United 93

[Scott Lowther]

Saw U-93 Saturday on a very good and very big screen. Quite an
astonishing moive... every bit as good as it could possibly have been.
It is *not* exploitative, and by the gods it is *not* too early to have
movies about 9/11.

Looking at boxofficemojo.com, the movie only did $11.6 million dollars
worth on it's first weekend... hardly blockbuster. Fortunately, the
budget was low, only $15 million or so; this was achieved by having no
big names (I vaguely recognized a few of the actors), and having almost
no special effects; just about every set was in the plane or in one of a
number of aviation control rooms.

The theater I went to was only a fraction full. At the end of the movie
- it ends very abruptly, but appropriately so - the theater was silent
except for one sound: sobbing. No chitchat *at* *all*.

Highly recommended.

--
Collectivism killed 100 million people, and all I got was this lousy sig.

[Attuarii]

Scott Lowther wrote:

I don't believe the movie has any basis in what really happened on that
plane.

There are some technical errors in the following video. For example, the
evidence that AA77 /did/ hit the Pentagon seems compelling to me. I'm also
not persuaded about the alleged missiles being fired from the jets just
before they hit the WTC. If you click on the sixth frame, you will see
some interesting stuff about UAL 93.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

But the following is extremely conspicuous: "A combination of an
uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring
the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel
members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in
extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight93.html

--
"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses
or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not
change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
Giordano Bruno

[Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum)]

The claim that a plane crashed into the Pentagon building is
riduculous, unless the plane was able to fold back its wings before the
impact!

[lex...@ix.netcom.com]

Oy. Apparently you are unaware that the Pentagon *is* built like a
fortress.

[lex...@ix.netcom.com]

Dave Barry, a humor writer, wrote an unfunny (but very good) essay
about United 93 and the crash site about a year after the event. It's
worth a read:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/3972571.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

[Doug Freyburger]

And that the plane clipped the ground on the way in and took
significant damage. Some of the destroyed street lights were
displayed for a while.

And there there are witnesses who saw the plane going in. What
they really said is the plane craashed into the parking lot and
the debris smashed into the building. A building as big as the
Pentagon and the hijarkers *missed*. Flying a jumbo airliner
is *not* for suicidal amateurs.

[lex...@ix.netcom.com]

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum) wrote:
> >
> > > The claim that a plane crashed into the Pentagon building is
> > > riduculous, unless the plane was able to fold back its wings before the
> > > impact!
> >
> > Oy. Apparently you are unaware that the Pentagon *is* built like a
> > fortress.
>
> And that the plane clipped the ground on the way in and took
> significant damage. Some of the destroyed street lights were
> displayed for a while.
>
> And there there are witnesses who saw the plane going in.

Now, don't go confusing the children with facts. Let them go on
believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Platypus and the
9/11-Mossad-Illumninatti conspiracy for a while longer.

What
> they really said is the plane craashed into the parking lot and
> the debris smashed into the building. A building as big as the
> Pentagon and the hijarkers *missed*. Flying a jumbo airliner
> is *not* for suicidal amateurs.

For which we are so much the better off. Had the hijackers had their
act a bit better together, they would have timed their WTC impacts
closer together - to preclude people in the other building evacuating -
and they would have hit lower down - to bring the towers down quicker,
with more people trapped above the impact points. And hitting a little
later in the day would have ramped up the deathtoll as well.

Fortunately, while Islamists are certainly evil and often crazy,
"smart" doesn't seem to really describe most of them. *Un*fortunately,
"dumb" doesn't describe *all* of them.

Back to the movie: much of the dialog in the plane is, of course,
conjectural. However, there is one character - and associated small
episodes - that I'd really love to find out if he was for real or not.
One of the passengers is a stock-standard Euroweenie straight out of
central casting; accent sounds German, but could've been Belgian,
Dutch, maybe even French. He wanted to talk with the hijackers... If We
Play Along We'll Be Fine. In the end, he tried to warn the hijackers,
and recieved a fellow-passenger-applied beatdown as a result. It's the
sort of thing that seems like it was made up... but given that that's
almost exactly the way several EU nations dealt with Iraq before the
war, it sounds plausible.

[Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum)]

Check
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php.#Main

for more on the alleged "air plane attack" on the Pentagon.

