit your brother-in-law with a cocktail
Brooklyn, NY, USA | napkin on a Tuesday in New Bedford, Connecticut,
calieber.tripod.com | he can charge you with assault and battery."
cali...@bigfoot.com | -JoAnne Schmitz, master criminal
lerae
"Tom Sevart" <n2uhc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aejle8$7gqcf$1...@ID-52518.news.dfncis.de...
> And if you try too hard to refute their claims, then you become part of
the
> conspiracy. On conspiracy internet message boards, anyone claiming that a
> conspiracy theory is false is usually labeled a "government disinformation
> agent."
What I don't understand is why someone would want to live that type of
misery. Don't they have any goals in life? Don't they have anything better
to do with their time than waste space and take up oxygen?????
How is it that people see shadows and conspiracies and coverups in every
single thing that happens. It's like they live in constant fear of the
"boogey-man" jumping out at them from just around the next corner. Sounds
rather tiring and horrid to me!
Thanks for the space.
Michael J. Lowrey
> the
> > conspiracy. On conspiracy internet message boards, anyone claiming that a
> > conspiracy theory is false is usually labeled a "government disinformation
> > agent."
>
> What I don't understand is why someone would want to live that type of
> misery. Don't they have any goals in life? Don't they have anything better
> to do with their time than waste space and take up oxygen?????
>
> How is it that people see shadows and conspiracies and coverups in every
> single thing that happens. It's like they live in constant fear of the
> "boogey-man" jumping out at them from just around the next corner. Sounds
> rather tiring and horrid to me!
The upside is the smug certainty that one is Not Like Lesser
Mortals; that one is really aware about The Awful Truth,
unlike the fools around one. Allegedly "secret," "hidden"
or "suppressed" information is a real turn-on for some
people. (It also tends to be more exciting than boring
concensus reality.)
--
Michael J. Lowrey
lerae
"Michael J. Lowrey" <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:3D0F9E64...@uwm.edu...
>
> The upside is the smug certainty that one is Not Like Lesser
> Mortals; that one is really aware about The Awful Truth,
> unlike the fools around one. Allegedly "secret," "hidden"
> or "suppressed" information is a real turn-on for some
> people. (It also tends to be more exciting than boring
> concensus reality.)
>
Ahhhhh-ha!!!!! That makes a perverse kind of sense to me. Like my 7 year
old who likes to feel that he is special so he makes up secret codes. Only
he knows them and so therefore he is special.
So I have a new approach to these wack-jobs. I don't knee-jerk to my son
every time he says something off the wall... that would only encourage him.
If I respond likewise to someone who is obviously not in a matured state of
reasoning I may have a better rate of success.
Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
Thanks for the space.
Drew Lawson
"Michael J. Lowrey" <oran...@uwm.edu> writes:
>lerae wrote:
>>
>> How is it that people see shadows and conspiracies and coverups in every
>> single thing that happens. It's like they live in constant fear of the
>> "boogey-man" jumping out at them from just around the next corner. Sounds
>> rather tiring and horrid to me!
>
>The upside is the smug certainty that one is Not Like Lesser
>Mortals; that one is really aware about The Awful Truth,
>unlike the fools around one. Allegedly "secret," "hidden"
>or "suppressed" information is a real turn-on for some
>people. (It also tends to be more exciting than boring
>concensus reality.)
Don't get too uppity there. The appeal in Intellectual Superiority
is the same here as in those areas supported by reality. Getting
off on the fact that you know the Latin roots of obscure words is
no more (or less) respectable than getting off on "knowing" that
Dubya is a pod person.
Drew "everyone in this group knows how good it feels" Lawson
--
Drew Lawson | Though it's just a memory,
dr...@furrfu.com | some memories last forever
David Lesher
A cow orkers friend came to our office that morning. He works in
the Navy Annex {Laserian: the building up on the hill next door}.
He heard and saw the Boeing pass overhead and heard the boom. He
does not claim to have seen the impact; I guess David Copperfield
could have made the aircraft vanish at the last second...
Jim Cambias
cali...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> Jim Cambias Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:44:42 GMT
> <cambias-1706...@diakelly.ppp.mtholyoke.edu>
> >I'm
> >wondering about the psychology of conspiracy theorists -- in particular
> >why they prefer an imaginary conspiracy to the very real one responsible.
>
> The BoP wasn't (or, at least, if I'd done it it wouldn't have been) on
> you, it was on the phrasing of your post. Specifying the Bush
> administration invites responses detailing the perfidy of the dastardly
> Republicans. Were Gore president at the time, the same thing, mutatis
> mutandi, would apply. If your question was "Why would the government
> ...?" you should have put it like that. If you really were asking
> specifically about the Bush administration, the BoP applies. I imagine
> that conspiracy theory types don't regard the parties as substantially
> different in terms of evil.