Michael Martin - HLF

[lex...@ix.netcom.com]

Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum) wrote:

> Check
> http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php.#Main
>
> for more on the alleged "air plane attack" on the Pentagon.

Not the funniest thing I've ever seen, but a good distillation of
lunacy.

[Doug Freyburger]

Michael does seem to think humans evolved on Antarctica and
Atlantis was Ultima Thule.

He doesn't get that Antarctica has been under ice since before
even apes evolved but it was tropical during the time of the
dinosaurs. Plate tectonics had it wander for a while but it's been
stable at the pole for a long time now.

As to Ultima Thule the shoreline was 140 meters lower than it
is now, but there's that problem of a kilometer of solid ice in
the area, what with it being the ice age and all. The problem
is more with mythical Altantis, though. Stone age folks did live
on the glaciers.

[Doug Freyburger]

Scott Lowther wrote:
>
> Saw U-93 Saturday on a very good and very big screen.

My nephew Brian had a business trip scheduled complete with
airline tickets. At the last minute the trip was cancelled and he
had printed tickets that would not be used. Turns out his
return leg back from NYC to SF would have been on United
flight 93. He now has the ticket framed. Very creepy.

All 4 planes were scheduled flights that were normally full.
That day they were under half full. Each person who missed
their flight had a different reason. One of those subjective
experiences that explains why I am not an atheist but also
why when I say the Aesir "exist" I have no clue what the
word means, just that they cause stuff like folks missing
planes.

[Ceddie]

lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

He wanted to talk with the hijackers... If We
> Play Along We'll Be Fine. In the end, he tried to warn the hijackers,
> and recieved a fellow-passenger-applied beatdown as a result. It's the
> sort of thing that seems like it was made up... but given that that's
> almost exactly the way several EU nations dealt with Iraq before the
> war, it sounds plausible.

Sometimes called diplomacy, you know. The invasion was based on lies
and more lies. For me and all the others who symphatized with the US
and defended their policy, the facts came in the end as a blow to the
face. Look at the situation now. The war can´t by any stretch of the
imagination be called a success. Then what is it? Failure, based on
lies, I´m afraid. Would probably have been better to go on talking
with Saddam - a nasty business, I know, but in the end rationality will
prevail. C.

[El Barbaro del Ritmo]

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> My nephew Brian had a business trip scheduled complete with
> airline tickets. At the last minute the trip was cancelled and he
> had printed tickets that would not be used. Turns out his
> return leg back from NYC to SF would have been on United
> flight 93. He now has the ticket framed. Very creepy.

I was on a United flight from Dulles to LAX at about the time the
attack was originally scheduled to happen, that Summer. My Mom was a
flight attendent at the time.

The planners computed that the choice of commercial aircraft as weapons
would not only achieve the destructiveness they sought, but touch close
to home to great many people, in this airborne nation, but you can't
come much closer than your nephew.

> All 4 planes were scheduled flights that were normally full.
> That day they were under half full. Each person who missed
> their flight had a different reason. One of those subjective
> experiences that explains why I am not an atheist but also
> why when I say the Aesir "exist" I have no clue what the
> word means, just that they cause stuff like folks missing
> planes.

Hopefully not sounding like a Wise Guy...

When Christians say that God saved them from a disaster in that manner,
I ask if that means they credit him with killing the rest.

It's a serious question when I ask it, because I honestly wonder "what
did God (or the gods) know, and when did he (they) know it?"

***
Fighting the Hostile Takeover
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0501-21.htm

My links
http://www.ericandsuzanne.com/Links.html
with a newsfeed from Information Clearing House
***

[Scott Lowther]

Ceddie wrote:

>lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>He wanted to talk with the hijackers... If We
>
>
>>Play Along We'll Be Fine. In the end, he tried to warn the hijackers,
>>and recieved a fellow-passenger-applied beatdown as a result. It's the
>>sort of thing that seems like it was made up... but given that that's
>>almost exactly the way several EU nations dealt with Iraq before the
>>war, it sounds plausible.
>>
>>
>
>Sometimes called diplomacy, you know.
>

Yes. As practiced by the likes of Jimmah Cahtah and Neville Chamberlain.
Sometimes diplomacy *doesn't* work. Wouldn't have worked worth a sloppy
wet fart on the hijackers, for instance.

>The invasion was based on lies
>and more lies.
>

Really? What are you basing that assessemnt on? At the time, the only
lies around were those by Saddam and those benefitting fromt he Oil For
Food scam.

> For me and all the others who symphatized with the US
>and defended their policy, the facts came in the end as a blow to the
>face. Look at the situation now. The war can“t by any stretch of the
>imagination be called a success.
>

Really? The stated purpose of the war was to take down Saddam's regime
and install a democracy. Both of these have been achieved. The democracy
in place is by no stretch of the imagination a particualrly good one,
but it's better than just about all the other Arab nations.

>Then what is it? Failure, based on
>lies, I“m afraid. Would probably have been better to go on talking
>with Saddam - a nasty business, I know, but in the end rationality will
>prevail.
>

Woudl you "talk" with Surt?

[Romauld]

Recently, a script from Scott Lowther arrived, in which they said:

: Saw U-93 Saturday on a very good and very big screen. Quite an

: astonishing moive... every bit as good as it could possibly have been.
: It is *not* exploitative, and by the gods it is *not* too early to have
: movies about 9/11.

Everything I've seen about it says I want to see it, and says it's
been done amazingly well (mind you, it's a British project, which might
explains some of that: social detachment, etc.)

~R
--
"Of all places in the desert for Moses to put down his staff, he had to
choose Israel: the only part without any oil. Any place else, and the
Jews coulda been rich!" - An old Jewish man, NY Natural History Museum
http://www.livejournal.com/users/overheardnyc/768869.html

[Romauld]

Recently, a script from Attuarii arrived, in which they said:

: I don't believe the movie has any basis in what really happened on that
: plane.

You're wrong, actually. One of the reasons that I'm interested in seeing it
is that a great deal of the script is taken from transcripts of telephone
calls and dictaphone recordings on the flight: some material is extrapolated
and is clearly going to be fictional but a lot of it isn't.

This is one of the reasons that, as far as I'm aware, a number of complaints
have been raised by people who lost family in the WTC but no-one who lost
someone on that plane has complained, and the vast majority have been actively
involved in the research.

[Ceddie]

Scott Lowther wrote:
> >The invasion was based on lies
> >and more lies.
> >
>
> Really? What are you basing that assessemnt on? At the time, the only
> lies around were those by Saddam and those benefitting fromt he Oil For
> Food scam.

WMD, Scott, remember Powell. A disgrace it was.

> > For me and all the others who symphatized with the US
> >and defended their policy, the facts came in the end as a blow to the
> >face. Look at the situation now. The war can´t by any stretch of the
> >imagination be called a success.
> >
> Really? The stated purpose of the war was to take down Saddam's regime
> and install a democracy. Both of these have been achieved. The democracy
> in place is by no stretch of the imagination a particualrly good one,
> but it's better than just about all the other Arab nations.

It´s a civil war over there.
>

> Woudl you "talk" with Surt?
>

Hehe, I will think it over :)

C

[Attuarii]

Romauld wrote:

> Recently, a script from Scott Lowther arrived, in which they said:
>
> : Saw U-93 Saturday on a very good and very big screen. Quite an
> : astonishing moive... every bit as good as it could possibly have been.
> : It is *not* exploitative, and by the gods it is *not* too early to have
> : movies about 9/11.
>
> Everything I've seen about it says I want to see it, and says it's
> been done amazingly well (mind you, it's a British project, which might
> explains some of that: social detachment, etc.)
>
> ~R

Right on up there with swindler's List, no doubt.

[Attuarii]

Romauld wrote:

> Recently, a script from Attuarii arrived, in which they said:
>
> : I don't believe the movie has any basis in what really happened on that
> : plane.
>
> You're wrong, actually. One of the reasons that I'm interested in seeing
> it is that a great deal of the script is taken from transcripts of
> telephone calls and dictaphone recordings on the flight: some material is
> extrapolated and is clearly going to be fictional but a lot of it isn't.
>
> This is one of the reasons that, as far as I'm aware, a number of
> complaints have been raised by people who lost family in the WTC but
> no-one who lost someone on that plane has complained, and the vast
> majority have been actively involved in the research.
>
> ~R

In 2001 the alleged phone calls that were made from air planes were
virtually impossible. It is far more likely the people were either on the
ground with guns to their heads, or the high tech perpetrators had sampled
the voices of the victims and were using voice synthesis. The alleged CVR
record is likewise extremely suspect. It supposedly captured the voices of
people in the passenger cabin. From what I've been reading that is
virtually impossible. There are other inconsistencies in the official
conspiracy theory.