Okay, I guess. I still think you're being awfully picky. I mean, it's
the Bush Administration the current crop of conspiracy theorists are
accusing of conspiring to cause/permit/cover up the terrorist attacks.
Why not call a Bush a Bush? If, as you suggest, it were Gore who was
being accused, one would naturally ask why they were accusing Gore. Does
the BoP mean we can only mention political figures by title, not surname?
Cambias
(or "The Author Of This Post")
Ulo Melton
(Jim Cambias) wrote:
>Okay, I guess. I still think you're being awfully picky. I mean, it's
>the Bush Administration the current crop of conspiracy theorists are
>accusing of conspiring to cause/permit/cover up the terrorist attacks.
>Why not call a Bush a Bush? If, as you suggest, it were Gore who was
>being accused, one would naturally ask why they were accusing Gore. Does
>the BoP mean we can only mention political figures by title, not surname?
Your best bet is to rename the political figure in question so that
you're referring more to the event than to the person. Thus you would
have President Grassy Knoll, Lord Whore Ripper, President Florida
Election-Stealer, and so on. That way, controversy is avoided.
Drew Lawson
cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Jim Cambias) writes:
>In article <dkhugu4nl2rj7790k...@4ax.com>,
>cali...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
>> The BoP wasn't (or, at least, if I'd done it it wouldn't have been) on
>> you, it was on the phrasing of your post. Specifying the Bush
>> administration invites responses detailing the perfidy of the dastardly
>> Republicans. Were Gore president at the time, the same thing, mutatis
>Okay, I guess. I still think you're being awfully picky. I mean, it's
I tend to agree with you. Charles' suggestion is in the realm of
wise posting practice, but for the current round, as very specific
conspiracies, it is excessive to say you can't say "Bush."
If we were discussing Watergate conspiracies[1], I'd expect "Why
would {Nixon|Liddy|Dean} . . . "
But if you can step back and express the generic, it is probably
better. It avoids bruising partisan feelings, avoids grepping loons
and avoids boring meta-threads on the scope of the BoP.
Drew "like this one" Lawson
[1] beyond the ones that were proven, that is.
Simon Slavin
n_t_e_nn_y_@q_ual_c_o_m_m_.c_o_m (Nathan Tenny) wrote:
> Simon Slavin <sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost> wrote:
>
> >cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Jim Cambias) wrote:
> >
> >> WHY would the Bush administration
> >
> >BOP BOP BOP de BOP.
>
> No, I don't think so; not unless you want to BoP the whole conspiracy-theory
> genre. I think "WHY would the Bush administration [fake some portion of a
> terrorist attack]" is a perfectly sensible line of inquiry through which to
> approach the reasoning and motivation of the story.
Hmm. I would have been perfectly happy with 'why would anyone'.
I'd have been only a little disconfited by 'why would the
goverment'. It's the naming of one specific politician which
triggered my reaction.
Charles A Lieberman
cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Jim Cambias) wrote:
> Does
> the BoP mean we can only mention political figures by title, not surname?
Where preferable, yes. I maintain that there is nothing peculiar to Bush
or his reputation that required naming him specifically in your questin.
The "blacks in Brazil" line wouldn't have been attributed to Gore, not
just because he wasn't president, but for a variety of reasons I'm in no
mood to go into right now. The conspiracy theorists aren't so particular
about who's in the White House, if only because they typically regard
that person as a figurehead anyway. Drew's point about Watergate isn't
in opposition to this; Nixon comes across as kinda jumpy, not to say
paranoid, in _RN_, and he *wrote* that, so I don't imagine you could
substitute Humphrey to ay useful effect. Watergate was definitely the
men, ot the offices. But this one I think is the office.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "I guess you can't guarantee supernatural
Brooklyn, New York, USA | phenomena." --Rian from Newfoundland
http://calieber.tripod.com/index.html cali...@bigfoot.com
Harry MF Teasley
> "Tom Sevart" <n2uhc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:aejle8$7gqcf$1...@ID-52518.news.dfncis.de...
>> And if you try too hard to refute their claims, then you become part of
> the
>> conspiracy. On conspiracy internet message boards, anyone claiming that a
>> conspiracy theory is false is usually labeled a "government disinformation
>> agent."
I want that job. That would be *such* a cool job.
> How is it that people see shadows and conspiracies and coverups in every
> single thing that happens. It's like they live in constant fear of the
> "boogey-man" jumping out at them from just around the next corner. Sounds
> rather tiring and horrid to me!