This document is an insult to primate intelligence:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

[lex...@ix.netcom.com]

Ceddie wrote:
> Scott Lowther wrote:
> > >The invasion was based on lies
> > >and more lies.
> > >
> >
> > Really? What are you basing that assessemnt on? At the time, the only
> > lies around were those by Saddam and those benefitting fromt he Oil For
> > Food scam.
>
> WMD, Scott, remember Powell.

WMD was hardly the sole reason for the war. And if you've been missing
the news the last few months, translatiosn of all those millions of
Iraqi documents have been coming out, and the Iraqi *military* believed
that they had active WMD programs. Evidence is quite good that in the
weeks prior to the invasion, the chemical weapons were moved to Syria
- apparently with the aid of the Russians, who had been instrumental in
the Iraqi WMD program, and who had a vested interest in covering it up.

> A disgrace it was.

Indeed. Should have moved *years* sooner on that score.

> It´s a civil war over there.

So reports the media, but *not* the people on the ground.

> > Woudl you "talk" with Surt?
> >
>
> Hehe, I will think it over :)

Do so. Diplomacy only works when the person you're trying to be
diplomatic with has much the same values as you. For a large fraction
of the world, a concession on your part is seen as a sign of weakness,
and they will lie cheat and stab you in the back. For your average
thug, bully, terrorist, religious nut or brutal dictator, "diplomacy"
is another word for "delaying action."

[Attuarii]

Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum) wrote:

I don't agree. I'll try to find the site where I saw the persuasive
analysis. I think it was on www.911research.org, but I need to review it.

I will say, there are problems with the alleged UAL 93 impact site data.
This is how things appear right now:

* No fireball where a fuel laden jet allegedly crashed

* smoke cloud looks like ordinance strike

* No plane - at most a few small fragments

* Large chunk of engine allegedly flew over a mile from the crash site while
the rest of the craft allegedly burrowed into the ground so deep it could
not be seen

* Debris reported in a lake miles away

* No evidence of jet fuel at the crash site

* Reports of one or more suspicious aircraft in the area

* Witness accounts are consistent with a shoot-down

I have a very simple question about the pictures of the alleged impact
"crater" where UAL 93 supposedly crashed. If the plane did actually hit
the ground in one piece, then why did a large piece an engine bounce over a
mile while the rest of the plane supposedly burrowed into the ground beyond
sight?

http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/gallery.html

http://webfairy.org/93

[Attuarii]

El Barbaro del Ritmo wrote:

> Doug Freyburger wrote:
...

> I was on a United flight from Dulles to LAX at about the time the
> attack was originally scheduled to happen, that Summer. My Mom was a
> flight attendent at the time.
>
> The planners computed that the choice of commercial aircraft as weapons
> would not only achieve the destructiveness they sought, but touch close
> to home to great many people, in this airborne nation, but you can't
> come much closer than your nephew.

There appear to be some scheduling anomalies regarding the flights that
where hijacked on 9/11/01.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa_flts/aa_flts.htm

>> All 4 planes were scheduled flights that were normally full.
>> That day they were under half full. Each person who missed
>> their flight had a different reason. One of those subjective
>> experiences that explains why I am not an atheist but also
>> why when I say the Aesir "exist" I have no clue what the
>> word means, just that they cause stuff like folks missing
>> planes.
>
> Hopefully not sounding like a Wise Guy...
>
> When Christians say that God saved them from a disaster in that manner,
> I ask if that means they credit him with killing the rest.
>
> It's a serious question when I ask it, because I honestly wonder "what
> did God (or the gods) know, and when did he (they) know it?"

Good questions. What I want to know is whose side was Daniel Lewin on. My
inclination is to believe he was on the Good side where Truth and Justice
reign supreme.

Here's a draft of my response to an essay by Ernest Partridge (second link):
http://baldur.globalsymmetry.com/open-source/org/sth/fact911/re-partridge-001.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0427-29.htm

[lex...@ix.netcom.com]

Attuarii wrote:
> Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum) wrote:
>
> > The claim that a plane crashed into the Pentagon building is
> > riduculous, unless the plane was able to fold back its wings before the
> > impact!
>
> I don't agree. I'll try to find the site where I saw the persuasive
> analysis. I think it was on www.911research.org, but I need to review it.
>
> I will say, there are problems with the alleged UAL 93 impact site data.
> This is how things appear right now:
>
> * No fireball where a fuel laden jet allegedly crashed

Yes, there was. it just wasn't caught on video.

> * smoke cloud looks like ordinance strike

Or an airplane crash.

> * No plane - at most a few small fragments

Amazing what happens to a structure built to be low mass when it hits
the ground after a power-dive.

> * Large chunk of engine allegedly flew over a mile from the crash site while
> the rest of the craft allegedly burrowed into the ground so deep it could
> not be seen

Amazing what happens to a structure built to be low mass when it hits
the ground after a power-dive.

> * Debris reported in a lake miles away

Paper floats on the breeze.

> * No evidence of jet fuel at the crash site

Astonishing that a flamable liquid would burn up after a massive fire.

> * Reports of one or more suspicious aircraft in the area

What makes an aircraft "suspicious?" Offhand, I recall two planes were
in the area... a light prop plane and an executive jet. Both were
involved with watching U-93.

> * Witness accounts are consistent with a shoot-down

Witness accounts of startling events are notoriously unreliable. Black
box and cockpit voice recorders, however, are not.

> I have a very simple question about the pictures of the alleged impact
> "crater" where UAL 93 supposedly crashed. If the plane did actually hit
> the ground in one piece, then why did a large piece an engine bounce over a
> mile while the rest of the plane supposedly burrowed into the ground beyond
> sight?

The engine had a vast internal store not only of kinetic enegry, but
also angular momentum due to the rotating componants. If it hit the
ground at an odd angle, then it probably bounced, and then flew
propulsively.

[Dirk Bruere]

El Barbaro del Ritmo wrote:

Like miracles - only good miracles? No bad ones?
BTW, waiting for the remake of U93 where OBL and all the AQ planners are
killed by US SF the day after 9/11. Happy ending all round.

FFF
Dirk

[Doug Freyburger]

Attuarii wrote:
> Romauld wrote:

> > Attuarii wrote:
>
> > : I don't believe the movie has any basis in what really happened on that
> > : plane.

In lots of details, agred, but ...

> > You're wrong, actually. One of the reasons that I'm interested in seeing
> > it is that a great deal of the script is taken from transcripts of
> > telephone calls and dictaphone recordings on the flight: some material is
> > extrapolated and is clearly going to be fictional but a lot of it isn't.
>
> > This is one of the reasons that, as far as I'm aware, a number of
> > complaints have been raised by people who lost family in the WTC but
> > no-one who lost someone on that plane has complained, and the vast
> > majority have been actively involved in the research.

The people who received the phone calls were involved in the script.

> In 2001 the alleged phone calls that were made from air planes were
> virtually impossible.

False. Cellphone towers have a nearly spherical signal
distribution and they are quite capable of handling calls off
the horizontal. Further, the routing algorythm that moves a
call from cell to cell has to work at aircraft speeds to handle
a cellphone moving from airport to airport. There will be more
dropped calls if the cellphone is digital-only or set to use a
single service, otherwise calls will switch from tower to tower
gracefully.

> It is far more likely the people were either on the
> ground with guns to their heads, or the high tech perpetrators had sampled
> the voices of the victims and were using voice synthesis.

Yet another conspiracy theory. Check.

> The alleged CVR
> record is likewise extremely suspect. It supposedly captured the voices of
> people in the passenger cabin. From what I've been reading that is
> virtually impossible. There are other inconsistencies in the official
> conspiracy theory.

While I disagred on the cellphone calls, I tend to agree on the
blackbox recording. Too garbled to make sense so scriptwriters
faked it as best they could and/or made shit up. To this day
we don't know why the plane went down. Crashed by the
hijackers, struggle in the cockpit caused the dive, missile from
the National Guard fighters.

[Attuarii]

Dirk Bruere wrote:

> Like miracles - only good miracles? No bad ones?
> BTW, waiting for the remake of U93 where OBL and all the AQ planners are
> killed by US SF the day after 9/11. Happy ending all round.

I believe Osama bin Framed(sic) had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks. I
believe Osama might have been behind the attack on the USS Cole. If so he
attacked the USA, and thus should have been treated as an enemy of the US.
It may seem like splitting hairs, but I will observe that the Cole was a
military target. It was not an attack against innocent civilians.
Attacking the Cole was an act of war and places its perpetrators in the
category of warriors.