People invent conspiracies because they want meaning. They want events to
happen for a reason, rather than simply happen.
Harry "you have someone to blame, then" Teasley
Drew Lawson
Harry MF Teasley <he...@panix.com> writes:
>lerae <le...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>> "Tom Sevart" <n2uhc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:aejle8$7gqcf$1...@ID-52518.news.dfncis.de...
>
>>> And if you try too hard to refute their claims, then you become part of
>> the
>>> conspiracy. On conspiracy internet message boards, anyone claiming that a
>>> conspiracy theory is false is usually labeled a "government disinformation
>>> agent."
>
>I want that job. That would be *such* a cool job.
Sure, but just *try* to get a straight answer on what the payscale is.
Simon Slavin
cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Jim Cambias) wrote:
> Does
> the BoP mean we can only mention political figures by title, not surname?
Your post was a defence of a political figure or point-of-view.
Now, it happened that you did it in the course of debunking
something but it could have been phrased in a non-partisan
manner. The way you phrased it was practically an invitation
to cross-post to alt.politics.bush.
Lon Stowell
>cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Jim Cambias) wrote:
>
>> Does
>> the BoP mean we can only mention political figures by title, not surname?
"the Poon Hound in Chief", "the Vegetable in Chief" would be suitable.
--
[Please add your own clever saying here]
Jim Cambias
sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) wrote:
> In article <cambias-1906...@diakelly.ppp.mtholyoke.edu>,
> cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Jim Cambias) wrote:
>
> > Does
> > the BoP mean we can only mention political figures by title, not surname?
>
> Your post was a defence of a political figure or point-of-view.
> Now, it happened that you did it in the course of debunking
> something but it could have been phrased in a non-partisan
> manner. The way you phrased it was practically an invitation
> to cross-post to alt.politics.bush.
>
I think you're being tremendously oversensitive about this, not to mention
massively inconsistent. Why haven't you been BOPping the entire
Ashcroft/breasts thread, then? Or all the gratuitous "shrub" jokes? Your
definition of "partisan" seems overly narrow and, well, partisan.
Cambias
Jim Cambias
> >In article <cambias-1906...@diakelly.ppp.mtholyoke.edu>,
> >cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Jim Cambias) wrote:
> >
> >> Does
> >> the BoP mean we can only mention political figures by title, not surname?
> Possibly terms such as "the First Bitch", "the Drunk Driver in Chief",
> "the Poon Hound in Chief", "the Vegetable in Chief" would be suitable.
Simon, I'm waiting for you to tell Lon he's violating the Ban on Politics...
Cambias
Chris Clarke
cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Jim Cambias) wrote:
> Why haven't you been BOPping the entire
> Ashcroft/breasts thread, then?
Why haven't you?
--
Chris Clarke | Editor, Faultline Magazine
www.faultline.org | California Environmental News and Information
Paul Blay
> In article <cambias-2106...@diakelly.ppp.mtholyoke.edu>,
> cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Jim Cambias) wrote:
>
> > Why haven't you been BOPping the entire
> > Ashcroft/breasts thread, then?
>
> Why haven't you?
Is there any chance of a Ban On discussion of BoP wherefores and particulars?
Before this descends to 'I know you are, but what am I?'
Chris Clarke
"Paul Blay" <ra...@saotome.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> "Chris Clarke" wrote ...
> > In article <cambias-2106...@diakelly.ppp.mtholyoke.edu>,
> > cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Jim Cambias) wrote:
> >
> > > Why haven't you been BOPping the entire
> > > Ashcroft/breasts thread, then?
> >
> > Why haven't you?
>
> Is there any chance of a Ban On discussion of BoP wherefores and particulars?
I think my response was germane, if a bit snarky and cryptic. If someone
finds a post to contravene the BoP, they should damn well say so
themselves rather than waiting for someone else to do it.[1]
Chris "it takes a village to suppress the villagers" Clarke
[1] Of course, I'm pretty sure that wasn't what Cambias was doing: I
think he's just unclear on the concept.
Charles A Lieberman
<cambias-2106...@diakelly.ppp.mtholyoke.edu>
>> >> Does
>> >> the BoP mean we can only mention political figures by title, not surname?
>> Possibly terms such as "the First Bitch", "the Drunk Driver in Chief",
>> "the Poon Hound in Chief", "the Vegetable in Chief" would be suitable.
>
>Simon, I'm waiting for you to tell Lon he's violating the Ban on Politics...
Except if he doesn't explicitly associate specific politicians with the
epithets, it's not. "Bitch" has been applied to the last five
presidents' wives by someone. Just off the top of my head I can think of
three candidates for "poon hound" (admittedly all in the same party).
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "These are physics questions and I don't
Brooklyn, New York, USA | know." -- Simon Slavin, specialist.
http://calieber.tripod.com/ cali...@bigfoot.com
Chris Clarke
Charles A Lieberman <cali...@bigfoot.co.m> wrote:
> Just off the top of my head I can think of
> three candidates for "poon hound" (admittedly all in the same party).
Why do you think they called him "Smilin' Cal"?
Drew Lawson
cali...@bigfoot.com writes:
>Jim Cambias Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:16:24 GMT
><cambias-2106...@diakelly.ppp.mtholyoke.edu>
>>> >> Does
>>> >> the BoP mean we can only mention political figures by title, not surname?
>>> Possibly terms such as "the First Bitch", "the Drunk Driver in Chief",
>>> "the Poon Hound in Chief", "the Vegetable in Chief" would be suitable.
>>
>>Simon, I'm waiting for you to tell Lon he's violating the Ban on Politics...
>
>Except if he doesn't explicitly associate specific politicians with the
>epithets, it's not. "Bitch" has been applied to the last five
Ah, so if the original question had been posed as:
Why would the frat boy, election stealing, Texas yahoo
Administration want to fake a plane crash?
It would be okay? Because it is general enough that it could be
refering to any Presidential administration?
Drew "BoP is hard!" Lawson
lerae
"Chris Clarke" <ccl...@faultline.org> wrote in message >BoP, > [1] Of
course, I'm pretty sure that wasn't what >Cambias was doing: I
> think he's just unclear on the concept.
Yes, I can relate to that as I have no clear idea what a BoP is. I tried to
think of all kinds of clever little phrases, but, even in the context of its
usage, am unable to determine the meaning :) Well, I do get that it's a
censure of some kind... the specifics escape me.
Thanks for the space.
Charles A Lieberman
<cambias-2106...@diakelly.ppp.mtholyoke.edu>
>Why haven't you been BOPping the entire
>Ashcroft/breasts thread, then? Or all the gratuitous "shrub" jokes? Your
>definition of "partisan" seems overly narrow and, well, partisan.
People have been BoPping the Ashcroft/breasts thread. And I think you
and Jerry G****** have been hallucinating the vast quantities of "shrub"
jokes, gratuitous or otherwise.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "[T]he targets of Jesus' exhortation are not so
Brooklyn, NY, USA | much moralizing as tossing bloody great stones at
calieber.tripod.com | a woman caught in adultery."
cali...@bigfoot.com | -- Sherilyn exegetes John 8:7
Simon Slavin
Harry MF Teasley <he...@panix.com> wrote:
> lerae <le...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > "Tom Sevart" <n2uhc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:aejle8$7gqcf$1...@ID-52518.news.dfncis.de...
>
> >> And if you try too hard to refute their
> >> claims, then you become part of the
> >> conspiracy. On conspiracy internet
> >> message boards, anyone claiming that a
> >> conspiracy theory is false is usually
> >> labeled a "government disinformation
> >> agent."
>
> I want that job. That would be *such* a cool job.
Newsflash: you're already doing it. There are only two problems:
A) You don't know which of the factoids you're spreading are
goverment misinformation.
B) You're not being paid.
> > How is it that people see shadows and
> > conspiracies and coverups in every
> > single thing that happens. It's like
> > they live in constant fear of the
> > "boogey-man" jumping out at them from
> > just around the next corner. Sounds
> > rather tiring and horrid to me!
>
> People invent conspiracies because they
> want meaning. They want events to
> happen for a reason, rather than simply happen.
People invent conspiracies because that's the only way they can
justify their lack of success. Being conspired-against is a great
reason to fail: it's far more difficult to admit that you're so
incompetent that you can't overcome your /natural/ disadvantages
to become rules of the known Galaxies.
Alternatively: People invent conspiracies as a form of superiority
complex: you'd have to be pretty important for it to be worth
conspiring against you.
Alternatively: People invent conspiracies because it's more fun
than simply admitting that the world is random. Which is roughly
what you said.
Lon Stowell
Please. A bruise on the head from someone as respected as Simon
would be worn as a badge of honor.
In the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn, "Aw say, thassa joke
there son..."
Lon Stowell
Drew Lawson <dr...@furrfu.com> wrote:
>In article <ggl6hu40g53ugplsd...@4ax.com>
> cali...@bigfoot.com writes:
>>Jim Cambias Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:16:24 GMT
>><cambias-2106...@diakelly.ppp.mtholyoke.edu>
>>>> >> Does
>>>> >> the BoP mean we can only mention political figures by title, not surname?