[El Barbaro del Ritmo]

Dirk Bruere wrote:
> BTW, waiting for the remake of U93 where OBL and all the AQ planners are
> killed by US SF the day after 9/11. Happy ending all round.

Wonder what Stallone is doing.

I knew a guy when I lived in Maryland who had a huge framed photo of
John Wayne on his wall. He didn't think of him as an actor, but as a
patriotic American hero.

Movies and TV are, too often, the foundation of many people's
perception of history, current events, etc. Though fictional, they're
no more so than what comes out of the White House, talk radio, etc.

I don't doubt we'll see such movies as you mention, and that they will
take on a mythic "reality".

***
Careless Industry
How corporate America perpetuates the health care crisis
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2628/

My links
http://www.ericandsuzanne.com/Links.html
With a newsfeed from Information Clearing House
***

[Dirk Bruere]

Attuarii wrote:
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> Like miracles - only good miracles? No bad ones?
>> BTW, waiting for the remake of U93 where OBL and all the AQ planners are
>> killed by US SF the day after 9/11. Happy ending all round.
>
> I believe Osama bin Framed(sic) had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks. I
> believe Osama might have been behind the attack on the USS Cole. If so he
> attacked the USA, and thus should have been treated as an enemy of the US.
> It may seem like splitting hairs, but I will observe that the Cole was a
> military target. It was not an attack against innocent civilians.
> Attacking the Cole was an act of war and places its perpetrators in the
> category of warriors.

And the Nairobi bombing?

FFF
Dirk

[lex...@ix.netcom.com]

El Barbaro del Ritmo wrote:

> Dirk Bruere wrote:
> > BTW, waiting for the remake of U93 where OBL and all the AQ planners are
> > killed by US SF the day after 9/11. Happy ending all round.
>
> Wonder what Stallone is doing.
>
> I knew a guy when I lived in Maryland who had a huge framed photo of
> John Wayne on his wall. He didn't think of him as an actor, but as a
> patriotic American hero.

You'll get the same brainless hero-worship for entertainers all 'round,
such as George Clooney, William Shatner, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore,
Al Franken. "The Duke" at least had a distinctive voice and passable
acting skills.

> Movies and TV are, too often, the foundation of many people's
> perception of history, current events, etc.

Indeed. Some people actually thought that "Bowling for Columbine,"
"Fahrenheit 911" and "What the Bleep Do We Know" were based on fact.

Though fictional, they're
> no more so than what comes out of the White House, talk radio,

Air America, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC....

> I don't doubt we'll see such movies as you mention,

Not anytime soon. The idea of brave Americans actually triumphing over
Jihadists who attacked us first? That's *so* passe. Hollywood won't go
for it. It's been nearly 5 years since 9/11, and we haven't had such a
movie yet.

[Ceddie]

lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Do so. Diplomacy only works when the person you're trying to be
> diplomatic with has much the same values as you.

You certainly got a point there. Fortunately mankind HAS a common set
of values: money, oil, food, medicine etc.

You remember the good, old adage :"better dead than red"? This wasn´t
bad either: "if you can´t beat the, join them". Here is a new one (a
very old one, too, I suspect): "if you can´t beat them, corrupt them".
Call it financial aid or whatever.

C.

[Dirk Bruere]

When the Berlin Wall came down I wrote something to the effect that now
the world can return to its traditional business of being driven by
race, religion and greed instead of utopian ideologies.

FFF
Dirk

[lex...@ix.netcom.com]

Ceddie wrote:
> lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > Do so. Diplomacy only works when the person you're trying to be
> > diplomatic with has much the same values as you.
>
> You certainly got a point there. Fortunately mankind HAS a common set
> of values: money, oil, food, medicine etc.

Errrr.... those values tend to collapse when confronted with ideologies
that crank out:
"You love life and we love death, which gives an example of what the
Prophet Muhammad said. ... This is a statement by the military
spokesman for al-Qaida in Europe, Abu Dujan al Afghani."

and

"War is our best hobby. The sound of guns firing is like music for us.
We cannot live without war. We have no other way except jihad."

and

"The Americans lead lavish lives and they are afraid of death. We are
not afraid of death. The Americans love Pepsi Cola, we love death."

Someone for whom the prospect of death is *appealing* is less likely to
be swayed by money, oil, food, medicine etc.

[Attuarii]

Doug Freyburger wrote:

> Attuarii wrote:
...

> The people who received the phone calls were involved in the script.

Before, or after the fact?

>> In 2001 the alleged phone calls that were made from air planes were
>> virtually impossible.
>
> False.

http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm

[Attuarii]

Doug Freyburger wrote:

> lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum) wrote:
>>
>> > The claim that a plane crashed into the Pentagon building is
>> > riduculous, unless the plane was able to fold back its wings before the
>> > impact!
>>

>> Oy. Apparently you are unaware that the Pentagon *is* built like a
>> fortress.
>
> And that the plane clipped the ground on the way in and took
> significant damage.

That is not supported by the evidence.

> Some of the destroyed street lights were
> displayed for a while.

Yes, it did clip street lights.

http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/lpa1.html

> And there there are witnesses who saw the plane going in. What
> they really said is the plane craashed into the parking lot and
> the debris smashed into the building.

It probably did not touch the ground on the way in. I don't think I agree
with the conclusion of the creator of this web site that there was a bomb
in the plane, but the analysis of the flight trajectory is the best I have
seen.

http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/

I need to dig out the one that analyzed the impact region, showing that it
very well could have been made by a 757.

> A building as big as the
> Pentagon and the hijarkers *missed*. Flying a jumbo airliner
> is *not* for suicidal amateurs.

The maneuver executed just before impact is so extraordinary that it
precludes Baron Hani von Richthofen Hanjour and his exceptional(ly bad)
abilities.

The star on this map shows the location of the headquarters of my former
employer. I have worked both at that location, and at the building shown
next to Rotary Rd. North.

http://baldur.globalsymmetry.com/open-source/org/sth/fact911/2100-washington-blvd.png

[Attuarii]

lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>
> Attuarii wrote:

>> * No fireball where a fuel laden jet allegedly crashed
>
> Yes, there was. it just wasn't caught on video.

There /is/ a photo of the cloud that formed over the impact site.
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/plume_val1.jpg

>> * smoke cloud looks like ordinance strike
>
> Or an airplane crash.

No. An airplane full of fuel will produce a very large and thick black
cloud. The image of the cloud over the alleged impact site was more
similar to an ordinance cloud than that which forms over a plane crash.

>> * No plane - at most a few small fragments
>
> Amazing what happens to a structure built to be low mass when it hits
> the ground after a power-dive.

One would reasonably expect more debris at the crash site than was reported.

>> * Large chunk of engine allegedly flew over a mile from the crash site
>> while the rest of the craft allegedly burrowed into the ground so deep it
>> could not be seen
>
> Amazing what happens to a structure built to be low mass when it hits
> the ground after a power-dive.

You should probably read a book on basic physics and get back to me on this
one.

>> * Debris reported in a lake miles away
>
> Paper floats on the breeze.

This was not just paper. "By Wednesday morning, crash debris began washing
ashore at the marina. Fleegle said there was something that looked like a
rib bone amid pieces of seats, small chunks of melted plastic and checks."

I belive the wind was in the wrong direction to explain the transport by
wind after the crash. I will leave that as an exercise for you to
investigate and add support to your position.

>> * No evidence of jet fuel at the crash site
>
> Astonishing that a flamable liquid would burn up after a massive fire.

There was no massive fire. The first person at the scene does not describe
a fire. She said everything had been turned to charcoal instantly. The
only report of a fireball I've seen described it as being in the air with
parts of the plane falling from it.

>> * Reports of one or more suspicious aircraft in the area
>
> What makes an aircraft "suspicious?" Offhand, I recall two planes were
> in the area... a light prop plane and an executive jet. Both were
> involved with watching U-93.

Flying extremely low - almost at ground level - and matching the description
of an A-10.

>> * Witness accounts are consistent with a shoot-down
>
> Witness accounts of startling events are notoriously unreliable. Black
> box and cockpit voice recorders, however, are not.

And where are they? There are reports by people working at the WTC that
black boxes were recovered there, but the FBI denies this. A witness also
said the FBI leaned on him to keep quiet, but they didn't give him a good
reason to do so, so he made the find public.