>>>> Possibly terms such as "the First Bitch", "the Drunk Driver in Chief",
>>>> "the Poon Hound in Chief", "the Vegetable in Chief" would be suitable.
>>>
>>>Simon, I'm waiting for you to tell Lon he's violating the Ban on Politics...
>>
>>Except if he doesn't explicitly associate specific politicians with the
>>epithets, it's not. "Bitch" has been applied to the last five
>
>Ah, so if the original question had been posed as:
>
> Why would the frat boy, election stealing, Texas yahoo
> Administration want to fake a plane crash?
>
>It would be okay? Because it is general enough that it could be
>refering to any Presidential administration?
I believe it would be obligatory to leave off the word "Texas"
so as to be sufficiently obscure.
Lee Ayrton
> >Simon, I'm waiting for you to tell Lon he's violating the Ban on Politics...
>
> Except if he doesn't explicitly associate specific politicians with the
> epithets, it's not. "Bitch" has been applied to the last five
> presidents' wives by someone. Just off the top of my head I can think of
> three candidates for "poon hound" (admittedly all in the same party).
Be fair, now. Of the three, Jimmy Carter only lusted in his heart.
John Gilmer
"Lee Ayrton" <lay...@ntplx.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.43.02062...@sea.ntplx.net...
The BIG Three are LBJ, JFK, and BJ (Clinton.)
FDR is in the running.
Truman was said to refuse to be in the same room alone with any woman other
than his wife.
Hatunen
Stowell) wrote:
> In the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn, "Aw say, thassa joke
> there son..."
That was actually Senator Beauregard Claghorn. He lived down the alley
from Mrs Nussbaum and Titus Moody.
******* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@worldnet.att.net) *******
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
David Wnsemius
news:0yJQ8.269992$352.23743@sccrnsc02:
In order to avoid interminable escapism, no-clear-ideaism, and unable-to-
determinism, hie your hiene over to GoogleGroups Advanced search page
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search and learn to avoid troutism.
Put the name of this froup in the appropriate slut and search for
"survival guide" and, after imbibing at that fount, search for "style-
guide". It is instructive to read the Old Ones as well as the newer
versions.
I found Lara Hopkins' (not-an-old-one) discussion of the afulect
excellently scriven. Beware, some have recently suggested that her
electrons, vowels, or toilet spin differently.
David "second stage nubie but orking on becoming less" Winsemius.
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> That was actually Senator Beauregard Claghorn. He lived down the alley
> from Mrs Nussbaum and Titus Moody.
Also Mrs. Nussbaum's husband Pierre, and Baron Munchausen.
Charles
--
"And some rin up hill and down dale, knapping the
chucky stanes to pieces wi' hammers, like sae mony
road-makers run daft -- they say it is to see how
the warld was made!"
Simon Slavin
"lerae" <le...@attbi.com> wrote:
> Yes, I can relate to that as I have no clear idea what a BoP is.
Ban on Politics. Refers to the fact that the majority of the
regular posters to this group don't want to see political
advocation and arguments on this group. But it also refers
to a ban on all sorts of pointless arguments which never
settle anything: religion, aborti*n, g*n c*ntr*l, etc..
We're kind of hypersensitive about any subject which might
turn into such an argument.
For more such explanations see the style-guide which I post
on or about the first day of every month.
lerae
"Simon Slavin" <sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost> wrote in message
>
> Ban on Politics.
Thank you all who responded. I'm sure it must get old with all the new
folks, but your patience is greatly appreciated :)
Thanks for the space,
Rachael
Rick Tyler
sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) wrote:
>Ban on Politics. Refers to the fact that the majority of the
>regular posters to this group don't want to see political
>advocation and arguments on this group. But it also refers
>to a ban on all sorts of pointless arguments which never
>settle anything: religion, aborti*n, g*n c*ntr*l, etc..
What we *really* like is songs about m*st*rb*t**n!
-- Rick "Punctuated with smileys" Tyler
__________________________________________________________________
"Ignorant voracity -- a wingless vulture -- can soar only into the
depths of ignominy." Patrick O'Brian
Viv
uttered:
>Put the name of this froup in the appropriate slut
...said the actress to the bishop.
Vivienne Smythe
--
"Words were indeed insubstantial. They were as soft as water, but they were
also as powerful as water and now they were rushing over the audience,
eroding the levees of veracity and carrying away the past."
Terry Pratchett's Granny Weatherwax sees the need for www.urbanlegends.com