>> I have a very simple question about the pictures of the alleged impact
>> "crater" where UAL 93 supposedly crashed. If the plane did actually hit
>> the ground in one piece, then why did a large piece an engine bounce over
>> a mile while the rest of the plane supposedly burrowed into the ground
>> beyond sight?
>
> The engine had a vast internal store not only of kinetic enegry, but
> also angular momentum due to the rotating componants. If it hit the
> ground at an odd angle, then it probably bounced, and then flew
> propulsively.

No. If anything, the angular momentum would have made it far more likely to
have continued in the same direction as it was traveling. Do you seriously
believe the ground "liquefied" and completely swallowed a Boeing 757, but
the heaviest component in the plane "bounced"?

[El Barbaro del Ritmo]

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Attuarii wrote:

> > It is far more likely the people were either on the
> > ground with guns to their heads, or the high tech perpetrators had sampled
> > the voices of the victims and were using voice synthesis.
>
> Yet another conspiracy theory. Check.

Is it possible that alien members of the Illuminati escaped from
Roswell on September 8th or 9th?* But what interest would they have in
framing bin Laden....?

*This snide remark is not intended to be taken seriously be even the
most knee-jerk conspiracy buff. I made it up. If it sells books, I want
a cut.

E

***
2006 California Governor's Race
(In the Democratic Primary, Angelides and Westly are both fine, but
I'll probably vote for Strimling. He won't win, so in the General
Election if it's close I'll likely vote Democratic, and if not, for
Camejo).
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/GOV/Elections/

[Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum)]

Doug Freyburger wrote:

>
> Michael does seem to think humans evolved on Antarctica and
> Atlantis was Ultima Thule.
>
> He doesn't get that Antarctica has been under ice since before
> even apes evolved but it was tropical during the time of the
> dinosaurs. Plate tectonics had it wander for a while but it's been
> stable at the pole for a long time now.
>

No Doug, I never claimed that humans evolvedon Antarctica. What I
stated was that Antaractica was once part of that worldwide elder
civilization nowadays known as Atlantis. This empire wasn't limited to
one small island, but was a massive worldwide civilization reaching all
across the globe. And if Antarctica was under ice "since before even
the apes evolved", how then do you explain the Pirri Reis map?

Michael Martin - HLF

[Scott Lowther]

Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum) wrote:

>Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>
>
>>Michael does seem to think humans evolved on Antarctica and
>>Atlantis was Ultima Thule.
>>
>>He doesn't get that Antarctica has been under ice since before
>>even apes evolved but it was tropical during the time of the
>>dinosaurs. Plate tectonics had it wander for a while but it's been
>>stable at the pole for a long time now.
>>
>>
>>
>
>No Doug, I never claimed that humans evolvedon Antarctica. What I
>stated was that Antaractica was once part of that worldwide elder
>civilization
>

You've spent too much time camping at the mountains of madness.

> nowadays known as Atlantis. This empire wasn't limited to
>one small island, but was a massive worldwide civilization reaching all
>across the globe. And if Antarctica was under ice "since before even
>the apes evolved", how then do you explain the Pirri Reis map?
>

Guesswork, perhaps based on tales of sailors who stumbled across the
place. Sadly for the conspiracy loons, the Piri Reis map is not even
remotely accurate, either for the current iced-over configuration or for
some un-iced configuration.

[Doug Freyburger]

Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum) wrote:
>

> ... how then do you explain the Pirri Reis map?

Plenty of idiots and gullible folks in the world. It's made up,
just like all Atlantis stories.

[Romauld]

Recently, a script from Attuarii arrived, in which they said:

:> Everything I've seen about it says I want to see it, and says it's

:> been done amazingly well (mind you, it's a British project, which might
:> explains some of that: social detachment, etc.)
:>
:> ~R
:
: Right on up there with swindler's List, no doubt.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. /Schindler's
List/ was an American project, created and directed by Steven Spielberg.
It was not a project which would have benefited much from social detachment,
nor is it a film which I can imagine anyone accusing of having a detached
viewpoint as one of its strong points.

The mention of Schindler's List seems to make no sense, here...

[Romauld]

Recently, a script from Attuarii arrived, in which they said:

: In 2001 the alleged phone calls that were made from air planes were
: virtually impossible.

... No, they weren't. Not from any technical perspective, anyway. Analogue
cell phones are a problem to airplanes: digital ones are not.